# *** Science Or God? ***



## naveen_reloaded (Oct 30, 2006)

i think this is the most controversial subject ever to be discussed...


whose side are u in ???

science or god????

i am an atheist....

whose line are u in???


----------



## sysfilez (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God is scientific.


----------



## Sykora (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science. No doubt.


----------



## cvvikram (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Sykora said:
			
		

> Science. No doubt.


 
Lemme ask one question...Who is all behind this science ????


----------



## Kiran.dks (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

This is a big debatable and sensitive issue. 
Science is not yet able to explain the formation of Universe. Big Bang theory which most trust now-a-days doesn't explain the formation of Universe completely. Till mankind probes into these deeply, we can't ignore the existence of supernatural powers. Atleast for now.


----------



## Sykora (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@cvvikram : The Curiosity of Man

Agreed, science is not yet capable of explaining everything. But I think the keyword is "yet". I believe that it is only a matter of time before science is capable of giving reasons for what is not known today.


----------



## the deconstructionist (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

The debate which will never be solved. For every atheist you have a hundred million believers.


----------



## Yamaraj (Oct 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

It's all a simulation, or a dream.


----------



## kalpik (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science.. Im an atheist too


----------



## piyush gupta (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God


----------



## kl_ravi (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

GOD !!
I treat all the elements like WATER, AIR, EARTH, FIRE etc as God given gift!!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				kiran.rkk said:
			
		

> This is a big debatable and sensitive issue.
> Science is not yet able to explain the formation of Universe. Big Bang theory which most trust now-a-days doesn't explain the formation of Universe completely. Till mankind probes into these deeply, we can't ignore the existence of supernatural powers. Atleast for now.





excuse me......scientific invention dont come over m\night.....

even the computer u are working took several years.....

even for a small addition we needed a machine that was the size of a lecture theatre.....

even our evoultion took time....the word evoultion itself denotes there cab be no GOD....

the very basic thing which is in front of us say ocean, birth a child , everything is scientific./..

do u say a birth of a new born is GODLY???

no way...


----------



## john_the_ultimate (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I think that GOD (whoever he/she maybe) have to be the greatest scientist ever. So he has left us the a sample (earth/solar sytem/galaxy/universe/???) for us to explore and discover and ultimately evolve.
So in my opinion everything unknown is God/Satan and everything known is science.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				john_the_ultimate said:
			
		

> I think that GOD (whoever he/she maybe) have to be the greatest scientist ever. So he has left us the a sample (earth/solar sytem/galaxy/universe/???) for us to explore and discover and ultimately evolve.
> So in my opinion everything unknown is God/Satan and everything known is science.




so u say that until u discover something or invent something ...its god????


----------



## zegulas (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

See dude, as far as you will believe in God, you won't be able to find the truth, just for the sake of finding the truth behind everything, try this, don't believe in God for one day and see what happens. I am preety sure nothing different will happen, because even I believe in Science, because it can explain things and the idea of God (created everything), is just like a curtain put in front of your eyes, to keep you away from the reality.


----------



## john_the_ultimate (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				naveen_reloaded said:
			
		

> so u say that until u discover something or invent something ...its god????



Not God but that how most people like to express when they can't explain something or some event.


----------



## kalpik (Oct 31, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> See dude, as far as you will believe in God, you won't be able to find the truth, just for the sake of finding the truth behind everything, try this, don't believe in God for one day and see what happens. I am preety sure nothing different will happen, because even I believe in Science, because it can explain things and the idea of God (created everything), is just like a curtain put in front of your eyes, to keep you away from the reality.


+1

God is "The Matrix"


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 1, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				john_the_ultimate said:
			
		

> Not God but that how most people like to express when they can't explain something or some event.





its simply denotes the laziness we people have created....

instead of finding out the truth or cause for that thing....we simply put the whole thing upon a thing that doesnt exist and walk away....
__________


			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> See dude, as far as you will believe in God, you won't be able to find the truth, just for the sake of finding the truth behind everything, try this, don't believe in God for one day and see what happens. I am preety sure nothing different will happen, because even I believe in Science, because it can explain things and the idea of God (created everything), is just like a curtain put in front of your eyes, to keep you away from the reality.




nicely said!!!!


----------



## tuxfan (Nov 1, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Atheists haven't studied religion, how do they know whether its good or bad? So it is an assumption that religion is not scientific!


----------



## mediator (Nov 1, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

There's a good saying "God helps those who help themselves" ! I don't believe in god n the quote directly means "That we shud help ourselves instead of relying on God" ! God is a fictitious character for me and we pray to him only to get our innards awakened!
As far as religion is concerned that was discussed long time back. Neways for me religion means spirituality + pieces of wisdom ! Speaking of ghosts is beyond my thinking!


----------



## mehra.rakesh (Nov 1, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

As most of the believers & atheists will agree , even most of the atheists or their relatives when go through some ordeal (say some accident or sickness )they look upon god to help them out. 
Instead we all should debate on whether crores of money spent on building temples or mosques & other beliefs should be there or not ?

LIVE & LET LIVE


----------



## Poon (Nov 1, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Depends on what people's definition of god is. I am mostly a skeptic. If you tell me that god is someone who came to earth and screwed a virgin Jewish women and became the father of Jesus, I am sorry in that case I don't believe in God. 
P.S i can comment ****-loads from both sides however I guess it is a waste of time. 
Science does not have all the answers and that is a fact. 
Ppl ask did god make man or man make god?
It cannot be answered which came first the chicken or the egg?


----------



## kumarmohit (Nov 1, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Both...and None
Science is the instrument which the god has given to mankind so that he can enjoy his retirement. Science is a product of  head and god is a product of heart.

just like the Matrix both science and god are nothing but electric signals interpreted by your brain which can be modified so technically I have neither seen god nor science, who knows we might be living in a matrix like entity run by god who is fooling us to believe in science or by a robot fooling us to believe in god so that if and when its true identity  comes out we consider him god. 

If there is a god why does not he reveal himself?
If the science is the only thing there is why despite its eternal efforts has it failed to cure the eternal malady of mankind -- death?


----------



## zegulas (Nov 1, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I have a very nice story to share with you guys:

Once Gautam Buddha was asked about wether God existed or not, he simply said, if you are going to behave humanitarily with other people because of God, then he does exist.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> I have a very nice story to share with you guys:
> 
> Once Gautam Buddha was asked about wether God existed or not, he simply said, if you are going to behave humanitarily with other people because of God, then he does exist.




well thats wht its all about....

even mahabharatham ...ramayana has loads of stories./.....


----------



## sms_solver (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Visit the following website, it is very interesting site

*www.indiadaily.com/comp.asp


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				sms_solver said:
			
		

> Visit the following website, it is very interesting site
> 
> *www.indiadaily.com/comp.asp



wht is that website>?????

its coollll

can we believe it ???
__________
well that website is good.....


----------



## sms_solver (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				naveen_reloaded said:
			
		

> wht is that website>?????
> 
> its coollll
> 
> ...



it is total upon you, even if you believe 10% of what is written there, it shows the presence of higher intelligent being watching us.

Another link of interesting site
*www.2012.com.au/Site.A.html


----------



## Stick (Nov 3, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God Made us (and science) and we re-fined Science ! Easy


----------



## Poon (Nov 3, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

The solution to all the problems is if you want to be religious dpn't subscribe to any religious institutions.



The christian should be first told that Jesus was a carpenter and who ironically got crucified on the cross. His mother was not a virgin and got did not come to earth and screw a Jewish woman. They deny the beauty of creation a "pole going inside a hole to create a new soul".! If he is god then he is a reincarnation of Vishnu!



Islam perhaps the greatest religion but muslim's the worst followers. They should first start drinking alcohol and abolish the viel or scarf etc. Imagine man "no alcohol all the women covered" even I would go violent, take a gun and start shooting everybody.



The Jew: leave Israel and go back where u all came from. You don't belong there.



The Hindu: Start eating the holy Indian cow after all it is holy meet and I am testimony to the fact that it is tasty. Perhaps it can poverty to a great extent.



The athiest: Which came first the egg or chicken? answer that? and don't be ignorant about religion. 



Well I guess i am a skeptic or agnostic.

Take care


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 3, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Poon said:
			
		

> The solution to all the problems is if you want to be religious dpn't subscribe to any religious institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





well said mate....u touched both the extremes.....

well done....


----------



## thewisecrab (Nov 3, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

We Need The Best Of Both Sides.......


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 3, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				thewisecrab said:
			
		

> We Need The Best Of Both Sides.......




yes the good things like how we should live from the eipics and the rapidly growing knowledge on other side..........


----------



## jal_desai (Nov 3, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

There is no point in considering science and paranormal science as two different entities.... they are same but what i think is .... paranormal science is forward than logical science.... 

Proofs to support me:

((1)). every thing tht we see today WAS there in the past... we know tht in mahabharata, dhritirashtra had 100 sons (kauravas)... a female cannot give birth to 100 sons and what about the age difference beetween the first and the last son (logic lagaao!) it should be minimum 100 yrs right??????  wrong... because they used some techniques in the form of rituals which we now know as --- CLONING..... Kauravas were the example of HUMAN CLONING

((2)) We also know tht Agatsya (a mahabharata character) was born in a pot... (ghada) .. --- A Perfect Example of TEST TUBE BABY.

((3)) In Ramayan, the evil RAVAN had a swan-like plane tht used to defy gravity and go in to the air.... so we have a proof tht the LAWS OF AERODYNAMICS WERE PRESENT AT THT TIME...

((4)) In Mahabharata and Ramayan it is written tht when, during a war, a person would shoot an arrow then various kinds of outcome would occur... they were using mantras to affect the other party.... AN EXAMPLE OF HAND-HELD MISSILES which are on the verge to become popular in military nowadays.

((5))  In mahabharata, during the final war, SANJEEV (--saarthi of dhritarashtra)  was given a boon to SEE the war while sittin home and narrate it to blind rajah...... --- AN OBVIOUS EXAMPLE OF RADAR/TELEVISION (DOORDARSHAN to be very precise)...... (and now we say tht JOHN LOGIE BAIRD was the inventor of TV...?? HUH)



so, these technologies were present thousands of yrs ago.... but they were rediscovered again...
OTHER INVENTION, THT I THINK, WILL TAKE PLACE IN FUTURE IS TO GET INVISIBLE....
In those epics there is a mention about ppl dissapering at one place and appearing at some other place the very moment.... tht technology is yet to be discovered...


LOGICAL SCIENCE is just lagging behind the PARANORMAL SCIENCE... else they both are on the VERY SAME TRACK.


Lets talk about LAWS.

Were not the Laws of Motion there before Newton????

Was not E=mc2 true before einstein actually found it????

Was not light a WAVE or PARTICLE at the time when dinosours roamed on this planet???

Would not 365 days make a year when man just learnt how to light fire???

A famous quote i wud like to put here from the film Men in Black: "1500 YEARS AGO EVERYBODY KNEW THT EARTH IS FLAT... 500 YEARS AGO EVERYBODY KNEW THT EARTH IS IN THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE... 5 MINS AGO WE ALL KNEW THT WE ARE ALONE...But we were wrong"

Aise to kitne saare laws honge jo abhi tak DISCOVER nahi huye.. they are there .... at this very moment while u are reading this... these undiscovered laws are affecting you.. but AS THEY ARE NOT LOGICALLY DISCOVERED,,,, WE CALL THEM A SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA.... 


so as a matter of fact... PARANORMAL SCIENCE , which some of us call GOD... some may call a MATTER OF CHANCE.... or sometimes even LUCK.... this PARANORMAL SCIENCE which we call it today...... will be called LOGICAL SCIENCE in future.... 

Digitally yours,
Jal


----------



## john_the_ultimate (Nov 4, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@jal_desai
Well said mate.


----------



## Tech.Masti (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

   can't decide


----------



## Sykora (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@jai_desai : 

What happened to all your "proofs" after that time? Why do we recognize John Logie baird as the inventor of Radar and not Sanjeeva? Why are we not able to clone now, if ostensibly cloning was possible then?

They are proofs only if you believe that they took place at all, which will fall back to a decision of whether or not you believe in mysticism...


----------



## shaunak (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

If you can prove the existance of god, ill believe you. Why should i believe in something that cant be seen or felt. 

If someone survive a plane crash, its all the credit goes to god, but who thinks of the thousand engeeneers at boieng/airbus who toiled day and night to ensure he/she survives in that scenario?

If you walk near the siddhivinayak temple you will see  'bout a score of CCTV cameras but just a few kilometers from it Nehru center stays defence less. This clearly shows the degradation of learing at the hands of religion.

Surely if lesser money was pupmed into the temple's upkeep, roads, hospitals and research facilities could be improved.
Lets evaluate the options, (a) save many lives by improving hospitals, (b)help the desolate by enriching charities (c)improve develiopment by improving infrastructure (d) please god by making a gold/marble/granite/diamond temple. 
Now you decide


----------



## zegulas (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

First of all, weren't the Mahabharata and Ramayana epics?
As far as I know, some human being wrote them, they aren't true events!
And science has the capabilities to make all your dreams come true, whatever they may be. But it takes a long time to invent all the things that you have mentioned, like cloning and study of aerodynamics, thinking about them is very easy dear, everyone could do it, if they don't have anything else to do.
Don't just see dreams while you are in this world, try to make them real and worthy for the mankind.

Last note for all of you:

Sir Newton, during his last moments said: If I was able to see farther than the reach of others, was because I was standing on the shoulders of the giants.

Now GIANTS here mean vast knowledge, not God or anything!


----------



## mediator (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Sykora said:
			
		

> What happened to all your "proofs" after that time? Why do we recognize John Logie baird as the inventor of Radar and not Sanjeeva? Why are we not able to clone now, if ostensibly cloning was possible then?
> 
> They are proofs only if you believe that they took place at all, which will fall back to a decision of whether or not you believe in mysticism...



U need to read this thread in detail first.
Next, why was America named after Vespucci n not christopher columbus? Why is it that most of the mathetmatical formulae are named after foreigners when they were clearly mentioned in Vedic Mathematics since the era of Ramayan n before? Why is that people learn about foriegn textbooks and not the vedic textbooks? Why is it that Sanskrit inspite of being a complete language better than any other language in the world and acknowledged by all the reputed scientists n discovers is becoming dead or almost dead?? 

I hope u got mah point! Its obvious that people tend to name something after them when they did't explored the past and don't know that the technology existed in past too. The thing is accepted then by the world when most are ignorant about the past. But read the link I gave, people r getting aware about the past n have evidences that technology existed in the past too!

WHo knows what happened after that time! If people had known then I'm sure they wud also have known the complete knowledge embedded in India's past and we wud have been a 100 times more powerful and richer than US by now! Mughals came to India n destroyed Indian temples, scriptures,paintings and ruled for a big time, then came foreigners who ruled for a big time. From these facts, its quite clear no one can save his her past completely. If ur life's threatened, then a common man wont bother about his knowledge n texts, but his life!  



			
				shaunak said:
			
		

> If you can prove the existance of god, ill believe you. Why should i believe in something that cant be seen or felt.


I agree to that. Its human nature to do so because of which comes spirit of questioning n which leads to scientific evolution.
@shaunak the rest of the corresponding post of urs fits more appropriately in this thread *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38163

@zegulas, don't say they were stories. The path between srilanka n India bridged with stones shud be enough for u to believe that they were facts. There are more facts than this if u have read the mahabharat n ramayan fully n have searched the net.


----------



## jal_desai (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				shaunak said:
			
		

> If you can prove the existance of god, ill believe you. Why should i believe in something that cant be seen or felt.



can you see air.... what will happen to u if air is not there....


----------



## zegulas (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@mediator, why should I not say that they were stories, please accept the fact that they are indeed stories, everyone knows that. And as far as the bridging of India and Sri-Lanka goes, thats how the earth is, some part of it is under water some part is above water, but if all the water is removed, then the whole earth is connected, so the bridge thing is just an elevated part of earth which is above water currently and looks like a bridge. And if you have a proof that monkeys made it, then show it to all of us.


----------



## jal_desai (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> @mediator, why should I not say that they were stories, please accept the fact that they are indeed stories, everyone knows that. And as far as the bridging of India and Sri-Lanka goes, thats how the earth is, some part of it is under water some part is above water, but if all the water is removed, then the whole earth is connected, so the bridge thing is just an elevated part of earth which is above water currently and looks like a bridge. And if you have a proof that monkeys made it, then show it to all of us.




proofs proofs proofs.......   what makes humans so perfect??? wat makes humans think tht they are goddamn better thn any other creature in the universe... 
arey yaar a simple example:

(1)
a human eye cant even see radiations other thn 400-700 nm (nanometers)... CAN WE SEE INFRARED RADIATIONS?... CAN WE SEE ULTRAVIOLET RAYS???
THT'S A LIMITATION OF A HUMAN EYE MADE OF SKIN....

(2)
our ears cant hear sounds more thn 20,000 db... while bats can???
WE HAVE TO BE LOGICAL yaar... there are certain incapabilities of a human being....

Why there are certain laws which we have studied have "ACCEPTED WITHOUT PROOF" tagged with it.

uptill 19 th century it was believed tht the earth is flat... so our great grand fathers died with a feeling tht the earth is flat... their life was not so long to get the actual fact.

Columbus found America in 1492 AD but untill he died in 1507 AD.. he was in tht impression tht he found India... poor guy...

Even in SCIENCE... certain phenomena occur which the scientist canno define in a scientific manner... MANY INVENTIONS ARE YET TO BE "DISCOVERED" (ya i wrote the word "discovered" intentionally"... and the moment they will get discoverd we all will have to believe in it..no other choice


----------



## kumarmohit (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				shaunak said:
			
		

> If you can prove the existance of god, ill believe you. Why should i believe in something that cant be seen or felt.
> 
> If someone survive a plane crash, its all the credit goes to god, but who thinks of the thousand engeeneers at boieng/airbus who toiled day and night to ensure he/she survives in that scenario?


If the engineers were so good why did the plane crash in the first place.LOL



> If you walk near the siddhivinayak temple you will see  'bout a score of CCTV cameras but just a few kilometers from it Nehru center stays defence less. This clearly shows the degradation of learing at the hands of religion.



If the temple is attacked do you have any idea how much unrest will it create, Nehru center, if attacked will be a reason of what, minor criticism for security machinery, remember the IIT professor was killed, what happened?
 The number of ppl having attachment to religious institutions is far greater than any elitist research or educational institution.



> Surely if lesser money was pupmed into the temple's upkeep, roads, hospitals and research facilities could be improved.
> Lets evaluate the options, (a) save many lives by improving hospitals, (b)help the desolate by enriching charities (c)improve develiopment by improving infrastructure (d) please god by making a gold/marble/granite/diamond temple.
> Now you decide



If you have any idea how many hungry people are fed by langars etc in the religious institutions, how many charity hospitals are run by them, you would not have raised this point. See the end is always the public welfare its only the means that differ.


----------



## mediator (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> please accept the fact that they are indeed stories


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 knows that.


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!



> And as far as the bridging of India and Sri-Lanka goes, thats how the earth is, some part of it is under water some part is above water, *but if all the water is removed*, then the whole earth is connected, so the bridge thing is just an elevated part of earth which is above water currently and looks like a bridge.


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.  
The "but if" factor that u brought so insanely and absurdly can really make any one piss off in a debate of intellects! Likewise I can also say absurdly, that We ruled the earth in the past but what if a comet hit the earth n may have wiped off the most human race then? How can u prove u follow the bloodline of ur great great great great grandfather? What if u have been born as a test tube baby??

So u see its easy to make expert comments and its human nature too that one often makes expert comments when he doesn't know anything on the topic and is absolutely ignorant about it. So if u see clearly then u'll see the facts that the bridge is built by the same stones as mentioned in Ramayan.

I guess u also come in the category of those Indians who will tend to believe the foreigners but won't listen to his countrymen. I guess its because of people like u who tend to neglect their culture, their vedic knowledge because of which the theorams, formulae and the discoveries r named after foreigners. If people were aware of India's richness of the past in masses, then who r foreigners to name these things and discoveries after their name?? We wud have been leading by now if all the people like u wud have been proud of ur culture and knowledge of the past. 

So I guess u'll believe the americans better. Here's the link n the sources in it read em in detail n carefully line by line+comments too!
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39340


----------



## jal_desai (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mediator 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!
> 
> 
> 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!
> ...




simply perfect.... mediator..


----------



## zegulas (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mediator 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!
> 
> 
> 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!
> ...



Dude, why do you take each and every word literally? Removing water was just a hyperbole.
And well, if the forefathers were so intelligent, then they won't have extinct by a comet, because even we have the technology to get rid of any kind of a comet coming towards us!
And as far as my reasoning and believing in science goes, don't get to a conclusion on it, let the other forum members also decide. OK?


----------



## Sykora (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I fail to see how : 

>>> You can accept Monkeys flying while carrying mountains, as a fact.

>>> A man's chariot will sink to the ground, having always been 1 inch above it, once the man has told a lie.

>>> An archer's arrows, however well shot, can carry a man's head to the lap of his father, miles away.

>>> One can learn a mantra, recital of which will allow a woman to bear a child, who is the son of a god.

>>> One can dig a hole to the "nether world", a place where you can find an elephant which holds the earth up.

>>> 60,000 men can be burnt up when a man utters a syllable when he is angry.

>>> A couple can have 60,000 sons in the first place.

>>> One can fabricate a chakra out of a lock of matted hair, which will pursue one wherever he goes.

>>> You can pray to a god to be reborn as a man, so that you can kill one you don't like, cast yourself into a pyre, burn to death, be reborn as a man, so that when you finally approach that man in battle, he knows who you are, who you were, and refuses to fight you.

>>> A man can be born in two pieces, be put together, and be killed by ripping him apart with equal facility.

I also remember a story of how a sage drunk an entire ocean so that the people hiding in it could be killed more easily.

I'm not going to believe these things until scientific evidence is brought to bear, and I don't mind who does it, Indians or otherwise.


----------



## mediator (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> Dude, why do you take each and every word literally?


Coz thats how debate works. By facts, not by absurd reasoning,expert comments from someone ignorant about the topic or absurd examples!



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> Removing water was just a hyperbole.


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:
			
		

> And well, if the forefathers were so intelligent, then they won't have extinct by a comet,


N what makes u think that? "What if" (like ur "but if") comet is twice the size of earth?



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> because even we have the technology to get rid of *any kind of a comet* coming towards us!


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!

Neways it all depends on the size of comet! If its small then it can be destroyed partially and be deflected ! If its big, then there's very very little chance of destroying it even partially. It may be deflected though and that too only marginally! Comet may be even more bigger that it may not be even possible to deflect it! 

SO ur idea of "any kind of comet" being deflected is a little hard for even a superb scientist to understand! Now next don't say earth can be protected from Sun's Nova!

So I humbly request u to please either post facts, say something reasonable or quit posting ur expert comments coz later I can predict u'll be giving personal comments to me!


@Sykora, if u fail to see that, then I can make u see most of that. But did u read the link,sources n comments in those sources? Coz people like u have already made such comments and have been enlightened in those comments! U ask for scientific evidence? They r there. So read the link!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 11, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39340...


i think this deals with great genius of our past century just like newton,einstien....they were able experiment....hence they showed results...our genius were not ablew to do anykind of these things hence they are just written forms...

i think we are talking about god here


----------



## iMav (Nov 11, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

a little late to the discussion and a little lazy to go thru it however my question ....

y havnt the scientists been able to proove tht God doesnt exist .... and besides dont most scientists visit holy places????


----------



## mail2and (Nov 11, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

See, both sides must understand each other's points. People who believe in god i.e. the existence of the almighty have every reason to believe in what they do.

I think atheists(more prominently leftists) should accept this fact. If a person believes that there was a bridge between India and Lanka, you've got to accept his views. You, personally, have got no proof that such a bridge did not exist, have you?

Religion is something that comforts a person, and is entirely personal to him. I'm only talking about Hinduism here. I don't know enough about other religions to state whether it is considered personal by its followers.

I'd like you to read an excellent article on religion by Bhagat Singh.

*www.punjabilok.com/misc/freedom/whyiam_ath.htm

As for science and darwinism, both have progressed, but aren't perfect. There are still loopholes in science, there is still no cure for AIDS etc. 

Look at the human body as an example. Science, despite its progress, can't create something with such finesse as the human body has been created.

In the end, I'd like to point out that I'm more proud of the Indian culture that has accepted so many religions, both native and foreign than in god. Indian religions like Buddhism have spread to different parts of the world, without any bloodshed at all. That speaks volumes of our culture. It's really not important who created what; in the end, it's important that you be a good person in life. That's what Indian culture teaches us.
__________


			
				mAV3 said:
			
		

> y havnt the scientists been able to proove tht God doesnt exist .... and besides dont most scientists visit holy places????



That's because science isn't nearly as perfect. I'd again like to say that religion is a private affair.

The scientist may believe in god, but it is also possible that through research, he may look out for alternate theories for evolution.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 11, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mAV3 said:
			
		

> a little late to the discussion and a little lazy to go thru it however my question ....
> 
> y havnt the scientists been able to proove tht God doesnt exist .... and besides dont most scientists visit holy places????





i think u remember the rhyms..... like twinkle twinkle....
things like that...why???

coz u were made to memorise right from ur childhood and u know one thing....those are the time when the brain of a child is growing in a rapid state and takes in and stores deeper into the unconsciuos state,,,wht i am saying is..

in our country from the childhood itself they preach...MAKE THEM PRACTICE(childrens) to love god(which doesnt exist) and worhship instead of teaching the child some good stuffs,innovative stuffs...or atleast leavbe the child to play!!!!!!


----------



## mail2and (Nov 11, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				naveen_reloaded said:
			
		

> in our country from the childhood itself they preach...MAKE THEM PRACTICE(childrens) to love god(which doesnt exist) and worhship instead of teaching the child some good stuffs,innovative stuffs...or atleast leavbe the child to play!!!!!!



Obviously, you know nothing about America and born-again Christians.(Bush is a prime example). Practicing religion is not a bad thing, how can it be bad?

If you think a person who practices religion is somehow lower than you, then I wouldn't comment on you much.


----------



## iMav (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> Obviously, you know nothing about America and born-again Christians.(Bush is a prime example). Practicing religion is not a bad thing, how can it be bad?
> 
> If you think a person who practices religion is somehow lower than you, then I wouldn't comment on you much.


 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???


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mail2and said:
			
		

> Obviously, you know nothing about America and born-again Christians.(Bush is a prime example). Practicing religion is not a bad thing, how can it be bad?
> 
> If you think a person who practices religion is somehow lower than you, then I wouldn't comment on you much.




i think u shouldnt even compare or think about americans with our country....

do u think thier system and ours is one???

no way...

there a boy starts his life when he enters the college itself...they leave them open to the society...and as a result..the survival of the fittest...they innovate,think,invent,improve,.....

thats why they are leading and we are following them...
yes i do agree...india too has brilliant students.../children....

whts the use???

are they been left to face the society alone??no they are spoon fed at all levels....
and one think that is hiundering young age children is the belief of GOD....
how many hours a week a child or parents spending in going to temple..or church..or mosque whtever it may be...LOADS OF `EM!!!!

yes i do believe TEMPLE,CHURCH,MOSQUE are place of relaxation, an outlet from this busy world...

but invovling too much and preaching others the wrong belief....person who take advantages of these really innocent people and takin money from them should be curbed with atmost punishment...

believe in science and realise many things than believing in something which doesnt not exist...
proof of nonexistence of god is its nonexistence itself!!!!!

SCIENCE IS GOD!!!


----------



## karmanya (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

)guys.......
logic tells us that the universe started from something right? now one of the theories (i think i read it in a novel) is that the unvierse came from energy that a huge mass of energy did something and changed to matter. (i think this is from angels and demons), now this energy could in my definition be called god i dont think that there is honestly a ram, lakshmi or even vishnu looking down at us. but a lot of good things happen in the name of god and so how does it matter i mean as long as you dont go overboard in ure beliefs and kill ppl who believe the same thing you do i think u should just think about it. As of me i personally  could be called agnostic as i think of god to be a mass of life (call it living energy)  i know this is sounding stupid but i just dont belive that are actions are watched over by some dudes up in the sky (i wonder is the hve LCDs there lol). another intresting read is FOOTPRINTS OF GOD by Greg Iles, it is again sience fiction but is quite cool at the end of the day "yay to bande ki belief hai yaar aur doosre ki belief par kyo apna time waste kare? unki belief to change honi hi nahi"


----------



## MysticHalo (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I dont know, I dont care and it doesnt make a Difference (thats what einstein said...i s'pose he was asked the same question  )


----------



## planetcall (Nov 12, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Sykora said:
			
		

> What happened to all your "proofs" after that time? Why do we recognize John Logie baird as the inventor of Radar and not Sanjeeva? Why are we not able to clone now, if ostensibly cloning was possible then?
> They are proofs only if you believe that they took place at all, which will fall back to a decision of whether or not you believe in mysticism...



Well said buddy. You are the perfect example of the effect of the so called modern education system prevailing in India. We are not being told the greatness of our culture rather we are being shown the greatness of the west and the modern scientific society. Alas! you never thought of digging deep and delve into deciphering of the Indian science, once we were master of. Nevertheless, we fortunately have a great thread running in this forum(*tinyurl.com/w2mj5). You must read it before making such remarks. Galileo made the Tlelescope.....isnt it? Yes, he did but how did indians knew of other planets since centuries ? You never thought of this question simply because you have not been given the education related to your root. The hierarchy to which you belong. The culture and the great trait of which you are a part. Try digging a bit deeper buddy. The mysticism you call are more factual than you have ever imagined. Open your eyes.


Now coming to this thread. Well, first of all the God has different meanings for  different people. I dont believe in any idol worship but yes, there is something called god. He is the one who is everywhere and in everything. He is the one who has well defined the laws of nature and is the supreme cause behind any other cause. He is the one which is undefined and unattributed. 
What is paranormal ? It is something which doesnt seem normal today but you can not guarantee if it would be paranormal tomorrow. As I have said before, something you dont know of is not necessarily what doesnt exist or might not have existed before.
I dont criticise modern science nor I am against any civilization or its distinct heroic identities but those who favour newton or any such other great persona at the cost of our civilisation and our great Philosophies which are the result of thousands of years of thinking and debate, should look at their understanding of Indian Philosophies. God is the one who is not the otherone(अद्वैत). Making blind remarks over the subject which you have no knowledge of the other side automatically nullifies your logic. Many consider GOD as a person/character who is being worshipped by millions.
It is really funny when there are people talking about something as complex as almighty, considering him something sort of a visible item. Dont compare him to what many of you have grown up with. He is not superman or Batman incase you are looking the definition in it.
*smilieland.com/graphics3/superman.gif


----------



## xyzsuhas (Nov 16, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Both God & religion are concepts formulated by man(You dont see animals going to temples or singing prayers). God was created to explain things for which man did not have any answers. Religion is something personal which man believes in to keep himself in control, disciplined, and free from bad habits.


----------



## cyberscriber (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

me too an atheist..

Cheers
__________


			
				xyzsuhas said:
			
		

> Both God & religion are concepts formulated by man(You dont see animals going to temples or singing prayers). God was created to explain things for which man did not have any answers. Religion is something personal which man believes in to keep himself in control, disciplined, and free from bad habits.


to be precise,  God is greatest invention of man  
__________


			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> Galileo made the Tlelescope.....isnt it? Yes, he did but how did indians knew of other planets since centuries ?



Our own indians also said that something is eating the moon and sun during eclipses ( and probably sh***ing after that ). Dont tell this to Americans, they'll laugh at us even more.


----------



## planetcall (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^

You may be one of those maniacs who eye AMERICA for their every comparison. 
What do you mean by "they will laugh at us even more". Lol you sit in your couch thinking about how to stop americans from laughing at us. Did you ever try to think or ponder over the topic we are discussing over and do a little research over it before giving you such a lame remark? Your last sentence itself shows your attitude towards yourself and the great civilization you are a part of.
Because of that last sentence above post is not worth replying to!
*imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209034.gif


----------



## mediator (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^^ Absolutely correct!
@cyberscriber : "Inferiority Complex" is the disease I'll say ur suffering from and feel wheneva u see an American or a white skinned guy standing in front of u or around u!! Ur still not free from such psychological complex! Do u form ur outlooks like that normally by thinking what americans will say?? Don't u have ur own independent outlook!!

Well ur an atheist! So u shud also know that most of these Americans are Christians and follow their religions like most other religious people do! They also have theories like earth created in 6 days by "God"!!

I know u'll ponder about that coz its more "American" and laugh at similar things associated with ur own religion. 

Neways I find Americans much puny as compared to Indians.


----------



## Lucky_star (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Those who say Science is mightier:
Why don't they create a "human" from their Scientific innovations??
Mankind doesn't have an answer to many hidden mysteries. He has control over only a certain number of Parameters, rest is beyond his scope. When anything unnatural happens we try to link it as one of the deeds of God. Even doctors say before an operation that they have 99% of success in their hands; they leave the rest 1% with God.  Why do they say so? There is ofcourse a superpower called God which will always remains above the defintions which Science can give...


----------



## cyberscriber (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@planetcall
Jus recall what you have posted before replying.



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> We are not being told the greatness of our culture rather we are being shown the greatness of the west and the modern scientific society.



Is these crappy superstitions were the greatness of our culture to be told?? 
So all these days you were researching those useless superstitions?  lol.

I know that Indians were rulers and Europeans were ape men centuries ago. Then why did India became a poor country? Thats because of these superstitions and religious dominations. Help India to develop economy, technology and education. Don't pass these superstitions to coming generations to follow. 

I suggest you a few useful topics to research -> Evolution, Universe, Big bang and Darvin's Principle. 

IMAO,
GOD ( which is invented by man ) IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL EVILS
__________


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ^^^^ Absolutely correct!
> @cyberscriber : "Inferiority Complex" is the disease I'll say ur suffering from and feel wheneva u see an American or a white skinned guy standing in front of u or around u!! Ur still not free from such psychological complex! Do u form ur outlooks like that normally by thinking what americans will say?? Don't u have ur own independent outlook!!
> 
> Well ur an atheist! So u shud also know that most of these Americans are Christians and follow their religions like most other religious people do! They also have theories like earth created in 6 days by "God"!!
> ...


I never said i'm attracted to Americans. We are more intelligent than them. But also we have these superstitions spreading like disease.
__________


			
				Lucky_star said:
			
		

> Those who say Science is mightier:
> Why don't they create a "human" from their Scientific innovations??
> Mankind doesn't have an answer to many hidden mysteries. He has control over only a certain number of Parameters, rest is beyond his scope. When anything unnatural happens we try to link it as one of the deeds of God. Even doctors say before an operation that they have 99% of success in their hands; they leave the rest 1% with God.  Why do they say so? There is ofcourse a superpower called God which will always remains above the defintions which Science can give...


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.


----------



## OPTUMS PRIME (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God Made A Super Computer Is World And We Are A Component.he Can Overclock Every Thing And When He Want To Restart Or Shut Down The System (world)then He Can Do It Very Easily.he Is Matchless & Wordless. I Have No Words To Say About Him.

Thanks


----------



## Lucky_star (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				cyberscriber said:
			
		

> @planetcall
> Jus recall what you have posted before replying.
> 
> 
> ...





Have You ever been in a situation where you relied on  God? If you did, then why??


----------



## cyberscriber (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Lucky_star said:
			
		

> Have You ever been in a situation where you relied on  God? If you did, then why??



I never relied on god. If anything is out of control, man tend to believe god, which may in turn comfort him psychologically. But i'm not so.


----------



## planetcall (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Mr Cyberscriber ! I need not reply to you as I already have posted enough in this thread which you didnt cater to read before posting and which already replies to your attitude towards something which you know not a single bit. Try to evolve beyond the school books and develop an independent way of thinking. Before you comment on , go through what others are saying. Instead of this crib if you would have commented over what proofs I and others have given in favour of topic then it would have been more appreciable. I hope your next post is going to be an intelligent reply.


----------



## Lucky_star (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> Mr Cyberscriber ! I need not reply to you as I already have posted enough in this thread which you didnt cater to read before posting and which already replies to your attitude towards something which you know not a single bit. Try to evolve beyond the school books and develop an independent way of thinking. Before you comment on , go through what others are saying. Instead of this crib if you would have commented over what proofs I and others have given in favour of topic then it would have been more appreciable. I hope your next post is going to be an intelligent reply.




You got my point!


----------



## cyberscriber (Nov 18, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> Mr Cyberscriber ! I need not reply to you as I already have posted enough in this thread which you didnt cater to read before posting and which already replies to your attitude towards something which you know not a single bit. Try to evolve beyond the school books and develop an independent way of thinking. Before you comment on , go through what others are saying. Instead of this crib if you would have commented over what proofs I and others have given in favour of topic then it would have been more appreciable. I hope your next post is going to be an intelligent reply.



Mr planetcall! Try to evolve beyond beliefs and develop an independent way of thinking. These proofs (as you say) are just manuscripts written by people some 1000 to 5000 years ago. And they did that to form a political community in the name of religion. These writings include, the bible, quran, or ramayana or whatever. You call them proofs??  I believe there are No scientific proofs. 
This reply is intelligent enough!


----------



## ratedrsuperstar (Nov 18, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

scientology is the best but no one before GOD but i don't give a damn for any religion any religious rituals


----------



## iMav (Nov 18, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

cyberscriber i think u just called the ramayana a work of fiction well if its so then i guess its the best selling fiction novell in human historybesdides proove to me tht none of wat is wriiten is true

il give an example might sound absurd to some but think abt it:

today man is using  a bluetooth device which is cordless small in size to talk to some1 in another end of the world v hav cams tht transmit sumthing in outer space to earth y is it not possible for a blind man to see the happenings of war in another end of the world


----------



## mediator (Nov 18, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				cyberscriber said:
			
		

> Mr planetcall! Try to evolve beyond beliefs and develop an independent way of thinking. These proofs (as you say) are just manuscripts written by people some 1000 to 5000 years ago. And they did that to form a political community in the name of religion. These writings include, the bible, quran, or ramayana or whatever. *You call them proofs??  I believe there are No scientific proofs.*
> This reply is intelligent enough!



U need proofs?? Read this carefully!! U might not be believing what Indians say, but it seems u like to believe wat americans say. The prrofs are there supported by scientific explanations!!

Yea there are superstitions and thats what happens when epics like these are told by one generation to next. Twistings are produced!! Read a full fledged Mahabharata,Ramayana written in Sanskrit to remove all ur superstitions coz words loose their meaning when translated from mighty Sanskrit,Hindi,any Indian Language to puny English language. 

Neways some 1000-5000 years after people like u might think that Gandhiji was also a fictitious story character! Thats the human nature!



			
				cyberscriber said:
			
		

> I know that Indians were rulers and Europeans were ape men centuries ago. Then why did India became a poor country? *Thats because of these superstitions and religious dominations.* Help India to develop economy, technology and education. Don't pass these superstitions to coming generations to follow.
> 
> I suggest you a few useful topics to research -> Evolution, Universe, Big bang and Darvin's Principle.


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!
Its OK to question, but before giving ur expert comments u shud read India's history and timeline, how things changed, violence was there, Mughals razed temples,scriptures,idols,paintings etc and then came ur fellow foreigners!! So read India's history and get enlightened how it got poor and Vedic books destroyed!

Yes we shudn't pass superstitions, but the facts! And u please help India to develop economy, technology and education by thinking beyond what u can see. If the world was filled with such people who cudn't think beyond and kept making expert comments, calling every one idiot whom they didn't believe etc then I'm afraid the world wudn't have been so technologically advanced as its now!! So think whats probablistic and whats possible and think how cud it have happened and relate it to science instead making ur expert opinions! Thats how ur Americans work. So its time u work like em and I promise American's wont laugh!!

Neways Unvierse evolution,Big bang etc if u know aren't facts. They r just theories put forward!! Now don't laugh  at them and call em superstitious! Since Big bang seems most probabilistic, we keep on reading about it everywhere! They are not facts yet, but theories trying to become facts!
Likewise Ancients Indians knew much before  ur fellow Americans that world was round and about planets (astrology)etc. We have lost much of our ancient books, but some knowledge is still there like Vedic mathematics (complete maths),Ayurveda(complete description of human diseases and cure) . Don't laugh at them again, coz its ur Fellow Amercians who r shocked to see how great these Vedic things are. They r trying to learn about it, read newspapers and u'll knwo what I'm saying. So u better learn about em too! After all u prefer what Americans think rather than what u think!!

So njoy read the link and sources+comments in those sources!! All evidences+ based on scientific facts!!


----------



## sanddy (Nov 18, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

ofcourse "GOD" else neither u would have  been there nor i


----------



## faraaz (Nov 20, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I voted for the God option, but only because that was the closest thing to what I wanted to say.

Where's the Science + God option?? You do realise that its not a mutually exclusive statement!

Atleast, IMO...there is of course, God in the role of Creator and all that, and science explains how these things happen.

I mean, to quote Pratchett, people ask for proof of God through miracles, but what more do you want than making wine from sunlight? Or water from thin air?? Of course...its all explained through science so apparently its not a miracle...WTF?!? Just cuz you understand the physics/chemistry/biology involved doesn't mean its any less of a miracle! This stuff doesn't happen by chance you know...

So yeah...edit poll!


----------



## planetcall (Nov 20, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

faraaz i agree to your stand to certain extent. But I dont agree to see God and Science in segregated manner. Gita stresses on science, also Brahma says that he likes Vigyan more in the various categories of Gyan. So again and again our culture has stressed upon the science and knowledge. It was this firm believe that led to the mighty development of our culture both scientifically and spiritually. I believe, if you have faith in god, you have faith in nature and all its charateristics. Whatever is happening around you is not miracle. It is all bound to the laws of that ultimate creator. But this law, the creator, you and this universe in itself is a miracle. The ultimate truth beyond which there is nothing. The ultimate logic the description of which itself is illogical


----------



## iMav (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^agree with  totally


----------



## Apollo (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I've heard this too many times that religious sentiments can be anti-scientific, be that in certain cases or as a whole. As far as I know, I don't think any religion prohibits its followers from attaining excellency in their _karma_.  Do you?  

If at all there is such a line of thinking then it has fallen into dotage.


----------



## faraaz (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

If you think about it, all this religion vs. science antagonism came about because of Western ideologies...I mean think about it...

Bible says Earth is in the centre of the Earth and poor Kepler & Copernicus and Galileo et. al burned for it...

Quran and Vedas and all were light years ahead cuz they kept saying the correct stuff all along ANYWAY! 

Also...its the Americans/UK'ers who keep arguing against science and religion being co-existing schools of thought because their social background dictates that...

So if you think about it, this stuff doesn't REALLY apply to Indian theology, which is based on science in the first place...

MERA BHARAT MAHAAN!


----------



## iMav (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

west always wants to proove and insist tht it is way ahead of others


----------



## Apollo (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				jal_desai said:
			
		

> There is no point in considering science and paranormal science as two different entities.... they are same but what i think is .... paranormal science is forward than logical science....
> 
> Proofs to support me:
> 
> ...


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!  

I am not mocking you in condescension.  I think such claims are a bit too far-fetched.  I'll quote a line from the Holy Bible:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]_Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen._ Hebrews 11:1[/FONT]

To have faith in something itself means to believe in something that has no proof, as far as religion goes - one is expected to follow it blindly.  A human cannot give birth to 100 offsprings, if nature has its way.  Yet making a factual assumption on such myths to draw conclusions, and relating it with modern progressive science defeats the very purpose of having faith in it in the first place.  (If Kauravas were cloned, did Gandhari ordered all the physicians/doctors of her time to be executed?  The Ayurveda speaks of skin grafts and plastic surgery... did they forget to add pointers on cloning?)

I agree with your views though that the process of scientific discovery and understanding has a long way to go.  But I deem it unwise to explore religious scriptures with an intention of finding justifiable scientific answers to certain bygone events.


----------



## planetcall (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Apollo,
I appreciate your post as you have not posted something completely illogical as many others. I would love to reply to your point.
First you have to refine some of your knowledge about vedas. Vedas are not the text of science written in simple paras as we find in modern age text books.  They were written by people with exotic talent and it follows the trait of encryption of that time. We have many sanskrit shlokas and sutras well clubbed into tiny rhymes. You know why ? There are many answers to it but for general understanding I would say that it makes it interesting and easy to learn. Veda contains plethora of knowledge all in the form of those sutras. I have cited some examples before in this thread (sapta rashmi...). You have to unearth those hidden knowledge pieces and have to understand it. If you are a lay person like many others then veda itself on first glance seems nothing but chants written to please gods. But there is more to it. People dont know because they never have the motivation or the time to look into it.
Exploration of past for something unbelievable is not completely wrong because you got reasons for it. The reasons which you have to agree. Lets not talk of gandhari and 100 sons. Talk of our astrology. I am taking this example because this tradition has followed until today with many of its ancient science inherited in it. Tell me how they found the planets and its various scientific attributes like angle of axis,speed,rotation and revolution times,color etc. You have to agree that they had this information milleniums before gallileo. They didnt have telescope. So, try to think what could have existed and how it could have lost. Story tells of Duryodhana hiding inside the pond in a bubble after the battle. You see....it is not yet possible but i see it in near future with some advance chemistry involved. Also, see the example of Vedic mathematics. most of it is lost but still we have a few glimpses left of it. Nikhilam Ch and ekadhiken purven , are one of the most powerful sutras in it which are repeated and reused in variety of scenarios. Similar is the case with most of our ancient books. Think buddy. I dont say you agree to me, rather I would ask you to ponder and be logical in your approach.


----------



## jp23 (Nov 22, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

First i'll ask a question; I stumbled upon this site during my daily misadventuring on the 'net - Is this a predominantly Indian occupied website? If so, you'll have to excuse the presence of my luminous white ass for now, at least until the topic of conversation changes. 

Secondly, the brunt of my discussion. I'm not so narrow minded to believe i could offer a complete, comprehensive answer to perhaps the number one question of human kind. However, i will call things how i see them, and the first flaw in the arguement upon this board is this - Science is not in conflict with God, because in order for there to be a debate between the existence of God and science, science's existence would reasonably have to be in question. We all know that science exists, we see it's tangible proof every time we log on to the computer, among countless other activities that indeed rely upon the advances of our technological pursuit. 

So for me, it's not a question of science's existence, but *where* science aligns itself with the greater power. I'm a Christian, and i don't mind saying that even though it might garner some opposition from the atheists around. Bluntly speaking, my belief is that God didn't give us science, God gave us analytical minds and a world full of choice - from there it was probably inevitable that science would come to fruition. I believe that the presence of science in our world leads to the conclusion that our scientific journey of discovery is intended to lead us to the existence of God. Believe it or not, there's an increasingly popular school of thought among some scientists that practiced atheism for the majority of their scientific careers that, at the end of their life's work they draw a personal conclusion; Divine Intelligence is the only viable answer to all the ominous questions surrounding our existence. I would tend to agree. 

It's a sweeping generalisation of the topic at hand, but it's one that allows me to live my life without pondering unanswerable questions on a daily basis. Faith isn't about having tangible proof; The proof for me came when i really questioned what my beliefs were, peeled back all the levels of subconsious padding that my negative life experiences had put up and discovered at the very core of my existence was a soul. And there isn't a question penetrating enough that could make me question God's existence after an experience like that. 

J.P.


----------



## planetcall (Nov 22, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

What is Science ??? It is the law of GOD. We can think of it as the rules defined by the almighty for the events to happen in this universe. See how one event is related to each other. Now we know that a coin tossed in air does have an effect on the asteroid near jupiter , 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.
Certainly, the concept of the soul is another proof of the existence of GOD. You were blessed to ponder over that question.


----------



## tuxfan (Nov 22, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I have recently read quite a few things on this topic  I shall post in detail some day soon when I have time.

Has anyone heard about Pascal's Wager? In addition to Wikipedia, there is a lot of material on this topic. Google it up. It gave me 300,000 links on the topic.


----------



## Poon (Nov 23, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Hinduism has all the answers. God in Christian sense the father who came to earth and screwed a virgin is false. That means god is man and so we are discriminating women. ALL BASED ON FALSE  BELIEFS AND FALSE FAITHS. OURS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FAITHS. OF COURSE TODAY IT HAS BECOME CORRUPTED AND SPOILT SO I AM AN ATHIEST.


----------



## faraaz (Nov 23, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ - Bit overarching, aren't we?


----------



## planetcall (Nov 23, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Poon, I would like to tell you that we are discussing over the existence of god and the concept of it that we all have. In this context, it would not be good if we start commenting over religions. There are certain things in every religion that might seem unacceptable to someone but we should not criticize it openly as you did. Indeed our religion is for all ("SANATAN DHARM") but it doesnt mean that people cant pursue their own faiths. Our religion has not been corrupted but yes, the stagnation it has reached to is detrimental. We will have to choose the evolutionary path so that we continue to flourish. Thatswhy I say, for the progress and prosperity we need to see towards our past and learn from it.
As per you, since your religion has spoilt and corrupted so you are an atheist.  I dont accept that logic buddy. Try to know what your religion is. Our interpretations can be different. I myself do not believe in idol worship but I dont mind going to temples and or worshiping the idols. Our religion has so many branches and so many paths to salvation. Why dont you look for the one that suits you most ?


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 27, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

one thing really sad is that we live in a advanced world and still we believe in myths and rumours.....
why cant we get our hand dirty and see for ourselves there is nothing a thing called GOd exist....and it does in the wold of creativity....

mahabaratha and ramayana are the worlds superior story with all the rich essence and creativity...

why did they create such an epic???

well the answer is simple .... if i tell u to do something...U wont do it...

but if i tell that doing that thing will bring wealth and fortune in ur future..(whether it happens or not is still bound to probabilty)  u will definetly do it.....

thats is why they created ...those days people are really ignorant...and to teach is really hard...so there came the creative philosophy...where there is not limit for ur tales...just like harry potter,lord of the rings triology...


do u think harry Potter exist....if u do yes ..u should definetly consult a DOC!!!

if no then u should be damn sure that god also doesnt exist...

GUYS WHERE IS THE REALLY PROOF OF LIFE FOR GOD...???

let us do good thing...WE ARE GOD!!!!


----------



## planetcall (Nov 27, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^ Naveen_reloaded, In this thread , there already have been written many evidences to prove the reality of the epics which you  are thinking to be myth. The believe in myth you talking has already been answered by many others before in this thread. I would like if you could reply to those facts and logics instead of just putting what already has been nullified by logic.


----------



## mihirvashist (Nov 28, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

science is my choice....who has ever seen god in the first place


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Nov 28, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

superstitions lol


----------



## planetcall (Nov 28, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Mihir, My question to you is to interpret GOD. Do it here and let me know what you mean by your remark there. An orphan has not seen his mother. Surely, he was born without a mother, isnt it ? Take time to go through all the posts in this thread.

Vimal_mehrotra, you are a Fresh Stock. Learn how not to SH_T around._


----------



## caleb (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Scinece is a witness to the existence of God in everything that we see & discover...so how can I choose science over God?

Do not take offense...but believing ONLY in science, for me, is like beng the Businessman in the story below:

"Ah, the simple life!"

An American businessman was at the pier of a small Mexican coastal village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “Only a little while.”

The American then asked why he didn't stay out longer and catch more fish.

The fisherman said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs.

The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife Maria. Then I stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life, señor.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and I could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles, and eventually New York City where you would run your expanding enterprise.”

The fisherman asked, “But señor, how long will this all take?”

”Fifteen or twenty years.”

“But what then, señor?”

The American laughed and said, “That's the best part. When the time is right you would sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions.”

“Millions, señor? Then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire and move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your grandchildren, take siesta with your wife Maria, and stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”


----------



## faraaz (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ - Agree completely!


----------



## planetcall (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Caleb, truly said buddy. It all depends on one's interpretation of GOD. I don't see science being distinct from God itself. I need not emphasize much as it is posted already by me in this thread.


----------



## mihirvashist (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> Mihir, My question to you is to interpret GOD. Do it here and let me know what you mean by your remark there. An orphan has not seen his mother. Surely, he was born without a mother, isnt it ? Take time to go through all the posts in this thread.
> 
> Vimal_mehrotra, you are a Fresh Stock. Learn how not to SH_T around._


_

i didn't want 2 hurt anybody's feelings but still it is something i can't explain ...even if there is god i don't trust him ...i don't know why or maybe i know but can't express_


----------



## Aberforth (Dec 4, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				tuxfan said:
			
		

> Atheists haven't studied religion, how do they know whether its good or bad? So it is an assumption that religion is not scientific!



Do you really think so? I am an Atheist and I studied every religious book I can get hold of. Buddhism is the only religion which does not discriminate against science nor encourage it.

It is ironic, scientists don't need to explain science to relate with religion but religion needs to explain religion to fit science. Humans tend to rationalize and ultimately prove what they want to believe even if its illogical when you try to simplify. Heck I can prove Lord of The Rings is the word of God if I really want to.


----------



## yzoc (Dec 24, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science or God?

This sentence need to be reformulated to:
"G". God ?
"N". No God ?
&
"I". "No Science" (or science is an illusion) ?
"C". "Created Science" ?
"F". "Forever Pre-Existed Science" ?

And now, the right question is which of following combinations is right: "G"-"I", "G"-"C", "G"-"F", "N"-"I", "N"-"C", and "N"-"F"?

Moreover, Since the science we know in our days is not able to prove with physical evidences neither "A" nor "B" is the truth, Science need not to be comparable with God in the form of only "Science or God?"...

The science (we know) is too convincing due to our every day (material) needs. While, our soul is kind of too convinced that there is something out there (maybe a non-material) God. 

So, the question could be rather: 
- Does science (we know) be able to/will prove the existing/non-existing of God?
Or even maybe,  
- Which one does science (we know) favor more: God or No God?

But, does it not look like if we are using something (such as science) based on our knowledge to prove something beyond our knowledge?

If God does exist based on the our actual reality, there is only his signs in this world that can be seen and interpreted, but not God HIMSelf.


----------



## planetcall (Dec 24, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Aberforth, there are a few credible scientific explanations already given here in this thread in support of the existence of almighty. I would like you to apply your logic against them.


----------



## fatguysmart (Dec 24, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God for Me!
Science in its place and God at a place above it!


----------



## eagle_y2j (Dec 25, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God rule.......................................................................


----------



## Shikher_neo (Dec 25, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Well I have a lot to say in this regard but it would better be iteractive.
So do notmind posting anything in this regard even via private messages.
I think we need both religion as well as science to survive.God for spiritual power and science for temporal.But if talked about a choice both of them lead to the same ultimate junction-God.Whether its the Big Bang or the _genesis,_T the place we finall y look for ig is God.Recent discoveries at CERN in Switzerland show that even after a significant revealation we find that God is indispensable whether you talk about creation of the uinverse in Scientific or in Religious parlance. 
That is enough for now i guess.
Bye


----------



## sre06 (Dec 25, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

answer of this question only can give a person named einstain 
go and ask his theory of relativity where he say matter is wave and wave is matter so we cant see god


----------



## keves2002 (Dec 26, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

my vote goes 2 GOD


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Dec 26, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Can anyone explain the science behind will power or mind power. I mean have u seen someone bending a spoon or similar things with pure mind power??

Is there any science behind it?
__________
Is there any scientific explanation for hipnotisn, pranic healing or rayki? i dun think so. But these are accepted worldwide nd needs no proof for its existance.


----------



## baccilus (Dec 26, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God is the science behind science. It can't be seen, or felt by the 5 senses we have. It's difficult to believe in God because man doesn't believe in what he can't see, hear or feel. But the only way to know God is through faith and belief.


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@koolbluez
cool story man...keep up.


----------



## NIGHTMARE (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

  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.


MY VOTE GOES FOR GOD.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				NIGHTMARE 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.
> 
> 
> MY VOTE GOES FOR GOD.




thaat was funny....

good imagination


----------



## Lucky_star (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				baccilus said:
			
		

> God is the science behind science. It can't be seen, or felt by the 5 senses we have. It's difficult to believe in God because man doesn't believe in what he can't see, hear or feel. But the only way to know God is through faith and belief.



^^I agree to that


----------



## planetcall (Dec 30, 2006)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ I disagree to that.
You can establish the existence of almighty through logic and reasoning as well. I and a few others have already done that in this thread.


----------



## rajasekharan (Jan 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Belief of god and path of science is required for a proper living . One cannot survive with out other . Too much god has created religion "the pure cause of war if wrongly used ". And science "nuclear weapons " a disaster if used wrong .both cannot survive with out another . We need scientist to get relief from religion and vice versa .we need both .


----------



## debasish (Jan 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I believe that the the whole god thing is xplained very well by the matrix! infact matrix is the scientific explanation of the existence of god


----------



## rajasekharan (Jan 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

i have not watched matrix....just watched part 1 ....did not like it.....skipped all..., i liked LOTR far more ...in case of trilogy ...


----------



## caleb (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God


----------



## Bancho (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

where god man? everything is science


----------



## Kniwor (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*Who's this god anyway? so much fuzz about him? never seen the fella on TV or something!!!

Does he have a blog I can visit, his homepage?*


----------



## Vyasram (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science coz i blive there's no such thing as god. 

I Kinda laugh when ppl think of earth being created in six days, puranas, greek mythology......



			
				aravind_n20 said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain the science behind will power or mind power. I mean have u seen someone bending a spoon or similar things with pure mind power??
> 
> Is there any science behind it?



lolz, everything u've asked have science behind them. Use wikipedia for hypnotism, pranic healing,

reg mind power
itz all nerves, impulses, hormones....... though we haven't understood them fully, we are learning that scientifically day by day

if someone blives in god, it acts as a psychological boost for him in his every activity and helps him, he also follows a principle of not doing wrong things,  but some a$$holes use the same reason for doing wrong things with the belief that they can always ask for pardon from God ( most bigshots are like that these days)

religion and god were created by sages/pphilosophers for the above said purpose, to help humans...... but that's not the case today, religions are slowly becoming the pathway to destruction with some ppl being biased to  ppl of their own religion




			
				mediator said:
			
		

> There's a good saying "God helps those who help themselves" ! I don't believe in god n the quote directly means "That we shud help ourselves instead of relying on God" ! God is a fictitious character for me and we pray to him only to get our innards awakened!
> As far as religion is concerned that was discussed long time back. Neways for me religion means spirituality + pieces of wisdom ! Speaking of ghosts is beyond my thinking!



good post

for me religion = pieces of wisdom



			
				zegulas said:
			
		

> See dude, as far as you will believe in God, you won't be able to find the truth, just for the sake of finding the truth behind everything, try this, don't believe in God for one day and see what happens. I am preety sure nothing different will happen, because even I believe in Science, because it can explain things and the idea of God (created everything), is just like a curtain put in front of your eyes, to keep you away from the reality.



the best post in the thread. wud help u save 5-15 mins a day on an average
__________


			
				cyberscirber said:
			
		

> Our own indians also said that something is eating the moon and sun during eclipses ( and probably sh***ing after that ). Dont tell this to Americans, they'll laugh at us even more.



seems like americans didnt exist back then. Many americans blive in ghosts than indians do even now(see such progs in natgeo/star world), i'll die laughing if i watch that one more time.  Superstitions exitst in every religion and every civilization.

but everyone civilization i know of ( except some african ones) follow the superstition called Godism
__________


			
				sanddy said:
			
		

> ofcourse "GOD" else neither u would have  been there nor i



wow, there's no god, and i''m here safe and sound ...... dunno abt u


----------



## planetcall (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ did you read 

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=343989&postcount=60
&
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=349274&postcount=78

??


----------



## rajasekharan (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

i think we need both...i have already said that early....weather there is god or not is a belief according to each individual and depending on the peoples he interacts with , the society around him and the way he sees life....and it will be different for each....i believe i need both , and one cannot survive with out the other...


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jan 13, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

do good 
be good .....

U R GOD!!!

wht do u say guys???


----------



## brutality9k (Jan 15, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

god is just someone u can blame when u screw up

Failed in exam = my bad luck
Unsuccesful in something = It was not the wish of god

Success somewhere = It was my hardwork & determination. Why don't u say, it was gods wish for me to prevail

Like Bush said, "God has send me to do his job (in iraq)" once in TV

Personally I do not believe in god, i have been to temple only 5 times in life . That too during critical exam results or some strict family policy, but yeah i do like the sweets served


----------



## planetcall (Jan 15, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Thanks for your opinions brutality. But you spilled nothing worth replying to. I also seldom go to temples but I do believe in almighty and my reasons are embedded deep at the heart of this thread.


----------



## emcm (Jan 15, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God is behind everything on this wold and if you don,t know now you know...........


----------



## __Virus__ (Jan 16, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God for me


----------



## avinandan (Jan 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Well if GOD really does exist I would request him to prove his existence and atleast give me his cell phone no. or e-mail ID (I think God too would be a techno geek). Seriously, I would ask anyone who believes in God or ghosts to provide sufficient evidence. I wonder why i hav'nt seen them if they really do exist.


----------



## astro (Jan 29, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Hi,
    I am new here. I think everyone desperately wants a saviour(God) for their lives.  Even when they cant find one,  they will continue looking because they cant imagine living their life all alone unprotected by the perils they see around the world.

I have a blog and have posted on this matter.Please visit and comment.Thanks

*onefinespace.blogspot.com/


----------



## Sand (Feb 19, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Some Animals of this world cannot see certain colors, that does not mean those colors do not exist but that color does not have to prove to that dumb animal that it exists just because that dumb animal is demanding it. 

Like it or lump it, God does not need to prove himself...he is not an elected represetitive of a government neither is he a public servent. When I gave birth to my child I saw a small sample of God's creation and I need no proof that he exists. Let us prove ourselves to be worthy humans first before questioning if he exists or not.


----------



## ssdivisiongermany1933 (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God, for non believers  god doesn't exist but for believers god exist


----------



## blademast3r (Mar 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Its GOD!!! has to be GOD...GOD is science,GOD is the universe and everything, GOD is around us and within us....Jus cos we today understand this world better with all the scientific advancements it doesnt mean we can deny the existance of the very creator... (pls dont get me wrong im not some anti-techno sadhu i'm a science student myself and believe in the power of science)....

To all u ' science is the ultimate answer atheists' here is the scientific explanation for god!!

Concider god to be an infinite source of energy, take some of this energy and use a formula which a fella called Einstein had given : E=mc^2
convert it to mass lil by lil and make up the whole universe and everything in it!!!


----------



## ssdivisiongermany1933 (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Atheist Study religion and see the results


----------



## amitava82 (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

nothing gonna change my mind unless u present your god in front of me.. 
PROUD TO BE ATHEIST


----------



## blademast3r (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				amitava82 said:
			
		

> nothing gonna change my mind unless u present your god in front of me..
> PROUD TO BE ATHEIST


and nothin will cange till u disprove god in front of me!!


----------



## koolbluez (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

There was a _joke for thoughts _on this sometime back....



> A scientist went to God and said..."U r not the best now... With the help of science, I can do whatever u can do. I can make a black hole, I can make living tissue, I can change the course of entire planets... I can do whatever u can!!!"
> God remained calm.
> Seeing this and wanting to make a point, the scientist got enraged and said... "The heck... I can even make man from mud!!!"
> God asked him to do so and prove it.
> ...


_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.
And this time... it's not ME


----------



## s_aerin (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

If after so many years of education, u believe in God, it wud be something like an artist falling in love with one of his own creations.


----------



## koolbluez (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After so many years of education, if u still DON'T believe in GOD, u r like the horse who still doesn't believe that it's _his master_ who leads him.


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				koolbluez said:
			
		

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> After so many years of education, if u still DON'T believe in GOD, u r like the horse who still doesn't believe that it's _his master_ who leads him.



Well I don't have to believe in something that doesn't exist and there have been no proofs of existence. Neither do I believe in the tooth fairy so that doesn't mean its like the horse who doesn't believe in its master. The horse is kept and tended by the master, it can see him/her while God is simply an imagination and nothing else.


----------



## amitava82 (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				blademast3r said:
			
		

> and nothin will cange till u disprove god in front of me!!



As already said u need proof of existence, not for non existence. if i say i have a  Lamborghini Diablo surely u guys will be asking for proof, u wont ask me to prove that i dont have Diablo..

again I'll say after so many years of education if you still believe in some myth then i must say that you didn't have any real education.


----------



## koolbluez (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

As some other jokes go on...
When a guy speaks about..._ I believe only what I see... there is no God._.. his friend slaps him... The 1st guy cries back... _it's paining_. The friend asks - _Where's the pain? Show me._

As we all "educated people" know... there r some things that cant b seen but felt. God is the name we give to everything abstract... which we don't believe or anything which can't b explained by science. The conscience.. for eg... is ur God. When u do a mistake, u feel that u r doin one.. a regret lingers in ur mind... that conscience... is an unexplained science. That is one of the "gods".
Until & unless all phenomena can b perfectly explained, God'll exist.

U can't mix God & science.. like say... water & oil 

Atheistism & theistism r two different schools of thought. And bringing them together will only cause clashes.


----------



## caleb (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				s_aerin said:
			
		

> If after so many years of education, u believe in God, it wud be something like an artist falling in love with one of his own creations.


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!


----------



## koolbluez (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^ *img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif Well said...


----------



## gurujee (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****


----------



## Pathik (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

well there is another term for people like me... AGNOSTICS...
we dont know whether god exists or no and we couldnt care less....


----------



## s_aerin (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				caleb 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!


seems i hv hurt some ppl's feelings.
anyways, what i meant was, believing in god is like believing a story u yourself created.all social sciences have in one way or the other given us a basic idea as to how religion(superstition) evolved.refer to any text book of any school.
and like the fellow above me, 
we dont know whether god exists or no and we couldnt care less..


----------



## amitava82 (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

by d way, according to www.urbandictionary.com:

theist:

1.Someone who has been brainwashed
2.someone who desperatly hangs on to to an old fairytale-like thoery that has been disproven by science and that never reeeally had any proof in the first place


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Proofs and theories are for the people of Middle-Earth. As you progress to the higher sciences, it comes to you that nothing is absolute. There are no hard facts that you can prove - not in cosmology and not in Quantum physics.

Perhaps someday in distant future, we'll have a faint understading of the Universe, of the matter and life. Until then, any hard statement in favor or against of anything is nothing more than a personal opinion and matter of preference. And as we all know, opinions are like arseholes; everyone's got one.


----------



## caje143 (Mar 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God Is Great....
Science Is Straight....
So Lets Just Wait....

I Go For God......


----------



## Pathik (Mar 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

:d O-> !! Science Science Science !! <-o :d


----------



## caleb (Mar 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				s_aerin said:
			
		

> seems i hv hurt some ppl's feelings.
> all social sciences have in one way or the other given us a basic idea as to how religion(superstition) evolved.


 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.

Anyway getting back to the "fight"...kidding...we are talking about the existence of God not "how religion (superstition) evolved".


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				koolbluez said:
			
		

> As some other jokes go on...
> When a guy speaks about..._ I believe only what I see... there is no God._.. his friend slaps him... The 1st guy cries back... _it's paining_. The friend asks - _Where's the pain? Show me._



Thats a bad example. If I slap you and your body's hormone profile is done at the same time, the cortisol level rises which means you did feel a difference to your body. Pain is because there is a drastic change in the body state which the neurons act as reflex action (pain) to avoid. Furthermore pain can be clearly felt, you don't need a very hard imagination or to teach a child as he grows up, "When I slap you, you feel pain, understand? Pain exists". A child feels pain even if you slap it at infacy but isn't likely to be a theist if grown without theism.



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Proofs and theories are for the people of Middle-Earth. As you progress to the higher sciences, it comes to you that nothing is absolute. There are no hard facts that you can prove - not in cosmology and not in Quantum physics.



Well that wouldn't be a reason to believe in something that doesn't exist or has even been proven to exist. 'Absolute' you talk about refers to relativity, and relativity doesn't endorse God either, God is still an imaginative concept and unless its existence is proven by people and we can verify it, we can't assume it exists just like we assume boogeyman and tooth fairy don't exist.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Well that wouldn't be a reason to believe in something that doesn't exist or has even been proven to exist. 'Absolute' you talk about refers to relativity, and relativity doesn't endorse God either, God is still an imaginative concept and unless its existence is proven by people and we can verify it, we can't assume it exists just like we assume boogeyman and tooth fairy don't exist.


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.

I'm definitely not playing apologist for the religious. Far from it! But science is only a way of understanding things around us. It doesn't and probably cannot explore the dimensions of What and Why of the largest and smallest. I believe it's too early to conclude if there's a supreme being or not, for we know little about the things we're starting to see.

I'm against all organized religions, their propaganda, self-declared gods and rituals. But the philosophy therein isn't to be ignored. I'm of the opinion that if spirituality and philosophy are sensual, then science is pornography. It provides all the details you long for, but it's as coarse as it can get.


----------



## koolbluez (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Skeptics... I stay aloof from them. They don't know whom to believe or what to believe. I doubt if they believe in themselves too... mayb a "hormone profile" might verify it 

I'm not a religious devout. But I do believe that there is something governing everything. Something more unimaginable (@ our present scientific stature) that actually runs the show. And.. all yea "scientists/developed guyz/educated guyz"... we all know that most things r not perfect. Everywhere there is an assumption. Even our physics equations have more assumptions than solutions. Well... for ur belief.. God is also an assumption. But still.. as every regular student uses in his equations, we too use God in our lives equation. Like it or not.

Believe it or leave it. U life's ur hell. Enjoy it  C ya...


----------



## Ganeshkumar (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I dont beleive in God... 
But anyway... 
We can believe on those who say THERE IS NO GOD, But Dont beleive on those who say I AM GOD OR I AM GODS CONVEYOR...


----------



## cooldip10 (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

 - So many bleieve in God 
 me too , but the only difference is that .. 
 I completely don't believe in anything that Science has not proven..


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that if spirituality and philosophy are sensual, then science is pornography. It provides all the details you long for, but it's as coarse as it can get.



Science and pornography do not really mix when the context is brought. It would be closer to sexuality and sensuality. However considering your analogy, what today may seem coarse might be a driving force to what could be achieved tomorrow. In your analogy, it is like porn industry helping in the adoption and popularisation of new technologies.



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Still, people contiune to believe that they exist, among other things, only because they've read so in text books.



That is a very generalized assumption. That might apply to theists, who have been counciously fed the idea of God since childhood that the idea lodges to the subconscious memory. 

Science is not about 'beliefs' and 'faith' on books or ideas; both of which are imaginary but about 'knowledge' and these 'knowledge' requires thinking, reasoning, hypothesis and deduction. It must also be reproducible in laboratory conditions or observed with the right tools and skills by a lot of people. Philosophically speaking, to a scientist the universe is an adventure and has uncountable mysteries to be explored, the more he uncovers the more satisfying it is.

People without this open mind and mental prowess would never understand the stimulation so would prefer to loosen their minds in spirituality, leave all to imaginary catharsis and pillar called God and sit back.


----------



## crs_cwiz (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Hey, I'm quite late into the debate, but this is something i've thought over for years now, so here are "my" opinions:

Both the sides should stop trying to prove that they are ultimately correct and the other is wrong. All the Big-Bang theories aren't there just because they are impressive, sound good or give a fantastic theatre to the beginning of the universe. They have some real simple logic and reason behind it, not to mention some common sense (read A Brief History Of Time By Stephen Hawking for more info) People would ask that if the bigbang did occur, then where did all that energy come from in the first place? the answer is that there is no energy - the total energy in the entire universe, when totaled up, comes out to be zero (planets are positive energy converted to mass and gravity is the negative energy. Experiments have been performed to prove this fact.) But then again, things become murky as I myself cannot explain why the fundamental charge is so finely tuned to be 1.6*10^(-19) C (had it been slightly different, stars would not have existed) But if the believers-of-God are starting to rejoice, let me tell them that many things HAVE been proved which seriously restrict God to the point where he can only turn on the universe if he wants, 'cause after that he would not have any choice. If you want proof again, I'm not gonna waste my time typing, read the above mentioned book, and also "the Universe in a Nutshell" by the same author.

So my conclusion - we simply aren't smart enough yet to decide whether God exists or not, whether you take the scientific view ( that a few more million years are required to evolve more) or the religious (God didnt want us to be so smart that we can question our own creator)

So then, on whose side am I? I'm an atheist, even though many things haven't been proved. That's because if you were to see both sides, you would realise that science explains almost everything except the biggest questions of the universe, whereas religion (Im not talking about God, I'm talking about religion) attempts to answer these big questions, while failing to answer even the smaller ones. And, also because my religion (or I should say former religion; I was very religious until I became atheist when I was 10 due to a set of circumstances, and even after 7 years now, I have not found a single reason to regret my decision, except I save more time not having to regularly pray or going to temples) does not allow rational thinking. If something bad happens, it's my fate. Or if something good happens, it's because of God's will. Why God's will, why not my hard work? I study day and night out burning my ass to get a top rank in an IIT coaching institue and it because of "God's will"?????


----------



## zyberboy (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Well I don't have to believe in something that doesn't exist and there have been no proofs of existence..





			
				shaunak said:
			
		

> If you can prove the existance of god, ill believe you. Why should i believe in something that cant be seen or felt.





			
				amitava82 said:
			
		

> As already said u need proof of existence





			
				avinandan said:
			
		

> Seriously, I would ask anyone who believes in God or ghosts to provide sufficient evidence






			
				naveen_reloaded said:
			
		

> believe in science and realise many things than believing in something which doesnt not exist...
> proof of nonexistence of god is its nonexistence itself!!!!!




hhmmm....so many post asking for proof for the existence of god. 
Then here is the proof , The proof i am presenting here are respected even in scientific community.And i also admit that last yr this time i was atheist but today i am not.
Not only becoz of this proof but also some events in my life.

Some of u may have heard this but in order to understand this fully u must really dig deep,think about it atleast for one day.
dont read dis with defensive mind

First cause(Etiological ) proof can be stated as follows:

   1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.

> yes even for small events has a cause,for example a falling leaf has a cause behind it may be a wind or something else,power cut u know something is causing it,like this every small, even a motion of electron has a cause behind it.


  2. The universe exists and began to exist.
> everyone knows it exist ,there must be a cause which has no cause behind it , something familiar isn't?

   3. The universe must have a cause.
>come up with a event that has no cause behind it, u can't

   4. The cause of the universe is God.

>why not ,universe need a first cause,and universe still exist, for universe to exist there must be a cause...it must be eternal....all things start from this first cause....sound's familiar...yes for long time now holly books like Geetha,bible r saying in a simple way that people could  understand.

Still  doesn't get the grip rewind every event in ur life(has a cause) very fast and to the doom's day(before big bang).Even Big bang need a cause behind it,And u know it has to start from some where isn't? 

THERE MUST BE ATLEAST A SUPERPOWER ABOVE ALL


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> That is a very generalized assumption. That might apply to theists, who have been counciously fed the idea of God since childhood that the idea lodges to the subconscious memory.
> 
> Science is not about 'beliefs' and 'faith' on books or ideas; both of which are imaginary but about 'knowledge' and these 'knowledge' requires thinking, reasoning, hypothesis and deduction. It must also be reproducible in laboratory conditions or observed with the right tools and skills by a lot of people. Philosophically speaking, to a scientist the universe is an adventure and has uncountable mysteries to be explored, the more he uncovers the more satisfying it is.
> 
> People without this open mind and mental prowess would never understand the stimulation so would prefer to loosen their minds in spirituality, leave all to imaginary catharsis and pillar called God and sit back.


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.

Spirituality, philosophy and religion, to some extent, deal with entirely different issues. In ancient times, when people were not so "intelligent" and blessed with scientific methods, this World came up on them as a great creation. Creation, because nothing can exist in void. And for a creation to exist, there must be a creator. Or so the stupid "theists" thought!

Don't fall for the trap Atheists have been planning all along. Science cannot and will never be able to explain all things that already exist. We humans, will all our technology, have looked deep into the space. And we found billions and billions of galaxies, with billions upon billions of stars in each of them. And we haven't seen it all yet. I'm not religious, but I fully understand the limitations of science. There have been times in scientific coomunity when they stumbled upon the idea of a "creator", or a supreme being. But the inherent politics and Anti-Christian-God agenda that lies therein, forced a few to choose different path.

Forget the rituals and stupid elements of religions, gods and demons, mantras and sermons. Forget the priests and pundits and all their propaganda, and then you'll have the core of religions. Is it mere coincidence that Hindu mythology comes pretty close to modern calculations of the age of the Universe? And how do you explain the "oscillatory Universe" in Hindu mythology that is driving the cosmologists wild? According to some recent development, oscillatory Universe theory is probably the best one of all.

Technically, I'm an agnostic. I think it cannot be known if there's a supreme being or not. I think we humans are too full of ourselves to be rational. If you look closely, you are only a high-level abstraction of life. You are made of millions of different alive organisms working on their own, yet you have self-conciousness. And all alive beings are merely composed of the same elements that other objects are made of. The only difference is the order of arrangement.

The common man is always very quick in drawing conclusions. Blame it on the information available, or lack thereof. Ask any good physicist or cosmologist worth his salt and you'll know what science is about, and what it's not. And by the way, you're wrong about exploring the Universe and getting satisfaction from it. From what I know about cosmology, the more we know about the Universe, the less satisfying it is. And more confusing, of course!


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> And by the way, you're wrong about exploring the Universe and getting satisfaction from it. From what I know about cosmology, the more we know about the Universe, the less satisfying it is. And more confusing, of course!



I am sorry to say, you are wrong to assume exploration of mysteries in the universe means a study of cosmology. Cosmology is the study of universe as 'cosmos' or space. Universe consists of subatomic particles to living beings to giant galaxies which puts all branches of science under the purview of universe. It is mentally stimulating and gratifying to unravel and delve into these mysteries for a scientist, to the point of being addictive. Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt: doubts are for the intelligents. The mysteries of the universe aren't confusing, they just become clearer once they are understood.




			
				cyberboy_kerala said:
			
		

> First cause(Etiological ) proof can be stated as follows:
> 
> 1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> ...



Causality is an idea, a philosophy and not an exact science per se and  it can't be used to existence of god. If you refer to use of causality in science, the universe existed because of the seperation of matter and anti-matter and conversion of matter into energy. If god was the cause then what is the origin and cause of god's existence? And using you logic and causality, I could prove Santa Claus comes to my backyard, tooth fairy exists, I am immortal....blah blah... Plus Bible and Gita are all human written books of philosophy and they have been often been found mistaken (human errors) in other spheres that their claim of god in incredible - normal humans made these texts.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> I am sorry to say, you are wrong to assume exploration of mysteries in the universe means a study of cosmology. Cosmology is the study of universe as 'cosmos' or space. Universe consists of subatomic particles to living beings to giant galaxies which puts all branches of science under the purview of universe. It is mentally stimulating and gratifying to unravel and delve into these mysteries for a scientist, to the point of being addictive. Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt: doubts are for the intelligents. The mysteries of the universe aren't confusing, they just become clearer once they are understood.


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.

I don't know about you, but to me - confusion, skepticism and doubt have more in common than the differences. And your statement was quite prejudiced and outright offensive. We've had fine and civil discussions til now; let's keep it that way.

Oh, and I agree with you on causality. There are valid argument against the existance of an "Almighty". Like, "Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?".


----------



## runeet (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

god created science.


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> And your statement was quite prejudiced and outright offensive. We've had fine and civil discussions til now; let's keep it that way.



If disagreeing with you is uncivil and offensive then I'm sorry it will be difficult to be civil.


----------



## Shasanka_Gogoi (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Gr8 Post


----------



## indian_samosa (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

But we can all be satisfied once we die ...as ...the person himself will know whether he exists or not out of his body or whateva.So just wait for a few years.


----------



## sysfilez (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God is Almighty.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> If disagreeing with you is uncivil and offensive then I'm sorry it will be difficult to be civil.


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.

Behold! Science is only a set of mathematical and logical tools bound within some natural restrictions. Big Bang used to be a theory until others were able to gather significant data and facts against it. Science is a mothod, not an answer in itself; hence it differs from theology, philosophy and metaphysics. Science cannot tell if we're living inside a simulation. It cannot describe, analyze or predict things beyond its reach. Surely enough, Universe stretches far beyond any scientist has seen, and that doesn't mean that "unknown" Universe does not exist.

Science has severe limitations. That, it is based on observations and perception. A flatlander scientist living in a 2D world can never realize, even with his mathematics developed within the limitations, that there is more to the World than his plane. Scientists have been continuously trying to find how and when the Universe evolved. Perhaps someday they'll find answers closer to the reality, but can science tell us "What and why the Universe is?"

Remember, science is a method and a set of tools, and should never be compared with metaphysics and philosophy. It's not about "skepticism", "confusion" or "doubt", it's the ability to differentiate between two different things that matters.


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> What you have essentially been saying that science is the answer to all questions and nothing metaphysical or supernatural can exist beyond its claws.



I'd love to see you back up this statement. Science has sufficient answers to the mysteries of the universe (including all in it) to disprove the need to a mystical, super natural god. Science also can explain why people believe in a mystical super being called god. Metaphysics isn't my concern and I don't believe in super natural phenomena, nature is varied enough to have explanations for every observed phenomena, nothing is 'super' for it.
__________


			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Science is only a set of mathematical and logical tools bound within some natural restrictions. Science is a mothod, not an answer in itself; hence it differs from theology, philosophy and metaphysics.



Science is never defined as an answer, it is the search and understanding of facts and knowledge which science really stands for. Neither are theology and philosophy an answers, they are based on assumptions and fantasy and have little evidence to back up their findings, except more fantasy.

Philosophy often relies on scientific methods to verify its findings, so they are pretty interrelated.



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Science has severe limitations. That, it is based on observations and perception. A flatlander scientist living in a 2D world can never realize, even with his mathematics developed within the limitations, that there is more to the World than his plane.



Science is the quest and understanding of facts and knowledge. A scientist living in a 2D world can understand the existence of a 3D world if sufficient observations have been made, it would not be impossible to simulate a 3D image or vision in a 2D world. It is religion and theology which will be bound to think and answer in the limitations of a 2D world, until it gets disproved by findings using the scientific method.

Examples - 

1. We see a flat world, it is scientific observations which gave the concept of round world and scientific technology which finally proved it. Until then the-god-people believed what they were told.

2. Humans lived in a world with gravity, it was philosophy to think everything has a natural tendency to fall down. Yet it was a scientist who questioned it, used mathematics to measure this property of falling down and gave the equation to understand a zero gravity condition.

The two examples prove that with scientific approach, the world around us isn't limited to mere physical existence and imagination. If I were to transport someone from the 15th century to today, they would have thought we were a generation of sorcery and magic.

I can give tons if you wish...


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Science has *insufficient hypotheses* to the mysteries of the universe (including all in it) to disprove the need to a mystical, super natural god.


Fixed for you.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Science is never defined as an answer, it is the search and understanding of facts and knowledge which science really stands for. Neither are theology and philosophy an answers, they are based on assumptions and fantasy and have little evidence to back up their findings, except more fantasy.
> 
> Philosophy often relies on scientific methods to verify its findings, so they are pretty interrelated.


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.

It's alright if you have closed your mind to facts and views other what you seem to be preoccupied with. But don't go on assuming that others are stupid because they don't think the way you do.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Science is the quest and understanding of facts and knowledge. A scientist living in a 2D world can understand the existence of a 3D world if sufficient observations have been made, it would not be impossible to simulate a 3D image or vision in a 2D world. It is religion and theology which will be bound to think and answer in the limitations of a 2D world, until it gets disproved by findings using the scientific method.


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.

Belief in a god is only a hypothesis. I don't believe in one. But I don't have a blind faith in science either - to accept all the crap they keep coming with. Many scientists, and mathematicians in particular, are under false impression that the Universe and everything can be explain with one or a few equations and theories. Hence the efforts in finding a "Unified" theory. You need to understand that science has its limitations. It cannot describe and solve everything.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> 1. We see a flat world, it is scientific observations which gave the concept of round world and scientific technology which finally proved it. Until then the-god-people believed what they were told.


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:
			
		

> 2. Humans lived in a world with gravity, it was philosophy to think everything has a natural tendency to fall down. Yet it was a scientist who questioned it, used mathematics to measure this property of falling down and gave the equation to understand a zero gravity condition.


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:
			
		

> The two examples prove that with scientific approach, the world around us isn't limited to mere physical existence and imagination. If I were to transport someone from the 15th century to today, they would have thought we were a generation of sorcery and magic.


Examples? Sorry if I missed any.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> I can give tons if you wish...


That is almost as much as I can take. One at a time!

Newtonian-Euclidian model was perfect in its day. Not anymore! General Relativity was a sensation in its time. Not so much now. Strings have made the entire Particle Physics look like a joke. There is no certainty at quantum level - you can both exist and not at the same time. And you can sound intelligent and stupid at once! Quantum Cosmology makes everyone's head spin. There is no t=0, yet the Universe was born according to the "facts" and "theories". Still, other scientists disagree and say it may have existed forever, with no beginning in time and no end at all. First, there were 3 dimensions, then 4, and then 10, but suddenly M-theory requies another one! Some have even come up with valid equations for 26 in total. To satisfy their equations, scientists invented "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". "Aether/Ether" anyone?

It's a particle. It's a wave. No, it's a string!

There are no "facts" in science, only observations and conclusions. Einstein's GR is being challanged as I write this piece of junk.

UPDATE:-
Here are some links if you still cannot figure out what science is:
1. *www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/buzz/dinoscience.html
2. *users.marshall.edu/~bady/isc203/science/falsify.html

Many "hardcore" scientists and experts think that since "theories" like Big Bang and numerous others cannot be either observed or falsified, they're not part of "true science". Here's excerpt for you:

"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." SOURCE - *liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

So, if true science cannot properly deal with cosmology, quantum physics, evolution and other unfalsifiable and unobservables, you know it's no better than metaphysics and philosophy.

UPDATE 2:-

1. Eternal Oscilating Universe
-------------------------------
"According to Hindu eschatology the Universe and the circle of its re-creation completely correspond to the individual circle of periodic transfers of the soul, so during the "great break up" the entire Universe is completely emptied, and only Prakrti remains (original indifference and immobility of matter) while the original spirit Purusha draws all souls into itself. After this a new cycle begins. Out of Prakrti a new Brahman appears to create a new world, and the original spirit Purusha and all souls are resurrected (...). The similarity to our model isn't just qualitative. If we calculate the time between one "birth" and "destruction" of the world (4,300,000*1000*2*30*365*24*60*60) we get the figure of 9.76*1021 seconds. It is almost fascinating that the time of one period (or oscillation) of Eternal Oscillating Universe has been estimated at 100 billion years, which is 3.15*1021 seconds, which corresponds amazingly precisely with the "duration of one Brahma's life"..."
From - *www.beotel.yu/~gmarjanovic/etosun.html

2. Hindu Cosmology - *www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=16672

3. "There's a good myth about Vishnu (the lord of the universe) finding out he and his whole universe is only a dream in the mind of Brahman, who is also dreaming of many other universes with other Vishnus and so on, and they all cycle and so on. Vishnu is considerably humbled... not easy to do with an almighty Lord of the Universe." - *blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2006/05/the_infinite_universe.html

Sometimes, deities are introduced only to deal with the average minds, who cannot do and digest all the thoughts and philosophy underlying it. Also, Hinudism is not a religion but a way of living. And, it's definitely different from other religions, not only fundamentally but scientifically. Scientists have problems dealing with a sacred text that states the age of Universe as only a few thousand years, never with the one that come closest to their own findings.

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths.  It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology.  Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang.  And there are much longer time scales still." - Carl Sagan

"A millennium before Europeans were wiling to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions" - Carl Sagan, again.

"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before creation? Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end." - Jinasena, India, c. 900 A.D


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Fixed for you.



Misquoting and pulling words out of context doesn't make you look cooler by the way. Do you thrive in pissing off others and creating controversy? That isn't debate but insult.

I meant what I said - Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe and all in it, which were the domain of theology and it can provide the answers which would make the requirement of God pretty ridiculous. Even if they are not perfect and comprehensive, the have sufficient backbone to shake foundations of 'god' beliefs.



			
				Yamaraj 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.



My opinions are not imported and science is not a western concept. The thread is not in western religious versus science argument, it is on science vs god, which rather means "Does god have to exist in the light of science?". 



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> But I don't have a *blind faith* in science either - to accept all the crap they keep coming with. Many *scientists, and mathematicians* in particular, are *under false impression* that the Universe and everything can be explain with one or a few equations and theories. Hence the efforts in finding a "Unified" theory. You need to understand that science has its limitations. It cannot describe and solve everything.



Science is not a doctrine as your words imply, perhaps you view science as a faith on opinions of scientists. It is not saw, an uplausible idea will be rejected if it cannot be observed and reproduced under lab conditions - pick global warning as example. I admire the efforts to find a unified theory, knowledge leads to enlightenment. Like it or not, most of the technology of today's world were results of years to trial and hit scientific researches which incidentally includes the computer you used to type and the internet which you connected to.



			
				Yamaraj 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.



Can you back it up with proofs?



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Examples? Sorry if I missed any.



If you actually read the two example I gave above, about how scientists aren't limited b their physical surroundings. Gravity and flat world were two of them.



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> So, if true science cannot properly deal with cosmology, quantum physics, evolution and other unfalsifiable and unobservables, you know it's no better than metaphysics and philosophy.



Sorry to burst you rambles, but what does all this have to do with god vs science? Seeing such rants I can't waste my time reading the rest, sorry if I sound rude.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Misquoting and pulling words out of context doesn't make you look cooler by the way. Do you thrive in pissing off others and creating controversy? That isn't debate but insult.


We settled upon this 'insult' issue a few posts back, didn't we?



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> I meant what I said - Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe and all in it, which were the domain of theology and it can provide the answers which would make the requirement of God pretty ridiculous. Even if they are not perfect and comprehensive, the have sufficient backbone to shake foundations of 'god' beliefs.


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:
			
		

> My opinions are not imported and science is not a western concept. The thread is not in western religious versus science argument, it is on science vs god, which rather means "Does god have to exist in the light of science?".


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:
			
		

> Science is not a doctrine as your words imply, perhaps you view science as a faith on opinions of scientists. It is not saw, an uplausible idea will be rejected if it cannot be observed and reproduced under lab conditions - pick global warning as example. I admire the efforts to find a unified theory, knowledge leads to enlightenment. Like it or not, most of the technology of today's world were results of years to trial and hit scientific researches which incidentally includes the computer you used to type and the internet which you connected to.


I have been repeatedly trying to explain what science is, but you fail to pay any attention. It's not my problem.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Can you back it up with proofs?


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>

Well, here is a reasonable "proof" for you:
"The works of the classical Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhatta (CE 476 - 550) deal with the sphericity of the Earth and the motion of the planets. The final two parts of his Sanskrit magnum opus the Aryabhatiya, which were named the Kalakriya ("reckoning of time") and the Gola ("sphere"), state that the earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas, which in modern units is 24,835 miles, very close to the current value of 24,902 miles.[1]. He also stated that the apparent rotation of the celestial objects was due to the actual rotation of the earth, calculating the length of the sidereal day to be 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, which is also surprisingly accurate. It is likely that Aryabhata's results influenced European astronomy, because the 8th century Arabic version of the Aryabhatiya was translated into Latin in the 13th century."

Read more here - *cs.annauniv.edu/insight/insight/maths/history/index.htm



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> If you actually read the two example I gave above, about how scientists aren't limited b their physical surroundings. Gravity and flat world were two of them.


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:
			
		

> Sorry to burst you rambles, but what does all this have to do with god vs science? Seeing such rants I can't waste my time reading the rest, sorry if I sound rude.


Of course you don't want to read and digest it, for it doesn't rhyme with your rheoterics.


----------



## mediator (Mar 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Hmmm....some nice links being put forward! Here's one from me!


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj 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>



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.



			
				Yamaraj 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.



I know clear as crystal what I am talking about, perhaps your lack of comprehenson prevents that point getting to you. Or maybe you need to read with a clear mind. You gave an allegory, a scientist living in a 2D world would nt be able to observe or understand 3D world. I put forward the example how a scientist is still not limited by his immediate surrouding he could, with adequate simulation and observation could still make an equation of zero gravity condition. That encompasses both 'observation' (which means it is observable) and experimentation. And science is not a quest for truth, it is a quest for facts. What is fact from one angle may not be from another, depends on which side of the coin you are on. So your 'unfalsifiable' idea goes to thin air.

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.


----------



## zyberboy (Mar 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

sorry for late reply, exams.





			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Causality is an idea, a philosophy and not an exact science per se and it can't be used to existence of god.
> If god was the cause then what is the origin and cause of god's existence


You are wrong mate,cause and effect  is,  cosmic reality or  cosmic law which drives  every event in our universe.
cause behind god:- that i already said there is no cause behind god,I am not saying here that First cause is a god who knows all ,instead if we simply try to say its properties, it is strikingly similar to wat  holly books are saying.And plz dont say it is coincidence ,we are getting too much  coincidence here.






			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Oh, and I agree with you on causality. There are valid argument against the existance of an "Almighty". Like, "Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?".


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.
If god exist, then he can create a rock that he cannot lift,and at the same time he can lift the rock.






			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> It is mentally stimulating and gratifying to unravel and delve into these mysteries for a scientist, to the point of being addictive. Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt: doubts are for the intelligents. The mysteries of the universe aren't confusing, they just become clearer once they are understood.


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.
First lets  look what  one of the prominent scientist(does't remember his name) has said in National Geographic channel.

""100 years from now people will look our era(present day) and appreciate  the scientist who took great risk to overcome all the confusion & difficulties in their findings and abling them to formulate String theory/M theory, or as a great tragedy where the scientific community came up with empty hand, i would like to see later to happen but there is nothing wrong in preparing for the worst""

So even scientist are confused,but we cannot blame  them because science has a reached a point where its limeted exploration/method won't do.It is really not possible to unravel all the parallel universe and dimensions with science.
 Now science has to  deal with  parallel universe,mutiuniverse,worm holes,Dimension overlapping,Quantum Consciousness. 
And time is calling for different approach,otherwise we will continue scratching surface forever.We cant explore south pole in Maruti 800 even with serious modifications.






			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> 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.


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".
.Science is getting to the point where it requires certain amount of "faith and belief", but less than our old religions .So we can consider science as a modern religion.(it is not argument from design,evolution is well capable of producing something as complex as our eye)






			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Plus Bible and Gita are all human written books of philosophy and they have been often been found mistaken (human errors) in other spheres that their claim of god in incredible - normal humans made these texts.


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.
Hindu mythology clearly say about "Maya" in many situations and look wt  quantum physics states, you can both exist and not at the same time( coincidence ??)

"Hinduism arose from the discoveries of people who felt that they had gained an insight into the nature of reality through deep meditation and ascetic practices. Science uses a heuristic method that requires objective proof of mathematical theories. Yet both have proposed similar scenarios for the creation of the universe."

quote   
****"Although it might be easy for a modern Westerner, raised in a materialistic culture, to dismiss the radical claims of the mystics, it is not so easy to dismiss the most eminent of our physicists, who make claims remarkably similar to those of the mystics. Consider, for example, the words of Werner Heisenberg, the inventor of quantum mechanics:

    ""The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however."""

The Buddha, speaking about the true nature of reality, makes the following very similar claim:

    ""There is that which does not belong to materialism and which is not reached by the knowledge of philosophers who...fail to see that, fundamentally, there is no reality in external objects"*****

If i take the words of Yamaraj(very much valid point) ""Forget the rituals and stupid elements of religions, gods and demons, mantras and sermons. Forget the priests and pundits and all their propaganda, and then you'll have the core of religions. Is it mere coincidence that Hindu mythology comes pretty close to modern calculations of the age of the Universe? And how do you explain the "oscillatory Universe" in Hindu mythology that is driving the cosmologists wild? And wt about maya(illusion)?""

It is the core of religion that really matters.





			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> I meant what I said - Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe and all in it, which were the domain of theology and it can provide the answers which would make the requirement of God pretty ridiculous. Even if they are not perfect and comprehensive, the have sufficient backbone to shake foundations of 'god' beliefs.


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.



What now?? Classical science is slowly leaving while modern science takes its place with its new theories and explanations.I think it is better to look again  what Yamaraj has said in an earlier post.

""Proofs and theories are for the people of Middle-Earth. As you progress to the higher sciences, it comes to you that nothing is absolute. There are no hard facts that you can prove - not in cosmology and not in Quantum physics.""

And finally,i wud like to say,i am not a hardcore Athesist nor thesist.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.


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.

Had I really intended on using an insult to express my frustration in dealing with a closed-mind, I would have used one in stead of a placeholder. It was a sarcastic remark, and you fell for it. 



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> I know clear as crystal what I am talking about, perhaps your lack of comprehenson prevents that point getting to you. Or maybe you need to read with a clear mind. You gave an allegory, a scientist living in a 2D world would nt be able to observe or understand 3D world. I put forward the example how a scientist is still not limited by his immediate surrouding he could, with adequate simulation and observation could still make an equation of zero gravity condition. That encompasses both 'observation' (which means it is observable) and experimentation. And science is not a quest for truth, it is a quest for facts. What is fact from one angle may not be from another, depends on which side of the coin you are on. So your 'unfalsifiable' idea goes to thin air.


Lack of comprehension? Sure! Who said irony was dead?
What does Gravity have to do a 2D World? And regardless of how many gravities and dimensions a flatlander can find, it's still not "hard science". That's why many scientists believe that String/M-theory, Parallel Universes, 26 dimensions, Black holes, Dark Matter/Energy and Multiverses etc cencepts are more philophical in nature than scientific. A mathematician will prove whatever he wants to. Scientists even fabricate result data to make their point. Have you ever heard of Hendrik Schon?

Science is neither a quest for truth, nor for facts. It's only a quest - no strings attached. There are no facts, only observations and conclusions. Scientific "facts" change more often than babies change their diapers.

Quoted earlier:
"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." SOURCE - *liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Why don't you challange them on the "falsifiability" of the Big Bang "Theory"? Either accept that you know little about higher sciences, of stop pretending that you do.

__________


*1.* Another "fact" goes down:
"Scientists break the speed of light" - *www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=47047&src=site-marq

I wonder how many semi-intelligent beings laughed at others on this issue only because they read so in their school textbooks. Again, observation, and not "fact", is the basis of science.

*2. Is the universe a quantum computer?*

1. *www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/play.html?pg=4
2. *www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0386.html

The more we delve deeper, clearer are the pathways leading it all to our conciousness. The rabbit-hole goes deeper than ever thought.

*Read this from an interview with Seth Lloyd:*
"Would it be fair to say the universe is a mind?
You could use that metaphor. And if you did, then you and I and my cat are its thoughts. But the vast majority of the universe's thinking is about humble vibrations and collisions of atoms."

*And compare with this quote posted earlier, which you probably didn't even read - out of intelligence!*
"There's a good myth about Vishnu (the lord of the universe) finding out he and his whole universe is only a dream in the mind of Brahman, who is also dreaming of many other universes with other Vishnus and so on, and they all cycle and so on. Vishnu is considerably humbled... not easy to do with an almighty Lord of the Universe."


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Lack of comprehension? Sure! Who said irony was dead?
> What does Gravity have to do a 2D World? And regardless of how many gravities and dimensions a flatlander can find, it's still not "hard science".



It was an example I gave that scientists are not limited by their immediate physical surroundings if they could theoretically understand gravity they counld understand 3D too. If they lived in a 2D world, they would find about #D world sooner of later, like they understood gravity. Obviously you you are unable to understand what examples mean, I cannot help much in that area.

By the way, in your own drums, you brought up the idea of 2D world, what does 2D world have to do with science and god?



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Why don't you challange them on the "falsifiability" of the Big Bang "Theory"? Either accept that you know little about higher sciences, of stop pretending that you do.



Look boy, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and I never claimed I understand Big Bang or cosmology, I clearly stated in an above post it is not my area. You have a bruised ego at best and arrogance at worst to make such hotheaded spam like this. I have better things to spend my time than waste it on reading your lengthy silly bantering. Goodbye, I am adding another to my ignore list.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Look boy, I am not a scientist, I am an engineer and I never claimed I understand Big Bang or cosmology, I clearly stated in an above post it is not my area. You have a bruised ego at best and arrogance at worst to make such hotheaded spam like this. I have better things to spend my time than waste it on reading your lengthy silly bantering. Goodbye, I am adding another to my ignore list.


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.

FYI, I added you to my growing list of "stupid arrogants" long ago. I would still like to wish you luck, for you'll need it in your profession with this much knowledge and attitude of yours.


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				cyberboy_kerala said:
			
		

> hhmmm....so many post asking for proof for the existence of god.
> Then here is the proof , The proof i am presenting here are respected even in scientific community.And i also admit that last yr this time i was atheist but today i am not.
> Not only becoz of this proof but also some events in my life.
> 
> ...




God aint the first cause

the universe or the hyperspace is the first cause  

Quantum theroy:

if "nothing" tries to create the space and the universe a finite no of times, at once , "nothing" ends up creatint the space and the universe   . thus the universe was formed


----------



## amitava82 (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

so you so called GOD is the cause of everything then what is the cause of your GOD? who created your GOD? you know something can NOT be created out of nothing..


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.
> 
> FYI, I added you to my growing list of "stupid arrogants" long ago. I would still like to wish you luck, for you'll need it in your profession with this much knowledge and attitude of yours.



You could not prove yourself right, forget proving me wrong. All you did is drag the topic out of context and shoot yourself in the foot making 'hallmark of idiocy' comments.  Science isn't a faith or a collection of truths like you imagine, it is an open ended quest for knowledge and nothing..I repeat nothing is without flaws. At least scientists, even the best of them admit that. All you want to prove is how scientists and achievers are a bunch of idiots and you understand the world better than them. You can't think of the universe closer than planets and stars. Oh please...I really have no time to argue and explain with your knowledge level with such idiocy, it is tiring and boring and I have better things to do. There is a saying, "Do not argue with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".

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.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> You could not prove yourself right, forget proving me wrong. All you did is drag the topic out of context and shoot yourself in the foot making 'hallmark of idiocy' comments.  Science isn't a faith or a collection of truths like you imagine, it is an open ended quest for knowledge and nothing..I repeat nothing is without flaws. At least scientists, even the best of them admit that. All you want to prove is how scientists and achievers are a bunch of idiots and you understand the world better than them. You can't think of the universe closer than planets and stars. Oh please...I really have no time to argue and explain with your knowledge level with such idiocy, it is tiring and boring and I have better things to do. There is a saying, "Do not argue with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".


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.

Oh! Take it like a man and suck it up. This is not a private forum. Others have read the posts and commented on yours no differently from what I did. You have little understanding of science, philosophy and metaphysics, and yet you went on writing your usual rheoterics. Now, that you longer have the fuel left, you have accepted the truth, but only during your fits of anger, frustration and arrogance. Shows what kind of a person you must be in your real life.



			
				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.


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.

e-Ego aside, I'm not sure if I would really offend you off the net. I understand that not everyone knows everything - neither do I. But I have a strong desire to understand things around me, and whatever time there is left after my work, I devote it to science, philosophy and the stuff in between. I was only trying to say that even science has limitations, given its methodology and rules. There are many things that science cannot deal with, and that doesn't necessarily mean that there exists a god or a supreme being. It all may just be random and chaos and we don't know yet for sure.

There is no need for the bitterness that has grown inside us. I apologize if your feelings were hurt because of me. But my stance on the topic remains unchanged.


----------



## nileshgr (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Albert Einstien Said- "There is some strong power in this universe which cannot be proved scientifically" 

So GOD is origin of everything.


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

well, he almost broke his brain thinking abt the universe and finally decided to join the majority

another man joined the list of " ignorance is bliss kinda ppl "
__________


			
				amitava82 said:
			
		

> so you so called GOD is the cause of everything then what is the cause of your GOD? who created your GOD? you know something can NOT be created out of nothing..



something can be created outta nothing, and thats how the great tiny ball was formed before the big bang theory.

if ppl bliving in god think that god created itself, same way , i'd say the universe created itself as i said in my abv post


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Vyasram said:
			
		

> something can be created outta nothing, and thats how the great tiny ball was formed before the big bang theory.
> 
> if ppl bliving in god think that god created itself, same way , i'd say the universe created itself as i said in my abv post


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.

_"The Big Bang fails scientifically because it seeks to derive the present, historically formed universe from a hypothetical perfection in the past. All the contradictions with observation stem from this fundamental flaw."_
Eric J. Lerner, 1995

1. *www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/GenRel/BigBangModel.html
2. *www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_problems.html
3. *www.calresco.org/cosmic.htm
4. *www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html
5. *www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060508_mm_cyclic_universe.html

_"In the early 1960's Huston Smith had an interview with the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama asked about the current status of scientific cosmological theories. Smith outlined the Steady State model, the Big Bang model, and the Bang-Bang-Bang one. The Dalai Lama remarked that of the three, the last one was closest to correct. Here is one of my favorite images of a Bang-Bang-Bang cosmology.

*"O King of Gods. I have known the dreadful dissolution of the universe. I have seen all perish, again and again, at the end of every cycle. At that terrible time, every single atom dissolves into the primal pure waters of eternity, whence originally all arose. Everything then goes back into the fathomless, wild infinity of the ocean, which is covered with utter darkness and is empty of every sign of animate being. Ah, who will count the universes that have passed away, or the creations that have risen afresh, again and again, from the formless abyss of the vast waters? Who will number the passing ages of the world, as they follow each other endlessly? And who will search through the wide infinities of space to count the universes side by side, each containing its Brahma, its Vishnu, and its Shiva?"*
-- Vishnu, in the Brahmavaivarta Purana from H. Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, pg. 5."_
- from link #1.

It's not mere coincidence that major physicists were/are interested in Indian philosophy and ancient knowledge. Hindu mythology doesn't propose that the Universe was created by any god. Even Rig Veda mentions that gods came after the existence.

My understanding is that the Universe may have come alive with its own consciousness at some time, and started developing itself. We are, after all, an integral part of the Universe and the life itself started from the lifeless. I think this is what Indian mystics call "unity of the consciousness" of self and the Cosmos. We change because the Universe changes itself, and the Universe is changing because of the changes we go though.

*UPDATE:-*
I just found out that a concious Universe is not only my imagination or a personal philosophy. This is what the Quantum conciousness is about.

0. *findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n6_v15/ai_15447461
1. *home.earthlink.net/~dolascetta/MetaFrameSet.html
2. *www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon3.html
3. *www.quantumconsciousness.org/overview.html
4. *www.thymos.com/science/qc.html
5. *homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/goswam1.htm [very intresting interview]


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Now, that you longer have the fuel left, you have accepted the truth, but only during your fits of anger, frustration and arrogance. Shows what kind of a person you must be in your real life.



Tell me Yamaraj, what kind of person am I? You must be some kind of god messenger or a household fortune teller, are you? *rolls with laughter*




			
				Yamaraj 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.



Neither do I need any of your luck nor do you have any idea of me, my profession, position, age or anything. And most of your crap about how science is only a bunch of unverfiable hypothesis is crap. I would have stuck my head up in dung if I had to listen to such bullshit.




			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> There are many things that science cannot deal with, and that doesn't necessarily mean that there exists a god or a supreme being. It all may just be random and chaos and we don't know yet for sure.



So what were you arguing all about, how scientists are simpletons who come up with a bunch of unverifieable hypthesis. Do you spend you free time so that you find how smarter than scientists you are and boast around? You should join, politics... 



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> There is no need for the bitterness that has grown inside us. I apologize if your feelings were hurt because of me. But my stance on the topic remains unchanged.



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.  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.


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.  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.

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.

As I said it earlier, you are a beaten arrogant idiot. Take it like a man, and don't moan about it any longer. All hail this brilliant, who thinks he is smarter than Heisenberg, Einstein and Penrose. And it didn't take a theory to prove you wrong. Go home!


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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 (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> 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.


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.

Since you have nothing creative to say on topic, I'll be ignoring you from now on. Any personal insult, improper comment, silly remarks will be reported to moderators.

I'm done with you!


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Well the thread is open for all you see and since you admit it, no worries. Everyone can see for themselves who is a boast. And I cannot even bother to report any insults seeing the sheer numbers of it, I learnt something when I was little, "Don't bark back the at dog if it barks at you".


----------



## Yamaraj (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Dogs are better than stupid humans, for even they don't bark without a reason.

Reported.


----------



## Aberforth (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

You didn't have to bother posting that. If it is report worthy moderators will do something about it. I can't help laughing, do you think you are scaring me with your show of <you know>....?   



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Since you have nothing creative to say on topic, I'll be ignoring you from now on.



Who said that?


----------



## planetcall (Mar 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> something can be created outta nothing, and thats how the great tiny ball was formed before the big bang theory.
> 
> if ppl bliving in god think that god created itself, same way , i'd say the universe created itself as i said in my abv post



Those who believe in GOD have a valid point stating that there is a supreme state, the logic to define becomes illogical. Those who believe in Supermacy of science without any input from philosophy cant provide a logic based on such an idle state. You need to define what was there before bigbang and then only the bigbang model becomes ideal. As already said before by my friends here that big bang is a seriously flawed model and whatever logic develops from that root assumption is automatically nullified.
I have a view of GOD which is different to many others as I have already stated that GOD is not an entity which you think in the form of Shiva or Krishna. God is the ultimate source which can not be define and is unquestionable. He certainly is the creator of this universe and as science is maturing we see that various different things are going towards unity. The ultimate unification theory.


----------



## ..:: Free Radical ::.. (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Come back @Aberforth & @Yamaraj.
Both your posts are always a good read.
As for the topic at large, dunno about God but I shun religion.


----------



## prakhar18 (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class 

On the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He 

Asks one of his new students to stand and..... 



Prof: So you believe in God? 

Student: Absolutely, sir. 



Prof: Is God good? 

Student: Sure. 



Prof: Is God all-powerful? 

Student: Yes. 



Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed 

To God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help 

Others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God 

Good then? Hmm? 

Student is silent. 



Prof: You can't answer, can you? 

Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good? 

Student: Yes. 



Prof: Is Satan good? 

Student: No. 



Prof: Where does Satan come from? 

Student: From...God... 



Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this 

World? 

Student: Yes. 



Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make 

Everything. Correct? 

Student: Yes. 



Prof: So who created evil? 

Student does not answer. 



Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? 

All these terrible things exist in the world, don't 

They? 

Student: Yes, sir. 



Prof: So, who created them? 

Student has no answer. 



Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to 

Identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, 

Son...Have you ever seen God? 

Student: No, sir. 



Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God? 

Student: No, sir. 



Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, 

Smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory? 

Perception of God for that matter? 

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't. 



Prof: Yet you still believe in Him? 

Student: Yes. 



Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable 

Protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do? 

You say to that, son? 

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith. 



Prof: Yes Faith. And that is the problem science has. 



Now the student said can I ask something to you 

Professor. 



Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat? 

Prof: Yes. 



Student: And is there such a thing as cold? 

Prof: Yes. 



Student: No sir. There isn't. 

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn 

Of events.) 



Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more 

Heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat 

Or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We 

Can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but 

We can't go any further after that. There is no such 

Thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe 

The absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is 

Energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just 

The absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the 

Lecture theatre.) 



Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such 

A thing as darkness? 

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness? 



Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the 

Absence of something. 

You can have low light, normal light, bright light, 

Flashing light... But if you have no light constantly, 

You have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In 

Reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able 

To make darkness darker, wouldn't you? 

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man? 



Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise 

Is flawed. 

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how? 



Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of 

Duality. You argue there is life and then there is 

Death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the 

Concept of God as something finite, something we can 

Measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It 

Uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, 

Much less fully understood either one. To view death 

As the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact 

That death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death 

Is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it? 

Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students? 

That they evolved from a monkey? 

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary 

Process, yes, of course, I do. 





Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your 

Own eyes, sir? 

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning 

To realize where the argument is going.) 



Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of 

Evolution at work and cannot even prove that this 

Process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching 

Your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a 

Preacher? 



(The class is in uproar.) 



Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever 

Seen the Professor's brain? 

(The class breaks out into laughter.) 



Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the 

Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No 

One appears to have done so. So, according to the 

Established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable 

Protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. 

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your 

Lectures, sir? 



(The room is silent. The professor stares at the 

Student, his face unfathomable.) 



Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son. 

Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god 

Is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & 

Alive. . 



WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT STUDENT WAS? This is a true 

Story, and the student was none other than 



DR. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, President of India.


----------



## zyberboy (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

prakhar18...good post!!


----------



## Vyasram (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

read this

*www.erikweijers.nl/pages/translations/psychology/the-origin-of-consciousness/summary.php



> Julian Jaynes is to cognitive evolution as Charles Darwin is to biological evolution. Charles Darwin provided a coherent explanation of how life evolved from prior life forms. He explained how we got to where we are in terms of our physiology. Dr. Julian Jaynes, in this book, provides a coherent explanation of how consciousness evolved and why man is the only creature to have developed an abstract/introspective consciousness.
> While this book was published in the 1970s, it still is repressed throughout the world because it implicitly smashes major paradigms of human life. For example, it convincingly explains that god and religion were used as a tool of transition from prehistoric man to modern man. This implies that god and religion are no longer necessary.



*www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40344

@prakhar18

that's one of the dumbest things i've heard of. i think itz made up stuff, apjak cant be that dumb and neither can his professor be that dumb

reg darkness and heat:

i can do nothing but laugh at the professor's 'supposed' stupidity, but all athiests are not stupids

reg evolution:

why do people come to a conclusion b4 learning what evolution is actually, simply bcoz u dont see it doesn't mean that itz false. using carbon dating and a little anatomy/morphology , humans have almost completely understood evolution (near 99%) and the super theists are bashing that remaining 1% percent. can those ppl give me a simple radical explanation and proof for the existence of something called god ( dont tell me that this is being repeated by athiests again and again, i am repeating this question bcoz no one of u theists have answered it acceptably) . life is a miracle and i believe that there is no way for another supposed life/life-like form called god to exist

. simply bcoz it has been taught everywhere form schools to homes , for milleniums  doesn't mean that god must exist. you must appreciate the unbelievable ability of humans to not let go of things that they believe is true

as for the professors brain, the probability of finding one in his head is very high (though not entirely possible coz that guy is so dumb   ) and you dont need to break everyone's skull to prove that everyone got a brain ( learn probability ,dude)


@planetcall

dont ask me to re-say the same question , but i just gotta ask it again ,      
"how was god created". if it wasn't created then it doesn't exist. if u think it doesn't have an end or a start , then the same thing applies to the universe.  going by history , god was created by religion (due to superstitious stuff among ppl) and thus the god theory evolved, now ppl have learnt that those superstitions are fake stuff , but they still dont have the heart to leave the god part, and are using different protocols partly related to science like you do ( many humans have enormous will power when it comes to believing in something). now, had your parents/teachers haven't taught you about god, would you have developed this concept on your own it on your own ( if the answer is yes, you are this years' " Most Imaginative Person")



> even if god exists and if he did create the universe, you dont need to pray him or thank him bcoz he doesn't give a f abt u. Or maybe he doesn't even know about you or who you are, he may not even know that life exists on earth. he wud be busy with the googols of alien civilizations and googolplexes of aliens.  and finally, everything happenning in the universe must happen because of him( since there is no external force acting on the universe) and hence if you dont pray to god , itz not your fault;  if you kill someone , itz not your fault;  it you cheat your wife or anyone, itz not your fault......... This is the excuse used by SoaBs like b U s H  and terrorists when they do bad things.
> 
> ""since you got someone to blame something on , do whatever you want"" attitude is one of the possible ill-effects of theism . in athiesm, you control everything in you, not god, so you cant do any wrong thing



to sum it up, itz ignorance from the start of mankind and more ignorance to fight against this ignorance that lets the concept of god to live


dont forget to read the link stated at the beginning


----------



## planetcall (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Vyasram said:
			
		

> @planetcall
> 
> dont ask me to re-say the same question , but i just gotta ask it again ,
> "how was god created". if it wasn't created then it doesn't exist. if u think it doesn't have an end or a start , then the same thing applies to the universe.  going by history , god was created by religion (due to superstitious stuff among ppl) and thus the god theory evolved, now ppl have learnt that those superstitions are fake stuff , but they still dont have the heart to leave the god part, and are using different protocols partly related to science like you do ( many humans have enormous will power when it comes to believing in something). now, had your parents/teachers haven't taught you about god, would you have developed this concept on your own it on your own ( if the answer is yes, you are this years' " Most Imaginative Person")



@Vyasram
Repetition seems to be a part of your posts. You dont read my posts carefully for sure else you might not have jumped on your question. Your question shows your failure to align with the fundamental principles of science. "Same thing applies to universe" is a fallacy as per science because Science denies an ideal state of universe and quests for the reasons. The failure of BigBang is owing to the fact that it starts from the fundamentally incorrect principle of ideal state. God was not created so it doesnt exist is your principle...because you treat Almighty to be a mortal entity like yourself and you know nothing of the science inscribed in Vedas. I trust in God and my explanations are well rooted in this thread. Had my parents and teachers failed to teach me the concept of God and the very foundation principles of our glorious Indian culture, I may have been another vyasram. 
And yes.. I dont mind the title of being called the most imaginative person.


----------



## Vyasram (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

wow, u ppl create ur own imaginary dimensions and define a new type of existence for god no matter how odd/illogical it seems. itz like this

someone creates something and when they ask proof for itz existence or itz birth, he says that he cant bcoz that thing is not in our 'League' and has itz very own dimensions. funnier thing is that it they say that it lasts forever and has no birth,no origin. A lot of Ppl say like this because they dont know how the universe is created and they dont want to know.  the god concept is an alternative for them in the time-being just like that guy in the film 'Matrix'  who says ,"ignorance is bliss"


they are afraid to face the truth and developed the god concept for their own satisfaction. ok, i dont know much abt higher science, so u may be right about the bing bang theory, a lot of science theories have been disproved in the past and this maybe one of them. but dont say that everything in the vedas are science, some of them are stupid imaginations as well. our might must be spent in resolving the puzzle of the formation of the universe and what was there b4 it; and we should not be pleased with a totally imaginary concept called god and be ignorant about everything. 

imagine me, saying that we are actually living in a matrix and we cant get out of it or see it or know anything about it, but ppl just gotta believe it and should feel it.  sounds stupid , with a probability of 1/(googolplex*2.1234325345*10^23)  , but ppl wud start believing it soon enough. such is human nature. the same thing applies to the god concept which has a probability of              (1/.45645645648*10^35 * googolplex)) and yet ppl blive it coz some nerd , thousands of years ago claimed so.

" Curiosity makes a human, a human;
  Ignorance destoys the same "

Yet, no one ever has given me a satisfactory explanation/proof for the god concept(dont tell me that i just have to feel it --- itz like telling me that i'm an elephant in human clothing,in human form and that i just have to accept it without proof and i should just feel it so)


and i dont f'ing know why you are involving this thread and myself with the culture of our country.    deal with the topic alone


----------



## mediator (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> they are afraid to face the truth and developed the god concept for their own satisfaction. ok, i dont know much abt higher science, so u may be right about the bing bang theory, a lot of science theories have been disproved in the past and this maybe one of them. *but dont say that everything in the vedas are science, some of them are stupid imaginations as well.* our might must be spent in resolving the puzzle of the formation of the universe and what was there b4 it; and we should not be pleased with a totally imaginary concept called god and be ignorant about everything.


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? 

Take ur time and let us know.


----------



## Vyasram (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

do u know the vedas? they contain very few scientific information, a fair amount of ethics, and a fair bit of stupidity in the form of imagination

i dont know any of the vedas, but i have read reviews on them,   and just like any religious scripture, vedas too have a lot of stupid stuff

just google to find them

here are some examples 

*www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/Articles/Scripture/Veda.html

*www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/rig_veda.html

*sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/vedas-and-science.html

*www.nonoscience.info/2006/04/30/critique-on-gayatri-mantra-a-scientific-view-by-dr-tanmaya/

*www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2026/stories/20040102000607800.htm  - the best of the lot

in the first link , the author bashes it,

in the second one, u bash it yourself




> Thousand-headed is Purusa, thousand-eyed, thousand-footed. Having covered the earth on all sides, he stood above it the width of ten fingers.
> 
> His mouth was the Brahman [caste], his arms were the Rajanaya [Ksatriya caste], his thighs the Vaisya [caste]; from his feet the Sudra [caste] was born.



is this science, and this s#17 created the caste-concept as well



I believe that itz just a hype by some religious groups, that the vedas are full of science and we believe it coz we can hold pride in it, if it is true (since the vedas originated in India). In the original vedas, fire , rain, earth are all treated as gods(panch pudas and so did the greeks) , and people call it science  |||ly they treat everything stated in the vedas as science no matter how different both are . the vedas are just full of discoveries and superstitions, nothing new there . Had the vedas contained science , India should have been much developed by 0AD itself. how illogical can those ppl get . And they are trying to fool the rest of us too. as one of those authors in the links above said " vedas are just like the lord of the rings, or it is the other way around , now is Tolkien the greatest scientist"

vedas are just like greek/jewish/mayan/........../.........../......../...........  myths


----------



## mediator (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Lol, these links of urs are full of communist remarks and absurd questioning like "If knowledge about science had really existed in the Veds, why then those who had been reading, memorizing and expounding them for thousand of years could not make any scientific discovery? Why was it left to the Western scientists to make discoveries when we had knowledge with us all along ?"
Do I even need to expand this childish questioning by some ignorant person who doesn't who the Indian history of how first mughals destroyed the temples and most of the hindu belongings and then Britishers spread their **** here?


*www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/rig_veda.html
And then this link which an a christian treats the Gods only as a person who looks after everything. If u know about Hinduism well, then u must be knowing all the 5 elements that mark the existence of ur physical body are treated a gods. Its nuthing new. "MAtri devo bhava, pitri devo bhava, athiti devo bhava"! Since ur talking about Vedas, I hope u know their translations as well and y it is said so!


*sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/vedas-and-science.html
In this link the author is having is expert opinions with words like "*According to me*, Vedas for all their mysteriousness can be an interesting and mysterious read but can never substitute or find itself close to any department of Science."! 



*www.nonoscience.info/2006/04/30/critique-on-gayatri-mantra-a-scientific-view-by-dr-tanmaya/
IN other links like such the author/dr tanmaya says "1) In the fan example, the noise is generated by FRICTION between two moving parts (say, the internals of the fan itself or between the blades and the air it “churns” to blow as wind). Is this TRUE with the movement of the Earth and the other heavenly bodies cited? How is the “noise” - the sound of OM - generated in this case? Against what the Earth and other heavenly bodies move, to generate the analogous frictional “noise”? If it is not by friction, what source is it from?

2) If this “noise” can be heard/realized only by Meditation, I AGREE (and believe that the Great Sage Vishvamitra would certainly have done this). But the fan example is ridiculous and the purported “scientific explanation” is baloney (I am sure, Sage Vishvamitra would NOT have come out with such an example)."

He questions y? 




So @vyasram is this the sole argument of ur discussion or shud I say ur externally motivated thoughts toooo? If u cannot get the answer then u think its not scientific? Is that it? So tell me science says speed of light is c and according to science if a person moving towards south with x velocity and a person moving towards north with y velocity, to a stationary observer it becomes x+y. If thats so then y is their a different and unexplained theory like speed of light will remain C to a stationary observer similary? Tell why haven't they still figured out whats the origin of Universe? There r plenty of things like this. Theye even test medicine on animals so as to treat humans. Doesn't science already tells us that animals body composition is different from humans and among humans too we have different characteristics like immunity levels, blood cell counts etc? 


Now science/basic chemistry also tells us if a substance burnt under ideal conditions its weight will alter. So y doesnt the weight of ghee alters? Is the science flawed then? Read this Post #65. U gave the links from some stupid blogs which have statements like "According to me" and their expert opinions and most probably meant to mock these Vedas. But I gave the source direct to an ayurvedic site. Lets see if u have the patience to read it.

Also please enlighten y r ur fella foreigners shocked about cowdung now when infact it has been written in vedas that it was used as counter to radioactivity?


Now shud I tell u about homeopathy toooo. Then lets have it!


> There are two points of view about homeopathy that are in conflict. One viewpoint says that homeopathy should not attempt to meet the rigorous requirements of scientific medicine. It is sufficient that there have been millions of satisfied patients during the last 200 years. *Science is not relevant anyway because it rejects the concept of the energy of the "vital force" which is essential to homeopathy.* This vital force is identical to the concept of vitalism -- a primitive concept used to explain health and disease. And, besides, scientific medicine is unfairly prejudiced and biased against homeopathy. *Dana Ullman [3], a leading spokesman for American homeopathy, says that personal experience is much more convincing than any experiments.* The emphasis on experience shows that most people simply do not understand that good science, based upon experiments, is essential to the development of knowledge.



*So u have it here its experiments that leads the basis of Vedas.* Its no wonder that ur fella scientific americans r getting amazed when they see success homeopathy where a scientific drug fails.



> Homeopathy has existed for about 200 years, *yet reports in the media have suggested that homeopathy is the medicine of the future.*


Now wat u'll say that media fuels absurd stuff?
Source

To save my typing please read here too 

I dunno how come Indians knew about roundedness of earth, astrology, astronomy, medication, music.....etc when the life was just evolving in west? So instead of searching for the blogs and FUD against VEDAS with no proper reasoning, where people have it like "according to me" and only questioning......try to bring some links that have actually brought an end to the "observations" that mark the sole basis of Vedas.


----------



## planetcall (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

mediator , you were quick enough.

The links sighted by Vyasram are written by utter idiotic bastard communists. Giving all senseless thickhead opinions they try to abolish the culture which has been continuing for last several thousand of years. The sanatan religion (सनातन धर्म). You have no right to question the devine authority of veda unless you have read what it really means to millions of hindus across the world. Do some research before giving such shameful presentation of yourself. Indian religion is based on science. The fundamental principles are laid in Vedas. Read here *www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/7348/ 
and look around here

I dont care what ****ing idiots of west remark on our civilization. Better we take pride on our glorious past and having faith in it...lets strive for the future. The history will repeat......


----------



## Vyasram (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

lol, u seriously haven't understood what i was talking about,

science as  stated in wikipedia 



> Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.



learn the difference between science and a fluke(observation)

and the vedas are definitely not science, but mere observations/imaginations ( some of them may be true) bcoz they are not proved in any sense in those scriptures, nor was there any reference in it regarding the researches done in it b4 stating those obersvations.

and stuff like this are in all sorts of mythological civilizations



> If knowledge about science had really existed in the Veds, why then those who had been reading, memorizing and expounding them for thousand of years could not make any scientific discovery? Why was it left to the Western scientists to make discoveries when we had knowledge with us all along ?



and that question is not a childish one, can u answer it

we were just following those imaginative stuff for years and years, and no sort of radical thinking was encouraged in those days, that's where we lost track and backed out of the tech-race... u can say that the vedas are full of science, just to satisfy yourself(if u feel good that way) and the country, but have we done anything big using the vedas in the tech-race. the vedas are just religious scriptures (just like the testaments, qorans, greek stuff), let's face it, and itz just people who are driven by blind faith who think itz science. 

reg those unexplained scientific phenomenon,  like i've said before, those stuff will be explained in the future, simply bcoz science doesn't explain something , doesn't mean that one must blive some imaginative concept written by someone 3000 years ago

if ppl still think that a book talking about a guy wiht thousand eyes and thousand foot high is fact, i could only pity the ppl who believe it ( itz just a fantasy book)

simply bcoz itz indian doesn't mean that it must be different from the other mythological stuff ( patriotism drives ppl in every country to think that their own civ/religion is the truth) greeks say their's is true and so do the mayans and the vedas are no differnent


----------



## planetcall (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I was really pissed off by the amateur remarks of vyasram but since I just saw his picture, now I understand that he is still in his teenage. I suggest you vyasram not to indulge in amateur cacophony full of repetitions but to learn others with a positive attitude. I have no personal notions against you. wish you  best of luck in your endeavours. I hope the debate ends here.


----------



## mediator (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@Vyasram, first u say as


> *vedas are just like greek/jewish/mayan/........../.........../......../........... myths*


And then ur saying


> and the vedas are definitely not science, but mere observations/imaginations ( *some of them may be true*)


So shud I assume that u r not sure of wat ur talking about and unnecessarily promoting a FUD like a steroetypical ignorant communist?

Also there's a huge and clear difference between observations and imaginations dear! Ur most of the science is based on observation if u know that enough. An apple falls from tree and then gravity is obseved and later equations r formed to full fill the necessary constants and then same is done on othe planets. What do u call it?

Its quite a pity that after such a detailed post by me ur still saying vedas r imagination. Thats just full fledged FUD by someone ignorant who likes to nod to wateva theory inventors outside India say and then feels inferior of knowing his identity!

A train moves with x velocity in north and another with y in south. A passenger in either trains "observes" that the other is moving faster and then calculates that its true! Can u tell where is the imagination here?

Saliva has pain relieving elements in it. Read here. Is it a coincidence that animals relieve themselves by licking the wounded part?



			
				by-vyasram said:
			
		

> Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.


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! 



> and that question is not a childish one, can u answer it


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"?



> *we were just following those imaginative stuff for years and years, and no sort of radical thinking was encouraged in those days*, that's where we lost track and backed out of the tech-race... u can say that the vedas are full of science, just to satisfy yourself(if u feel good that way) and the country, but have we done anything big using the vedas in the tech-race. the vedas are just religious scriptures (just like the testaments, qorans, greek stuff), let's face it, and itz just people who are driven by blind faith who think itz science.


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!!



> reg those unexplained scientific phenomenon, like i've said before, *those stuff will be explained in the future*, simply bcoz science doesn't explain something , doesn't mean that one must blive some imaginative concept written by someone 3000 years ago


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.



> simply bcoz itz indian doesn't mean that it must be different from the other mythological stuff ( patriotism drives ppl in every country to think that their own civ/religion is the truth) greeks say their's is true and so do the mayans and the vedas are no differnent


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!!


----------



## chesss (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

hmm I have a book titled 'Vedic Mathematics' . That says a lot doesn't it  surely there were geniuses at that time!  

But are 'vedas' scientific and logical... yeah right lol!!



> "O, man, the sun who is most attractive, takes round of the earth, on his golden chariot through the sky and removes the darkness of the earth" (Yajur Ved 33/43)
> 
> As for the moon, the Veds have only to say that it runs in the space, which is full of water - a universal fact that no one can deny, hence nothing new. (Rig Ved 1/105/1)
> 
> Veds also refer to eclipses - Lunar and solar - but in most imaginative and illogocal form, leading to blind faith. The explanation of a lunar eclipse is given as a demon Rahu apturing the moon. About the solar eclipse, it is said that the demon named Swarbhanu stops the sun in his round. It was released by Attri,a rishi and his son, who rescued the sun from the demon.





> Pandit Shiv Shankar Kavyatirth, a staunch Arya Samajist, has writtena book entitled 'Science in Vedas' in which he has made an attempt to prove ancient knowledge of aeronautics by quoting the following mantra:
> 
> "He looks like an aeroplane placed in the sky. He travels continuously through the three worlds earth, space and sky. Seated in his airborne vehicle, who traverses the whole universe, and who can travel high above the clouds, beholds the light spread everywhere" - 'Yajur Ved 17/59'
> 
> ...


 *www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/Articles/Scripture/Veda.html 
plz someone tell me that above is incorrect, otherwise it would be just too hilarious!!


----------



## mediator (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Hehe, First of all u gave the link from "geocities" that has already been discussed! The link further says


> *Conclusion.*
> 
> The logical conclusion from the forgoing statements is that the Veds do not contain even elementry knowledge of Science.
> 
> ...


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!

And if ur a critic then I'll be glad if u respond to the above 2 posts of mine!


----------



## chesss (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> Hehe, First of all u gave the link from "geocities" that has already been discussed!


oops sorry!




> Its no wonder that ur fella scientific americans r getting amazed when they see success homeopathy where a scientific drug fails.


1. you may want to read  about placebo effect. It is known to heal tumors
2. Even If homeopathy works (some proof is found in the future) then thats okay with science! yes some so called scientists would never accept it, but science as such will change. Thats the basis of science ' it accepts change'.


> Now science/basic chemistry also tells us if a substance burnt under ideal conditions its weight will alter. So y doesnt the weight of ghee alters? Is the science flawed then?


1.Interesting.. any links ? but if the weight of ghee doesn't alters shouldn't the 'dia' burn forever!
2. science is never flawed, there may be flaws in the theory, or the theory may be incomplete. Science is never finished!! 


> about cowdung now when infact it has been written in vedas that it was used as counter to radioactivity?


 Aprils fools joke?? anyways link?



> A train moves with x velocity in north and another with y in south. A passenger in either trains "observes" that the other is moving faster and then calculates that its true! Can u tell where is the imagination here?


 You bet I can  
the imagination is the calculation part. You may say big deal just divide distance by time. But the concept of division is not simple nor obvious nor intuitive!  Just because we have rattoed (ratta) the method of division by heart we don't see it. Without any guidance it will take imagination to discover division. 



> if a person moving towards south with x velocity and a person moving towards north with y velocity, to a stationary observer it becomes x+y.


 x-y or y-x depending where is the observor  Edit: what is 'it' here


----------



## mediator (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> 1. you may want to read about placebo effect. It is known to heal tumors
> 2. Even If homeopathy works (some proof is found in the future) then thats okay with science! yes some so called scientists would never accept it, but science as such will change. Thats the basis of science ' it accepts change'.


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.Interesting.. any links ? but if the weight of ghee doesn't alters shouldn't the 'dia' burn forever!
> 2. science is never flawed, there may be flaws in the theory, or the theory may be incomplete. Science is never finished!!


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?
2. I'm not questioning science! But I believe it has its limitations. Statements like  "if a person moving towards south with x velocity and a person moving towards north with y velocity, to a stationary observer it becomes x+y."  *and*  "constant speed of light in the same example if x=y=C, then x+y also equal to C" ..... how can such statements be true at the same time and contradict each other also?



> Aprils fools joke?? anyways link?


I hope u have come for a serious discussion!



> You bet I can
> the imagination is the calculation part. You may say big deal just divide distance by time. But the concept of division is not simple nor obvious nor intuitive! Just because we have rattoed (ratta) the method of division by heart we don't see it. Without any guidance it will take imagination to discover division.
> 
> x-y or y-x depending where is the observor


Thats ok....I started to think that u r trying to have a serious discussion! I forgot its April 1 !

Neways, since ur trying to joke here (I guess to remove ur boredom ?) then read this cowdung info (which is articled by Dr. T.R. Shantala Priyadarshini, BAMS, MA (Sanskrit); MS (Shalakya) teaches at the Mysore Ayurvedic Medical College and *also is involved with clinical & theoretical research* including spastic/mentally retarded, *retinal diseases, immunity*)........ It will be interesting and I assure it will remove ur boredom!

Also read this+all the sources in the link and njoy how past is being discovered by the foreigner  scientists,explorers!


----------



## Vyasram (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@mediator,  first of all, learn the differnece between science and an observation  .... a guy thousands of years ago saw the sun, he's no scientist, kepler,arya, and newton brought out scientific theories between them, they are scientists

have you even read the vedas, they are just mythological stuff full of fantasy. dont compare the science of ancient india with the vedas  ( itz like comparing cv. Raman with some religious leader)

again and again you are askin abt the imagination part,   i can do nothing but laugh at your thoughts to consider that some 4000 yr old scriptures talking about 1000 eyes people and gods is science ( vedas= observations+fantasy) (science = observations+experiments+applications)

@planetcall -  no point arguing with vedic fanboys. any science that may be left out in the vedas too are not well defined, they too are just observations


----------



## planetcall (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> @planetcall - no point arguing with vedic fanboys. any science that may be left out in the vedas too are not well defined, they too are just observations



You wanted vedas to be a report for PhD....dont you ? You dont know a single bit of great Indian culture. Your vision is blocked by the hatred you have nurtured for your own roots. Science is an evolutionary process. Divine souls who created Vedas provided all the accumulated wealth of knowledge in the encrypted hymns. You need to research because it is not meant for some asshole to take the book and go through the documentation. If vedas talk about the seven colors of the sun and colors of the planets much before the time of galilleo , it shows your mental enigma to accept that. Much of our faith is symbolic. It points to a greater elevated level which only enlightened souls not like you could understand.



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> @mediator, first of all, learn the differnece between science and an observation .... a guy thousands of years ago saw the sun, he's no scientist, kepler,arya, and newton brought out scientific theories between them, they are scientists



How do you know that guy was not a scientist ? Observation is very much a part of science. Newton indeed was a sharp brainy but he was not enlightened by the fact that India had anti-gravity much before he found the fundamental aspects of gravity. India had seen Pluto much before Galileo ventured into constructing telescopes to see the nearby planets. Our astrology didn't develop during the era of Galileo and I hope you agree with that.

I request you to stop shitting around your illogical ideologies and better work towards your pessimistic attitude about Indian wealth of knowledge.


----------



## mediator (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^No point of arguing with a closed minded, ignorant, communist thinking, externally motivated teenager who feels inferior to know his identity. He hates the vedas without actually knowing that even his own parents and elders in family and in neighbourhood might be taking ayurvedic medicines like ashwagandha,brahmi,tulsi etc!! 

@vyasram : I requested u to quote n reply each line of above  2 posts of mine and here u r repeating u r words and showing ur ignorance and closed minded hatred! Shud I assume that u have no further words to chat with us. IS this the only thing u have to say => "vedas are imagination" and repeat it again n again hoping that someone will come and listen to u!

I hope u listen atleast to ur the foreigners whome u like to obey so much and think differently about! I hope the world isn't a fool to be trying ayurvedic, homeopathic medicines and now doing yoga!...Grow up man! I know someday u'll talk something intelligent.


----------



## chesss (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> But wat about speed of light as I discussed?


 Ok now I get ya. You are challenging relativity here! 
1. Have you tried/know absolutely anything about this theory about light's speed being constant.
2. Even if the theory is unexplained whats wrong with that? Science is not religion , where everything just has to have an explanation, even if it means creating humans out of dust, or make the sun go around earth on horses or chariots.



> 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 if you keep adding the 'cloth' part the dis will keep burning forever.



> hen read this cowdung info (which is articled by Dr. T.R. Shantala Priyadarshini, BAMS, MA (Sanskrit); MS (Shalakya) teaches at the Mysore Ayurvedic Medical College





> Also read this+all the sources in the link and njoy how past is being discovered


 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.

BUT BUT even if you are right and vedic ppl had totally kicked their counterparts arse in science and tech. How, how is this related to spirituality/god ?? In fact its a shame that after so much development and knowledge during vedic times all was lost in religion. Blame the muslims/persians, but what are we doing today? preaching sun god? making idols drink milk? Isn't that the most insulting way you could treat the vedas?? Plz don't say they found out all this by meditatio, coz if this was true then haridwar/rishikesh would have been IT hubs age ago. 

I know its pointless of me to try to make you see logic. so I'll end my part here. Hopefully someone reading will take a fresh look ar logic
@Vyasram : I was so much like you .. till i stumbled upon *www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html . feel free to PM me


----------



## mediator (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> 1. Have you tried/know absolutely anything about this theory about light's speed being constant.


IN reply, I wud like to ask have u ever tried homeopathy, avurveda etc that ur questioning its supremecy?



> 2. *Even if the theory is unexplained whats wrong with that?* Science is not religion , where everything just has to have an explanation, even if it means creating humans out of dust, or make the sun go around earth on horses or chariots.


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!



> So if you keep adding the 'cloth' part the dis will keep burning forever.


Why dont u experiment urself?




> 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.


Again ur post misses the discussion about cowdung that counters radioactivity!!



> BUT BUT even if you are right and vedic ppl had totally kicked their counterparts arse in science and tech. How, how is this related to spirituality/god ?? In fact its a shame that after so much development and knowledge during vedic times all was lost in religion. Blame the muslims/persians, but what are we doing today? preaching sun god? making idols drink milk? Isn't that the most insulting way you could treat the vedas?? Plz don't say they found out all this by meditatio, coz if this was true then haridwar/rishikesh would have been IT hubs age ago.


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".

Now u asked for Sun god. It wud have been better if u had googled first coz then it leaves no difference between u and beloved teenager friend here! So read on and *google for more!*



> *
> Sun-Salutation has been described as one of the most important asana in the daily morning Yogic regimen.*For people with limited time, the Sun Salutation is excellent because it stretches and strengthens all the major muscle groups in the body and exercises the respiratory system.
> 
> Sun has been described as the source of energy for all living beings. *It is a well known scientific fact that the morning sun rays have a curative effect on the human body.*


Source

And I most definitely agree that making idols drink milk is most insulting to Hinduism and so r those corrupt pandits who dont have indepth knowledge and r there for only money!!

And about Pandu, I told u to read the posts carefully, but I guess ur still imagining it as April 1? So read em carefully and u'll find many more links pointing to reliable sites!!



> I know its pointless of me to try *to make you see logic.* so I'll end my part here. Hopefully someone reading will take a fresh look ar logic


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!


----------



## Aberforth (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Vyasram said:
			
		

> @mediator,  first of all, learn the differnece between science and an observation  .... a guy thousands of years ago saw the sun, he's no scientist, kepler,arya, and newton brought out scientific theories between them, they are scientists
> 
> have you even read the vedas, they are just mythological stuff full of fantasy. dont compare the science of ancient india with the vedas  ( itz like comparing cv. Raman with some religious leader)



Vedas are not scientific treatise but throwing away their valid theories is pretty ignorant, like the proverbial baby with the bathwater. The researches done by Aryabhata and other mathematicians during ancient Indian times were very close to the accurate ones found today using sophisticated tools. And talking of scientists, those people were as much scientists as Newton, Galileo or any modern ones. If you have idea about the scientific method of observation-hypothesis-theory-research then you would know that. 

And even modern scientific observations are not perfect, twenty years from now we might have a new theory which discards the old ones, that wouldn't mean the old scientists weren't scientists. Science is a continuous quest for knowledge, something which does not fit can be discarded unlike religious dogmas.

I agree with your last part, just because the figures were accurate does not mean the mythologies were exact unless they too have been proven. Kind of logic goes like

Mumbai is a city
Toronto is a city 
So Toronto is Mumbai.

For stating the obvious using one correct figure or fact to justify the whole as absolute follows this logical fallacy.


----------



## Yamaraj (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I'm extremely sorry for not being able to participate in this ongoing debate due to some health reasons, but I'll try whenever possible.

@Vyasram,
I do not have to repeat what Aberforth has said about the Vedas. But I would like to add that if you're trying to compare Vedas with "sacred texts" of other religions, you're clearly misguided. Vedas are a collection of knowledge, both scientific and otherwise - compiled over an extented period of antient times, not by any one person and not bound to the rules of any one belief or philosophy.

To cite an example, here's the Creation Hymn from the Rg Veda.


> 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, bottomlessly 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.
> 
> ...


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.

It should be noted that the cause of downfall of Indian philosophy and science are not Vedas/Puranas/Upnishads or the great ancient scholars - but the superstitious people whose faith in Astrology was stronger than in Astronomy. It's because of the lazy who never got to the core, but fell for the shell in stead. It's because they never deserved the divine poetry.

Even today, faith in science is as strong, if not stronger, as it was in religions in old times. And just as only a few could read between the lines then, only a few enlightened understand the similarities and differences between the science and religions - and the faith involved, of course!


----------



## planetcall (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

मित्रों,

आर्यावर्त की प्राचीन सभ्यता समस्त विश्व की धरोहर है । आर्यों का धर्म सकल विश्व का सनातन धर्म है । *कृण्वन्तु विश्वमार्यम्* के संदेश के साथ यह धर्म समस्त विश्व मे मान्य था । आर्य लोग अति विकसीत विज्ञान के प्रणेता थे । अपने समस्त विज्ञान के भण्डार को वेदों मे संचित किया एवं ग्राह्य एवं सरल बनाने हेतु धर्म मे विज्ञान का कोटी कोटी समावेश किया । हिन्दु धर्म पुर्णतया विज्ञान पर आधारित है परन्तु लोकाचार मे लोग धर्म मे निहित विज्ञान को नहीं समझते हुए कल्पना को धर्म का आधार समझते हैं । जिस परब्रम्ह की व्याख्या की गई वह कालान्तर मे गौण हो गया एवं प्रकृति की जिन शक्तियों को विभीन्न नामों से प्रणम्य माना गया वे प्रमुख हो गए । अशिक्षा के चलते हमारे धर्म मे  भी जड़ता आ गई जो नए विचारों के सृजन मे बाधक होती है एवं कपोल कल्पना, अंधविश्वास एवं व्याभिचार के अभ्युदय की कारक होती है ।
वेद एवं इसमें निहित विज्ञान का आधार आर्यों की वैज्ञानीक धर्माधारित परम्परा ही थी । आर्य विज्ञान के जो नमुने अभी शेष बचे हैं वे हमें उस काल का किंचित अवलोकन कराते हैं । आर्य विज्ञान पर विश्व के अग्रणी देशों मे शोध कार्य चल रहे हैं । प्राण चिकित्सा एवं योग से सभी भलीभांती परिचीत हैं । यह सभी वेदों मे संचीत है । आशा करता हूं हमारे डीजीट फोरम के बंधु अपनी सभ्यता को समझेंगे एवं इसका आदर करते हूए हिन्दु धर्म मे फैले आडम्बर को दूर करने का प्रयास करेंगे ।
धन्यवाद

आपका अपना
प्लैनेटकॉल


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> मित्रों,
> 
> आर्यावर्त की प्राचीन सभ्यता समस्त विश्व की धरोहर है । आर्यों का धर्म सकल विश्व का सनातन धर्म है । *कृण्वन्तु विश्वमार्यम्* के संदेश के साथ यह धर्म समस्त विश्व मे मान्य था । आर्य लोग अति विकसीत विज्ञान के प्रणेता थे । अपने समस्त विज्ञान के भण्डार को वेदों मे संचित किया एवं ग्राह्य एवं सरल बनाने हेतु धर्म मे विज्ञान का कोटी कोटी समावेश किया । हिन्दु धर्म पुर्णतया विज्ञान पर आधारित है परन्तु लोकाचार मे लोग धर्म मे निहित विज्ञान को नहीं समझते हुए कल्पना को धर्म का आधार समझते हैं । जिस परब्रम्ह की व्याख्या की गई वह कालान्तर मे गौण हो गया एवं प्रकृति की जिन शक्तियों को विभीन्न नामों से प्रणम्य माना गया वे प्रमुख हो गए । अशिक्षा के चलते हमारे धर्म मे  भी जड़ता आ गई जो नए विचारों के सृजन मे बाधक होती है एवं कपोल कल्पना, अंधविश्वास एवं व्याभिचार के अभ्युदय की कारक होती है ।
> वेद एवं इसमें निहित विज्ञान का आधार आर्यों की वैज्ञानीक धर्माधारित परम्परा ही थी । आर्य विज्ञान के जो नमुने अभी शेष बचे हैं वे हमें उस काल का किंचित अवलोकन कराते हैं । आर्य विज्ञान पर विश्व के अग्रणी देशों मे शोध कार्य चल रहे हैं । प्राण चिकित्सा एवं योग से सभी भलीभांती परिचीत हैं । यह सभी वेदों मे संचीत है । आशा करता हूं हमारे डीजीट फोरम के बंधु अपनी सभ्यता को समझेंगे एवं इसका आदर करते हूए हिन्दु धर्म मे फैले आडम्बर को दूर करने का प्रयास करेंगे ।
> ...



English please.


----------



## mediator (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^In short bhai is saying to 
1. respect ur culture, 
2. question it only after u have read and understood all about it and tried it (coz some people cant even understand the meaning of the words written in original text which loses its expression when translated to english)  
3. Feel proud to be an Indian!!


----------



## Aberforth (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> मित्रों,
> 
> आर्यावर्त की प्राचीन सभ्यता समस्त विश्व की धरोहर है । आर्यों का धर्म सकल विश्व का सनातन धर्म है । *कृण्वन्तु विश्वमार्यम्* के संदेश के साथ यह धर्म समस्त विश्व मे मान्य था । आर्य लोग अति विकसीत विज्ञान के प्रणेता थे । अपने समस्त विज्ञान के भण्डार को वेदों मे संचित किया एवं ग्राह्य एवं सरल बनाने हेतु धर्म मे विज्ञान का कोटी कोटी समावेश किया । हिन्दु धर्म पुर्णतया विज्ञान पर आधारित है परन्तु लोकाचार मे लोग धर्म मे निहित विज्ञान को नहीं समझते हुए कल्पना को धर्म का आधार समझते हैं । जिस परब्रम्ह की व्याख्या की गई वह कालान्तर मे गौण हो गया एवं प्रकृति की जिन शक्तियों को विभीन्न नामों से प्रणम्य माना गया वे प्रमुख हो गए । अशिक्षा के चलते हमारे धर्म मे  भी जड़ता आ गई जो नए विचारों के सृजन मे बाधक होती है एवं कपोल कल्पना, अंधविश्वास एवं व्याभिचार के अभ्युदय की कारक होती है ।
> वेद एवं इसमें निहित विज्ञान का आधार आर्यों की वैज्ञानीक धर्माधारित परम्परा ही थी । आर्य विज्ञान के जो नमुने अभी शेष बचे हैं वे हमें उस काल का किंचित अवलोकन कराते हैं । आर्य विज्ञान पर विश्व के अग्रणी देशों मे शोध कार्य चल रहे हैं । प्राण चिकित्सा एवं योग से सभी भलीभांती परिचीत हैं । यह सभी वेदों मे संचीत है । आशा करता हूं हमारे डीजीट फोरम के बंधु अपनी सभ्यता को समझेंगे एवं इसका आदर करते हूए हिन्दु धर्म मे फैले आडम्बर को दूर करने का प्रयास करेंगे ।
> ...



Por favor poste em English ou serao sem proposito num debato.


----------



## mediator (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Um se o repspect sua cultura e para respeitar a nação da mãe! Jogo fresco.


----------



## faraaz (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Was sagt du? Ich kan nicht verstehen Sie!!!

Edit: Sie sind nicht die einzige Leute wer kann eine Fremdsprache sprachen!! Deutsche fur immer!!!


----------



## planetcall (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

युयम् बालकाः किमर्थम् स्वभाषाया: अनादरम् करिष्यथ ? किम् युष्माभिः स्वसंस्कृतेः विषये किञ्चित् अपि न ज्ञायते ?


----------



## mediator (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

इयम् चतुर्थशेृणिबालका: संस्कृतेः विषये कोअपि न ज्ञानन्ति !


----------



## zyberboy (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

#$%#@*╙è┌ ?? Where is google language Translator


----------



## mediator (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en


----------



## amitava82 (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*সব গুলওর মাথা খারাপ হও্ে্যেছ*


----------



## pro (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

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...


----------



## mediator (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^Vedas is not somehing to be worshipped! And IMO, we shud have an open minded thinking more than reading such books as "chariots of wateva" and plagiarising the thoughts of the author. If they can read suchbooks, stewpid blogs of ignorant phreaks, then I guess they can read (Sanskrit one if they can) and practise Vedas tooo before criticizing it!


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				pro said:
			
		

> read erin von danikens "chariots of  gods"
> gold of gods
> was god an astronaut
> etc as pdf on esnips.com
> ...



There is no truth in those book. It is a pure rubbish. Yeah, I did read those books.


----------



## Goten (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God sux....Religions suc harder.

No more watsoeva comments.


----------



## Aberforth (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> युयम् बालकाः किमर्थम् स्वभाषाया: अनादरम् करिष्यथ ? किम् युष्माभिः स्वसंस्कृतेः विषये किञ्चित् अपि न ज्ञायते ?



I have a suggestion. Post in English, you're closing the people by posting in your own language. I could easily post in my father or mother tongues and throw you and your pals out of the loop. It is a deabte, not a show of chauvinism.


----------



## mediator (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

 Okies! Calm down man. Its a deal from "his pals"!

Neways for vedas crtitics here r some nice sites that they may wanna try
*www.allayurveda.com/
*indianmedicine.nic.in/html/ayurveda/ayurveda.htm
*www.santosha.com/asanas/suryanamaskar.html

Also they shud do some meditation that is given importance by vedas.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Goten said:
			
		

> God sux....Religions suc harder.
> 
> No more watsoeva comments.



That was really lame.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> I have a suggestion. Post in English, you're closing the people by posting in your own language. I could easily post in my father or mother tongues and throw you and your pals out of the loop. It is a deabte, not a show of chauvinism.


I agree.


----------



## planetcall (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by planetcall
> युयम् बालकाः किमर्थम् स्वभाषाया: अनादरम् करिष्यथ ? किम् युष्माभिः स्वसंस्कृतेः विषये किञ्चित् अपि न ज्ञायते ?
> 
> ...



Thats too lame. The post that started this was written in Hindi by me. In reply it was you who started with dutch. What is wrong if I responded to your post with Sanskrit ? It is much more Indian than Greek. If Hindi is as alien to you as Spanish or Dutch then you simply ignore my posts. Hindi is the language of India and is not confined to a region or place and I dont find glorifying our very own Hindi in our very own Indian Forum an act of chauvinism. thunderbird was polite enough to ask for a translation which mediator as usual was prompt enough to explain and I could have translated the post too if you or anyone else had requested further for it. But instead you tried to show your hatred for hindi by commenting in an alien language. Now who is sarcastic here ?
धन्यवाद


----------



## Aberforth (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> Thats too lame. The post that started this was written in Hindi by me. In reply it was you who started with dutch. What is wrong if I responded to your post with Sanskrit ? It is much more Indian than Greek. If Hindi is as alien to you as Spanish or Dutch then you simply ignore my posts. Hindi is the language of India and is not confined to a region or place and I dont find glorifying our very own Hindi in our very own Indian Forum an act of chauvinism. thunderbird was polite enough to ask for a translation which mediator as usual was prompt enough to explain and I could have translated the post too if you or anyone else had requested further for it. But instead you tried to show your hatred for hindi by commenting in an alien language. Now who is sarcastic here ?
> धन्यवाद



First my post wasn't in Dutch, it was in Portuguese - my mother's language. Second there is no need to Indianise a forum, it is a debate on science not a comparison, "My language is better than yours". Portuguese isn't alien to me but Hindi is, definitely as much as Spanish but this is not the point here.

Hindi as the language of Hindi speaking people, not whole of India, India is a land of many languages and the top 18 of them are constitutionally recognised as official. There is nowhere in the constitution it is mentioned Hindi is the sole language of India. And yes, pushing it down people's throats is chauvinism.

I commented in my language just like you did in yours, I think it is equal, nothing about hatred in there. I am an Indian and I don't have to speak Hindi to prove it, I can as well be what I am and be patriotic. It is people like you who tend to alienate non-Hindi people with your jabs at other languages. Patriotism isn't about speaking someone else's language and copying their cultures but my own.


----------



## zyberboy (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> Thats too lame. The post that started this was written in Hindi by me. In reply it was you who started with dutch. What is wrong if I responded to your post with Sanskrit ? It is much more Indian than Greek. If Hindi is as alien to you as Spanish or Dutch then you simply ignore my posts. Hindi is the language of India and is not confined to a region or place and I dont find glorifying our very own Hindi in our very own Indian Forum an act of chauvinism. thunderbird was polite enough to ask for a translation which mediator as usual was prompt enough to explain and I could have translated the post too if you or anyone else had requested further for it. But instead you tried to show your hatred for hindi by commenting in an alien language. Now who is sarcastic here ?
> धन्यवाद



I can't agree with you ,if every one starts to post in their own language how can we understand each others post? .If i start to write in malayalam and if you criticize me i can say the same thing ,that.Malayalam is my mother tongue and glorifying my very own mother tongue in an indian forum is not an act of chauvinism.How can you say that Hindi is not confined to a region...you may feel i am not patriotic....but thats the truth.Even though Hindi is our national language n 3rd in the world, most of the people in South india dont understand hindi.And forcing others to use the  language that  he dont understand is not good ,it may work in communist china but not here.Blindly fighting for a language is same as fighting for a religion.I am not very good in english,but most of the post in this forum is in eng n every one understand's it Lets keep it like that.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> I am an Indian and I don't have to speak Hindi to prove it, I can as well be what I am and be patriotic. It is people like you who tend to alienate non-Hindi people with your jabs at other languages. Patriotism isn't about speaking someone else's language and copying their cultures but my own.


yes


----------



## Goten (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> That was really lame.
> 
> 
> I agree.


N ur really one heck of a lame a55.

Huh.

God believer or wat do I call u....Namesake athiest.

LOL.

Peeps r fighting over languages n all.

Debating on da internet.

Wats the use.

I am gonna post in %&$^&^%$ from now on.

Huh.

Peace!!!


----------



## mediator (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^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 !


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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 !



lool.


----------



## planetcall (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

We have had a fairly long debate over the language which has already proved its worthiness with its verdict. We need not debate over it again. There will be a few elements in this country who would like to show there hatred against a particular Indian language instead of showing politeness and thereby seeking an explanation and expressing their inability to understand the same. 
We already have an excellent debate going on with equally excellent ideas pouring in. Stick with the topic.


----------



## deadlyvenom (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

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


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.
> ...



Could you tell me which verse is it from.


----------



## Goten (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***Science Or God?****



			
				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.
> ...



"What god wants him to do"

I really hate when people beleive or even think there that is someone or something for no reason who wants, expects, sees and yeah controls wat we do eat n ****. Science has not given us  all the answers but that doesnt mean that there is god. Its faith of millions wich is keeping god alive n its time wich is their weapon. God believers are so stubborn that they really dont want to reason at all n just believe wat people have been believing for the past zillion trillion I dunno how many years. Its a real pity that right now I am sitting with two of my frens ( Playing Counter Strike) who beleive the same.

Peace~~~!


----------



## Aberforth (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> We have had a fairly long debate over the language which has already proved its worthiness with its verdict.



There was no verdict, the topic moved to personal attacks after which it was closed. Look again.



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> There will be a few elements in this country who would like to show there hatred against a particular Indian language instead of showing politeness and thereby seeking an explanation and expressing their inability to understand the same.



Maybe you need to heed your own words. Every non-Hindi language is 'alien' to you. And it is weird when you post things in Hindi when you can post in English, sounds like chauvinism. I could start posting in Bengali or Portuguese and let everyone ask politely for translation after my every post. 

No one hates any language, it is stupid to do so as language is a personal thing and culturally connected. And the idea 'superiority' or 'worthiness' of language is another idiocy, language is an identity of the people with that language - not a status symbol. No wonder we have separatists and militants, if northern languages and culture is ideologically forced fed to others, there is bound to be resistance.

Please stop creating a pointless argument and divert a debate. It is easier to post in English or give a translation with your post, you know.


----------



## deadlyvenom (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@ 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 (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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..



Well i feel this is what you are talking about :-


  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
_            Hebrews 11:6 (King James Version)_


----------



## Goten (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***Science Or God?****



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> Well i feel this is what you are talking about :-
> 
> 
> But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
> _            Hebrews 11:6 (King James Version)_



What a mind blower Thunder.

LOL.

Holy Books are nothing but just ways to give a upper hand to god.

Blah this bla that.

Humans dont need holy books to think they know wats best for them.

One day will come when there will be no GOD but only HUMANITY.

I hope to see that day.

What about you.

Peace~~~!


----------



## mediator (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> Humans dont need holy books to think they know wats best for them.


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?


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***Science Or God?****



			
				Goten said:
			
		

> What a mind blower Thunder.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> ...




Did i address that message to you?. If else throw the computer and disconnect the internet if you can not keep on saying things which does not make any sense. I would send you in wirlpool and in path of confusion if you dont shut yourself up. This is the last time i say it to you.

Also Holy Bible is most and popular read book around the globe. Bible can easily defeat your school,college,engineer book. Those book are nothing next to Bible.


----------



## Yamaraj (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***Science Or God?****



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> Bible can easily defeat your school,college,engineer book. Those book are nothing next to Bible.


Now that's a bit extreme, isn't it?


----------



## Aberforth (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: ***Science Or God?****



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> D
> Also Holy Bible is most and popular read book around the globe. Bible can easily defeat your school,college,engineer book. Those book are nothing next to Bible.



Hate to point that out but popularity of a book does not mean it is true, I mean copies of book sol =! fact and truth. Would you consider harry Potter Books as fact? They are next to Bible in the number of copies sold and well, Bible had a 2000 year head start in at least 7 versions. I have 3 of them in my house, two gifted and one King James version I bought. 

And talking about readership, if you make something faith based and should be read every evening/morning for better eyesight and pleasing god no wonder readership will rise.


----------



## Goten (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: ***Science Or God?****



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> Did i address that message to you?. If else throw the computer and disconnect the internet if you can not keep on saying things which does not make any sense. I would send you in wirlpool and in path of confusion if you dont shut yourself up. This is the last time i say it to you.
> 
> Also Holy Bible is most and popular read book around the globe. Bible can easily defeat your school,college,engineer book. Those book are nothing next to Bible.


 
Well Mr. Thunder I think may be ur a lil mental.

Bible is nothing but a religious book promoting Christianity by ne means.

By the way Mr. Thande....I grew up in a christian family but hate to call myself a christian. I have made it clear to my parents that I never n wont ever believe in something that has nething to do with god.

Mr. Wisdom Of Crap....My grandparents were converted into christians by the ****ing missionaries from UK for the price of food n land coz they were extremely poor. <snip>.

Peace~~~!


----------



## planetcall (Apr 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> There was no verdict, the topic moved to personal attacks after which it was closed. Look again.



There indeed was a verdict and it was the result of the poll. You better have a look too. The thread was closed because some people were out of logic and repeating the same thing.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Maybe you need to heed your own words. Every non-Hindi language is 'alien' to you. And it is weird when you post things in Hindi when you can post in English, sounds like chauvinism.



That shows you dont understand english either. I love all the languages and being currently in a non-hindi state I am also trying to learn the local language here. Time and again I have tried to show my penchant for other languages and in particular for Indian languages. If it sounds chauvinistic to you when I post in Hindi then simply dont read my post. Swami Vivekanand spoke in Hindi in USA and people like you must have credited him of chauvinism. If there are enough people in India like you then a day will come when applying a tilak on the head would be an act of chauvinism. I am not at all concerned what sounds chauvinistic to you. You are free not to read my posts.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> No one hates any language, it is stupid to do so as language is a personal thing and culturally connected. And the idea 'superiority' or 'worthiness' of language is another idiocy, language is an identity of the people with that language - not a status symbol. No wonder we have separatists and militants, if northern languages and culture is ideologically forced fed to others, there is bound to be resistance.



Now I would say you heed your own words. There is no superiority issue if I posted in Hindi. The idiocy is the response made after that post was already explained in english. Nobody claimed a language to be someone's status symbol. It has already been talked, debated and well established that there is no separatist movement required against hindi or any other indian language. Some people talk to go for war and blood and claim it to be a cultural invasion. Nothing more stupid can be thought of than this.



			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Please stop creating a pointless argument and divert a debate.



I wonder why you repeated my words. Were you out of ideas ? I already stated this debate is good enough for the discussion over the stated topic and we dont want to start the language fight again when we already have debated and inference already drawn. 
मेरे लिए हिन्दी एवं संस्कृत मे टंकण करना उतना ही सरल है जितना अंग्रेजी मे । मैं समयानुसार हिन्दी मे अपने विचारों की प्रस्तुती करता रहुंगा । आपका उत्तर सदैव अपेक्षित रहेगा ।
धन्यवाद
प्लैनेटकॉल


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 7, 2007)

*Re: ***Science Or God?****



			
				Goten said:
			
		

> Well Mr. Thunder I think may be ur a lil mental.
> 
> Bible is nothing but a religious book promoting Christianity by ne means.
> 
> ...


 
Ok.

Goodbye. Iam leaving this forum for good. 

Goodbye Aberforth,S18000 and Vimal.


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Apr 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Huh?Whats the point in leaving?If you find a post offending,report it!


----------



## s18000rpm (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@thunderbird.117, c'mon man why do you wanna leave. if you dont like something, leave it, (take mac vs. windows as an example).

btw this IS fight club, isnt it? 

vimal is also right.


----------



## shantanu (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

hey thunderbird... where r u leaving... why r u hurt... man.. come back..



			
				Goten said:
			
		

> Well Mr. Thunder I think may be ur a lil mental.
> 
> Bible is nothing but a religious book promoting Christianity by ne means.
> 
> ...


 
hey GOTEN... mind your words to members... you cant personally say anything to anyone... READ FORUM RULES>>> you are reported...


----------



## Goten (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Yeah this is fight club.

Rational  ideas of i guess younger generation can only b digested if u think very very much rational n open minded.

I have been part of many forums n even moderated some.

I am leaving blah this bla that. Look at you. Are u a sissie. Nehow leave if ur that weak.

LOL.



			
				shantanu_webmaster said:
			
		

> hey thunderbird... where r u leaving...  why r u hurt... man.. come back..
> 
> 
> 
> hey GOTEN... mind your words to members... you cant personally say anything to anyone... READ FORUM RULES>>> you are reported...



I cannot help it.

U cannot even express urself coz people cannot tolerate a word against god. Is this fight club or wat.

Huh.

Peace~~~!



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> Did i address that message to you?. If else throw the computer and disconnect the internet if you can not keep on saying things which does not make any sense. I would send you in wirlpool and in path of confusion if you dont shut yourself up. This is the last time i say it to you.
> 
> Also Holy Bible is most and popular read book around the globe. Bible can easily defeat your school,college,engineer book. Those book are nothing next to Bible.



Yeah now look at him. Who the hell is he to tell me to disconnect n shut up.

Cannot tolerate a word against GOD.

Yeah report him too coz I feel offended. Who the hell is he to tell me all that.

By the way i neva used bad language n just replied for wat he said to me.

LOL.

Peace Lost~~~!


----------



## shantanu (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

mind it again GOTEN... you commented him personally as "mental" this is not good. read forum rules...  and again mind your language..... reported again... 

and thunderbird is a very nice guy as i know him... and he has not done anything to be reported..


----------



## Goten (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				shantanu_webmaster said:
			
		

> mind it again GOTEN... you commented him personally as "mental" this is not good. read forum rules...  and again mind your language..... reported again...
> 
> and thunderbird is a very nice guy as i know him... and he has not done anything to be reported..



U are just impossible.

Calling some1 mental makes me a murderer.

Nehow report one more time let see wat happens.

Nothing will happen as I haven't done nething wrong.

So report again n again if u like.

HUH.

Peace~~~!


----------



## Asfaq (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Calm down kids! Sheesh.. personally, I dont think you should post in threads where you cannot handle radical and/or ubsurd ideas.. grow up fellas!

@Goten : Am keeping an eye on you.. the comment on the Bible was uncalled for.. you have to be logical.. not inflamatory


----------



## shantanu (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Hello Mr. MOD.. i justwanted to ask that are personal comments not  out of rule...


----------



## Goten (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Asfaq said:
			
		

> Calm down kids! Sheesh.. personally, I dont think you should post in threads where you cannot handle radical and/or ubsurd ideas.. grow up fellas!
> 
> @Goten : Am keeping an eye on you.. the comment on the Bible was uncalled for.. you have to be logical.. not inflamatory



Mr. OLD.

I am watching u....ur not even a priveleged or old member.

Thanks for ur sympathy or wateva....Keep it to urself bro.

Peace~~~!


----------



## shantanu (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

goten , dont you have any respect for MOds too.. how many posts you have 36... the person matters , not the posts or time he or she spents on forum. quality is to be seen... (reported)


----------



## Goten (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				shantanu_webmaster said:
			
		

> Hello Mr. MOD.. i justwanted to ask that are personal comments not  out of rule...



Hmmm.

Peace~~~!


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Ok Goten.

Enough of flaming other members. I understand you are a immature little kid just born out of your mother wombs dont know anything. I forgive you for the words you spoke to me like Mr.Thande and Mr.Wisdom of Crap and so on. I also understand that they are so chruches forces other people to convert and harass them. Which is totally wrong. Scriptures does not talk about those things. A true christians will not do anything like that.

Thank you for listening.

Least you can do is respect the mods in here. Thank you again.


----------



## Asfaq (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@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 ). 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!

@Goten: when u read this, hope you are a better person!


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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 ). 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!
> 
> @Goten: when u read this, hope you are a better person!



I came back mainly because i should not run away and hide from people. I have seen people who acted rudely to others and later they improved. If they did not improve they are forgotten.  

Well Mods should be respected mainly due to their work. Mod are like police. If we say dont respect the police you can imagine how the world will be most importantly military. . Hope you got my point.


----------



## shantanu (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

then mods should be called COPS  ROFL....

FEAR THE COPS 

you are right thunderbird.....


----------



## mediator (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> Ok Goten.
> 
> Enough of flaming other members. I understand you are *a immature little kid just born out of your mother wombs dont know anything.* I forgive you for the words you spoke to me like Mr.Thande and Mr.Wisdom of Crap and so on. I also understand that they are so chruches forces other people to convert and harass them. Which is totally wrong. Scriptures does not talk about those things. A true christians will not do anything like that.
> 
> ...


@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.


> The Debate Zone. Sensitive and controversial topics will be discussed here — only the thick-skinned should enter


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!


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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!
> 
> ...



See his talk page first then say it.


----------



## mediator (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Post #237


			
				thunderbird.17 said:
			
		

> goten said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like ur post!


> See his talk page first then say it.


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!

Non-believers always have the same logic that its illogical!
If u think its lame, then reason why its lame too! I hope u know whats posting without a good reason is called here!!


----------



## Arsenal_Gunners (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Asfaq is a new guy in digit
(sorry for off topic)


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Post #237
> 
> Looks like ur post!
> 
> ...



So calling God sux is a good thing?. So that is not lame?. Ok fine. Keep that yourself. 

Oh well. Back to real life.


----------



## mediator (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Well, I presume ur a christian! Have u ever seen foreigners out there in europe and US and how much they make fun of the characters related to their own religion. I can give u links if u want. But I never ever saw any Indian Christian protesting to that in News channels or any friend of mine protesting like such. Do u think its alright if foreigners make fun like such? Also the sayian never pointed to any religion directly in his first post either! Why r u so concerned then? And if u really r concerned then u shud have reasoned as well! So what really is lame here is the hypocrisy of some Indians!!

So if u wanna debate, then please post reasonable points too. Neways there r more science vs religion related discussion out of this thread.
U may wanna read all those too!


----------



## Richardwu (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science and Religion both cant be compared to each other in any sense.

Making fun of any religion and religious values is equally sin full, these things should not be given hype. Hurting anyone in a forum or a private chat is also not good. Everyone should think what he is saying.

Mediator--- Did you ever think of what are you saying.. Debate is always on good points, you cannot take any point to make other go crazy. Just think to this, You have repeated a word several times. this is not debate-this is real fight. A fight club does not mean that you can really fight in it. just look at the posts made in this thread, they show you how bad thinking is in minds of people.


----------



## mediator (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^I know brother and I do think plenty of times before posting! And what r the "good points" in debate u r talking about? Who says "A fight club does not mean that you can really fight in it" ? Have u ever looked around in the FIGHT CLUB section before? Have u ever seen the reservation and similar threads which have people's sentiments attached to it? Disucssions can happen in any section of this forum, but then whats the relevance of FIGHT CLUB? Do I need to re-show the warning posted in front of this section?

And yes, I have been looking at the posts not only in this thread but the posts in the entire forums for the past 2 years. People do make fun of hinduism toooo, but shud I bash them all? Isn't it better to question them as to what makes them think that and then debate/FIGHT according to that instead of replying in a similar manner and calling him "lame"?

If u think the guy is a kid, then treat him like one. Forgive him! Why r u bashing him? If u think u need some respect, then think again kids also need respect and hate when they r ignored! 

There's a saying in hindi that elders in my home say a lot that means " Treat a kid below, 13 (teenage) like a kid.....scold him,but dont ignore him. Then treat a teenager with respect.....don't even scold him, but respect his opinions and make him understand with love and then when he grows up......leave him to his will, but be there when he needs u"!  

I can't understand..... If u really think the guy is acting lame, then y r u doing the same? Isn't it better to ignore and debate with someone who is really putting up the points? But I can't see the basher's gang doing that tooo! Did the guy say "u sukc or urs xyz sukc" in his first post? I don't understand y, even make an issue out of it?


----------



## planetcall (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Grrrrrrr.....lets not spoil the flow of logic. Stick to the topic and debate over it.


----------



## Goten (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

LOL.

It was bad of me to use slangs n all. But in real life of many athiests n non-believers I have seen n know how much people hate the concept of god.

Nehow no more cursing n all.

But really Believers can never be argued with. I attended a conference some days back in my college concerning Jesus n Bible. They told everything to justify Christainity n Jesusand also at the end they said that BIBLE IS THE ONLY BOOK WHICH IS NOT QUESTIONABLE N ITS THE GREATEST OF ALL BOOKS. What do u say about that. This was said by a mid aged man. I literally walked out of the hall after listening to all that.

I really believe I will neva b able to see a world of HUMANS before I die. alll I see is HINDU MUSLIM CHRISTIAN etc.

Peace~~~!


----------



## jamyang312 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

just becoz we dont have any resons for some ques or some phenomenons,,,,,,,using god's name is a gud excuse,,,,,,,,,nyway,,,,,hmmm,,,man,,,,,ryt now i said this,,,now if i go to a seminar on god,,,i will contradict myself......


----------



## Quiz_Master (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science.......FOR me.

I don't believe in GOD.

Science.......FOR me.

I don't believe in GOD.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ^I know brother and I do think plenty of times before posting! And what r the "good points" in debate u r talking about? Who says "A fight club does not mean that you can really fight in it" ? Have u ever looked around in the FIGHT CLUB section before? Have u ever seen the reservation and similar threads which have people's sentiments attached to it? Disucssions can happen in any section of this forum, but then whats the relevance of FIGHT CLUB? Do I need to re-show the warning posted in front of this section?
> 
> And yes, I have been looking at the posts not only in this thread but the posts in the entire forums for the past 2 years. People do make fun of hinduism toooo, but shud I bash them all? Isn't it better to question them as to what makes them think that and then debate/FIGHT according to that instead of replying in a similar manner and calling him "lame"?
> 
> ...



 I copy that.
Mediator. You made me ur fan. Really kids should not be ignored. Even grown ups had been a kid before.


----------



## abhijangda (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Friends my thinking is different. I believe in both science and god.


----------



## Aberforth (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> If there are enough people in India like you then a day will come when applying a tilak on the head would be an act of chauvinism.



Forcing everyone to wear tilak on their head would be chauvinism.



			
				planetcall said:
			
		

> I wonder why you repeated my words. Were you out of ideas ?



I was unaware you owned copyright on ideas. Did the Hindutva movement gave you copyright to what I posted?


----------



## planetcall (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ worthless to comment over.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Haha.


----------



## Goten (Apr 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Now this topic is really boring.

Haha.

Peace~~~!


----------



## amol48 (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

The reason for creating the concept of 'GOD' by mankind was to create someone who peolple think is above all and should fear Him. And hence due to that fear, they would do the 'Right' things. But in the medieval age like every other thing, this concept was misuderstood and we know the result of it today. Most of the people do the spiritual things without knowing the exact reason behind it. When asked, you get a reply, "Do it coz everyone in past has been doing it!" 
But as sience itself says, 'To deny the existence of something, you have to prove it'.  Now since it's not proved by science that GOD is *not there*, i don't oppose it either. But as far i am concerned, i am with science.


----------



## speedyguy (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

science is explainable....

GOD is a belief...

i dunt dis-respect GOD... but dunt believe on him either... will surely do wen i c him or may b i sense him practically... ppl say GOD is wit u...where is he? i dunt c him.... n if he is wit me y m i facing difficulties....

m posting this message not becoz GOD is wit me..but a technology is thr wit me....n i can explain how its working n y is it real....
no 1 can explain real existance of GOD.... all ppl can do is 2 believe n ask others 2 believe...

as amol48 said....ppl think some1 is above them from whon they fear....then i have some1 who is above me n i respect d most..... they r my GOD, they gave me life... they made me live  my life...they made me wat i am today... they r my parents...

ps: sry for being emotional...
Enjoy~!


----------



## amol48 (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@speedguy

same applies for me buddy... but in general this was the concept during ancient times. _lekin uski to dhhajiya ud gayi abhi_


----------



## solomon_paulraj (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God created Science


----------



## amol48 (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@Solomon

That doesn make sense to me!!


----------



## thunderbird.117 (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				amol48 said:
			
		

> @Solomon
> 
> That doesn make sense to me!!



Not much to understand. God use science and almost everything to his advantage to  make us understand who the creator is.

It is foolish thing to say that there is no God. If God proved to everyone he exist. They is no need for faith.


----------



## solomon_paulraj (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science explains everything, but God explains science.


----------



## speedyguy (May 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

can ne1 explain how GOD explain science....n wen he did so

Enjoy~!


----------



## thunderbird.117 (May 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				speedyguy said:
			
		

> can ne1 explain how GOD explain science....n wen he did so
> 
> Enjoy~!



I will tell in simply way. God is showing,explain,teaching science every single second. No one may notice it will take time for us to dig into that. 

Dont try and to underestimate God and never challenge.

 He works in a mysterious ways.


----------



## speedyguy (May 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

ppl r tryin 2 notice it since 100s of yrs...ok wil wait for his mytery to open up...lets hope it does!!!

lemme giv a perfect example in my city....

thr was a sudden hype dat lord ganish sucked milk by a divotee from his spoon...twas a complete hype all over d city even in news channels n papers...then some "samajhdar" ppl figd out since twas a statue of mud n other chemicals wich absorbd milk water content which reduced qnty of milk....dats science...d divotees still dun wan this explaination...they just wanna beleive on it witout reason...thats imagination...not practical

even all pujaris who r called closest to god...he will make u tons of promisses wit name of god....ask him 2 serve u witout money...he will kick u out...
i faced it everywhr

Enjoy~!


----------



## vish786 (May 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ^I know brother and I do think plenty of times before posting! And what r the "good points" in debate u r talking about? Who says "A fight club does not mean that you can really fight in it" ? Have u ever looked around in the FIGHT CLUB section before? Have u ever seen the reservation and similar threads which have people's sentiments attached to it? Disucssions can happen in any section of this forum, but then whats the relevance of FIGHT CLUB? Do I need to re-show the warning posted in front of this section?
> 
> And yes, I have been looking at the posts not only in this thread but the posts in the entire forums for the past 2 years. People do make fun of hinduism toooo, but shud I bash them all? Isn't it better to question them as to what makes them think that and then debate/FIGHT according to that instead of replying in a similar manner and calling him "lame"?
> 
> ...


@ 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 religion
no religion is perfect... guys... tat is all i can tell... so plz dont fight....
an argument never has an end... it keeps on growin point by point...


----------



## ancientrites (May 10, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

definately God and what the hell is wrong with the thread starter lmao at athiest.


----------



## solomon_paulraj (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God cannot be seen in idols or pictures, its the mistake of humans to depict God in such forms. God cannot be seen, (put it this way, its a mysterious science to explain God). 

you cannot estimate the power of God by what the people do.. you should estimate the power of God by what people cannot do... 

Science on the other hand is trying to give explanations to everything on earth and beyond, but it misses out in one thing... why we humans think like that... This is called supernatural...


----------



## thunderbird.117 (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				solomon_paulraj said:
			
		

> God cannot be seen in idols or pictures, its the mistake of humans to depict God in such forms. God cannot be seen, (put it this way, its a mysterious science to explain God).
> 
> you cannot estimate the power of God by what the people do.. you should estimate the power of God by what people cannot do...
> 
> Science on the other hand is trying to give explanations to everything on earth and beyond, but it misses out in one thing... why we humans think like that... This is called supernatural...




I totally agree.


----------



## vish786 (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*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


----------



## fun2sh (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

i say it like this


Nobody is perfect,
Perfect is God only;
Therefore, God is Nobody.
Therefore, He does not exist.


----------



## Quiz_Master (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I am in this world since last 18 years . And I am a born athiest.
Still nothing bad happened to me. I don't run to god for every single desire. I trust only myself. 
And I am very successful, more then successful then those who believe in god thingy. So I guess there is no such things as god. Its just Nature who controlls us.


----------



## kalpik (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Exactly! I wanna ask all people who believe in god that what's missing in MY life that is there is YOUR lives? What am i missing?


----------



## vish786 (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				kalpik said:
			
		

> ^^ Exactly! I wanna ask all people who believe in god that what's missing in MY life that is there is YOUR lives? What am i missing?



wat missing??? ur lives???  can u reframe the sentence i didnt understand wat ur tryin to tell


----------



## Quiz_Master (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ If I am understannding him right he (and I) means If we don't believe in god is that mean that we are missing something.
It means that does those who believe in God live a better life?

No naa. Why believe in god when there will be no effect in your life no matter you believe in god or not.

Why believe in anything who is indirectly the reason of all differences between human.


----------



## karnivore (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

“Religion is, indeed, the *self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.* ......This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its *encyclopedic compendium*, its *logic in popular form*, its *spiritual point d'honneur*, its *enthusiasm*, its *moral sanction*, its *solemn complement*, and its *universal basis of consolation and justification.* ......Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the *sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.*” 

These are the famous words by Carl Marx, and although said in a political context, is just as much relevant in sociology. A brief explanation of the above quote is that:

U need God/religion if u r running low on self-belief, confidence and conviction.

U need God/religion if u r looking for an excuse or justification for all that u do or intend to do.

U need God/religion if u r looking for an easy explanation for all that u fail to explain by means of common sense, common knowledge and common understanding.

There is no doubt that science, with its own limitations, cannot disprove god, neither can it prove god. Although some scientific observations, most notably among them is “evolution”, actually provide enough basis to debunk the theory of God.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> “Religion is, indeed, the *self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.* ......This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its *encyclopedic compendium*, its *logic in popular form*, its *spiritual point d'honneur*, its *enthusiasm*, its *moral sanction*, its *solemn complement*, and its *universal basis of consolation and justification.* ......Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the *sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.*”
> 
> These are the famous words by Carl Marx, and although said in a political context, is just as much relevant in sociology. A brief explanation of the above quote is that:
> 
> ...



I find this pretty boring.


----------



## zyberboy (May 11, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Quiz_Master said:
			
		

> And I am very successful, more then successful then those who believe in god thingy. So I guess there is no such things as god.


strange point,You r successful does't mean ter is no god.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that science, with its own limitations, cannot disprove god, neither can it prove god.
> Although some scientific observations, most notably among them is “evolution”, actually provide enough basis to debunk the theory of God.


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 (May 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*thunderbird.117*


> I find this pretty boring.


 
Expected. Anything that requires deep thinking and thorough understanding is of course boring for an armchair theorist.

*cyberboy_kerala*


> Agreed on first point,but evolution doest 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.


 
True. What theory of "evolution" does is that it give us a glimpse into the making of modern man. It proves that modern man has evolved into what it is today through a natural process of adaptation and not through any divine intervention. Thats why the Church did the most sensible thing and debunked the theory of "evolution".

True, evolution is not a conclusive proof of absence of god, but, as i said, it provides a basis for a scientific understanding of life. A lot remains to be explained, but these scientific discoveries assure us that there are indeed rational and scientific "explanations" for everything.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (May 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *thunderbird.117*
> 
> 
> Expected. Anything that requires deep thinking and thorough understanding is of course boring for an armchair theorist.


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.

Also Karnivore. I have also read this coutless of times. So you were expecting someone thing. Let you tell you one thing clear God exist. He will prove that he exist in coming days. Be prepared. 

By then Karl Marx will come and save you and what ever you wrote just disappers. 

Take Care. 

Dont try and act to be so intelligent.


----------



## zyberboy (May 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> Let you tell you one thing clear God exist. He will prove that he exist in coming days. Be prepared.


This is blind faith at its extreme.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (May 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				cyberboy_kerala said:
			
		

> This is blind faith at its extreme.



That must be you. Not me. Dont get me wrong. If i say it is blind faith i cant do anything. Iam sorry.


----------



## amol48 (May 12, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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



I agree that !!



			
				fun2sh said:
			
		

> i say it like this
> 
> 
> Nobody is perfect,
> ...


wow what a thinking !!!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> U need God/religion if u r running low on self-belief, confidence and conviction.
> 
> U need God/religion if u r looking for an excuse or justification for all that u do or intend to do.
> 
> ...



Though i belive in GOD but i don't think that's true!!! We need someone who is close to us and capable enough to tak us out of our difficult times or help us. When no one is left with us we think of God, but this may depend on individual...


----------



## karnivore (May 13, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*amol48*


> We need someone who is close to us and capable enough to *tak us out of our difficult times or help us*. When no one is left with us we think of God,


 
Yes bro, thats what i meant by..


> U need God/religion if u r running *low on self-belief, confidence and conviction*.


 
See, i personally don't have anything against those who believe in "god", and i sincerely believe that as long as there is intelligent being, like humans, a concept of god is inevitable.

But at the same time questioning the existence of god is just as much necessary. It is through the process of "questioning", that we finally understand the "unknown". If we kept on attributing everything to god, we would not have made all the discoveries that surround us today. 

All i am saying is that it is difficult to undo the "social brainwashing", but once u do that, there is immense possibility on the other side. And someday i hope to see u all there.


----------



## Yamaraj (May 13, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Once you realize that you are no more than a high-level abstraction, or an ordered collection, of other organisms and that your conciousness and the "self" is a by-product of electrical signals in brain - you cease to believe.

Are we really anything more than highly advanced bio-mechanical machines? Think about it.


----------



## karnivore (May 13, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Are we really anything more than *highly advanced bio-mechanical machines*?


 
ABSOLUTELY


----------



## speedyguy (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

lets put it dis way....to b simple

ppl who dun believe in god n dunt admire...they still live happily as we hv some in this thread too....

now imagine urself witout science.....u wud or wanna die....thats fact belive it or not....u r debating in this thread thats also coz of science not coz god sent u here...

give one practical reason y u feel god exist...make it practical so dis-believers can agree 2 u...now plz....dun say again he cannot be seen, he is power...he is witin us bla bla....make us believe wat u say wit a point...dunt sound superstitous...its 21st century

Enjoy~!


----------



## karnivore (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Well put, bro


----------



## fun2sh (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

"TWO WORKING HANDS CAN DO MUCH MORE THAN THOUSANDS HANDS CLASPED IN PRAYER"

speedyguy is quite right. all modern lavishness n facilities which has brought all of us at the tps of button is gift of science. WAT SO CALLED GOD HAD DONE. NOTHIN!!!.


----------



## solomon_paulraj (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

what does science say about evolution.. "started from single cell organism...  and the story goes on.." but can science give explanation on how that single cell organism was formed... 

can any of you believers of science explain this...


----------



## Yamaraj (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				speedyguy said:
			
		

> lets put it dis way....to b simple
> 
> ppl who dun believe in god n dunt admire...they still live happily as we hv some in this thread too....
> 
> ...


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.

Besides, science is like playing with lego blocks that already exist. Scientists are only "discovering" the natural powers and using them to create luxurious toys. It's not like they are "creating" matter or energy and utilizing them. Those who understand higher sciences, will tell you that it's not easy to discard the concept of a "creator", or creators. Scientists don't even understand the differences between matter and energy yet. I, therefore, advise people to not turn into arrogant automatons without a knowledge of "self".

Provided that only a few finite physical laws govern most of the natural forces, and affect our actions and reactions - how can you say that we're not being simulated inside a quantum computer? And, what if it's the tutles all the way down?


----------



## fun2sh (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				solomon_paulraj said:
			
		

> what does science say about evolution.. "started from single cell organism...  and the story goes on.." but can science give explanation on how that single cell organism was formed...
> 
> can any of you believers of science explain this...


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.

n if u r sayin that god created us all then who created god. its like ur own question on evolution.

hav u seen any animal prayin god???


----------



## solomon_paulraj (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

animals live in the way God told,
but its humans who have destroyed nature for his own personal needs,
humans are finding out hidden things in the name of science,
only if humans lived as God created them,
he would have gone still further in his existence.

remember the Great pyramids, babylon gardens, and other man made marvels, why cant human create such things when he has so much advanced scientific knowledge...

The reason.. man has forgotten God..


----------



## fun2sh (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				solomon_paulraj said:
			
		

> animals live in the way God told,
> but its humans who have destroyed nature for his own personal needs,
> humans are finding out hidden things in the name of science,
> only if humans lived as God created them,
> ...


who says man cant create pyramid or baby lone garden with help of science.
i think u r not seein DISCOVERY OR NATGEO. sceince has created more sopisticated n marvelous things than those pyramids. we only admire pyramids coz it was very advanced technolgy for man at that time.


----------



## solomon_paulraj (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

yes.. man is creating sophisticated n marvelous things right now... but the reason they admire the olden days creations is because... humans created those ancient marvels without the help of any new scientific machineries...

and the only force which could have helped him is GOD...


----------



## solomon_paulraj (May 14, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

yes.. people will laugh on things which they dont understand,...



			
				kenshin1988 said:
			
		

> Higher amino acids  on [SIZE=-1]dehydration synthesis form peptide bonds....to form proteins....Darwin's theory....[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> I can only laf on this!!



you mean NATURAL SELECTION...
FYI... DARWIN WAS A THEIST at the time of writing the Origin of Species...;D


----------



## speedyguy (May 19, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

"Originally Posted by solomon_paulraj
what does science say about evolution.. "started from single cell organism... and the story goes on.." but can science give explanation on how that single cell organism was formed... 

can any of you believers of science explain this..."


it can may at later or sooner or some part of it for while...

can god explain this??? if yes plz ask him to

Enjoy~!


----------



## sadabakwas (May 20, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.



But you most certainly can! Science itself proves God exists. When you see a building, or furniture, or cars or anything else - you know there was someone who created it. Nothing creates itself out of nowhere.

By denying God, you are going against hard sceince. You don't have to choose between God and science, all you have to do is to use the latter realize the former.


----------



## karmanya (May 21, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

like i said in my last post. "how the single celled organism was created in the first place" basically asks the same thing; how were we created.
both religion and science have thier own different points of view. however with religion every religion has its own belief as none are based on fact.
with science we have different theories all of which are probable and based on fact. one of the newer ones that was first brought to light to the majority through books like "the footprints of god" and angels and demons is that life and matter are made of energy. But you make a point. how did something organic spring from something inorganic? we may never know


----------



## Yamaraj (May 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				sadabakwas said:
			
		

> But you most certainly can! Science itself proves God exists. When you see a building, or furniture, or cars or anything else - you know there was someone who created it. Nothing creates itself out of nowhere.
> 
> By denying God, you are going against hard sceince. You don't have to choose between God and science, all you have to do is to use the latter realize the former.


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.


----------



## karmanya (May 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

People say have faith in god
isnt faith defined as the belief in something which cannot be proven to exist?


----------



## hullap (Jun 22, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Scince All The Way!!n. N.


----------



## chatterjeesayan (Jul 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS:

 1>DOES SCIENCE CONTRADICT GOD?
 2>WHAT IS GOD?
 3>WHAT IS SCIENCE?And what is its aim?

First ask yourself these three questions and find the answer.I can bet that 95% of haven't thought deeply on this matter.

 Firstly the aim of science is not to make mobiles and computers for us.It has a greater meaning.It finds Truth.Religion also finds Truth.Where science ends religion starts.And what is religion,Swami Vivekananda puts it..

       "You must bear in mind that religion does not consist in talk, or doctrines, or books, but in realisation; it is not learning, but being. ..."

 "Experience is the only source of knowledge. In the world, religion is the only source where there is no surety, because it is not taught as a science of experience. This should not be. There is always, however, a small group of men who teach religion from experience. They are called mystics, and these mystics in every religion speak the same tongue and teach the same truth. This is the real science of religion. As mathematics in every part of the world does not differ, so the mystics do not differ. They are all similarly constituted and similarly situated. Their experience is the same; and this becomes law.

In the church, religionists first learn a religion, then begin to practise it; they do not take experience as the basis of their belief. But the mystic starts out in search of truth, experiences it first, and then formulates his creed. The church takes the experience of others; the mystic has his own experience. The church goes from the outside in; the mystic goes from the inside out.

Religion deals with the truths of the metaphysical world just as chemistry and the other natural sciences deal with the truths of the physical world. The book one must read to learn chemistry is the book of nature. The book from which to learn religion is your own mind and heart. The sage is often ignorant of physical science, because he reads the wrong book -- the book within; and the scientist is too often ignorant of religion, because he too reads the wrong book -- the book without.

All science has its particular methods; so has the science of religion. It has more methods also, because it has more material to work upon. The human mind is not homogeneous like the external world. According to the different nature, there must be different methods. As some special sense predominates in a person -- one person will see most, another will hear most -- so there is a predominant mental sense; and through this gate must each reach his own mind. Yet through all minds runs a unity, and there is a science which may be applied to all. This science of religion is based on the analysis of the human soul. It has no creed.

No one form of religion will do for all. Each is a pearl on a string. We must be particular above all else to find individuality in each. No man is born to any religion; he has a religion in his own soul. Any system which seeks to destroy individuality is in the long run disastrous. Each life has a current running though it, and this current will eventually take it to God. The end and aim of all religions is to realise God. The greatest of all training is to worship God alone. If each man chose his own ideal and stuck to it, all religious controversy would vanish."...Swami Vivekananda

Realisation of what?Realisation of Ultimate Truth.

Science is also seeking the truth,though in a different way,the Ultimate Truth,which God.

Mahatma Gandhi puts it..."Truth is God".

God is existence,knowledge,bliss.And we all are immortal children of bliss.Existence is our nature,Knowledge is our nature,Bliss is our nature.The aim of our life is to attain God,the Truth or to be Truth,the Brahman.God surely doesn't differentiate between an atheist and theist,a Hindu or a Muslim,because he is all Love.

 So don't misinterpret God.Don't think that everything uexplained,everything mysterious is God and everything explained is science.God has no rival,he is all Love,not different from us.

Vedas,Bible and other religious books show us the to God,not to the aliens but to the Truth.

Feynnman's lectures on Physics,History of Time also leads us to truth...relative truth.


To quote Albert Einstein:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"...Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures...."

SHAME ON THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIKES SCIENCE JUST BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THEM GADGETS AND LUXURIOUS ITEMS,their mind is so immatured that THEY CAN NOT LOVE SCIENCE,they don't have the right to insult our great SCIENCE.

So,don't quarrel,Science can not cotradict God,Science did not contradict God,Science will not contradict God.

WE ARE TRUTH ITSELF...THE AIM OF LIFE IS TO BE TRUTH,TO ATTAIN TRUTH...NOT TO DO A SERVICE OFFERING 50000 PER MONT!!!!

Logical...not stupid,thoughtless...arguments are welcome.

Note the quotations of Albert Einstein:

"When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long."

"The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements."


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

will take some time 2 read dis....doin it in easy installments

Enjoy~!


----------



## zyberboy (Jul 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@chatterjeesayan

really a nice post


----------



## karnivore (Jul 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@*chatterjeesayan*

Quite an interesting post. You hav dropped a couple of really heavy names But as always, rebuttal is necessary to get to the root of the arguments. And one more thing. We all know what these great men thought about religion, was it absolutely necessary to drag their names in a dog fight like this. It would hav been really nice if u shared your own views through your experiences and not through someone elses mouth. Anyway……….

“*The Selfish Gene*” by Richard Dawkins, actually explains, with convincing scientific explanations, the reason of existence. It might come as a shock, but the purpose of life has got nothing to do with anything divine. Instead it argues, which is accepted by most of evolutionary biologists, that the purpose of existence is nothing but as simple as duplicating and propagating our genes, following Darwin's “natural selection”. That’s all. Everything else, like achieving greater truth etc. etc. is talked of just to give a moral and ethical acceptance of “life”. Right from the time of your birth till your death, whatever u do, see, learn, love, hate etc, has no purpose at all, except of course enriching your existence. The purpose of “your” existence is simply to make sure that your gene can duplicate and continue with “its” existence.

Human beings hav understanding, a sense of quality and a sense of “purpose”. That’s why we can “think” of achieving so called higher truth. But what about animals. Are they too looking for higher truth? If they are not aware of their own “existence” or ,in the words of Rabindranath Tagore, “_bastabata_”(Bengali for “reality”) how will they look for the “higher truth”. Think of an ant, a millipede or even your pet dog. We are part of that biological bubble, only with a bigger and more complicated brains.

Well Swami Vivekananda was not in a position to know these (the book was written in 1976). Also Swami, looked at everything from a “Hindu” point of view. If u carefully read his books - don’t need to read all the 12 volumes, just read first 4 volumes – U will find myriad contradictions and criticism of other religion, particularly Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. If all religions are “pearls on the ring”, then whats with this tendency of “Hinduism is right and all other religions are wrong”. In your post itself u will find subtle criticism of Christianity. He is at best a “revivalist”. Seriously, if I hav to understand religion, without the biasness of Hinduism or for that matter any religion, I would rather look at Max Weber than Swami_ji_. 

As with Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist the world has ever seen and will probably see, criticism is of different kind. He started his scientific quest, questioning god. But as he made discoveries he slowly became convinced that something called God exists. And that’s when he started to make mistakes. He became a staunch critique of “Theory of Quantum Mechanics”, simply it contradicted his concept of God. Remember his famous words “God does not play dice”, while he was referring to the essence of unpredictability of sub-atomic particles suggested by Quantum Mechanics. The scientific world stood hanging their jaw as more and more lab tests started to prove QM and Einstein became all the more adamant in proving his point. Today, QM is the core essence of studying sub-atomic particles.

Later he became a staunch supporter of Zionism. But the moral of the story is that, even the greatest scientific brain in the world can make mistake when confronted with convincing truth against ones belief. 

This debate is practically never ending. 

If u feel god or religion gives u strength, then let it be that way, as long as u don’t become a Klu-Klux-Klan, or Taliban or RSS.


----------



## zyberboy (Jul 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins, actually explains, with convincing scientific explanations, the reason of existence. It might come as a shock, but the purpose of life has got nothing to do with anything divine. Instead it argues, which is accepted by most of evolutionary biologists, that the purpose of existence is nothing but as simple as duplicating and propagating our genes, following Darwin's “natural selection”. That’s all. Everything else, like achieving greater truth etc. etc. is talked of just to give a moral and ethical acceptance of “life”. Right from the time of your birth till your death, whatever u do, see, learn, love, hate etc, has no purpose at all, except of course enriching your existence. The purpose of “your” existence is simply to make sure that your gene can duplicate and continue with “its” existence.



Too early to say convincingly that the "purpose of life is purposeless".if we look at evolution alone it is right tat its only goal is to pass the genes to next generation, but we cant deny the ultimate truth "atma" self, QM says tat every single particle is aware of all the events in the entire universe,its like a universal consciousness,its wt called as the "Truth is god".Universe is self aware that it exist. Our consciousness are just part of that whole thing.Like i said it is too early for humans to say anything convincingly as we may have only know .1% of the real truth or we may never will as the real truth is too good for our limited mind


----------



## chatterjeesayan (Jul 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@karnivore
"We all know what these great men thought about religion, was it absolutely necessary to drag their names in a dog fight like this. It would hav been really nice if u shared your own views through your experiences and not through someone elses mouth."

 Please see that I've expressed my opinion all through the post and only brought their names in context of the topic,to support my view.And after all I'm not a knower of Truth,so I have to bring the names of great personalities,especially like Swami Vivekananda,as they perceived Truth.

"It might come as a shock, but the purpose of life has got nothing to do with anything divine. Instead it argues, which is accepted by most of evolutionary biologists, that the purpose of existence is nothing but as simple as duplicating and propagating our genes, following Darwin's “natural selection”"

I can not get your point properly.Can this ever be a purpose of life?What is the aim of natural selection?Evolution?Why are all the phenomena happenning?Why Evolution?Who are we?Why are we?Has the world been created out of nothing!!!CHILDISH PRATTLE!!!!

Macneile Dixon puts it...

 " 'There is, then, nothing to be hoped for, nothing to be expected and nothing to be done save to await our turn to mount the scaffold and bid farewell to the colossal blunder, the much-ado-about-nothing world!"

Do you want to mean that our world is a colossal blunder?What is the aim of evolution?Why are we evolving?Just for the sake of evolution?Clear your point buddy.

"Well Swami Vivekananda was not in a position to know these (the book was written in 1976). Also Swami, looked at everything from a “Hindu” point of view. If u carefully read his books - don’t need to read all the 12 volumes, just read first 4 volumes – U will find myriad contradictions and criticism of other religion, particularly Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. If all religions are “pearls on the ring”, then whats with this tendency of “Hinduism is right and all other religions are wrong”. In your post itself u will find subtle criticism of Christianity. He is at best a “revivalist”. Seriously, if I hav to understand religion, without the biasness of Hinduism or for that matter any religion, I would rather look at Max Weber than Swamiji."

Probably you didn't read Swamiji.Have you read a few paragraphs from his "Christ ,the Messenger"?If you read it,you would have known that what kind of respect he paid for Christ.Do you know he was a deep admirer of Budhdha.How can you say that he looks evrything from the Hindu point of view.Probably you haven't read him,if you had,you didi the reading superficially.Remember he said...."We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true. ..."And after all we have to say the truth,we needn't have to flatter every religion.If you have read him,you would have known that he was totally unbiased.And you'll be surprised that he criticised his own religion's drawbacks as well as others.

About Einstein I've no opinions,world knows him well.I needn't say anything for him.


Again I say..RELIGION IS NOT BELIEF...it is REALISATION OF TRUTH.One need not believe any religion to have only strength.It is realisation of Ultimate Truth,grandest of all science,science of human nature in depth...it is not going to chapel,Mandir or Masjid....it is not any dogma...it is not doctrine...it is being and becoming.

@karnivore

"U need God/religion if u r running low on self-belief, confidence and conviction.

U need God/religion if u r looking for an excuse or justification for all that u do or intend to do.

U need God/religion if u r looking for an easy explanation for all that u fail to explain by means of common sense, common knowledge and common understanding."

"Are anything more than highly advanced bio-mechanical machines"


For the first point,you will be running low on you self esteem if you don't believe in Atman,your own soul.Because without thinking oneself as Atman,the eternal,one scracely get self confidence of that level.If you have full belief in you and don't have any belief in any gods of heaven,you are a THEIST,a religous person.

For the second point,if anybody thinks that he can do anything and escape the law of Karma,he is cheating himself.We should show pity on him.

For your third point,please don't have such childish cocept of God,that he is a magecian sitting over the sky,and making all the things happen,which are still unexplained and leaves the job after man has discovered the law.It's a childish concept of God.It is better not to believe in this type of God and be an atheist rather.

Are anything more than highly advanced bio-mechanical machines?

 No,we are not..we can not be.We are much greater than that.How can a person with SELFCONFIDENCE can approve this!!!This type of selfconfidence ...PHEW!!!...We are the children of immortal bliss...we can do anything and everything...we can crush the stars to powder..we can do anythig...that is the word of a THEIST...this type of selfconfidence!!!


----------



## karnivore (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@*cyberboy_kerala*


> Too early to say convincingly that the "purpose of life is purposeless"


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.



> ....but we cant deny the ultimate truth *"atma" self*


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". 



> Universe is self aware that it exist.


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.

@*chatterjeesayan*


> CHILDISH PRATTLE!!!!


Hmmmm.......arrogance of youth or arrogance of ignorance, i wonder.



> Can this ever be a purpose of life?


Yes. As i said, its much more simple than its made out to be.



> What is the aim of natural selection?Evolution?


According to Darwin, propagation of "species" and according to Dawkins propagation of "gene".



> Why are all the phenomena happening?Why Evolution?Who are we?Why are we?Has the world been *created out of nothing*


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.



> Why are we evolving?Just for the sake of evolution?*Clear your point buddy*


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.



> Probably you didn't read Swamiji.Have you read a few paragraphs from his "Christ ,the Messenger"?If you read it,you would have known that what kind of respect he paid for Christ.Do you know he was a deep admirer of Budhdha.How can you say that he looks evrything from the Hindu point of view.Probably you haven't read him,if you had,you didi the reading superficially.Remember he said...."We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true. ..."And after all we have to say the truth,we needn't have to flatter every religion.If you have read him,you would have known that he was totally unbiased.And you'll be surprised that he criticised his own religion's drawbacks as well as others.


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. 

Let me quote from your earlier post:


> In the church, religionists *first learn a religion, then begin to practise it*; they do not take experience as the basis of their belief. But the *mystic starts out in search of truth, experiences it first*, and then formulates his creed. The *church takes the experience of others*; the *mystic has his own experience*. The *church goes from the outside in; the mystic goes from the inside out*.


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.

And about the last part, it is evident that you have no clue as to what you are saying. Heres few sample:


> ....it is not any dogma...it is not doctrine...it is *being and becoming*


Being and becoming what ????



> you *will be running low on you self esteem if you don't believe in Atman,your own soul*.Because without thinking oneself as Atman,the eternal,one scracely get self confidence of that level


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.



> If you have full belief in you and don't have any belief in any gods of heaven,you are a THEIST,a religious person.


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.



> ...if anybody thinks that he can do anything and escape the *law of Karma*,he is cheating himself.We should show pity on him.


Unbelievably stupid. OK, what is the law of karma, and who wrote it please. And yes u can hav pity on me.     



> For your third point,please don't have such childish cocept of God,that he is a magecian sitting over the sky,and making all the things happen,which are still unexplained and leaves the job after man has discovered the law.It's a childish concept of God.It is better not to believe in this type of God and be an atheist rather


Fine, then define god.



> We are much greater than that


Like what.

Remember one thing;
"To repeat what someone has said, u need education. To challenge it, u need brains"


----------



## planetcall (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.



Before trying to criticise and proving the fallacy of sanatan dharm/सनातन धर्म i.e. Hinduism(as you talk of all religion in general) first try to learn what it is based on. There is no clash in hindu religion and evolution theories. Dont show your ignorance towards the subject. If you want to discuss then before providing your self-proved statements do give a thought.


----------



## karnivore (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ OK. Tell me which Hindu text admits of “evolution” as we know and understand in terms of science. I will update my knowledge. Making a statement is easy, but to back up your comments, with logic is perhaps a little difficult. Anyway, my "ignorance" tells me there is no such admission, neither is there any concrete debate, within "Hinduism", about this phenomena.
Again my "ignorance" has made the following observations:
- Science describes “evolution” as an event “within” nature. Hinduism describes it as “without”.
- Science defines evolution in terms of physical evolution. For Hinduism it is evolution of “consciousness” not body.
- For science evolution is a “trial and error method of adaptation”. For Hinduism it a conscious effort of “enlightenment” of mind.
- Science says “evolution” is thrust upon us by nature and is an inescapable phenomena. For Hinduism, it is an “will full” act on our part.

How, in the hell do u think, "evolution", as described by science, is same as "evolution" defined by Hinduism. OH i get it. Its same because u said so.

And come to think of it. I thought I gave my logic as to why “evolution” is in conflict with  a religion, any religion. Of course, immaturity got the best of you. Read and try to think and then try to criticize.

Once again i ask:


> 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.


----------



## mediator (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@Karnivore : It seems u r living in some sort of hallucination so as to be believing in "modern" science so blindly!

Do u even know how scientists conduct some experiments to develop medicines? They conduct experiments on animals like rabbits to produce medicines for humans? And then further it has been well known that within the humans too we have varying immunity levels!

Now science/basic chemistry also tells us if a substance burnt under ideal conditions its weight will alter. So y doesnt the weight of ghee alters? Is the science flawed then? Read thisPost #65.

Also please enlighten y r ur fella foreigners shocked about cowdung now when infact it has been written in vedas that it was used as counter to radioactivity?

Next abt homeopathy



> There are two points of view about homeopathy that are in conflict. One viewpoint says that homeopathy should not attempt to meet the rigorous requirements of scientific medicine. It is sufficient that there have been millions of satisfied patients during the last 200 years. *Science is not relevant anyway because it rejects the concept of the energy of the "vital force" which is essential to homeopathy.* This vital force is identical to the concept of vitalism -- a primitive concept used to explain health and disease. And, besides, scientific medicine is unfairly prejudiced and biased against homeopathy. *Dana Ullman [3], a leading spokesman for American homeopathy, says that personal experience is much more convincing than any experiments.* The emphasis on experience shows that most people simply do not understand that good science, based upon experiments, is essential to the development of knowledge.





> Homeopathy has existed for about 200 years, yet reports in the media have suggested that homeopathy is the medicine of the future.


 Source


Here's a site that u shud read slowly and carefully!
*vedicganita.org

So instead of opining abt the clashes and criticising Hinduism on the "basis of modern science", u shud really do some research. It seems ur "modern" science is flawed in some cases that it needs the help of vedic maths.


----------



## zyberboy (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.



Already posted in this thread u may have missed it.
Every quantum particle is aware of the whole thing going on the entire universe, its like the whole thing is being recorded and experienced.universe acts as  it is conscious.Scientist are on their way to prove this, for eg if a bomb blast occurs in a big city it is possible to decode this event at that instant itself from a remote place or from the other end of our milky way, Amazing isn't?.Scientist is proving this by using a robot which moves randomly in a surface(much more have to be explained here).......this experiment is new,but its base is  QM.You may soon see about this in articles as experiments are being conducted.
This were science and religion coincidence that "Truth is ultimate",it cannot denied,it cannot be denied by saying that,  u have not read this ,this day,this year even after millions of years.
All the investigation teams(like cbi) around the world hav this moto.That Truth will come to the light no matter how hard u cover it..Its the "cosmic law" of the universe.



			
				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.



Yeah, it is widely accepted that only goal of evolution is to pass the genes.Evolution is only a mincule part of the whole thing....and we cant explain the whole  universe with this simple algorithm.


----------



## chatterjeesayan (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

y dear friend I've no time to say all the things I've said before.If you can not grasp the meaning of Truth,I have nothing to say.And if you say what is this Truth?I can't explain it to you.Firstly I have not percieved it,there are very few great souls who have percieved it and secondly it's not a matter to prove logically.Because the Truth I'm talking about is beyond space,time and causation.Anything inside space,time and causation is changing and therefore mortal.You can deny God but can you deny Truth?Denial of Truth is denial of our existence.Creating anything out of nothing is absurd..any logical mind will see that.And until you say why are we evolving?What is the purpose of life?I will no agree to you.I'm not at all trying to rationalize the mystery with the something "divine".We can not deny these question...who are we?Why are we here?What is the goal of life?Why are we evolving?And again and again why are you bringing the term evolution?Does evolution contradict Truth?Who has said you that believing in God means believing in a magical creation of life?And what is life after all?Can you define consciousness?

Remember the "Science" you are talking about is physical science.How can you deny the existence beyond it?If a man doesn't have a eye he can not see trees,houses etc.Does it mean that they don't exist?A creature like bat can sense sounds in the range in which man's ear is incapabale of sensing those sounds.Does it mean that there only exists sound between our audible range.Again,QUESTION TRUTH IS QUESTIONING THE EXISTENCE OF OURS.And creation of anything outof nothing is CHILDISH PRATTLE...I dare to say.EXISTECE OF GOD CAN NOT CONTRADICT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ALL THE TIME.Has God signed a paper with you saying..."I will create this way or that way..."GOD SITTING ON A CHAIR AND DISPENSING JUSTICE IS NOT THE GOD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

"we are in the process of becoming a still higher being."

 Infinite evolution doesn't mean anything.Evolution is always finite.Our infinitely becoming finite is a concept to be laughed at.

"Thats where religion clashes with the concept of evolution....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."

 Atleast as far as I know Sanatana Dharma supports evolution.As our consciousness is being manifested gradually we are taking higher bodies for the purpose of attaing the Truth.This is what Eternal Religion says.

"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."


"He is an atheist who does not believe in himself. The old religion said that he was an atheist who did not believe in God. The new religion says that he is the atheist who does not believe in himself. But it is not selfish faith, because the Vedanta, again, is the doctrine of oneness. It means faith in all, because you are all.".....SWAMI VIVEKANANDA

"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."

It is what I've read..Jnanayoga,Karmayoga,BhaktiYoga,Partially Rajayoga and letters of Swami Vivekannada and Reminiscences of Swami Vivekananda by his eastern and western admirers.Please don't jusdge on behalf of others that what will be a WASTE OF TIME AND WHAT WILL BE NOT!

"Unbelievably stupid. OK, what is the law of karma, and who wrote it please. And yes u can hav pity on me"

Pity on you that you that you are ingnore of your work's consequence.If do good things you'll get good result and bad for bad deeds.Won't you fail poorly if don't study?Won't you get harsh words in return if you say harsh words to me?Think of it in an broad scale.Ant by the way..WHO WROTE THE "certain laws of physics, biology and chemistry.."????

"Fine, then define god."

I haven't realized Truth.As to percieve any scientific truth you must use the proper instruments,it is same in the case of religion.Practise Jnanayoga,Karmayoga,Bhaktiyoga,Rajayoga...you will attain truth surely.But it is not a child's play,that you can do it in five months.Don't say anything without practising them,it's not at all rational in type...it is stupidity.
And definition of God is impossible because he is beyond space time and causation..."Abang manaso gocharam"...beyond speech and mind.

"Like what..."


"Aham Brahmasmi"....Upanishad says.We are Brahman himself.But not this little.."badmayesh" I...but the greater I without the impurities of body mind complex.

"mystic has his own experience. The church goes from the outside in; the mystic goes from the inside out."

We have to after all say the truth.There are many Temples in India full of superstitious beliefs.they cruelly torture the downtroddens.If we say that raising a voice against them will be same to criticise Hinduism..it's ridiculous.So..you know churches opposed Galileo once.Was it desired?It was not Lord Jesus who did that thing.It was superstitous church.We have to say the truth...though it may offend aothers.AGAIN i SAY RELIGION IS NOT DOGMAS AND DOCTRINES IT IS REALISATION OF TRUTH,TRUTH AND TRUTH.....In this way,we are not at all religious....Am I?...NEVER NEVER NEVER...AT LEAST A CRORE MILE FROM IT...

"To repeat what someone has said, u need education. To challenge it, u need brains..."

 Thinking of oneself as the most intelligent person(evn more than Einstein ) 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.

I want to LOVE science in its true form,I love Truth,I love the science that seeks truth...physics is my favourite subject.So any denying TRuth may keep his own views with him surely....but I can not agree with him who doubts our existence....in Bengali they are called "Shunya Badi Nastik"...I know that I am not totally an THEIST.Because I were ,I would have gone mad for Truth and not to be in such a position to type messages in a forum.Anybody Who has not seen God can not be said to be have a proper faith(not belief) in Truth,thus he is an ATHEIST and SO I AM,IN THAT SENSE.

Glory Unto Truth...glory Unto Truth ...glory Unto The Truth Ultimate....


----------



## karnivore (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@ *mediator*.


> It seems u r living in some sort of hallucination so as to be believing in "modern" science so blindly


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. 


> Do u even know how scientists conduct some experiments to develop medicines? *They conduct experiments on animals like rabbits to produce medicines for humans*? And then further it has been well known that within the humans too we have varying immunity levels!


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.  


> Now science/basic chemistry also tells us if a substance burnt under ideal conditions its weight will alter. So y doesnt the weight of ghee alters? Is the science flawed then?


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.  


> Also please enlighten y r ur fella foreigners shocked about cowdung now when infact it has been written in vedas that it was used as counter to radioactivity?


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.  


> Next abt homeopathy


I don’t see the relevance here. May be some other time. 

@*cyberboy_kerala*


> Every quantum particle is aware of the whole thing going on the entire universe, its like the whole thing is being recorded and experienced.universe acts as it is conscious.Scientist are on their way to prove this, for eg if a bomb blast occurs in a big city it is possible to decode this event at that instant itself from a remote place or from the other end of our milky way, Amazing isn't?.Scientist is proving this by using a robot which moves randomly in a surface(much more have to be explained here).......this experiment is new,but its base is QM.You may soon see about this in articles as experiments are being conducted.


We are discussing "science" not "science fiction", like that crazy crap theory which says Black Hole is a port to a parallel universe.


> ....and we cant explain the whole universe with this simple algorithm


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.


@*chatterjeesayan*

Kid will be a kid. Anyway your first para contradicts everything u said so far and will say in future. Why ? Well, when u claim that u don’t know the “truth”, how can u even argue or for that matter, establish anything at all. When u don’t know the truth, how can u be so sure about anything. How do u know that u r right, or for that matter anything is. Similarly how can u say anybody is wrong. *You don’t know the truth that your religion asks u to find, but you know what truth is to be told to other religion*. Amazing. 

Actually its pointless. I just hope that someday you will be able get beyond the narrow boundaries of religion and try to see everything, not from a religious point, but from the point of view of Humanity as whole.

BTW, I am yet to get an answer to this riddle:
If a *Hindu converts to Islam*[don't mean any offense. I chose Islam because is stands in contrast to Hindu belief in many ways than one], what happens to his “atma”, his belief, and all the baggage that comes with Hinduism. Does he continue to have the eternal atma or he looses it immediately. 
CAVEAT: For all key-board happy junkies. If u say that "atma" continues to stay and behave as described by Hinduism, u would actually be saying Islam is wrong. If u say that it dies, u will be contradicting your own religion.


----------



## chatterjeesayan (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

PLEASE OUT OF  THE SCIENTIFIC SUPERSTION,BE SCIENTIFIC MAN!!Please don't say irrational thing and put the blame on science.Again... be scientific man! Show ma one physicist who doesn't believe in God, the Truth.So you are saying that Enstein,Shroedinger were none!And how can you know that what you are seeing is true at all?Can you prove it with your so called science.But fortunately science is not like that...have science in its true flavour.Don't be SCIENTIFICALLY SUPERSTITIOUS....BE LOGICAL..AND BE READY TO APPRECIATE THE REAL "REAL".

" I just hope that someday you will be able get beyond the narrow boundaries of religion and try to see everything, not from a religious point, but from the point of view of Humanity as whole."

 What you call science is not Science at all?Science is clear flow of logic,science is the methodical study of nature outside and inside.Science is what Einstein,Newton practised.ILLOGICAL PRATTLE AND SCIENCE HAS A HELL AND HEAVEN DIFFERENCE.CRYING OUT ONLY EVOLUTION...EVOLUTION..MAY BE ANYTHING BUT NOT SCIENCE.First try to realize  science and then Religion.


"You don’t know the truth that your religion asks u to find, but you know what truth is to be told to other religion."

No,I've not realised God.If anyone says that he has,let me see this prophet first and bow my head down to his feet.I said that goal of life is to realize Truth,how know its nature before hand.Did Newton know what is Gravitation before discovering it?The genius discovered it and let the world know what it is.Truth is truth...we can't say anything more than that.How can you deny Truth?If there is no Truth,everything is false,we are false,our science is false...everything is false.

And Atman is deathless,it doesn't depend on whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim...a beast or a man.Because Atman is Truth.


And lastly I don't have enough time to say all the things again again and listen to all these illogical prattle...I'm not going to view this thread anymore...SO DON'T EXPECT MY ANSWER IN RETURN...YOU MAY SAY ANYTHING TO ME,TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT...I CARE A HANG!!!!

*@CYBERBOY*


"Yeah, it is widely accepted that only goal of evolution is to pass the genes.Evolution is only a mincule part of the whole thing....and we cant explain the whole universe with this simple algorithm."

I DO COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU,IT IS WHAT I WANT TO SAY.


----------



## mediator (Jul 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> 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.


 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!!

Did u even read the *vedicganita.org that ur loving ur flawed science?? If u read the vedas and understand its meaning u'll love it more than u can!! Do u even know that NASA uses Vedic knowledge? Google if u know how to use 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


 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!!



> 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.


 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 ->  




> 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.


 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? ? 


> *Cow dung* smells very sweet when it is dry. It has many interesting properties including not holding radioactivity, and has been used as a shield in NASA's capsules!





> I don’t see the relevance here. May be some other time.


 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
 contradict something like Vedas which has been ackowledged by and amazes the scientists themselves and which has its practical importance and is working!!


----------



## karnivore (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@*chatterjeesayan*
HA HA HA.    
One angry kid, we got there. So finally......a poke in the bush and the cat is out of the bag. Now finally you can see that its one thing to read and talk of so called "truth" and it is another to get past the contradictions that the whole concept brings in. 


> ...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.......
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## karnivore (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*@mediator*



> 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*!!


Am glad that that you are loving it. Congratulations!!!!!


> Did u even read the *vedicganita.org that ur loving ur flawed science?? If u read the vedas and understand its meaning u'll love it more than u can!! Do u even know that *NASA uses Vedic knowledge*? Google if u know how to use it!!


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. 
Are u sure NASA knows about this???    
Tell me, 0 (zero) was discovered in India (along with ancient Egypt). Does that mean we invented half of computer codes.


> 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.


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.


> BTW, I already told that humans too have *diff. immunity levels*. It seems u r trying to ignore the homeopathy point!!


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.


> Perhaps u Shu 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!!


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"   


But anyway............wasting my time.


----------



## mediator (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> 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.
> Are u sure NASA knows about this???
> Tell me, 0 (zero) was discovered in India (along with ancient Egypt). Does that mean we invented half of computer codes.


Authenticity? Do u want me to give u classified documents of NASA. Grow up!!
I guess ur really not up-to-date with technology. Do u know what "google" is? Now dont ask me to enlighten u about the English alphabet! If that site intrigues u then u can google for more. Atleast I am not expert opining like u. Who is saying we invented half of computers code though many brains in computing/development are Indians!!

I guess u r out of words and therefore talking absurd now! I am talking of concepts and practical working becoz of which ayurveda,vedic maths etc are used by braniacs all around the world now and u r talking about 0 and code? Laughable indeed!



> 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.


Baah, here we have another one ur whinings!!



> 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.


Do I need to repeat abt homeopathy in such cases now? U know, and still talking like a blind believer in modern science?



> 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"





> 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"
> 
> 
> But anyway............wasting my time.


I told u to read the previous posts.
Wasting ur time? its called "TROLL"! Guess u really aren't used to reading previous posts! I guess u have nuthing to say now and thats why ur unnecessarily trolling! So I rest my case here or do u want to continue? Feel free to say yes!

Likewise I can give u more of such links, but y waste my eforts on someone who skipped science classes in skool, can't read previous replies and has a hard time opening and undertstanding the English in the links provided!! How tragic!

Read the links and then entertain me further!


----------



## karnivore (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^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.     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.


----------



## zyberboy (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> As with Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist the world has ever seen and will probably see, criticism is of different kind. He started his scientific quest, questioning god. But as he made discoveries he slowly became convinced that something called God exists. And that’s when he started to make mistakes. He became a staunch critique of “Theory of Quantum Mechanics”, simply it contradicted his concept of God. Remember his famous words “God does not play dice”, while he was referring to the essence of unpredictability of sub-atomic particles suggested by Quantum Mechanics. The scientific world stood hanging their jaw as more and more lab tests started to prove QM and Einstein became all the more adamant in proving his point. Today, QM is the core essence of studying sub-atomic particles.


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.


""It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.""

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

--Albert Einstein




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> We are discussing "science" not "science fiction", like that crazy crap theory which says Black Hole is a port to a parallel universe.



lolz


*"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Quantum Theory cannot possibly have understood it."

----Niels Bohr*

@karnivore
The Real truth about the world can be stranger than u can think off,and  it seems it is to be too much for ur understanding.Who told u that science will always run parallel with your commonsense?,The science fiction's 
r nothing when compared to the real truth.What i had said is true and  scientist r on their way for complete proof.
This is the earlier version of the same experiment(the new experiment is slightly different),information spreads entire universe at quantum level.
*www.dreammanifesto.com/can-new-born-chickens-influence-a-robot.html


Do u believe QM as science fiction?
(already posted in this thread)
*QM*
> Matter can exist and not exist at the same time.

> An object can simultaneously exist two places at the same time(even across the milky way,for eg an atom can be observed in two places)

  ^^^^^^^^ 


> Splitting atoms has been a routine task for nuclear physicists for the past half-century, ever since the first uranium reactor was created for the Manhattan Project during World War II. Smearing atoms, however - allowing them to appear in two places at once - is a different story


*findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n26_v12/ai_18469259




> Practical applications for teleportation, though not exactly the type seen in Star Trek, could be less than a generation away.According to a report released Thursday by Technical Insights, the first applications of teleportation will be in quantum computers and quantum cryptography, not human transport.
> Physicists can already teleport tiny things, such as a beam of light or the angular spin of atomic nuclei. But physicists caution that teleportation research is still in the early development stage.


*www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/05/19551




> Quantum mechanics has had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our world. The individual behavior of the subatomic particles that make up all forms of matter - electrons, protons, neutrons, photons and so forth - can often only be satisfactorily described using quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has strongly influenced string theory, a candidate for a theory of everything . It is also related to statistical mechanics.
> Quantum mechanics shows that the materialistic common sense notion of reality is an illusion, i.e., that the objective existence of the world is an illusion. If the reader is familiar with the teachings of the mystics, this may sound familiar. Consider, for example, the following words written by a little-known Western mystic:
> 
> Listen to Niels Bohr, the pioneer of 20th century physics:
> ...




A simplified reading,

*Quantum physics tells us that reality is far beyond human perception and intuition. In other words, our rational mind and common sense are just not capable of understanding the true nature of reality.*
*www.successconsciousness.com/index_000014.htm
*www.sol.com.au/kor/11_01.htm

Only our consciousness is real which infact is part of the universal consciousness,which we r tunning into , and using it,like a radio tunes into a station and plays,but signals are all same for all instrument only difference is how it amplifies/use it.


----------



## karnivore (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@*cyberboy_kerala*



> 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.
> 
> 
> ""It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.""
> ...


Now we are down to splitting hair on the nitty-gritties of the character and type of GOD. Anyway. 

Einstein believed in a "something powerful" outside the domain of every know "self", in a sense "The Creator". And thats what i was referring to as God, as believed by Einstein. He turned out to be a deeply religious man, but he stayed away from the parochialism of Zionism. The point i was trying to make is that even the greatest man of science can make serious mistakes because of a prejudice. 
PS: If i am not mistaken, then the first comment of Einstein was in response to some news report that Einstein is a "worshiper".



> > Matter can exist and not exist at the same time.


Well, actually matter can exist "anywhere" till u "see" where it exists


> An object can simultaneously exist two places at the same time(*even across the milky way*,for eg an atom can be observed in two places)


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.


> The Real truth about the world can be stranger than u can think off,and it seems *it is to be too much for ur understanding*.Who told u that science will always run parallel with your commonsense?,The science fiction's r nothing when compared to the real truth.*What i had said is true* and scientist r on their way for complete proof


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.

QM is the theory of "bizarre". It supports everything that one can think of. If QM could be magnified to human scale it would give us a world of "impossible", like me and u walking through a stone wall, like me, having identical twins at any given place and time, etc. etc. And thats why it becomes so difficult to identify pseudo-science from science. Because at QM level "anything goes".

What u said is true only in parts. Its true that all sorts of research is on. Some are outright crazy and some are just as simple as water. What i referred to as "science fiction", is your notion that since QM supports, and no way contradicts, virtually everything, it is akin to Universe having "conscious".

When Rabindranath Tagore met Einstein, the Poet asked him if science can ever define "conscious". He replied that, may be not in this decade, perhaps not in this millennium, but someday, definitely. Well i am ready wait forever than believing in the mumbo-jumbo of Universe having "conscious".

Tell me, do u think a "stone" has "conscious". Now if u say "yes".......well than i have to admit that Tagore, Einstein and many other men of wisdom, excluding the religious buffoons, had got the idea of "conscious" all wrong.


> .....the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for *[it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.*
> *- *Einstein


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.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Tell me, do u think a "stone" has "conscious". Now if u say "yes".......well than i have to admit that Tagore, Einstein and many other men of wisdom, excluding the religious buffoons, had got the idea of "conscious" all wrong.


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.

How different are you from a stone, say at atomic or sub-atomic levels? Just as you are made up of millions upon millions of alive cells, your consciousness is also an abstraction of their collective cognition. If you can be self-aware because of the collective senses of millions of living cells that constitute you, how can you deny that the Universe is not, for it is also made of self-aware beings like us?

The problem with people and traditional scientific methods is that they separate the observer from the phenomena, which may work fine at a minuscule level in a laboratory, but fails miserably at levels higher or lower than that.

I suggest that you read some on quantum consciousness. Also, read this - *www.newscientist.com/article/mg141...aking-cosmologists-think-likebiologists-.html

Unfortunately, the article isn't free and you  must register to read the whole thing. But the free excerpt should give you something to boot.



> Nobody would argue that human beings appeared out of nothing. We are complex creatures, and could not have arisen 'just by chance' out of a brew of chemicals, even in some warm little pond of the kind envisaged by Charles Darwin. Simpler kinds of living organisms came first, and it took hundreds of millions of years of evolution on Earth to progress from single-celled life forms to complex organisms like ourselves.
> 
> Could something similar have happened with the Universe? It is a large complex system which, some cosmologists argue, cannot have appeared by chance. Simpler universes came first, they say, and it may have taken hundreds of millions of universal generations to progress to a universe as complex as our own.
> 
> ...


----------



## karnivore (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I am really getting tired of this garbage. But anyway....

@*Yamaraj*



> 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.


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.


> *How different are you from a stone, say at atomic or sub-atomic levels?*


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.


> Just as you are made up of millions upon millions of alive cells, *your consciousness is also an abstraction of their collective cognition*.


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".


> *If you can be self-aware because of the collective senses of millions of living cells that constitute you, how can you deny that the Universe is not, for it is also made of self-aware beings like us?*


What a wonderful logic. I am getting wiser by the minute.


> I suggest that you read some on *quantum consciousness.*


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.


----------



## mediator (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.     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.


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!


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.


You tell me. It was you who started talking about stones and consciousness.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


Cells are not sub-atomic by any means. And you are not getting the point.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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".


Logic, sire, logic!
Likewise, billions of inanimate atoms constitute a living organism. How is it even possible if the atom isn't alive itself?

I expect you to post a reply only if you understand the topic.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> What a wonderful logic. *I am getting wiser by the minute*.


Penrose and Smolin won't agree. Neither would I.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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 (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@*Yamaraj*



> You tell me. It was you who started talking about stones and consciousness


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.


> Cells are not sub-atomic by any means. And you are *not getting the point*


OK. Then whats your point.


> Logic, sire, logic!
> Likewise, billions of inanimate atoms constitute a living organism. *How is it even possible if the atom isn't alive itself?*


In other words life = consciousness.


> 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*.


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.


> 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


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.


> I expect you to post a reply only if you understand the topic


Likewise.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> OK. Then whats your point.


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:
			
		

> In other words life = consciousness.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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 (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@*Yamaraj*



> 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?


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.


> Are you implying that eminent mathematicians and physicists like Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin are idiots and are talking from their rear?


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.


> What's there to prove that the Universe isn't alive


Simple, find the nervous system of the Universe. Well if u do that there's a Nobel prize up for the taking.


> 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.


So u have given up reading what you write. Good for u.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				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.


Conscious is adjective, consciousness is noun. Therefore the Universe may *have consciousness* if its constituents *are conscious*.

What you know as a nervous system is in fact a network of electrical pulses and sensory/reactive parts. The complexity of Universe doesn't rule out any chances of it being alive and conscious.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> Simple, find the nervous system of the Universe. Well if u do that there's a Nobel prize up for the taking.


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.

Consciousness can exist very well without a distinctive nervous system that you are familiar with. Given if you understand what life itself is. Your argument (life = consciousness) is an example of circular logic. Is an object alive because it has consciousness, or does it have consciousness because it's alive? What happens to your argument in case a (near)-perfect artificial consciousness goes live?


----------



## karnivore (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Yes. U r absolutely right. Thax for the "enlightenment". Indeed QC exists, so what if it contradicts "Theory of Relativity", and indeed Universe is....errr....alive and kicking a$$, and we are the warts (and therfore the itch) in its testicles. 

@mediator, u are right too, as always. I wish i could take a dip in your sea of wisdom and enrich myself. Pity. Pity. Pity.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

wwwwwwwwwwoooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww

where the hell is this thread running towards

i dodnt expect this much is there to debate about this topic..

but still many out there dont know how to diff from GOD AND SCIENCE...

coz they cant... its been buried deep into thier minds where they mingle each other with many twisting...


----------



## zyberboy (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				naveen_reloaded said:
			
		

> i dodnt expect this much is there to debate about this topic..


LOL.....u were right at the beginning wt happened now?



			
				naveen_reloaded said:
			
		

> i think this is the most controversial subject ever to be discussed...


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Indeed QC exists, so what if it contradicts "Theory of Relativity"


How exactly does it contradict with the Theory of Relativity? Care to explain?
Besides, GR itself contradicted with Newton's laws of gravity. String theory contradicts with crap load of other theories and hypotheses. This is how science works.


----------



## karnivore (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

You guys just can't let go it, can u. Anyway read the following. This is a must read for all those who believe in QC, Consciousness of U and all that crap. I hav taken the liberty to edit the essay, because of space constraint. But please go through it, at least once, before doing the obvious - debunking it.

Sorry for the long post - i had to, and sorry for the lousy formatting.


> *The Myth of Quantum Consciousness* :-
> By, *Victor J. Stenger*
> Published in _*The Humanist*, _May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, pp. 13-15.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I can see that you've learned a lot from this old and misguided article by a professor of philosophy, that you have grown accustomed to regard higher than the works of theoretical physicists like Smolin, Penrose and others.

Aether and relativity have nothing to do with QC or QM. You should really review your taste in technical articles and all those things you learn from them.


----------



## karnivore (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Havn't gone through the entire article, have u ? Either that or u are indeed a genius. I posted it at 1:59 pm and u replied at 2:12 pm. It took u 13min to read, understand, and reply. WOW..........


----------



## Help~Is~Here (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Guys, this is not such a debatable topic if you just put common sense to it!!

It's sad to see that people still don't realise that the thing you call 'science' is the knowledge that god gave you and trying to use the knowledge he gave you against him is absolutely appauling!!

eg: Your dad/mom brings you up, teaches you everything in life, gives you knowledge and at the end when you grow up, to get something, you use all the knowledge they gave you, every technique they taught you against them!! That's what we are doing now. Talking about something to which you already know the answer. And those denying the existence of god which has been proven with clear signs time and again is just one of those mentally retarded. It's all in history and we humans have a very bad habit of forgetting history very quickly and asking the same dumb old questions that's has already been answered and proven!

Don't keep asking the same questions, rather go back and learn history, the previous discoveries and so called scientific break through and read the scripture god has sent. There you'll find the relation and understand the true existance of GOD!

I'm am not critizing science or anybody related to the scientific field, rather trying to tell that Science like everything else has been created by GOD and don't use the knowledge he gave you against him, for we are nothing in front of the all powerfull and all mighty!!


----------



## karnivore (Jul 8, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Utter nonsense.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 9, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> ^^ Havn't gone through the entire article, have u ? Either that or u are indeed a genius. I posted it at 1:59 pm and u replied at 2:12 pm. It took u 13min to read, understand, and reply. WOW..........


This wasn't the first time I was reading this article.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Aug 19, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Help~Is~Here said:
			
		

> Guys, this is not such a debatable topic if you just put common sense to it!!
> 
> It's sad to see that people still don't realise that the thing you call 'science' is the knowledge that god gave you and trying to use the knowledge he gave you against him is absolutely appauling!!
> 
> ...



please dont be a kid!!!

LOL...

u better start realising .....


----------



## Drizzling Blur (Aug 19, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science

Phew ! I cant believe people posting here on forums with the necessary intellect cannot decide on the right option.


----------



## Yamaraj (Aug 20, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Drizzling Blur said:
			
		

> Science
> 
> Phew ! I cant believe people posting here on forums with the necessary intellect cannot decide on the right option.


Your apparent intellect makes me feel jealous.

Anyway, here is an incomplete article from the New Scientist, posted in line of my rants on the subject of "Quantum consciousness and the Universe".



> Spooks in space
> 
> * 17 August 2007
> * Mason Inman
> ...


Source: - *www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html

Too bad, one must register to read the whole article, but we can still continue our discussion on the matter in the light of various other resources and texts being available both online and offline. Those interested are advised to read my previous posts in this very thread for a common man's overview of the subject.


----------



## Drizzling Blur (Aug 20, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Yamaraj said:
			
		

> Anyway, here is an incomplete article from the New Scientist, posted in line of my rants on the subject of "Quantum consciousness and the Universe".
> 
> 
> Source: - *www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html
> ...



Interesting !


----------



## Tech$oft (Aug 20, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

No i think there is god in every thing
so we must not forget the one who created all things and science is also created by the one god


----------



## nish_higher (Aug 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

science can be proved.it has explanation.so for me science is the answer..


----------



## Yamaraj (Aug 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				nish_higher said:
			
		

> science can be proved.it has explanation.so for me science is the answer..


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 (Aug 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

explained by observations and calculations.


----------



## entrana (Aug 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

in my opinion
1. god could or could not exist
2. For now science have proof which we believe in
3. if we dont know anything we say god does
4. we pray to god so we can put tension aside, which is wrong and right 
wrong because  u shudnt place sometihng in the hands of sometihng which doesent exist or isnt proven for example i handed a problem to god also helping myself but nooooo god didnt want to help me anyways it is also good because a human mind cannot function properly with tension
its entirely upon us if we want to believe on god or not but we for now i dont think it is possible to proof, so i myself go with science
regarding all those aircraft proof, we dont have proof of the dates they cud be made after or before or theory who knows i personally am a atheist anyways its up to you but i follow some of the ten commandments like love thy neighbour as u love thyself and stuff so anyways this debate will never be over


----------



## mayanks_098 (Aug 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

i am an athiest.

no god for me


----------



## entrana (Aug 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^ amen


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

i dont believe what i dont see.
so science for me.
god doesnt come and save a person who is suffering from TB.
they r the doctors who with the help of science care to treat the dying person.
moreover,god didnt invent ,TV,Comps,Microsscopes,telescopes,and even the internet through which we r connected.
So,..hhhmmm....we got no conclusions.
therefore,i belive in god and will keep believing.


----------



## vish786 (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				abtom said:
			
		

> i dont believe what i dont see.
> so science for me.



 then ur d only person who can see electrons, neutrons, protons.......


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

hhhmmm.....i actually meant the thing which havent been proved yet.
aare yaar samjha karo.
bachche ki jaan loge kya?
BTW neutrons,protons and electrons can be seen through some kinda microscope.


----------



## dantool (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^
absolutely write....maybe you'll start beleivin in god when
they create a telescope with which you can watch heaven...
BTW i know one god satya shri sai baba....you can usaually 
see him on ur tv


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

yeah right dude.
no one can give a proof of existence of god.
But science-i daily study it.its quite boring but it exists at least.
Shradha wala kaam nahi hai.


----------



## vish786 (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				abtom said:
			
		

> BTW neutrons,protons and electrons can be seen through some kinda microscope.


such microscope does not exists yet.


----------



## azzu (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^^ right


----------



## Ankur Gupta (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^But their existence has been proved....


----------



## azzu (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^ there existence has been provd thats wat we study all in high school physics but there's no such microscope rght now cud soon (ill make it soon )


----------



## qadirahmed (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

what about that things which are mentioned in God's Holy Book
before science invent that........?


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@admin-please delete this post.


----------



## azzu (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

dont take any religion in here jus tell that ur on which side thats all
simple
no worries


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

ok azzu.
will never happen again.
i am with GOD.
Science exists but i am and will always be faithful to God.


----------



## azzu (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

hey hey hey iam not ordering u i was just sugg u so that we can make the forum clean thats all dude every1 has his opinion 
btw : ur signature is mind blowin do u really havit


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				azzu said:
			
		

> btw : ur signature is mind blowin do u really havit


obviously yaar.
jhooth thodi bolunga i mean liknonga i mean typonga.
ya mate,its true.
but most of the poeple on this forum have better config than me.
so its not mind blowing but gud enough to run new games.
BTW lol,this is a thread with completely diff topic.
maybe we shud use PM for such things.
Just a sugg.


----------



## azzu (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@abtom@this is a thread with completely diff topic.
maybe we shud use PM for such things.
Just a sugg.

  ur rght bro but this is bandwidth wastage CHALta hai


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Chalta hai to chalao.
waise i must say teri baaten bhool bulaiya.


----------



## azzu (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

ok ok ok on to topic
what's ur choice 
god , science ,both ?


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

GOD,always.
Waise i said,calta hai to chala lo.
i mean continue with the topic.

GOD,always.
Waise i said,calta hai to chala lo.
i mean continue with the topic.


----------



## Ksquare (Sep 29, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

its science...there is nothing like god..


----------



## SunnyChahal (Sep 29, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Ksquare said:
			
		

> its science...there is nothing like god..


really?


----------



## qadirahmed (Oct 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

No God or Know God?


An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem Science has with God, The Almighty.


He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.


Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.



Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.


Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.


Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.)


Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?

Student: Yes.


Prof: Is Satan good ?

Student: No.


Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God.. .


Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.


Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.


Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer. )



Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.



Prof: So, who created them?

( Student has no answer.)



Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.



Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.


Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.



Prof: Yet you still believe in Him ?

Student: Yes.



Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.



Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.



Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.



Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.



Student: No sir. There isn't.


(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events .)



Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat,


But we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.


Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.



(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre .)


Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?



Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't.


If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?



Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?



Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.


Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.


To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?


Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?


(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)



Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?


(The class is in uproar .)


Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?


(The class breaks out into laughter.)


Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.


With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?



(The room is silent . The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. )



Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.


Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH .

That is all that keeps things moving & alive....... ......... ..



Best Regard


----------



## karnivore (Oct 1, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ That is a real silly story. Got loopholes all over.


----------



## qadirahmed (Oct 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

thats not a silly one.........
for the intelligent ppls there is lot of things


----------



## karnivore (Oct 5, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Really ??????


----------



## chesss (Oct 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Completely lame story..


----------



## azzu (Oct 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

the story is overdone 
but gotta say mee to fighted a much in conversation with our social and physics
teacher about same topic 
and there's perfect answer for it 
But god's the almighty to all


----------



## Ray (Oct 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

God exists.we can't prove if god exists but we also can't prove that god does not exist.


----------



## azzu (Oct 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ iam scared we can


----------



## Yamaraj (Oct 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> God exists.we can't prove if god exists but we also can't prove that god does not exist.


Human stupidity is infinite, hence god exists.


----------



## speedyguy (Oct 6, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

and it continues....newez i also dint appreciate dat story...n m not dat less intelligent...

Enjoy~!


----------



## sreevirus (Oct 7, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Wow!
Amazing thread, and an amazing debate going on here. Didn't read the entire thread, because it's gargantuan, and I'm neck deep in assignment work. But I've read enough to find a lot of arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance, mostly leading to Ignoratio elenchi.

But leave all that, I think these videos are totally relevant to anybody who craves a bit of enlightenment.

The Root of All Evil:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5627242120502502207
(96 minutes)

The Enemies of Reason:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047
(96 minutes)

The Big Question: Why we are here?
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8572351836469636547
(24 minutes)

Caution: All the above videos are huge (watch only if you have enough bandwidth, and if you don't have a download limit)

But for the others, watch this amusing, albeit awesomely good video.

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJM4EBuL82o
(3 min, 53 sec)


[personal opinion]*Richard Dawkins rocks!*[/personal opinion]


----------



## club_pranay (Oct 13, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

there should be a fifth option the poll..
"science and God are inter-related, but it's beyond the scope of present human intellegence" or something like that


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Oct 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*osaichella.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-post_3913.html

found a inteersting article here....

thought of sharing...


> English quotes are Quoted from: Appendix No.1 of Part 3 of the book
> Riddles of Hinduism 1995
> By Dr. Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar
> 
> ...


----------



## SunnyChahal (Oct 27, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

yaar tumne toh puri ramayan hi likh di.


----------



## karnivore (Oct 28, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@naveen
Thats old news for me, but appreciate your post.
But,wWait for the troll-stars to come up with all sorts of mindless crap.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Nov 23, 2007)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Surely whoever created ramayana and mahabaratham must have had good sense of imagination.
I think in the present century...j.r.tolkein is the best...what a imaginative skill he has...


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Video: Al Qaeda in Iraq BURNS Hostages ALIVE!

result of religion/...


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I am Atheist. Religion is a hindrance to development and quite flawed. Thanks to religion, HUMANS, the entity religion is concentrating on the most, are suffering. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Science is the only solution.


----------



## nish_higher (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

yea ! science gave OS-X


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



MetalheadGautham said:


> I am Atheist. Religion is a hindrance to development and quite flawed. Thanks to religion, HUMANS, the entity religion is concentrating on the most, are suffering. All this I cannot bear to witness any longer. Science is the only solution.



true...

true...

just look at the video.... i just posted..


----------



## zyberboy (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



naveen_reloaded said:


> Video: Al Qaeda in Iraq BURNS Hostages ALIVE!
> 
> result of religion/...


sick people in the name of religion

Images like these reminds me of the dialouge from Blood Diamond in which 

Leonardo says: sometimes i wonder if God will forgive us for what we have done to each other, then I look around and realise that God left this place a long time ago.



MetalheadGautham said:


> Science is the only solution.


ya ya...with enough nuclear power to destroy the world 100 times

*www.gensuikin.org/panel/18.jpg
Hiroshima Victims


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

ya but comppared to religion science damage is least


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



zyberboy said:


> ya ya...with enough nuclear power to destroy the world 100 times
> 
> *www.gensuikin.org/panel/18.jpg
> Hiroshima Victims


that was not science. that was human evil.
science is all about truth. absolute truth.
when it is combined with basic values of peace, coexistance, hard work and cooperation, its unbeatable


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



MetalheadGautham said:


> that was not science. that was human evil.
> science is all about truth. absolute truth.
> when it is combined with basic values of peace, coexistance, hard work and cooperation, its unbeatable







+10


----------



## too_techy (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ what about nationality? far more people have been killed in the name of nationalism than in the name of God, should we get rid of nations too ?

I think the fault is not with religions but with how people use them, if isn't religion, then the crazies from around the world will find some other excuse to hate and kill each others. So blaming religion for the fault of the people is  very wrong.


----------



## zyberboy (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^Exactly



MetalheadGautham said:


> that was not science. that was human evil.
> science is all about truth. absolute truth.
> when it is combined with basic values of peace, coexistance, hard work and cooperation, its unbeatable


Ya...but often it diverts frm its paths same  the case with religion


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

who knows.. if there wasnt any religion... there wouldnt be any killing .. stuff like that...

are monkeys killing each other...???

we are...


----------



## too_techy (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

its a commonly held misbelief  that other species don't kill each other,
in reality  there a lots of species that  kill their own kind, usually for  hunting  grounds, mates  and so on.  and humans are no different.


----------



## zyberboy (Feb 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



naveen_reloaded said:


> are monkeys killing each other...???


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.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 16, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



zyberboy said:


> 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.



we too kill chickens,goat etc....

that doesnt matter...

please show some evidence that animal kill within thier own species.. i am not saying its not possible... simply just i dont know..

even if so... compararitivley .. we ar worst.. more over we have the f()cking 6th sense


----------



## legolas (Feb 16, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@naveen_reloaded
1) Snakes kill other snakes & *eat*. This light-creature (don't know the actual name)... the female kills the male. (am not sure if its of the same exact species though). And to quote *"kill"* if it is the word, I can go on saying, Leopards, Cheetahs, Tigers, Crocodiles..... everything has killed their own species during territory marking issues  and in case of crocodiles mostly during times of pregnancy...  (mothers kill children even... for that matter cubs).
2) There is a difference between *fanaticism* and *Religion*. While the latter was the true sense of it.. much of what is practiced is Fanaticism now. Don't blame Religion for corrupted minds existing now who just wanted to enjoy the luxuries the government and other religious societies bestow them for conversion of religion and other craps
3) You should have known while starting this topic itself that there is not going to be a conclusion to this topic! 
4) I am agnostic.
5) let me ask you something, which I read from a book (will reference later)... When you toss a coin say 1000 times, what can you tell about the outcome of the experiment? Its a very simple question (don't dig deeper).
6) The plight about science is, it can never give an answer to the question *"why?"* It answers sufficiently "what?"

Lets start with F = m.a. Force is mass times acceleration.

what is mass -> bla bla bla bla in 9th std text books
what is acceleration -> again the same
why is f = m.a? why is the speed of light 3*1e8? why are waves beyond visible light not visible? why aren't we able to fly (not have wings). Why the f@ck did nature need us, when all it wants is trees and ants (from science again, documentary).
7) don't confuse EPICS with God. Understanding the definition of God itself takes serious openmindedness. Besides, I don't see the point where you quote flaws about Rama. As an avatar of God, as human, he did what we idiots would do. The Earthly pleasures.
8) I couldn't read all the 22 pages. So, it would be better if you could lay down your points either in response to this post or in general your views, so that I can try to express my opinions, in a sane manner. I just read some replies in the first and last pages and some others which caught my attention.

In science terms, just because you think, believe, know only classical physics doesn't make Quantum physics any less a concept. Science has done equal damage (not pure definition of science) equally as *fanaticism* is to religion. 
So, if you were to quote human evil resulting in the name of religion, I can name the same happening in the name of Science. 
Your topic is Science & religion or Science & God? You get the difference right?

Finally, (also from the same reference), if you take a car to go somewhere, and I ask you, "did the car bring you here or did you bring the car?" what would be your answer?

take it easy!


----------



## neelu09 (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Humans r responcible 4 all evil. Not relegions nor science is evil. There is some force which runs this universe. U nead a creator. Things cant form by itself. But then who made God. All in all the best topic to waste bandwidth


----------



## chesss (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> why are waves beyond visible light not visible?


 actually they are


> Humans r responcible 4 all evil.


 hain hain, lets end these evil dudes.. no humans no tension


----------



## Faun (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



chesss said:


> hain hain, lets end these evil dudes.. no humans no tension


nuke'em all, let the manatees rule


----------



## legolas (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				chesss said:
			
		

> actually they are



What is? IR? UV? X-Rays? Gamma rays? Radio waves?

@T159,
why leave only the aquatics... What abt the other animals?


----------



## Faun (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



legolas said:


> What is? IR? UV? X-Rays? Gamma rays? Radio waves?


there are ways to see them, IR scanners etc. 
But we are still at null.



legolas said:


> @T159,
> why leave only the aquatics... What abt the other animals?


Only manatees should be spared, neway they are at the verge of extinction.

Others should njoy Mantis Shrimp revenge.


----------



## legolas (Feb 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



T159 said:


> there are ways to see them, IR scanners etc.
> But we are still at null.
> 
> 
> ...


OFF TOPIC: ha ha! funny.
We don't see them. We recognize them as heat and color code it!! We interpret them because of our incompetency in birth. Our eye lens protects the eye by filtering the rays. Either ways, this is getting off topic. So, I dont think there is a point to quibble on this further.


----------



## karina_got_it (Feb 18, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

even u don believ god. if u say god created evrything then say something about the creation of god...?
veda says "Nothing moves without the wish of god"
can accused escape from their crimes saying he is only a tool

as said earlier evryone will start hating god if he comes to share ur lunch.
90% of people think him as a ATM to giv what ever they ask

even 2 % wont love GOD if he loses all his holy powers and comes to u for shelter, food and clothing

even most saints love god so that they can be happy after death(Beleif of life after death)

thr's nothing like unconditional love of god anywhere(sorry for one or two's who may be)


----------



## legolas (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I don't understand whose claim are you supporting to. specifically the "even you dont" part.


----------



## karina_got_it (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

actually it "I" and not "u". typo error. 

i mean those who says "i have belief in god too dont luv god as they say"


----------



## lywyre (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science is Proof. God is (just a) belief.


----------



## legolas (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

All I say is, our brain cannot perceive beyond what it can't comprehend. It doesn't mean nothing else exists. 

After all, our brain is stupid enough to interpret hot water poured on cold hands as pain!!
Even Fermat's last theorem took 26 (or more) years to prove. 
When I studied, there was no proof for "Wurtz reaction"... (in Organic Chemistry). I don't know if one exists now even.
Who knows the structure of aromatic compound Benzene?? Its a conjecture still! 
Pythogoras theorem is still to be proved...

U still believe it... The theory of mathematical induction holds good only for science??  

@karina, i totally agree to your point which claims there are none who have faith in God and *Follow* it.


----------



## karina_got_it (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

and argument goes on... its leading to "*Who is right rather than which is right*"

jus forget about god(even if he exist *he doesnt want u to pray to him*)
jus do ur duty and live the life. then u r better than saints.
its in veda and known as "karma dharma"


----------



## amitash (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

ppls have said science does not explain the formation of the universe...but tats untrue..science HAS given an explaination..and it has created a small universe in a lab by creating matter from nothing...most releigions say:God said "let there be light!" and lo the universe was formed...but now "Gods" miracle is created in a lab...i donno how but its entirely true...google it ull get plenty of results..also read the book:Angels & Deamons by Dan Brown..itll give u a good idea..


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*Is science faith-based?*



> _No.
> 
> Oh, you want details? OK then.
> 
> ...



*www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/


----------



## karnivore (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Hope u will not fall asleep while reading...this is really really long article (thought of editing a bit, but didn't get time).  
And am sorry i don't have the link, but am sure everybody knows how to google (don't have time right now)



> *Is Science a Religion?*
> *by Richard Dawkins*
> *Published in the Humanist, January/February 1997*
> 
> ...


----------



## sreevirus (Feb 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

_*"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" - Carl Sagan*_

I completely agree with karnivore's post. Dawkins is spot-on. Science is not a religion. Its stupid when people ask you 'if you don't believe in god, then do you must believe in science?'.
Its not about believing, it's more about reasoning. Scientific temper has a lot of meaning in it. Science doesn't make assumptions, and if assumptions are to be made, there would always be a solid reason or logic that supports it, which ultimately proves something.

If people can't grasp something, it's just their own fault that they cannot understand it, or else they are so wallowed in their faith that they will refuse to accept anything contradictory. Argument from ignorance or personal incredulity is totally unscientific. Every scientific explanation has a valid rationale behind it, and is derived using the scientific method. If something is not explained today, science discourages you to look at paranormal answers, but says that an explanation will be found out, if not tomorrow, then some other time in the future.

And its really immature to say that science has done great damage. If a fanatic nut decides to nuke a country, how can you say that science is at fault? Science is a just a tool. Even an ordinary pen can be used to kill a person. So is the pen evil? Or the murderer?

For people interested, please check the videos "The root of all evil" and "The enemies of reason" featuring Dawkins that I posted in this thread some time ago. They are really enlightening.
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=625506&postcount=419


----------



## abhi.eternal (Feb 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

here is an interesting one...

during one of my board exams, my preparation was not good. so i had nothing but only one option... GOD!! i prayed and prayed... may be not loudly but did. i passed, miraculously!! but then guess what... i took up SCIENCE!!

hence i could not vote as i didn't have a suitable option!


----------



## legolas (Feb 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

this topic doesn't even have a look up to the previous replies before replying... !!  
BTW, I just wanted to know from the ppl who do believe in God, "How did God come into existence??" Who created God?? (seems silly?)


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 26, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

back to the square one with that question..

anyway the answer is when monkey evolved ( read evolution) and got the 6 th sense... 

GOD is imaginary and created purely out of ones imagination to put in sorrows/anger/madness/emotion/feeling/reason/question and runaway without facing the reality..

its just like a sterile man asking for baby to god.. instead of going to a doc and undertaking neccesary medication or operation..


----------



## sreevirus (Feb 26, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@ Naveen, to put it in simple words, its just the Bogeyman story for the adults...


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 27, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

rightly said sreevirus..

and i like ur signature...


----------



## priyankarules.com (Feb 29, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I believe in god. Human is held back due to lack of divine qualities.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 29, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



priyankarules.com said:


> I believe in god. Human is held back due to lack of divine qualities.



no offence to nobody...>>>
and those who believe in god .. lack in BRAIN... !!!    

p.s .. is that website adveristsing allowed here ??? its not in signature either???


----------



## kalpik (Feb 29, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



priyankarules.com said:


> I believe in god. Human is held back due to lack of divine qualities.


You have been advertising your site blatantly in EVERY post of yours, in spite of me editing your post every time.

User banned for 7 days.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Feb 29, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

thats quick ^^^


----------



## kalpik (Feb 29, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****


----------



## stalion (Mar 6, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Science damn you all


----------



## legolas (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I am currently reading The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day. Its awesome. I also read "The God's Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and this book is a reply to the New Atheists as in the title. A must read...


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Mar 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

have u finished the bookkk???


----------



## ancientrites (Mar 15, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

In english we say god,in arabic,hindi and urdu we say allah.Yes i believe in God


----------



## legolas (Mar 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



naveen_reloaded said:


> have u finished the bookkk???


not yet, got held up. shud be finishing soon. but so far, the arguments are really good and interesting!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Mar 17, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



ancientrites said:


> In english we say god,in arabic,hindi and urdu we say allah.Yes i believe in God



in the language of science we say GOD is just a HOAX !!!!!


----------



## Rockstar11 (Mar 18, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

ishwar


----------



## rohan_mhtr (Mar 18, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Ok guys all of you should explain this , it is not related to god but is something supernatural that cannot be explained by science
Being a third year B.E student I always used to make fun of my mom who is a frequent visitor to temples , one of my uncle noticed this and asked me about this behaviour , for which i said that i did'nt belive in god and all that stuff. My uncle is a well known doctor in kem hospital (mumbai) , after few days he took me to the hospital in aids patients ward along with few other people. there was a last stage aids patient who was going to die at any movement. That patient was put in a glass cabin just before dying and when he died there was a small crack on the glass . My uncle explained that the crack was created since the patient's soul needed some exit . This was one of the shocking incident in my life and from that day i never make fun of my mother and sometimes also accompany her to temples.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

It should either do with collapse of the lungs when i person dies... Or another thing is may be all the air leaving his body like air in large intestine and bowel and other place.... And increase in volume me air inside it, which would have caused the crack...

 There is nothing called soul, its like saying a software exiting a system after windows crashes....and breaking the monitor...
It wont and it cant...there should be some other thing involved...


----------



## rohan_mhtr (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Air leaving the body . 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.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Wasnt that a air tight glass column?
If so there are chances...
Lung is a very powerfull organ and is capable of creating negative pressure ..or say it may have great effect over the pressure...


----------



## mediator (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



naveen_reloaded said:


> It should either do with collapse of the lungs when i person dies... Or another thing *is may be* all the air leaving his body like air in large intestine and bowel and other place.... And increase in volume me air inside it, which would have caused the crack...
> 
> There is nothing called soul, its like saying a software exiting a system after windows crashes....and breaking the monitor...
> It wont and it cant...there should be some other thing involved...


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.


----------



## chesss (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> That patient was put in a glass cabin just before dying and when he died there was a small crack on the glass .


 u experienced this first hand??


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

And I thought that 'souls' can pass through anything 


ANONYMOUS RULEZ


----------



## MiNiMaL_sAnItY (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

People just throw out terms for sake of arguments, forgetting that their myopic vision will bring demise to human population one way or the others. We should have been out there populating other planets and keeping the species alive, but we'd rather fight ourselves to death over a god who gave us nothing but suffering, and the damn idiots who thought that the suffering was probably for a greater cause or a "plan of god". 

We wait everyday for god to give us orders, now we wait for the television to tell us what we should think or not, what is right or wrong. A cathode tube manipulating our great marvels of brains! scientists are busy toiling away, not researching cancer, or how to inhabit other planets, but rather how to make your dick larger, or your boobs bigger, or making up flavoured bananas!!!

we fight wars over pieces of land, I mean how juvenile is that? You're willing to die for your country? ITS JUST ****IN DUST YOU MORONS!! when will we stop fighting for oil or money, and fight for humanities survival?? when will we stop arguing over spreading pollution and then turning a blind eye towards global warming, JUST BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR DAMN ECONOMY?

Forget it, science or god, its a lost cause. Its humanity who's ****ed, not science, and certainly not god. And we are too worried over getting a new car than to worry over fixing it. Recite after me people, IGNORANCE IS BLISS, IGNORANCE IS BLISS......


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> we fight wars over pieces of land, I mean how juvenile is that? You're willing to die for your country? ITS JUST ****IN DUST YOU MORONS!! when will we stop fighting for oil or money, and fight for humanities survival?? when will we stop arguing over spreading pollution and then turning a blind eye towards global warming, JUST BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR DAMN ECONOMY?




Good point. But we are improving.  first we officially fought between castes/small regions/religions/sexes. Now, such wars are offically made illegal.  Some decades ago, the only legal war acceptable was 'between nations'. Now, it is 'between blocs'.  Soon, there will be no war.

PS: I'm not talking about terrorists or 'The War on Terror'


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



mediator said:


> 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 am not a scientist... And am not in a position to experiment as well ....
This is just my theory...
Everything in science starts with theory...
And i dont see what soo funnier in my theory...
Why cant you come up with one reason?? You only look pathetic brother...putting hinderance to others vision or creativity...
And dont say thats the soul that makes the crack...
First of all i haven seen it...period...so most probably i cant explain...it... 
Instead of criticing...why cant you find a explanation for it...


----------



## karnivore (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ He already has the answer......SOUL. (Piece of crap)


----------



## mediator (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



naveen_reloaded said:


> I am not a scientist... And am not in a position to experiment as well ....
> This is just my theory...
> Everything in science starts with theory...
> And i dont see what soo funnier in my theory...
> ...


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.

Lets look at what u said.


			
				naveen said:
			
		

> It should either do with collapse of the lungs when i person dies... Or another thing *is may be* all the air leaving his body like air in large intestine and bowel and other place.... And increase in volume me air inside it, which would have caused the crack...


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".

So if u r not a scientist, not in a position to "experiment" it as well, then how come u call it even a "theory"?? Do u even know what a theory is? Theories are based on "[SIZE=-1]observation, experimentation, and reasoning.". But in ur unique case I see only  "belief",  self-righteous  [/SIZE]opinions and nuthing more....an exact case resembling the people who blindly believe in God. So ur post is nuthing but funny and arguing over it naturally makes u look more pathetic.

About me, u can see my vote in the poll.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> ^^ He already has the answer......SOUL. (Piece of crap)


I'm yet to say anything on soul dear.


----------



## rohan_mhtr (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

This was the same feeling I had after that incident and was eager to find scientific reason behind it but till now i dont have any explanation. My uncle is a doctor and even he cant explain this phenomenon .


----------



## mediator (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Like I said before there r various things that science can't explain coz it needs logic behind e.g homeopathy and the "blind believers" of modern-science will limit themselves to the approaches marked by it.
Read a few examples if u have the time.


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^ Had you been born 1000 years ago, you would have questioned gravity and would have blamed science for being unable to explain it. 

Simply because 'Modern Science' cant explain something, doesn't mean that science is false and that g0d exists. Science will provide answers for such things in the future just like it has done in the past.

Atleast, science makes more sense that religion/g0d which propagates ignorance by saying that "g0d is everything". Such people just dont want to know the truth. Religion/g0d can provide an illogical, one-time, satisfactory answer. Science offers  logical, partly, half-satisfactory answers over time.

I do not believe in unproven theories like the big-bang, I only speculate them. All people who believe in science do the same. Once someone proves it on the basis of other theories/experimental proof, I will believe that. Same applies for any theory in science. Scientists dont rush up to conclusions, they provide answers only after careful analyses. No one can question E=mc^2 of F=ma. But one can question Ravana's ten heads or the Adam's apple.

Science pwns g0d. (for the moment)


----------



## karnivore (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

For all HOMEOPATHY fans, here's something



> Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.
> A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.


Read more....



> Here is a model trial for homeopathy. You take, say, 200 people, and divide them at random into two groups of 100. All of the patients visit their homeopath, they all get a homeopathic prescription at the end (because homeopaths love to prescribe pills even more than doctors) for whatever it is that the homeopath wants to prescribe, and all the patients take their prescription to the homeopathic pharmacy. Every patient can be prescribed something completely different, an “individualised” prescription - it doesn’t matter.
> Now here is the twist: one group gets the real homeopathy pills they were prescribed (whatever they were), and the patients in the other group are given fake sugar pills. Crucially, neither the patients, nor the people who meet them in the trial, know who is getting which treatment.
> This trial has been done, time and time again, with homeopathy, and when you do a trial like this, you find, overall, that the people getting the placebo sugar pills do just as well as those getting the real, posh, expensive, technical, magical homeopathy pills.


Read more....

Here's James Randy, explaining HOMEOPATHY, and here's where he declares $1 million for anybody who can prove HOMEOPATHY is science. Those greens are still up for the grabs. Anybody interested ????????


----------



## mediator (Mar 19, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> ^^^ Had you been born 1000 years ago, you would have questioned gravity and would have blamed science for being unable to explain it.


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.

I wud still question how come time is regarded as 4th dimension, since in dimensions one can move forwards and backwards both, and how come the 'relative speed' of 2 objects moving towards each other with speed of light remains equal to speed of light. An observation, a fact contradicting a physics "law'?? 



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Atleast, science makes more sense that religion/g0d which propagates ignorance by saying that "g0d is everything". Such people just dont want to know the truth. Religion/g0d can provide an illogical, one-time, satisfactory answer. Science offers logical, partly, half-satisfactory answers over time.
> 
> I do not believe in unproven theories like the big-bang, I only speculate them. All people who believe in science do the same. Once someone proves it on the basis of other theories/experimental proof, I will believe that. Same applies for any theory in science. Scientists dont rush up to conclusions, they provide answers only after careful analyses. No one can question E=mc^2 of F=ma. But one can question Ravana's ten heads or the Adam's apple.
> 
> Science pwns g0d. (for the moment)


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. 



Now @ill-informed-critics, it seems u haven't read ur very own article or ur sense of humour is reaching its peak. May be I shud post the comments from that page just for ur limited interest.



> *From a Californian who runs seminars teaching people "how to reduce stress by finding their natural breathing pattern":*
> 
> I am very open minded. I would use drugs, surgery whatever it takes . . . but I feel homeopathy has value and the word "fake" is counterproductive and judgemental. I feel you have not researched the many scholars around the globe that are researching the quantum biological perspective. A few key biophysicists are gaining knowledge that there are subatomic fields that interpenetrate and structure the molecular level. These fields can directly relate to how homeopathy works. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MOLECULES OF THE SUBSTANCE IN THE REMEDY TO AFFECT THESE UNDERLYING FIELDS. A SUBATOMIC WAVE FIELD THAT IS CARRYED BY THE WATER OR SUGAR IN THE REMEDY IS INTERACTING WITH THE SUBATOMIC FIELDS UNDERLYING THE PHYSICAL MATTER OF THE PATIENT. The problem is our limited technology can only measure a limited band of the energy spectrum. WE ARE NOT THAT ADVANCED AS A CIVILISATION. JUST WATCH THE NEWS.






> *From an unidentified homeopathic enthusiast:*
> 
> Homeopathy works and you simply are too narrow-minded to understand that this world is made up of more than the mere physical and chemical natures. You overlook the spiritual and the energetic. You are the quack.





> *From another homeopathic enthusiast:*
> 
> What a sad sorry piece of **** masquerading as science your article is. Which drug company are you a front for? *Do you know how many people die each year as a result of prescribed "scientifically validated" drugs?* How many people do you murder (sorry treat) each week? How it must irk you that homeopathy is making a huge resurgence worldwide and safely treating iatrogenic and "incurable" diseases. We must start a web site to encourage people to sue doctors and drug companies for harmful side effects, lying and murder. It will be a huge counter punch to established medical quackery.


Sorry to quote the comments since I too feel that article has been published by an ignorant M.D.

may be I too shud give some links just for ur interest. Read.....
*www.taniachapman.com/whychoose.htm
*www.emaxhealth.com/60/633.html




> Homeopathy has existed for about 200 years, yet reports in the media have suggested that homeopathy is the medicine of the future. Today, homeopathy is found in almost every country. In Europe, 40% of French physicians use homeopathy; 40% of Dutch, 37% of British, and 20% of German physicians use homeopathy [1]. In the United States, hundreds of thousands of people take homeopathic remedies each year. Indeed, homeopathy seems to be becoming more popular.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Read the complete thing

So @ignorant-critics I think u just googled some phrase like "Homeopathy ineffective or fake" and came up with ur sources. But u, I think, have no idea why homeopathy is worldwide popular.




> Here's James Randy, explaining HOMEOPATHY, and here's where he declares *$1 million for anybody who can prove HOMEOPATHY is science*. Those greens are still up for the grabs. Anybody interested ????????


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.

Its really funny to see how people who term themselves as "broadminded" fail to look at the both the sides of the thing and then blindly believr in one of them.

Neways from my vote I guess the people wud have understood by now that I'm not a god believer either. 

BTW how many read that intuition link? Its well known. Does science approve it?? 

I think a few things are being repeated, so please read the thread again. Homeopathy was already discussed u know!!


----------



## Faun (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

that intuition article was a good read


----------



## mediator (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Good to know u liked it.  
There r several such things to read on. But it depends how much one's brain is evolved, how much understanding he has and how much "broadminded" he is to look beyond the things that r taught to him since his childhood.


----------



## karnivore (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

*@knowledgeable-believer*

Tone is pretty loud, but as usual, without any explanation as to why homeopathy works. All i get to know is, a state-secret, that homeopathy "works" and not such a state-secret, that we are all ignorant critics and louts. Thought that the 2nd link answered that.

Anyway, I am yet to come across a very well reasoned argument as to why "Avogadro's rule" doesn't apparently apply to homeopathy. (It seems our @knowledgeable-believer hasn't heard of the defense of the homeopathy brigade in this matter).

"Vital Force" ???? Why does it remind me of something called "Aether", wrongly introduced by Newton to prove a bunch of mathematical expressions, called "Gravity" - and later successfully disproved by Einstein. Oh i get it. When u can't explain anything say something mumbo-jumbo and call it "beyond science to comprehend". Yeah, that explains everything. Its like, i introduce a mumbo-jumbo and its upto you prove it. Funny, isn't it ??

Why is it that every site that tries to "enlighten" us with some crap - intuition, in this case - has something or the other to sell. How much a commercial site, that has related product to sell, can be trusted, is open for debate (however, not on this forum). Anyway, my un-informed, ignorant view about intuition is that it is nothing but some feelings, which are based on past experience and one's understanding. Thats all that there is.  
And yes, every body who stands opposite to @knowledgeable-believer, is ignorant, a fool and all those nasty words in the dictionary. It's a given.

As with "plagiarizing" and "googling", well, what to say to a "run-out-of-logic" kid's babbles.

Just a reminder, *$ 1 million is waiting*


----------



## sreevirus (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@ mediator, in a debate, characterizing an opponent is considered below the belt tactics. I would like you to exercise some restraint on this. Don't throw a healthy debate into the gutters.

On topic.
The language of science is considered to be mathematics. A theory would be considered if it falls in line with mathematical expressions which are based on some axioms. Considering this aspect, I would like to remind you somthing nothing would be scientifically accepted if observations cannot be scientifically (mathematically, to be precise) proven.

Moving on, @ mediator, from your post, you quoted:


> *From a Californian who runs seminars teaching people "how to reduce stress by finding their natural breathing pattern":*
> 
> I am very open minded. I would use drugs, surgery whatever it takes . . . but I feel homeopathy has value and the word "fake" is counterproductive and judgemental. I feel you have not researched the many scholars around the globe that are researching the quantum biological perspective. A few key biophysicists are gaining knowledge that there are subatomic fields that interpenetrate and structure the molecular level. These fields can directly relate to how homeopathy works. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MOLECULES OF THE SUBSTANCE IN THE REMEDY TO AFFECT THESE UNDERLYING FIELDS. A SUBATOMIC WAVE FIELD THAT IS CARRYED BY THE WATER OR SUGAR IN THE REMEDY IS INTERACTING WITH THE SUBATOMIC FIELDS UNDERLYING THE PHYSICAL MATTER OF THE PATIENT. The problem is our limited technology can only measure a limited band of the energy spectrum. WE ARE NOT THAT ADVANCED AS A CIVILISATION. JUST WATCH THE NEWS.


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.

Now I would also like to gather attention around claims where people falsely say are backed by science. They use scientific language (like the subatomic wave field here) to back up something unscientific (interaction of it with the patient, again unproven). The use of scientific jargon (or should I say scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo) sure would catch the attention of gullible people because, what can I say, science is after all, science, and has a certain respect to it.

@ mediator, you have just put claims of some individuals, you have not put forth any scientific proofs. Your method is unscientific. So people have claimed that they have been abducted by aliens on UFOs, but then how credible can they be? You said homeopathy is popular. But so are astrology, tarot cards, palmistry, numerology, etc. Popularity does not make anything credible to science. You would, at any given time or place, find more superstitious people than skeptics. And these people would rather believe in made up stories than things backed by evidence.

Coming to science, I would say that you should watch the 3-part series The Elegant Universe (I saw it on google video). It explains a lot about string theory. I'm talking about string theory here, because I was reminded by your post of the series, where they tried to explain string theory. String theory has a mathematical proof. But it is not observable. There are still debates going on about it, but it is credible, because its based on the solution to different equations. The theory is controversial because strings can never be observed. On a scale, if an atom is compared to the solar system, then a string would only be the size of a tree on earth. Where does that lead us to? Strings can never be visible to us. But their existence can be debated, because their foundation is scientific. But can you say the same about homeopathy or astrology? Claims are made, but there are no scientific proof. Why do you think James Randy's challenge has stood on since 1964?

I would urge (once again) fans of alternative medicines to watch Richard Dawkins' The Enemies of Reason [1] [2] (wikipedia). It is truly enlightening. 
Here are the closing quotes of Dawkins:


> In ayurveda or clairvoyance, homeopathy or astrology, we are confronted by those who deny evidence of the real world and instead bend reality around a dogmatic belief system, handed down by tradition. Skeptical, rational  inquiry is always the best approach. We don't have to follow the herd and buy into trendy, untested health fads, we don't have to be swayed this way and that by media-driven health scares. Instead , we can think independently, be truly open minded - that means asking questions, being open to real corroborated evidence. Reason has liberated us from superstition, and given us centuries of progress. We abandon it at our peril.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Awesome...
Well said...
Right from first line!
In those days theory where made and later only scientific proof were been shown to prove a theory...and providing theory need not necessarily be accompanied by am experiment by the same person...!
Its called theory coz there isnt a credible proof to back it up...
So understand it...first...
I am just saying that when a person dies...the volume inside the lung may be released and could POSSIBLY create a possitive pressure or a relative change in pressure than the surrounding ...we all any unbalanced pressure or force tries to maintain a equilibrium...and so to normalise the pressure ,the glass could be broken...  
AND THIS IS A THEORY...
undertand it first...

Again 1+ for the first line in sreevirus prev post..


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



mediator said:


> 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.



I seriously doubt that. 

Here's your problem. You are like feeling like WTF, when someone talks about science. Science is not history or religion, science is bound to change when someone discovers something new. You dont get 100% results at one go. You go 90%, 99%, 99.9%,99.99%........... and u will never reach 100%. FFS, change ur attitute towards science. You want to everyone to start science anew, from fire? . Fine, in that case no one go beyond discovering friction. Science needs continuity between scientists of one generation and the next. They learn the already discovered facts with proofs in a short time (read school) , so that they can go on and research on their own with the aid of what they have learnt. And they find contradictions on what they have studied at school and find answers for it. If scientists were like 'you', they would have got nowhere. Einstein was able to frame laws on relativity because Newton discovered the laws of motion already. 




> I wud still question how come time is regarded as 4th dimension, since in dimensions one can move forwards and backwards both, and how come the 'relative speed' of 2 objects moving towards each other with speed of light remains equal to speed of light. An observation, a fact contradicting a physics "law'??



Yes, it contradicts, once.  It contradicts Galilean velocity addition.

Relative velocity = ( (v1)^2 + (v2)^2 + 2(v1)(v2)cos@))^0.5

this eqn is strictly valid only when v1,v2 << velocity of light

All those contradictions can be broken by Einstein's velocity addition 

By this theory, relative velocity cant exceed the velocity of light. It goes like this. Consider m1 and m2 moving in opposite directions with velocities 0.5c and 0.5c. If their relative velocity is 1c, 

then m1 would appear to m2 as having infinite mass( by relative mass theory) and hence has infinite kinetic energy, which is impossible( since the total energy in the world is quantised)

so, here's the formula for einstein velocity addition. 

*hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html


Like I said " Science is moving from 90% to 99%"

I wont say that Einstein's velocity addition is complete. Contradictions would appear in the future and someone would provide another answer and take science to 99.9% completion.


My suggestion: Learn science before blaming it. U shouldn't hate something simple because you dont get it



> 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.


Running out of ideas to get one over me? That's a desparate comment.


----------



## mediator (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> @ mediator, in a debate, characterizing an opponent is considered below the belt tactics. I would like you to exercise some restraint on this. Don't throw a healthy debate into the gutters


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......

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=381553&postcount=194
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=381920&postcount=196
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=382035&postcount=198

I don't understand why mods don't clean that thread first inspite of my persistent remindings. BTW where did I characterize? If calling someone ignorant for his hilarious theories  and "blind belief" in something that is flawed itself, then sorry to tell this thread has already become a big gutter where theists have been characterized constantly. 




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> The language of science is considered to be mathematics. A theory would be considered if it falls in line with mathematical expressions which are based on some axioms. Considering this aspect, I would like to remind you somthing nothing would be scientifically accepted if observations cannot be scientifically (mathematically, to be precise) proven.


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:
			
		

> Now I would also like to gather attention around claims where people falsely say are backed by science. They use scientific language (like the subatomic wave field here) to back up something unscientific (interaction of it with the patient, again unproven). The use of scientific jargon (or should I say scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo) sure would catch the attention of gullible people because, what can I say, science is after all, science, and has a certain respect to it.


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.
But if u r telling that Dr.Mona Lisa Schulz, M.D., Ph.D, is telling that just to win some gullible souls, then I obviously feel sorry for u and think that u r far from reality. 




> The questions which should be addressed are as to why the modern mathematics is held up, *why its logic recoils upon itself and why there are mathematical problems, logical knots and mental blocks at all in the modern mathematical approach?
> 
> 
> 
> ...







			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Here are the closing quotes of Dawkins:
> 
> 
> > In ayurveda or clairvoyance, homeopathy or astrology, we are confronted by those who deny evidence of the real world and instead bend reality around a dogmatic belief system, handed down by tradition. Skeptical, rational inquiry is always the best approach. We don't have to follow the herd and buy into trendy, untested health fads, we don't have to be swayed this way and that by media-driven health scares. Instead , we can think independently, be truly open minded - that means asking questions, being open to real corroborated evidence. Reason has liberated us from superstition, and given us centuries of progress. We abandon it at our peril.


I'm in no way ridiculing modern science. But I'm quite convinced that modern science also is not without flaws.

Ayurveda, homeopathy are the fields whose medicines "work". It is well known that in humans alone, our immune systems are not quite the same. Your immune level may be stonger than mine.




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> @ mediator, you have just put claims of some individuals, you have not put forth any scientific proofs. Your method is unscientific. So people have claimed that they have been abducted by aliens on UFOs, but then how credible can they be? You said homeopathy is popular. But so are astrology, tarot cards, palmistry, numerology, etc. Popularity does not make anything credible to science. You would, at any given time or place, find more superstitious people than skeptics. And these people would rather believe in made up stories than things backed by evidence.


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??

Now what has UFO abduction has to do in this topic??  I guess u r not being "broadminded" now.
Sometime back the apollo moon landing was marked as real. It even became a subject in the student's course books. But now it has become a subject of controversy. What do u call that?

Read...



> Alternative medicine, chiefly various Ayurvedic therapies and Chinese techniques are becoming increasingly popular both in the land of their origin and the Western societies. As in other fields of applied sciences, modern medical science also has failed to resist the onslaught of corruption, consumerism, and utilitarian motives. *The deterioration in medical ethics, coupled with the limitations of modern scientific medicine in curing many diseases, has prompted many westerners to find alternative in the Eastern traditional methods of therapeutics.* While globalization of economy, easy exchange of scientific knowledge, and a big leap in information technology have helped the spread of scientific medicine, it is equally true that eastern ideas and culture have also made their impact on certain section of western community.
> 
> 
> Ayurveda is one such cultural exchange, which the Westerners feel might provide them with a holistic approach to their health problems. Ayurveda appears to profess a more humane approach towards the illness, which the modern medical practitioner appears to lack. Patients feel that modern medical science has become too commercial, almost to the point of being labeled as unethical. In addition to the sophisticated gadgetry, the patients need tender loving care as well. Ayurveda practitioners may not have remedy for every illness or malady, but their approach towards the patient appears more kind and natural. The treatments prescribed also bring the patients in touch with the nature by way of herbal and plant medicines, seasonal do's and don'ts, diet and exercises with desirable emphasis on life style modification. Aromatherapy, massage, and similar simple, albeit sometimes costly and time consuming, techniques bring confidence in the heart of the patients. In addition, recent surge in the interest in science of spirituality - Vedanta and Yoga - has also contributed to the revival of Ayurveda in East and the West.
> ...


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.

But, I guess u wont understand such things as ur approach is too "scientific" and science declares a person dead when his heart stops.

Read more

*www.indiandermatology.org/research/evidence-based-ayurveda

I dunno why the "broadminded" people are going by the stereotypical "scientific" approach. The west known for such sicentific approach ridiculed accupuncture, a traditional chinese system but now accupuncture centers are available in US also. Then they ridiculed yoga, a traditional INDIAN system. But now AFAIK, almost 50% of US practices Yoga.



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Coming to science, I would say that you should watch the 3-part series The Elegant Universe (I saw it on google video). It explains a lot about string theory. I'm talking about string theory here, because I was reminded by your post of the series, where they tried to explain string theory. String theory has a mathematical proof. But it is not observable. There are still debates going on about it, but it is credible, because its based on the solution to different equations. The theory is controversial because strings can never be observed. On a scale, if an atom is compared to the solar system, then a string would only be the size of a tree on earth. Where does that lead us to? Strings can never be visible to us. But their existence can be debated, because their foundation is scientific. But can you say the same about homeopathy or astrology? Claims are made, but there are no scientific proof.


Modern science!!



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Here's your problem. You are like feeling like WTF, when someone talks about science. Science is not history or religion, science is bound to change when someone discovers something new.


Keep saying that if it makes u feel better.



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> You dont get 100% results at one go. You go 90%, 99%, 99.9%,99.99%........... and u will never reach 100%. FFS, change ur attitute towards science. You want to everyone to start science anew, from fire? . Fine, in that case no one go beyond discovering friction. Science needs continuity between scientists of one generation and the next. They learn the already discovered facts with proofs in a short time (read school) , so that they can go on and research on their own with the aid of what they have learnt. And they find contradictions on what they have studied at school and find answers for it. If scientists were like 'you', they would have got nowhere. Einstein was able to frame laws on relativity because Newton discovered the laws of motion already.


Since u mentioned Einstein, Here a quote from him, 
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ....Understand what it means!!




			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Yes, it contradicts, once. It contradicts Galilean velocity addition.
> 
> Relative velocity = ( (v1)^2 + (v2)^2 + 2(v1)(v2)cos@))^0.5
> 
> ...


The science u believe in it seems is "limited" right in front of ur own eyes!!



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> My suggestion: Learn science before blaming it. U shouldn't hate something simple because you dont get it
> Running out of ideas to get one over me? That's a desparate comment.


Nice one from someone sooo "scientific". I wonder how many homeopathic, aurvedic pills u and ur circle takes!!.
My suggestion : Open up ur brains before ridiculing something sooo blindly just becoz u don't have any independent outlook of ur own. ANd BTW, I'm not hating science or blaming it blatantly, but simply saying science is filled with flaws and believing such "modern science" ignoring the flaws beneath is nuthing but just like being a blind theist!!

Now @scientific-unbeliever.


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Tone is pretty loud, but as usual, *without any explanation as to why homeopathy works.* All i get to know is, a state-secret, that homeopathy "works" and not such a state-secret, that we are all ignorant critics and louts. Thought that the 2nd link answered that
> 
> Anyway, I am yet to come across a very well reasoned argument as to why "Avogadro's rule" doesn't apparently apply to homeopathy. (It seems our @knowledgeable-believer hasn't heard of the defense of the homeopathy brigade in this matter).
> 
> Why is it that every site that tries to "enlighten" us with some crap - intuition, in this case - has something or the other to sell. How much a commercial site, that has related product to sell, can be trusted, is open for debate (however, not on this forum). Anyway, my un-informed, ignorant view about intuition is that it is nothing but some feelings, which are based on past experience and one's understanding. Thats all that there is.


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:
			
		

> "Vital Force" ???? Why does it remind me of something called "Aether", wrongly introduced by Newton to prove a bunch of mathematical expressions, called "Gravity" - and later successfully disproved by Einstein. Oh i get it. When u can't explain anything say something mumbo-jumbo and call it "beyond science to comprehend". Yeah, that explains everything. Its like, i introduce a mumbo-jumbo and its upto you prove it. Funny, isn't it ??


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!! 

U can atleast glance in the world of yogis which is filled with unscientific surprises. But hey, u won't...until and unless ur scientific doods do it first!! u just like to follow em don't u?? If u wanna follow, then atleast follow 'broadmindedly'. 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Thats all that there is.
> And yes, every body who stands opposite to @knowledgeable-believer, is ignorant, a fool and all those nasty words in the dictionary. It's a given.
> 
> As with "plagiarizing" and "googling", well, what to say to a "run-out-of-logic" kid's babbles.
> ...


Ignorant a nasty term in dictionary?  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. 

And yea, I wud like to reflect the mod here....
"@ karnivore, in a debate, characterizing an opponent is considered below the belt tactics. I would like you to exercise some restraint on this. Don't throw a healthy debate into the gutters."!!


----------



## karnivore (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@uber-openminded-super-knowledgeable-wise one,

These pearls of wisdom are killing me, really.



> Also known as "like cures like," the Law of Similars is a central tenet of homeopathic medicine....It *remains somewhat unclear why this type of "like cures like" is effective*


 
Wow, they don't understand the central tenet of their own art, yet they have the gall to argue. Typical.



> Homeopathy, instead, *attempts to work with the body's natural immune system rather than to suppress it*


 
How exactly, may i dare to ask ????

It is still unclear HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. All i, again, get to know is that it works. 

OK fine, it works and frankly i don't care how it does. I just need to know one answer. WHAT HAPPENS TO AVOGADRO'S RULE DURING SUCCUSSION ?? I know for sure, that it doesn't go on a vacation.

For a medicine to work, first it must be capable enough to work. How in the hell, with that much of succussion, does a compound, or shall i say a virtually non-existent molecule of the compound, retain its remedial power, is all that i am asking. (Its almost like asking how exactly the positions/locations of planets effect our future lives)

So far, not a single member of the homeopathy-brigade could come up with a reasonable answer. (But make no mistake, they do have an answer, which is equally, if not more, bizarre than homeopathy itself. I am surprised, that the wise one has not yet locked horns on that issue.)

Again, *$ 1 million is still up for the grabs*


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@mediator

Look dude, I have mentioned in every post that science is limited. But the limit decreases and science tends to 100% completion over time. Science constantly improves.

Religion/g0d is made up ( like fiction) and it is 100% complete by default. No one can question the story in 'Harry Potter' and even if one asks, Rowling can make up an answer. 

Now, ur onto ayurveda/siddha medicine. A lot of people I know have taken them and got good results. Those medicines are prepared by careful research in SCIENCE and then administered. But the researches are so paranoid that they wont let out their formulae to the outside world. That's why it looks like a miracle to you, though it isnt. Allopathy isn't the only medicine out there.




> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ....Understand what it means!!



I respect his research work. But doesn't mean that I respect whatever he said.

And no I dont blindly believe 'modern science'. I believe some parts(those that are proved beyond doubt using logic/experimentation/equations) because I and the entire world think they are true and I speculate the rest(theories without solid proofs). And you want to 'delete' everything that has been discovered up until now coz it has minor,ever-decreasing 'flaws'(some of the flaws you pointed out in previous posts aren't flaws, its u who doesn't get it) in it. 

Some people want to kick out science from the world just because you want to( just like some people hate f@gs for no reason). Maybe they didn't like science at school and failed in it.


----------



## kalpik (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Remember, just because something is beyond our understanding today, doesn't mean we wont be able to understand it ever! Remember, people once thought the earth was flat


----------



## ray|raven (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^Reminds me of K from M.I.B:


> 1500 years ago, everybody _knew_ that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody _knew_ that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you _knew_ that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll _know_ tomorrow.


----------



## kalpik (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^ Right on! That's what i meant


----------



## sreevirus (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				mediator 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.


  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?

 Aah, but then again…
 From your post… 


> * Dr. Kapoor's conclusion is that this all is there only because of the acceptance of the geometric entity (monad) admitting no parts, and "1" has no predecessor. To overcome this, as per him, the modern mathematics needs Vedic mathematics' help to shift from monad without parts to a monad admitting parts. The eliptic equations format y^2=x^3 is bound to give a conceptual slip and this, as per him, can be well glimpsed by chasing the format of this equation on simplex format to see how it is deceptive to appear to be so while as whole numbers artifices parallel to the dimensional frames is well evident inequality. As such, there is a need for the modern mathematics to re-address to itself about the need for re-settlement of the basics to come out of the mental blocks and logical knots to un-tie the knots and to transcend the blocks and to be face to face with the wonderful worlds of reality awaiting ahead with all potentialities of their structural richness. The parallelism between artifices of whole numbers 1 to 26 and 26 sporadic groups is there because of the cosmic surface within the solids.*
> .
> .
> .
> ...


  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.



			
				mediator 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.


  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:
			
		

> But if u r telling that Dr.Mona Lisa Schulz, M.D., Ph.D, is telling that just to win some gullible souls, then I obviously feel sorry for u and think that u r far from reality.


  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:
			
		

> 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?? .


  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:
			
		

> Now what has UFO abduction has to do in this topic?? I guess u r not being "broadminded" now.
> Sometime back the apollo moon landing was marked as real. It even became a subject in the student's course books. But now it has become a subject of controversy. What do u call that?


  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…

  And the Apollo hoax is just what you can say is a phenomenon you can observe in people (I for one, took it with a pinch of salt). Just put up something which might be remotely true, and people can lap it up easily. There are so many other hoaxes doing rounds. Some people believe in aliens landing on earth. Some don’t believe in the Holocaust.

  Goes back to what I said: Reality can be highly relative. It all depends on your perspectives, ideas, beliefs, and *what you want to believe*.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Modern science!!


  Yes, modern science. Find it hard to believe?



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Since u mentioned Einstein, Here a quote from him,
> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ....Understand what it means!!


  I believe it was Einstein who also said:


> It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
> 
> - Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in _Albert Einstein: The Human Side_, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
> 
> ...


  More on Einstein’s beliefs: *atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm


PS: @ mediator, a lil bit off topic...the ID is *sree*virus. I know, I know, the name sucks, but I was just a crazy little teenager at 16 when I joined here. Gotta change the ID.


----------



## mediator (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> How exactly, may i dare to ask ????
> 
> It is still unclear HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. All i, again, get to know is that it works.
> 
> ...


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.



> How does homeopathy work
> 
> Many of the homeopathic remedies are so diluted that according to the known laws of physics and chemistry, they couldn't possibly have any effect. Once you get beyond a certain point-24x or 12c -there is probably not even one single molecule of the original active substance remaining. This fact is often pointed to by critics of homeopathy as they dismiss the effect of homeopathy as merely due to placebo effect.
> 
> ...



But I'm quite convinced that someone like @scientific-unbeliever wont be able to give any heed to such a topic. I wonder if u have done even any of the 'asanas' or even simple meditation in life yet. Next, I won't be surprised if u ask "How spiritual healing" works!! So ur case is just like the blind theists.



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> When did I say mathematics was the answer to everything? 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. 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?


I have already told my point.



> 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.


Thats why I asked to u read the complete site.



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> There have been many a person who have have had prestigious degrees and have committed frauds. Not that I’m directly putting a question mark on your Dr. Mona Lisa Schulz, 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.


Sure thats a personal opinion. I have no objection to that!! 
But there had been plenty of times when I had witnessed such intuition as well. I know u'll reject it. So obviously I wont explain my cases to u. U can term such cases as lucky, but so many lucky guesses?

If u have not practiced upon ur unconcious self then how can u even say a word against it?? IS it really another "sense" that we have not cultivated since childhood and neglected it completely in our quest for "scientific approaches"??



			
				srivirus 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.*


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.

About ethics, I don't understand why they need to kill animals like rabits to develop medicines for humans when again among humans also we have diff. immune levels. Then leave aside the poor animals.



> And the Apollo hoax is just what you can say is a phenomenon you can observe in people (I for one, took it with a pinch of salt). Just put up something which might be remotely true, and people can lap it up easily. There are so many other hoaxes doing rounds. Some people believe in aliens landing on earth. Some don’t believe in the Holocaust.


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"??



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Goes back to what I said: Reality can be highly relative. It all depends on your perspectives, ideas, beliefs, and what you want to believe.


Exactly!!



> Yes, modern science. Find it hard to believe?


Nope just a reflection of what we r dicussin!

ANd Einstein also said this..
"The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God."


I dunno why we r quoting Einstein like an undisputed God now. Abt the name thats k, I like Sri rather than doing it as "Sree". I hope u wont mind. 



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Now, ur onto ayurveda/siddha medicine. A lot of people I know have taken them and got good results. Those medicines are prepared by careful research in SCIENCE and then administered. But the researches are so paranoid that they wont let out their formulae to the outside world. That's why it looks like a miracle to you, though it isnt. Allopathy isn't the only medicine out there.


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??

And about ur comments part, I really wont like to degrade myself to that level where a person speculates what the opponent did in his skool days and characterizes like @Srivirusaaya Namah said. I guess u need a first hand experience of spiritual stuff. Start with simple meditation!!


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^ It might sound weird to you, but I do meditate daily(for peace of mind). Now dont connect meditation with spirituality . Meditation and Yoga are proven techniques( by science ofcourse). 

Ayurveda. Well its proven by experiments on people and its definitely science. You call it a simple mix of tulsi, neem, badam; but imagine how much experimental research would the guy who discovered it have done. There are thousands of raw food materials and for a 3 mix, you will get billions of combos. The guy who invented such potions must have researched a lot and is a scientist. But as i said, those guys are paranoid in letting out their secret medicine techniques to the outside world and that makes us feel that ayurveda is magic.

And speculation is an important part of science, 
1) u see the sun(observation)
2) u photograph/draw it ( data collection)
3) u think WTF is that ( questioning)
4) u think that it might be a star ( speculation)
5) some guy proves that it is a star ( proof and verification)

Speculation is just jumping to a temporary answer based on logic/patterns without having a concrete proof it. Speculations become theories when someone gives a mathematical proof to it. No one is degraded by speculating.


----------



## mediator (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> Now dont connect meditation with spirituality .


Are u givin me a laugh now??



> It might sound weird to you, but I do meditate daily(for peace of mind).


And its not spirituality?? Funny!!
. Rest of ur post is a mere salad!


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^^ Meditation is just concentrating by focusing on something and increasing ur attention for the longest spell possible and increasing your discipline. That has got nothing to do with spirituality (atleast the meditation I do). Spiritual meditation is just one type of meditation.


Maybe the only meditation you know is chanting 'Om $hivaya Nama' endlessly till you pass out.

Who's talking about salads? Read those 40 pages out here and you are the one giving 'salads' all the time by just commenting on what others say just to get one over them.


----------



## mediator (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@Vyasram : I really don't feel like debating with u as ur ignorance on even the simplest subjects is getting annoying. Wth 



> Spirituality, Breathing and Meditation for Relaxation
> By Rachel Leslie - May 19, 2006
> 
> Spirituality, Breathing and Meditation for Relaxation
> ...


Source




> The Types Of Spiritual Meditation by Daily Health Tips. Spiritual meditation aims to help a person dig deep into the inner self in order to discover the wisdom and tranquility that lie within. It can be done by developing awareness, harmony and natural order into life through meditation. Different techniques can be employed in order to achieve this.
> 
> Different meditation techniques have been developed since ancient times in the effort to help people experience a higher state of consciousness. This usually makes use of the ability to clear the mind of distractions and focusing mainly on the self. Here are some of the techniques that most people use to get in touch with their spiritual consciousness through meditation.
> 
> ...


Source



> 1. What exactly is meditation?
> 
> Meditation has been described as a kind of concentrated thinking, but this does not mean just any kind of concentrated thinking. Concentrating on a pet rock or an ice cream is not meditation. Meditation is the process of concentrating the mind on the source of consciousness within us. Gradually this leads us to discover that our own consciousness is infinite. This is why the goal of meditation is sometimes described as "self-realization."
> 
> ...


Source
And what were u sayin bt meditation?? 

Either u don't really do meditation or ur practice is too weak that u can't even relate things or form ur very own independent outlook. 



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Maybe the only meditation you know is chanting 'Om $hivaya Nama' endlessly till you pass out.


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!!


----------



## karnivore (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Convenient, isn't it. And contradictory, too, as i will prove here.

But first the quotes. On one hand quacks admit, that..


> ..there is probably not even one single molecule of the original active substance remaining


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.

The fact that since "not even one single molecule of the original active substance" remains in the solution, the solution remains pure distilled water, and nothing less, is conveniently overlooked. Administering such a "medicine", if you can call it "medicine", is akin to administering, pure distilled water, with or without flovour.

This naturally, rules out with convincing scientific evidence, that the homeopathy, can't work on a chemical level. But homeopathy "works". Hence the quacks conjured up a mumbo-jumbo called "vitality".

Lets for a second assume, there is this thing called "vitality". Immediately, the first contradiction comes to view. Why, if "vitality" is the core tenet of homeopathy, is there a need to mix a "substance" with water in the first place, when, admittedly, non of its molecule remains in the ultimate solution ??

So to justify, the process of making solution, these quacks conjured up another crap, called *Memory of Water**.* (Pathetic to say the least) The theory has been blown to smithereens by the scientific world but who is listening. Here comes the second contradiction. If water has memory (sic) and can remember the chemical content of the substance, then homeopathy definitely works on chemical level. Then what is "vitality" doing here ??

In a nutshell, hemeopathy is as effective, as astrology is or for that matter, voo-doo is.

Tell u the truth. I too believe in "vitality". But definitely not in the sense that it is portrayed here. If by "vitality" we mean the brain's ability to heal the body, then it is nothing but *PLACEBO,* which BTW is a scientifically proven fact.

I am, however, not sure how my doing, or not doing, of "asanas" is relevant for understanding of HOMEOPATHY. As with "spiritual healing", well, if those are true, then, pigs can fly and i am the second son of the GOD.

I will be obliged if u please reference this quote of Einstein


> "The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God."


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:


> It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.





> I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.





> I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill
> a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.​





> The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.


 
As with the "hoax" of lunar landing, there is a thread here, where, it has been discussed/debated at length. Go take a look.


----------



## mediator (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



karnivore said:


> Convenient, isn't it. And contradictory, too, as i will prove here.
> 
> But first the quotes. On one hand quacks admit, that..
> 
> ...


What a waste! It seems u didn't read my previous post. Sorry for not having posted the source of it. 
I don't see how memory of water is "pathetic to say the least"? After all it is also a theory put forward!! So if u can 'believe' in big bang theory, all the weird  'scientific theories' in the world n whine endlessly that theories are integral, then why not this one??



> I am, however, not sure how my doing, or not doing, of "asanas" is relevant for understanding of HOMEOPATHY. As with "spiritual healing", well, if those are true, then, pigs can fly and i am the second son of the GOD.


U can't even comprehend what I said and relating spiritual healing with ...<wateva> was really childish! 


Neways nice one, u have proved a lot!!


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

You think that anyone would read all that ?

From Wikipedia:

Meditation is a discipline in which the mind is focused on an object of thought or awareness. It usually involves turning attention to a single point of reference. The practice may engender a higher state of consciousness.

Like I said, ur posts too tell that spiritual meditation thinking abt God/souls is just one form of meditation. A lot of athiest meditate without believing in the spiritual aspects. U need a lecture from some expert on this subject coz meditation is synonymous for you with spirituality and u cant' learn over it.

As for your thoughts on science:

An old saying in Tamil goes

" dont waste your f'in time trying to straighten a dog's tail"

I learnt it the hard way here.

"I'd love to stay and chat but "........................


----------



## karnivore (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Yes O Wise one. You are so right and i am so wrong. Once again, i bow down to your infinite wisdom.


----------



## mediator (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> You think that anyone would read all that ?





			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Like I said, *ur posts too tell* that spiritual meditation thinking abt God/souls is just one form of meditation. A lot of athiest meditate without believing in the spiritual aspects. U need a lecture from some expert on this subject coz meditation is synonymous for you with spirituality and u cant' learn over it.





			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Now *dont connect meditation with spirituality* .





			
				vyasram said:
			
		

> Like I said, ur posts too tell that *spiritual meditation* thinking abt God/souls is just one form of meditation. A lot of athiest meditate without believing in the spiritual aspects. U need a lecture from some expert on this subject coz meditation is synonymous for you with spirituality and u cant' learn over it.


Amazing!!
..
..
The rest of ur post expresses sarcasm at its best from a parched throat/lips that cannot find anything better to say!! May be u and a few more scientific-blind-believers wud like to open another thread and spit ur mindless rhetorics and personal comments in there and make a favourable accomodation there. Post only if u have something useful to post!! 

I'm too uninterested now to even find any 'interesting' arguments in ur post. I tried to grep too much but the answer was >> /dev/null !! 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Yes O Wise one. You are so right and i am so wrong. Once again, i bow down to your infinite wisdom.


Disappointment!


----------



## Vyasram (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



> May be u and a few more *scientific-blind-believers* wud like to open another thread



Yup, now I totally believe in that Tamil saying. I should've learnt that a lot earlier really. Atleast a day ago.

OMF, I stayed and chatted. Just couldn't resist boldening that 

So here we go again

"I'd love to stay and chat but ... ... . ..... ....."


----------



## legolas (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@Mediator,
The problem is, the concept of God itself, I think, is created by mankind to put blame on a "supernatural" force and resent him for our "sins" and put all our burdens on him "supposedly" without having the courage to face them.

We might as well pray towards a sheep or a polar bear.

Look at the forms of God. Every literature combines all the forms of animals or humans to give a structure of God, starting from Elephants to rats to lion to tiger to man... Why not a bacteria? because at that time of imagination, we dint know about it. Now, you can always say, its just a way of getting related and being closer with a human form.. but its just what man can reach... and its plain bull ****.

Those who claim God exists, either should have seen, or heard, or felt Him. I am pretty sure no body has seen God. Many have hypothesis about lots of things by hearing crap from others. But, a genuine argument is that they have felt him.

Now, here comes the problem. Those who have really felt God... would not be materialistic!!! The feeling you claim to have felt God is just a feeling of guilt or maturity over your actions and proclaiming that you are better than before. Its not Godliness. To tell that you have understood God and felt him just like that is to demean God even by your standards.

As far as those who claim to believe in God from religion, Christianity says "Sun goes round the Earth". Everybody knows it and its crap. This is why Galileo was punished!! 

God created the world in 7 days. For such a supreme power, why would it take *7 days* to create a mere human world?? Doesn't it underestimate the potential of the SUPREME power??

My *argument is (not conclusion)* as I told before, God is just a concept, a perception just like superman and spiderman (which again are manifestation of animals and insects with human, a fictionary character)


----------



## mediator (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^I really appreciate ur post. But it seems that u have neither gone thru the debate nor thru even the recent recent posts of mine. Let me show it simply by quoting u...



> Now, here comes the problem. Those who have really felt God... would not be materialistic!!! *The feeling you claim to have felt God is just a feeling of guilt or maturity over your actions and proclaiming that you are better than before. Its not Godliness.* To tell that you have understood God and felt him just like that is to demean God even by your standards.


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.

U have explained the 'God' scenario. But what the blind science believers lack is the ability to question in depth or an "independent thinking". I am not arguing that God is true, coz its the synonymously used to represent infinite consciousness too many times. U can see my vote and I don't believe in GOD 'for the meaning I know'. Then comes science. If u have read the topic even partially then u must have realized that hardcore science supporters themselves say science hold truth and answer to everything. Yes I don't not doubt it, coz the meaning of the science itself is to know the nature and world around!! Thats why even the researchers on 'intuition' term it as "intuitional science". U can see very knowledgable people like doctors and scientists themselves writing articles on intuition and how the intensity of it is high with their cases or in them. But on the other hand u have "*modern* medicine and science" which doesn't hold importance to factors like state of mind, patient's living conditions and environment and other factors. It is the approach that is faulty and thats what I have posted. Read the debate it if u wud like to go thru. U need more insight of the spiritual world to know more about it and until and unless u have "experienced" it urself, how can u even question it or deny it?? This is what even 'science' asks isn't it.....'observation and experience"?? And if hardcore science believers laugh at it absurdly just becoz science can't explain it, then I might laugh equally coz of the errors/flaws/limitations in the "modern science and its approaches" which is based upon "faulty modern mathematics". Again I wud like u to ponder upon the basic definition of the science. "To Believe blindy" is what all I object.

Science is still researching on subjects like "homeopathy", "intuition" etc. And here we have cases that outwardly and blatantly 'reject' it!! Now what do u call that??

Here we had a perfect one:

Person M : Science rejects the conept of "vital force" in homeopathy which is essential for it.

Person K : But where's the science in it?? Please prove it. I find "memory of water" a pathetic concept.

M : I have already said, science rejects the idea behind homepathy. But if u can believe in all the wierd modern science theories, then why not the theory behind "memory of water"??

K : I wud still need the proof of it.
M : Sire, science is not relevant in anyway here like they say about the subject like "intuition" as well.

K : Then how can u take homepthatic medicines?? The science has not resolved it.
M : But it has been thoroughly practised, observed for hundred of years. They know how to make it with appropriate procedure and for decades is found to be working wonders.

K : But without the logic behind it, it can be injurious to someone.
M : It is known to be more "user-friendly". On the other hand there have been cases where people have deteriorated and died from the intake of "prescribed modern medicines". Shud I say 'modern science' doesn't work?? But I know something that works although not scientifically explained!!

U see there is no limit to the twisted logic. If u wud still like to say 'only' modern science holds all the answer now which is itself based on limitations/errors/flaws, then I have nuthing else to say save that u are only limiting urself to the world of "limited modern science"!!

I wud like u too to read this site peacefully=>  Vedicganita.org and all my recent replies. But it wud be nice if u go thru the debate!!


----------



## Faun (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

The only thing that can answer everything is our own brain, we are still on 10% of our brain revelation.

There is probably much more to explore, even the possibilities of psychic powers is plausible.

Just read thru this article:
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Probably the truth lies within us, but neither science nor a figment of supreme personality will divulge it.

May sound stupid but still I found is reasonable enuf.

As far as science is concerned, it is severely limited by the ability of instruments and human itself. We are on asymptotes but never at any time will be at the zenith of truth.


----------



## karnivore (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Here's another version of the story:



> M : Science rejects the conept of "vital force" in homeopathy which is essential for it.


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 ??*



> M : I have already said, science rejects the idea behind homeopathy. But if u can believe in all the wierd modern science theories, then why not the theory behind "memory of water"??


 
K : Science never rejects the idea behind homeopathy. I merely says that it is nothing but "PLACEBO". Thats all that there is to it. All these procedures and everything are nothing but elaborate "illusions" to draw the patients into believing that they are indeed being treated methodically.

Jacques Benveniste, learnt it the hard way, that gimmick is not "science". Till date, his theory has been tested in ways that he described and so far no concrete evidence has been found in favour of "memory of water". We can safely say, that "memory of water" is no longer a theory waiting to be proved, but a tried, tested and failed theory at best, or at worst, a pathetic attempt to explain homeopathy.

Scientific theories are all based on either, hardcore evidence or on "logic". Theory of "memory of water" can't trace its origin either to any evidence or to any logic. It simply is a product of the fertile brain of Benveniste.

(Actually, i always felt the theory of "vitatility" was a far clever way of explaining homeopathy, simply because it took it into the realms of "un-provability", just like "god theory.) 



> M : Sire, science is not relevant in anyway here like they say about the subject like "intuition" as well.


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". 

Also, sir, may i ask - if someday it is "somehow proved" that homeopathy has indeed a "scientific" basis, would you still say, "science is not relevant in anyway", or would you be the first one to embrace it as "science" and rub it in the face of all its critics. 



> M : But it has been thoroughly practised, observed for hundred of years. They know how to make it with appropriate procedure and for decades is found to be working wonders.


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.



> M : It is known to be more "user-friendly". On the other hand there have been cases where people have deteriorated and died from the intake of "prescribed modern medicines". Shud I say 'modern science' doesn't work?? But I know something that works although not scientifically explained!!


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.

K : How about those contradictions, sir. If "vital force" exists and works, why do we need to have "memory of water". 

M : What a waste.



> ...even an atheist too can very well be spiritual.


 
SPIRITUAL ATHEIST ????? Priceless. Kids, if u r having a hard time understanding what a "oxyMORON" is, you have a priceless example here. I can almost hear Bertrand Russell, Darwin, David Hume, among several others, turning in their graves. (Sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## mediator (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

fatal science flaws


> Q: What is gravity?
> A: The answer cannot be found in today's theories.
> Newton only claimed that gravity was an attracting force
> between all objects because that's the way things appear --
> ...



Now do check out how many of these concepts or shud I say "unexplained phenomena" and "flawed concepts" we use as a base to "rationlize" ourselves further pretending to be self-righteous logic seekers!! pathetic!! 




Next......
Spiritual atheism.


> n the end, I guess I'm grateful to Richard Dawkins for the Out Campaign, primarily because it has made me think about the whole issue of atheism, god, and religion much more carefully—and I wouldn't have thought that was possible.
> 
> Today, in particular, as I contemplate putting his Scarlett A on my site, I find myself thinking about what atheism actually means, and what it doesn't mean. It's much more complicated than I had realized.
> 
> ...


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!!


----------



## legolas (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



mediator said:


> But on the other hand u have "modern medicine and science" which doesn't hold importance to factors like state of mind, patient's living conditions and environment and other factors.


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.


mediator said:


> Science is still researching on subjects like "homeopathy", "intuition" etc. And here we have cases that outwardly and blatantly 'reject' it!! Now what do u call that?


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??
1) Homeopathy is stupid. Yes. Because the principle is that the more you dilute a substance, the more it becomes stronger is the *principle* of homeopathy. Now, even if you think without science brain, you can not accept this.
2) A Science-related-medicine or allopathy takes 20 years of research minimum before the drug formula is formulated, researched, tested with real and placebos for side effects for potential cure or phantom effects of the drugs before it comes to the market. Considering the amount of funding it has to undergo for 20+ years for the drug to reach the market with safe (including the monitored side effects) measures, I am happy to pay whatever is the rate for science based medicine which claims and proves how the drug acts.
3) Regarding the claim on intuition, I am sorry to tell you, you are wrong. Science does not disregard it. Researches are still going on to identify the part of brain which tells us how we got our intuition and how primates still have the ability to over perform us in a simple memory test. A BBC study showed primates have better memory than us. The terms you are using are superficial. Intuition means "pure or untaught", "a keen insight". What do you want to explain or conceptualize about this here?? Science tries to identify the part of brain associated for a person's keen acumen, people with great observational powers... And at a later stage may be to "Measure" one's intuition. I am in the neuroscience department myself.
4) Homeopathy if it is as you claim, why do you think couldn't get an appreciation in convincing people that even it doesnt have proof, its able to cure say measles or rabies or whatever better than allopathy and start advertising?? There are big centres in the UK, the US and in India and in many other places and they definitely have funds. 
Why is it that the homeopathist himself is not interested in finding a proof for its working. Wouldn't it be a natural thinking of a curious human to know the reason for its "claimed excellence"?? I saw a documentary by "Richard Dawkins" in which an homeopathist (famous one) gives NaCl as medicine (of course a million times diluted) for knee-pain to a patient. When Dawkins asked how do you think common salt could cure this, the doctor replies "I dont know". How dumb can you be to rely on such a person?? If homeopathy is really a science and science is a villain to reject it, then tell me this, *Why is there no ground-breaking research or proofs in homeopathy which is awarded a Nobel Prize??? * What is it they claim then?


mediator said:


> U need more insight of the spiritual world to know more about it and until and unless u have "experienced" it urself, how can u even question it or deny it??


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".


mediator said:


> U see there is no limit to the twisted logic


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!!
I don't argue Science only holds answers. But certainly,
Homeopathy, astrology (motion of planets and 2 non-planets control your damn life without free-will which again denies God's free-will concept, but that is entirely different topic), religion, and the ton's of issues it brings along with war, superstitions, meditation involving exploring your 7 chakras or seeing God or path towards God are pure crap.

However, meditation as a means of relieving one's tension or alleviating pain or destressing oneself is a better art. Exploiting it and believing in the exploitation is a magic trick where you just don't know its magic.

In toto, your arguments are similar to Osho who is an atheist and believes in meditation, but his arguments were only to attain peace with yourself and get rid of the masks put by society on the basis of religion. You have confused a lot with his principles if you were indeed motivated by him. If not, I urge you to listen to Osho's lectures.

I am sorry I did not read the 5 page notes you have posted occasionally as your replies. I am least interested in reading it and arguing due to lack of time. However, I would encourage and appreciate it if you could gist the discrepancy you find and post it here instead of pasting the whole content of a site.
However, I just read through the first question regarding gravity and I understand what you are trying to say here. But my point is,
Its very well known that Science is unable to answer "why?" and answers "what?". For example, as you noted out gravity, its measured for earth or moon or whatever and what is gravity can be explained as some sort of force (see wikipedia definition). But why gravity is there?? there are only theories and no proofs or evidences to back those theories completely. But, there is a great respect to what Science does in accepting its inability to answer it, however, continue to ask the question and get better answers than to acknowledge the question with blunt replies such as,
"there is no why in a God-designed world"
"ask not why, ask who you are"
"God designed it that way"
"God is playing games with us"
"We are all pawns in the game"
or such CRAP.


----------



## karnivore (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

One danger of "googling" and blindly copy/ pasting the content without actually going through it and doing a proper research, is that, one runs the risk of being ridiculed. But i will stay away from that, although, i would have expected one to at least, look around, just a little bit.

The first quote is from *"The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy"** by Mark McCutcheon*. The author is a certifiable lunatic of his only kind. And the book is equally, a work of fiction. Each and every of his "infantile" proposition has been quite convincingly rebutted, by several, science students (forget the pros). I will leave the job of finding these rebuttals to the poster himself. There are hundreds of science forums where one will find how this book has been ridiculed.

But generally speaking, if our science was so flawed, how come we can predict, lunar cycles, meteorite orbits and other cosmological phenomenon with the accuracy of milliseconds. How come we can, to the accuracy of millimeter, place a satellite in orbit, thousands of miles away from earth. Oh i guess, we just get lucky every time. That must be it. Isn't it.

As with the second quote, i don't even feel bothered to reply. Referencing a blog, where any Tom, Dick and Harry can say anything, is a sign of infantile reasoning. Russell, Darwin, Dawkins, Hume etc. can go to hell. Why ?? Because some Tom or Dick or Harry says so. Got to kidding me.

What baffles me the most is that the poster "urges" all of us to be "independent". But, everytime, he has to prove a point, he doesn't hesitate to reference any site that suits his taste. Hmmmm...... May be its time for him to start reading what he types.

BTW, K is still waiting for some answers raised in the alternative version of the story.


----------



## sreevirus (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@ mediator... sorry I couldn't reply here earlier (I have been busy for the last two days, and I have to prepare for an exam too), but I guess, some of the stuff that I would've replied, have been posted here by others... so moving on...

I went through that site, did some research on Mark McCutcheon, and here are some things for you to read (since you incite us to read those sites that your provide, I request you to go through some of these yourself, also saving you the effort as asked by karnivore):

*www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf

And you could go through some of these forums too...
*www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972
*www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37245.html
*forums.hypography.com/books-movies-games/797-final-theory.html
*www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/23343-book-final-theory.html

You should note that the beauty of science lies in the fact that it never pretends or make pretentious statements if it does not have an answer. If it is not known today, then science actually encourages you to look for answers, it never says that you should be satisfied by half-baked assumptions or statements or lies and be pleased with it.


And just for you to know, in science, the burden of proof lies on the one making a statement or theory, not on the observers. So for all sorts of alternative medicines and similar things, for them to be accepted by science, their practitioners should take concrete efforts to prove their validity and existence scientifically, instead of urging their followers to believe them unconditionally.


----------



## mediator (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@legolas I think I can have nice discussion with u.


			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 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.


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!!




> 1) Homeopathy is stupid. Yes. Because the principle is that the more you dilute a substance, the more it becomes stronger is the principle of homeopathy. Now, even if you think without science brain, you can not accept this.
> 2) A Science-related-medicine or allopathy takes 20 years of research minimum before the drug formula is formulated, researched, tested with real and placebos for side effects for potential cure or phantom effects of the drugs before it comes to the market. Considering the amount of funding it has to undergo for 20+ years for the drug to reach the market with safe (including the monitored side effects) measures, I am happy to pay whatever is the rate for science based medicine which claims and proves how the drug acts.
> 3) Regarding the claim on intuition, I am sorry to tell you, you are wrong. Science does not disregard it. Researches are still going on to identify the part of brain which tells us how we got our intuition and how primates still have the ability to over perform us in a simple memory test. A BBC study showed primates have better memory than us. The terms you are using are superficial. Intuition means "pure or untaught", "a keen insight". What do you want to explain or conceptualize about this here?? Science tries to identify the part of brain associated for a person's keen acumen, people with great observational powers... And at a later stage may be to "Measure" one's intuition. I am in the neuroscience department myself.
> 4) Homeopathy if it is as you claim, why do you think couldn't get an appreciation in convincing people that even it doesnt have proof, its able to cure say measles or rabies or whatever better than allopathy and start advertising?? There are big centres in the UK, the US and in India and in many other places and they definitely have funds.
> Why is it that the homeopathist himself is not interested in finding a proof for its working. Wouldn't it be a natural thinking of a curious human to know the reason for its "claimed excellence"?? I saw a documentary by "Richard Dawkins" in which an homeopathist (famous one) gives NaCl as medicine (of course a million times diluted) for knee-pain to a patient. When Dawkins asked how do you think common salt could cure this, *the doctor replies "I dont know". How dumb can you be to rely on such a person?? If homeopathy is really a science and science is a villain to reject it, then tell me this, Why is there no ground-breaking research or proofs in homeopathy which is awarded a Nobel Prize??? What is it they claim then?*


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!!
2) Anothe raddition to the tons of para


> How Scientific Is Modern Medicine?
> 
> Mahatma Gandhi was once asked by a reporter what he thought about Western civilization, and in light of the uncivilized treatment by the British government of his nonviolent actions, he immediately replied, "Western civilization? Yes, it is a good idea." Likewise, if he were asked what he thought about "scientific medicine," he would probably have replied in a similar manner.
> 
> ...


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! 

3) And did I say anything different? Thats what I said that reasearch is still being done on intuiton and christened as "intuitional science"!! Those who say intution is illogical and outwardly reject it are the ones whome I terming as totally "blind"!! Intuition also means "knowledge gained of something without the use of reasoning or the five basic senses" or via instinct!!


4) Sorry for repeating a small excerpt from those "tons of para"


> Q: How can scientists be so mystified by gravity
> yet also claim to explain it?
> A: This is a basic conflict in our science. It is the function
> of our educational institutions to teach the beliefs of the day
> ...


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!!



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 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".


Do u mean the "Apollo Moon Landing" where the big ones "claimed" to have landed moon??  I wonder why they r still roaming out there, not put in mental asylums and degrading the meaning of science.
So right now I'm talking about intuition and not anything like "speaking to gosts" which I haven't experienced/seen or found to be correct frequently. But let me remind science really is working on even the wierdest topics like "Life after death", "reincarnation" where a few of cases of previous life have been found to be correct.
Survival of bodily death conference]

And yes I agree "There is a limit to using the term "because you can experience it, you can not deny it"". But the case we r dicsussing in general is well within under limit and quite frequent!!



> 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!!


 Pallease! I know english is wierd!!



> Homeopathy, astrology (motion of planets and 2 non-planets control your damn life without free-will which again denies God's free-will concept, but that is entirely different topic), religion, and the ton's of issues it brings along with war, superstitions, meditation involving exploring your 7 chakras or seeing God or path towards God are pure crap.


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!! 
Whereas they trying to justify "modern science" and their own "theories" which are based on flaws/errors/unexplained phenomena (for which I have taken the time to put forward) syaing so affirmly. that "Yes, this is all true"!!




> However, meditation as a means of relieving one's tension or alleviating pain or destressing oneself is a better art. Exploiting it and believing in the exploitation is a magic trick where you just don't know its magic.
> 
> In toto, your arguments are similar to Osho who is an atheist and believes in meditation, but his arguments were only to attain peace with yourself and get rid of the masks put by society on the basis of religion. You have confused a lot with his principles if you were indeed motivated by him. If not, I urge you to listen to Osho's lectures.
> 
> b]I am sorry I did not read the 5 page notes you have posted occasionally as your replies[/b]. I am least interested in reading it and arguing due to lack of time. However, I would encourage and appreciate it if you could gist the discrepancy you find and post it here instead of pasting the whole content of a site.


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!!


----------



## Faun (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

science is certainly not the absolute truth when u have theory of relativity and uncertainty equations.

Neither the blind belief will do any good.


----------



## legolas (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



Mediator said:


> For instance, just because a drug treatment seems to eliminate a specific symptom doesn't necessarily mean that it is "effective." In fact, getting rid of a specific symptom can be the bad news. Aspirin may lower your fever, but physiologists recognize that fever is an important defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection. Painkilling drugs may eliminate the acute pain in the short term, but because these drugs do not influence the underlying cause of the discomfort, they do not really heal the person, and worse, they can lead to physical and psychological dependency, addiction, tolerance, and increased heart disease. Sleep-inducing drugs may lead you to fall asleep, but they do not lead to refreshed sleep, and these drugs ultimately tend to aggravate the cycle of insomnia and fatigue. Uncertainty remains for the long-term safety and efficacy of many modern drugs for common ailments, despite the high hopes and sincere expectations from the medical community and the rest of us for greater certainty.


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.

And you did not answer my previous question and I would like to bring to notice again: If Homeopathy is as good as it claims, why isn't there a ground breaking research or finding that it is much better in terms of cure and side effects say for 1 particular disease and win a nobel prize??? because, the doctor himself doesn't know why NaCl when diluted million times should cure knee pain!! 

One other question, Do you believe in Astrology? 



T159 said:


> science is certainly not the absolute truth when u have theory of relativity and uncertainty equations. Neither the blind belief will do any good.Neither the blind belief will do any good.


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.


----------



## karnivore (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Those who have doubts about "lunar landing", may refer to this thread, specially the last few pages. U might learn something, or nothing, depends on what you choose.

As for my good friends, who are eternally attracted towards crackpots of the scientific / philosophical world, they may refer to crank.net. This site lists all the crackpots and cranks all over the web world. This might save them the time from "googling".


----------



## mediator (Mar 22, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

@srivirus : I must say, I am really exhilarated to read that pdf file. But don't mind, I really don't give any importance to forums as source!! So lets discuss this pdf....



> I discuss this equation at length in my OP papers, so it is not his "new idea". That equation has certainly been around in the literature for a while, so I do not claim to have discovered it, nor do I know who came up with it first. Quite independent of McC's work I have applied this well-known formula that McC calls a "Geometric Orbit Equation" in a creative new way to resolve the major problem astronomers are having with the rotational dynamics of galaxies. Current attempts to fit the observational data on galactic rotational dynamics to the ST (in this case Newton-Kepler Gravitational Law)
> seem to require huge amounts of invisible Dark Matter to make things work out. Milgrom has proposed an alternative approach that requires an ad hoc assumption with no theoretical grounds -- basically forcing the data to fit the formula.


I wud like to ask why the reviewer is trying to bring something hypothetical as "Dark Matter" to make things work out??




> We can describe gravitational dynamics relying only on relative velocity and distance and do not need to know about any forces or masses. Therefore this is a proper equation of Observer Physics. *McC is right on here, and he is also correct to say that gravity is not really a force.*






> All forces that you can experience are expressions of resistance by your Will as an
> Observer. You have decided to participate in your creations by pushing them around. If
> you totally relax, you will find yourself floating in space at the level of density
> equilibrium for the medium you have chosen to experience AS -- e.g. your body will float
> ...


May be someone can explain this whole para in clearer terms!



			
				FT said:
			
		

> Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
> endlessly without draining a power source?
> A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to
> today's science. It certainly takes tremendous energy to
> ...


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.


Coming back to FT, I too wud like to know from where the power is coming to cling energetically against the gravity. Then he says...



> If you polish two materials until they are very smooth, they will
> usually cling together as if bonded even without magnetic properties. The magnetic
> interactions of the aligned electrons link the materials as if they formed a single entity.
> The fridge metal already has magnetic property, so it aligns temporarily with the
> ...


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.



			
				reviewer said:
			
		

> McC is right that time dilations and length contractions are relative, which means they go
> both ways and the effects mutually cancel out. Relativity is a trick of perspective. An
> observer riding on the moving clock sees the resting clock slow down in the same way
> that the resting observer sees the moving clock slow down. Which clock moves and
> ...


Please read the part I am quoting toooo!



			
				reviewer said:
			
		

> McC bases a lot of his arguments on situations where he says that the current way of
> doing physics violates the law of conservation of mass-energy. *That law is not well
> understood and only seems to hold for closed systems, just like the law of entropy.*
> Physicists have noticed that QM reveals how conservation of energy is equivalent to
> ...


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:
			
		

> OP on the other hand provides a comprehensive theory of where gravity comes from and
> why. OP provides a clear understanding of both gravity and antigravity. It also
> provides a means for us to manipulate gravity and to manipulate our physical experiences
> within the context of gravity. McC seems to think that gravity is based on relative size.
> ...


In favour of Marc!









			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> One danger of "googling" and blindly copy/ pasting the content without actually going through it and doing a proper research, is that, one runs the risk of being ridiculed. But i will stay away from that, although, i would have expected one to at least, look around, just a little bit.
> 
> The first quote is from "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy" by Mark McCutcheon. *The author is a certifiable lunatic of his only kind.* And the book is equally, a work of fiction. Each and every of his "infantile" proposition has been quite convincingly rebutted, by several, science students (forget the pros). I will leave the job of finding these rebuttals to the poster himself. There are hundreds of science forums where one will find how this book has been ridiculed.
> 
> ...


@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".

And if u think I'm googling just for the sake of topic (which I guess u r), then u haven't understood me really. I'm not afraid if I get contradicted in the first place coz such discussions are meant to increase ur knowledge. So I request u to stop behaving like a lunatic and cut out the childishness of calling the subjects u don't undertand as "crap". Thinking about it all, the line in bold really amuses me. And yea, I forgot lunatics like stories. May be thats y the lunatic replied to the story part and not to the relevant thing. In the meantime, atleast read thoroughly as it might enlighten u what the story will be like. Keep waiting and don't cry. 





			
				legolas said:
			
		

> And you did not answer my previous question and I would like to bring to notice again: If Homeopathy is as good as it claims, why isn't there a ground breaking research or finding that it is much better in terms of cure and side effects say for 1 particular disease and win a nobel prize??? because, the doctor himself doesn't know why NaCl when diluted million times should cure knee pain!!


The question u r asking are the general ones and best explained by professional sites! I hope @karnivore wont mind. 
Please read!

And yes about astrology, there r mixed opinions actually. I wont give details bt my family, but they knew of the exact month that I will find a job in. They simply didn't tell me. There r several more cases. But IMO, if astrology really works then we cud have run away from all the natural calamaties even from death. My understanding is not that deep in this subject to even talk about. It can also be that the system has been degraded now and merely commercialised. But I certainly don't think that this field too can be a called a crap straight away!!  

@Srivirus : Lets keep this on, as others I think are merely repeating now n a few acting like 'lunatic'!!


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



mediator said:


> The question u r asking are the general ones and best explained by professional sites! I hope @karnivore wont mind.
> Please read!


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. 
Even then, to prove that I *do read* , ergo my questions,


> Now, all homeopathy medicines are given in a very low dosage. This is called as 'potentisation'. *Hahnemann discovered* that the more the medicine was diluted (with alcohol or lactose), the more potent it became


If he discovered something beyond doubt, then this concept itself should have fetched a Nobel Prize??


> The medicines contain an internal energy which is transferred to the vital force leading to cure.


 really?? I mean, really?? A scientific explanation?


> Right from fever, cough, cold to asthma, skin diseases, cancer and diabetes. All these are not only just curable but the cure is mild(*without side effects*) and permanent.


When you don't even know how or why the drug works, how can you possibly tell there is no side effect??
Now, another question that popped out, if poison, say Cyanide is diluted 1000 times with alcohol or whatever is mentioned, will you die almost immediately as homeopathy principle works on.


> but the sad fact is that homeopathy has lagged behind in popularity


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.



mediator said:


> My *understanding* is *not that deep* in this subject to even talk about. It *can also be that the system has been degraded* now and merely commercialized. But I certainly don't think that this field too can be a called a crap straight away!!


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???


----------



## kenwatts (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

Since I have been quoted in this forum, I thought it might be helpful if I clarified a few points.
Thank you to Mediator for quoting me and linking to my site. I am always grateful to anyone who finds my work valuable.
Although I _am _truly grateful for the quote and link, I do feel uncomfortable being classed with the writer from thefinaltheory.com. There is nothing in that quote that I would agree with. The author quite obviously doesn't even understand the science he or she is criticizing.
To Karnivore, I understand your point about blogs, "where any Tom, Dick and Harry can say anything". It is quite true that a blog carries no inherent authority. 

But I would hope that Mediator quoted me, not as an authority to be blindly accepted, but as a reasoned argument to be considered, and then accepted, rejected, or modified as your own understanding and experience demands.

I certainly would want to be read this way. That is one of the reasons that I don't post my credentials anywhere on my blog, though it seems germane to say in this context that I do have them--a Ph.D. in philosophical theology, with an emphasis on secular philosophy of science, (earned at a relatively conservative seminary which would be shocked to hear what I believe now--partly because of the research I spent nine years doing for my dissertation).

My point is that just because any Tom, Dick or Harry can say anything on a blog, it doesn't automatically mean that everything written on a blog is automatically uninformed. You must make up your own mind in each independent case--no matter what drivel is quoted just before it.
Anyone who reads my blog with any consistency will know that I am no enemy of science. I disagree on some very specific points with some of the new atheists, but not on any point for which there is solid scientific evidence--quite the contrary: my disagreement is because they hold these few positions dogmatically, without scientific support.

Science is, after all, just common sense on steroids.

Thanks for your interest--or lack of it, as the case may be.

-Ken Watts,
 *www.dailymull.com


----------



## Faun (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

now what ?  lol next come the aliens from mars ??


----------



## mediator (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> If he discovered something beyond doubt, then this concept itself should have fetched a Nobel Prize??
> really?? I mean, really?? A scientific explanation?


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.



> 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.


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. 




> 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???


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.



> But astrology (Indian astrology at least) claims that God has descended and given means of astrology to help ourselves. How do you justify this???


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!!


Neways let me give the basic definition of a few terms.....



> *Scientific Law:* This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
> 
> Specifically, scientific laws must be *simple, true, universal, and absolute.* They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
> 
> ...


Read it all. It again reflects the question I raised in previous post and approaches led by modern science!! 



			
				t159 said:
			
		

> now what ?  lol next come the aliens from mars ??


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!


----------



## Faun (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

^^possibly, I think we are not the supreme power, there is something well above us (aliens or some other entity, but not something orthodox), we are being harvested likewise we harvest crop.

Its just a theory, no proof, no nothing, the same was the plot of Prey.


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



mediator said:


> "Modern science rejects the idea behind homeopathy".


I am not even going to argue about this anymore.



mediator said:


> But yes I understand homeopathy quite well and how body can heal itself with principles behind.
> I don't reject the possibility of aliens.
> And yes about astrology, there r mixed opinions actually.


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  )
I understand you are an atheist. You dont believe in God. And for that matter, *Q1:* I assume you don't believe in Religion which lineates and converges on how to reach the supreme power God??
Now, my question is, you wrote as a reply to Sreevirus,


mediator said:


> 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.


*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*??


mediator said:


> Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


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.

And finally, you don't believe in God, Religion (guessing), question Science (starting from F = m.a and definition of gravity to an undefined number *denoted as infinity*, dark energy, dark matter) but understand theories inconclusive as Homeopathy, and you dont know to believe in astrology or not, but believe in spiritualism and you call yourself a spiritual atheist. 

This is what I learn to be a spiritual atheist


> Atheist Spirituality
> 
> An *atheist* simply doesn't believe in a god. *There isn't sufficient evidence, so there is no belief*. Contrary to what many think, there is no need for an atheist to disprove that a god exists, anymore than a Christian needs to disprove that the world is ruled by intelligent termites. The burden of proof is always with the person making a positive assertion.
> 
> ...



Now, you may understand why I asked *Q2*?? because you seem to contradict even by the terms of a spiritual atheist which makes you a hypocrite??


----------



## mediator (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 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  )
> I understand you are an atheist. You dont believe in God. And for that matter, Q1: I assume you don't believe in Religion which lineates and converges on how to reach the supreme power God??


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:
			
		

> 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??


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??



> And finally, you don't believe in God, Religion (guessing), question Science (starting from F = m.a and definition of gravity to an undefined number denoted as infinity, dark energy, dark matter) but understand theories inconclusive as Homeopathy, and you dont know to believe in astrology or not, but believe in spiritualism and you call yourself a spiritual atheist.


Strange hun? I'm not having "infinite consciousness". BTW, I'm really curious of finding how u percieve "religion' to be?

The link u gave was really nice. People in ancient times thought that earth was flat. Those who questioned it and realised just by 'observing' the motion of stars and that it was always true and quite a pattern that was occuring everyday, were abused and beated. Please understand how astronomy was born and astrology in the same age. Don't u like to know how world behaves just by concentrating all ur senses (modern science says its = 5) to it both intuitively and intelligently?? 



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> Now, you may understand why I asked Q2?? because you seem to contradict even by the terms of a spiritual atheist which makes you a hypocrite??


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 (Mar 23, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



mediator said:


> 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 of course 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"!!


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?



mediator said:


> Supreme Force? U mean something theoretical as unified field theory ( coined by Albert Einstein? ) as modern science states??


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". 
Why don't you believe in this power when you settle for an unknown vital force created by internal energy??  Just to make sure I dont get a twisted answer, Why don't you believe in God in the first place?



mediator said:


> The link u gave was really nice. People in ancient times thought that earth was flat. Those who questioned it and realised just by 'observing' the motion of stars and that it was always true and quite a pattern that was occuring everyday, *were abused and beated*. Please understand how astronomy was born and astrology in the same age. Don't u like to know how world behaves just by *concentrating all ur senses* (modern science says its = 5) to it both intuitively and intelligently??


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?? 
regarding concentrating all your senses, I know for sure, farting is one which requires that... (just kidding, no offense, just thought of it  )



mediator said:


> 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"*.


Please tell me how limited law is an oxymoron. 

And, I have been participating in the discussions before, if you have not saw my posts?? I request you to go back and read them. Only then, I was arguing on Topic and not off-topic regarding Homeopathy to respond to you. 
And I characterized you  by hinting hypocrisy not because you told me a pathetic bragger  but, 

you are a man who thinks f=m.a is flawed and gravity is not just defined properly. where may be you claim spiritual forces even come into play (again kidding, now don't start arguing that I have not read your previous replies. for the nth time, I have).
The problem then is I don't understand is how you can then measure to pin point accuracy when a missile will land (projectile motion) and explode (recently, an US satellite was bombarded with a missile, you should know) and lots of classical physics were used to construct including centripetal force, centrifugal force, thermodynamics and written in equations (here, there is another funny thing, when told as theory, you argue its just at theory, when written in mathematical form, you say just in 1 equation , basically opposing Science).
How can you measure when a freely falling ball will reach the ground dropped from certain distance using the "flawed equations" to accurate time... (I am sure you have solved problems in this regard and you have found time to experiment them?). How the concept of friction, centripetal force, centrifugal force, torque, friction, sensivity, acceleration, jerk (derivative of acceleration), point of impact and stuffs used to design a CAR or any other locomotive can precisely guide you to the location. I am just confused.. I am a lunatic, ain't I? 

However, you should know the definition of hypocrite. you dont believe even in F= m.a or for that matter torque = r x F (for rotational dynamics) and still you starting from the time you get up would be using almost for every minute all the things that science's invention has led to technological advancement based on those laws created by Einstein (well a little destruction(al), but fission/fusion reactions with the conclusion arrived from E = m.c^2) and Newton (1st, 2nd, and 3rd law) who are again just Lunatics... 
And when we design a car which has sufficient "internal energy" generating sufficient vital force to carry you to the desired location and no other "limited laws", or when we concentrate sufficiently all our 5 senses to build and run a car without any fuel putting our concentration to better things than farting  lets begin arguing again!!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Mar 23, 2008)

POLL AGAIN OPENED....

PLEASE PLACE YOUR VOTES.....​


----------



## legolas (Mar 23, 2008)

you should provide hope for agnostics  Your poll states either this or that.


----------



## mediator (Mar 24, 2008)

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 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!!

Besides, how does researching on something that works and u r curious to know about translates to brainwashing?? 



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 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".
> Why don't you believe in this power when you settle for an unknown vital force created by internal energy?? Just to make sure I dont get a twisted answer, Why don't you believe in God in the first place?


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.



> Remember the line by Will Rogers, or at least attributed to him? "The trouble with most people is not that they don't know much, but they know so much that isn't true." This statement came back to me when I read the two letters to the editor critical of homeopathy published in AMERICAN DRUGGIST.
> 
> Those letters also reminded me of an incident a while back where a neighborhood physician came into my pharmacy and, noticing the various homeopathic products on the counter, asked me: "Why do you sell these things? They don't work."
> 
> ...


Source
So @legolas have u ever even glimpsed on the success of Homeopathy apart from criticing it?? I had given accounts on how widely it is being used if u cared to read them. And regarding vital and supreme force, I wud really "believe" in the the thing that works marvels. It has its concepts and principles which I wont reject either. Regarding supreme force and GOD, it doesn't really matter if I shud believe in God or not. I can chose to, but I believe it wont really help me. I won't keep my work stalled just becoz of some belief in GOD, "hoping" that God will make it fine etc. But staying away from or criticising or banish something that works, that has a history of success and known to be easy on patients, just becoz our "modern science" can't explain it wud be just plain stupidity. What do u think??



> 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??
> regarding concentrating all your senses, I know for sure, farting is one which requires that... (just kidding, no offense, just thought of it )


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.



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> Please tell me how limited law is an oxymoron.


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!! 



> And, I have been participating in the discussions before, if you have not saw my posts?? I request you to go back and read them. Only then, I was arguing on Topic and not off-topic regarding Homeopathy to respond to you


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.



> you are a man who thinks f=m.a is flawed and gravity is not just defined properly. where may be you claim spiritual forces even come into play (again kidding, now don't start arguing that I have not read your previous replies. for the nth time, I have).
> The problem then is I don't understand is how you can then measure to pin point accuracy when a missile will land (projectile motion) and explode (recently, an US satellite was bombarded with a missile, you should know) and lots of classical physics were used to construct including centripetal force, centrifugal force, thermodynamics and written in equations (here, there is another funny thing, when told as theory, you argue its just at theory, when written in mathematical form, you say just in 1 equation , basically opposing Science).
> How can you measure when a freely falling ball will reach the ground dropped from certain distance using the "flawed equations" to accurate time... (I am sure you have solved problems in this regard and you have found time to experiment them?). How the concept of friction, centripetal force, centrifugal force, torque, friction, sensivity, acceleration, jerk (derivative of acceleration), point of impact and stuffs used to design a CAR or any other locomotive can precisely guide you to the location. I am just confused.. I am a lunatic, ain't I?


 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!! 

The problem is u and others are ignoring this subject completely whereas the interested scientists are atleast observing and forming theories on it. Even though scientists are experimenting and forming theories, one wise guy without any spirit of questioning or observation or atleast experience, here termed it as a "crap" straight away. So much for the scientific approach!!

On the other hand, it seems u think I'm opposing science completely...No way!! Let me repeat again, all that I am saying is the approaches led by modern science are faulty and filled with errors which even the scientists approve of if u had read the pdf. That doesn't mean everything in science is erroneous or everything is flawed. I thought u were intelligent enough to infer that!!



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> However, you should know the definition of hypocrite. you dont believe even in F= m.a or for that matter torque = r x F (for rotational dynamics) and still you starting from the time you get up would be using almost for every minute all the things that science's invention has led to technological advancement based on those laws created by Einstein (well a little destruction(al), but fission/fusion reactions with the conclusion arrived from E = m.c^2) and Newton (1st, 2nd, and 3rd law) who are again just Lunatics...
> And when we design a car which has sufficient "internal energy" generating sufficient vital force to carry you to the desired location and no other "limited laws", or when we concentrate sufficiently all our 5 senses to build and run a car without any fuel putting our concentration to better things than farting lets begin arguing again!!


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! 

Neways, I haven't yet questioned the "F=M.A", but merely brought it to ur notice from the reviewers pdf, that u may like to shower logic upon. What I asked wasn't answered, may be u wud like to answer it. But it seems u, a "modern science" believer are again telling that it works.


----------



## kalpik (Mar 24, 2008)

OMG! You people have SOOOO much time to type out such long replies!


----------



## legolas (Mar 24, 2008)

*@mediator*, As a "modern Scientist", the only thing I reject about Homeopathy and separate it from Science's true goals is that,
Science does provide theories such as "string theory" where the World is 11 dimensional, theory of black holes and as you quoted, black matter and dark energy and even black holes for that matter. But, they remain as concepts which require further probing and investigation before it becomes conclusive and say, 10s of billions of dollars are invested in finding the other 8 dimensions of the world (just to explain it simply) *to put into practice*. Its like, if you may, in its research phase of testing of medicines. Theories rise out of imagination, there is no fault in it. In fact, its what separates us from Genius(es). I appreciate the concept. BUT!!! the big BUT is,

Unlike Science which does not put into practice until the theory is justified (even you must know that there are that many people losing their interest in String theory as there are not much constructive conclusions coming out of it), Homeopathy tests its medicine without knowing how it works (dilution strengthens, how?) and *claims* it doesn't have side effects.

Stating a concept "dilution strengthens" still may create criticism in the scientific world as it sounds stupid (at least to me). But, if there is real proof to it and one can provide it, Science will definitely hail it, not as a concept, but would be welcomed to put into practice.

Tell me, if the whole of science starting from classical physics or chemistry or math or whatever explains every concept as, say,
Light is some form of energy which is transformed into vision.
Heat is some form of energy which is transformed into pain when exceeded threshold... and so...
then would you really have built telescopes, mirrors, 2 stroke or 4 stroke engine bla bla bla...

All I am saying is Homeopathy is in the stage discussed above... and I don't claim its invalid, but if you insist it doesn't require anything other than that to prove the credibility of homeopathy, *then* I insist on telling homeopathy is CRAP with the idea of some1 wanting to prove something at least then.

The lens maker formula which says 1/f  = 1/u + 1/v is what we found from the concept of lens' to use it for magnifying glasses or convex/concave lens and how to correct the defects in the lens of the eye.

*@Kalpik*, This conversation may not have a real conclusion. But I wouldn't dare say I dint gain something out of it. Believe me, scientists who argue against one other's theories (global warming for example) waste years of time in proving others wrong alone (which is not constructive practice of science) wasting billions of dollars and other's time. This is much more constructive, with people who are civil enough and encourage criticism and provide probing facts. I am sorry you consider it that way, while I don't.

All things aside, I know, most probably, you intended as a joke. But, I intended to reply others who flout at us with their assumption about us being cynical lunatics


----------



## mediator (Mar 24, 2008)

@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.

But neways, I will still request u to take a look at a few links that I posted.
vedicganita.org
Scientific temper and Vedic science
n a few more from the past that I posted. They r really thought provoking u know!!


----------



## legolas (Mar 24, 2008)

mediator said:


> @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.


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.

To boot, in other terms, just as alcohol if invented today is more likely to be classified illegal, homeopathy if invented/discovered today is more or highly liklely to be declared unsafe and not to be tested on humans and would be declared illegal. Somedays back, people who dint question used it and claim it works and so its practiced still, just like astrology ( specifically tarot, card reading, magic ball reading, mind reading, ghost revelation, divine intervention and gazillion other money-swindling hoax(es)).


----------



## mediator (Mar 24, 2008)

Well what can I say, seems u still didn't read the para I posted and the 2 links afterwards, or even the parts I bolded specially for u for ur convenience. 

Let me repeat a small excerpt from that post...


> The current damage from use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone causes in excess of 10,000 deaths a year. And overall, iatrogenic disease (caused by medical treatments) is responsible for as many as 140,000 deaths a years.
> ..
> In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent.
> ...
> ...


Guinea pigs?? Modern medicine or homoepathy? U decide!!


----------



## Faun (Mar 24, 2008)

^^to be precise i agree that any kinda natural treatment is better than synthetic one.

There are lot less chances of something gone wrong and side effects. Nature has everything, u just need to lookout. But hell yeah why do we look out if we can do the same thing by synthesizing them in labs. Even if we aren't prefect, our machines aren't precise.


----------



## neelu09 (Mar 24, 2008)

WHATS GOING ON. Is this science vs. god or homeopathy vs. medicine.


----------



## Faun (Mar 24, 2008)

^^very much, just a dissection of the two subjects.


----------



## legolas (Mar 24, 2008)

@mediator, you should for once read my reply and stop starting every thread with "ok, you dint read my links..". its boring, really.

what i told is, if it were to be invented/discovered today, then it would not be allowed to be treated on humans with empirical formulae or ideas alone, just as alcohol is now being constantly discussed to be prone illegal and also would have been illegal if introduced today. Even, protests are happening on testing on animals now-a-days isn't it?? I don't hail or disclaim the miraculous carnival homeopathy has had over the years and the years to come.

what if someone discovered something say, in a year from now similar to homeopathy, only better, and it claims to work great on humans, but not yet tested, (I am speaking about the stage when it was first discovered and it began to be tested on humans, please understand this before providing links), and works miraculously on many diseases and when asked how, i just say, internal energy energizes and purifies your soul letting all the bacterias clinging on to your soul leave or something like that, you say, you would be willing to try my CLAIM and believe in me solely, while I say, I would rather for some other guinea pigs like you who try on it and see if anything happens before even thinking or arguing about it, while I still don't believe it.

you can't prevent it. this is why, when there are no proper claims and people start believing in it, it leads to many even more idiotic claims coming up. for ex: even if you believe horoscopes which decides on planetory positions to decide your life alterations and happenings... when no one questioned it.. then came "nadi joshiyam", "palmistry", and in the US equally worse, I already mentioned above, tarot, card reading, magic ball reading, mind reading, ghost revelation, divine intervention.


----------



## mediator (Mar 24, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> @mediator, you should for once read my reply and stop starting every thread with "ok, you dint read my links..". its boring, really.


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:
			
		

> what i told is, if it were to be invented/discovered today, then it would not be allowed to be treated on humans with empirical formulae or ideas alone, just as alcohol is now being constantly discussed to be prone illegal and also would have been illegal if introduced today. *Even, protests are happening on testing on animals now-a-days isn't it??* I don't hail or disclaim the miraculous carnival homeopathy has had over the years and the years to come.



I understand what u r trying to say. If protests are happening to save animals from cruelty then thats a good thing. But from scientific point of view I question that approach, since animals are certainly different from humans and again (repeating!!) within humans to our immunity level etc is different.

So I repeated again. And yes it becomes boring like that. The links I gave tells about science and this discussion, why science can't move further, why it has its flaws and limitations. If don't wanna read em (those tons of para..) then say straight away. I'm not forcing or pleading u to read em in anyway. Its for those who want to learn, understand and think a little differently and broadmindedly than how it has been traditionally with "modern science".


I guess ur next post will say nuthing better. Ur words will tell themselves if u had read any of those links now.


----------



## legolas (Mar 24, 2008)

I guess you dint have time to read and comment on the other two paras I wrote, I might have been editing while you were replying.

Either ways, if theories are scientifically baseless, it can be written as an unproven concept only and only that. Not to be put into use. If so, then we are paving way for a gazillion of baseless theories "to be put into use" claiming the same reasons for which the other baseless theory came "into practice". I have nothing else to say. Whether or not it works is not the issue.

The content you pasted from the link says how homeopathy has been effective than any other medicine and stuffs... The point is, I really dont care about it and neither am I speaking about it. And I hope you do understand that??
All I question is *1)* the morality about how it came into existence in the first place!! They must have tested it on humans or directly administering medicines to people claiming its validity, right?? I say, that claim is not moral. Its what we in "modern medicine" or "modern science" as you like to call, claim as "experimental drug". It may work. It may not. But we don't know. All we can tell is statistics, out of 100 people 51 were cured.. the statistics is agreeable and stuffs. *2)* paving way for more theories like this without proper cause being put into practice directly with only claims.


----------



## mediator (Mar 24, 2008)

Hmmm.... Neways I was just reading this thread from the start. And wow, I underestimated it. A lot of people have posted questions like mine with some really nice links.


----------



## karnivore (Mar 25, 2008)

Sorry, took me a while to post. Sunday turned out to be unusually hectic and so did Monday. Anyway, here goes.

*@kenwatts*

The status of any blogger on any given day, is always that of a "Tom, Dick and a Harry". Academic or professional achievements only beg for a more close reading and thats all that there is.

Reading your blog, i did not stumble upon anything ground-breakingly new or radical. What you say is your theory (you definitely say "My own current theory...", in a way that gives the impression that it is homegrown) is nothing but the age old argument of "dualism". And since you have kept it as vague as possible, it was not possible for me to deduce what form of "dualism" you are talking of, and assumed it to be Cartesian Dualism, more popularly know as Substance dualism. Again nothing new there.

What however, irked me, was the term "spiritual atheism". Although your blog is conspicuous by the absence of any sort of explanation of spirituality, as you understand - specially when you claim that spirituality is not "capitulation to religion" - you merrily claim your self to be a "spiritual atheist". 

If i get the logic right (which i hope i did) then it goes on like this:

1. I don't believe in god, hence i am an _atheist_.
2. I believe in dualism, hence i am _spiritual_.
3. Hence i am "_spiritual atheist_"

Following the same logic, one may mischievously say:

1. I believe in god, hence i am a _theist_.
2. I don't believe in dualism, hence i am _non-spiritual_ (this argument follows from your own revelation that spiritualism does not capitulate to religion and thus the reverse is true)
3. Hence i am "_non-spiritual theist_"

Doesn't make much sense does it. 

Take care.

Moving on......

After irritatingly long quotes of entire sites, decorated nicely and colourfully with smilies and links, we get to understand homeopathy in the following terms.

1. "Vitality", which is something non-physical and automatically outside the scope of science, is the core tenet of homeopathy.

This begs for an explanation. *How does the physical substance interact with something non-physical or vice-versa ?* Homeopathy medicine is material (physical), vital force is non-material (non-physical) and body, again, is material (physical). We are given to understand that science can't answer that question. Fine. How about an answer on a purely philosophical level. Also, *which part of the body acts as the liaison between the physical and non-physical ?* Even if we consider that vital force is true, there has to be some part of the body with which it has to interact, otherwise, the body won't heal.

2. Homeopathy works. It has worked for so many years and millions of satisfied customer is proof enough of its validity.

So has astrology, numerology, palmistry, crystal-ball reading, voodoo and so many other crap. That does not make these valid in any sense. Homeopathy "works" on the psychology of the patient, simply put (or is it ??) it is nothing but "PLACEBO". And since placebo can't treat chronic ailments (still no proof of that) or ailments that require surgical intervention, Homeopathy is, predictably and admittedly, ineffective in those cases too. Placebo, was not understood, at least scientifically, even 50 years ago. It is much to the credit of the ancient Chinese philosophers, that they observed this phenomena, but since they could not understand it properly, they took the easiest route - spirituality. "Chi", "vitality" etc are nothing but an attempt to explain this amazing ability of our brain to heal the body and it is this that is called PLACEBO.

3. Isn't it enough that homeopathy cures patient, that too, without side effects. Does it matter how it does, when we know that it does.

This is more a question of ethics and morality, than anything. The question is, is it ethical to trick a patient into believing that he is being treated when actually he is being fleeced for money. Isn't it exploitation of ones weakness (These apply to all form of medicine, including Allopathy). Also, isn't it a moral responsibility of the claimant of "miraculous" healing to prove how "miraculous" his healing really is.

4. Modern medicine has many unexplained corners of its own. Why don't the critics of homeopathy question the validity of modern science ?

Given the sheer voluming of documented observation, proof and explanation of how hundreds of medicine work and interact with body, the unexplained corners of modern medicine do not provoke enough, to question its fundamental principles. Besides, we are completely overlooking the surgical side of it.

5. Instead of cursing homeopathy, why don't the critics do something worthwhile and probe to find an explanation ?

This is confusion at best or hypocrisy at worst. Fist, take homeopathy outside the scope of science, then ask science to explain it and then conveniently blame it for not doing enough. Its like, "you prove my point, while i take a nap. if you can't prove my point, its your fault. and, until you prove it, it is spiritual". In other words, the moment, science provides an "acceptable" explanation, all homeopathy-sympathizers will junk "spirituality" in favour of "science". Actually, science does explain homeopathy, but only as PLACEBO. But obviously, this is not a satisfactory answer for the quacks. Because, even though placebo "proves" to some extent that homeopathy works, it blows to smithereens, the very principle of homeopathy. Cause, *what homeopathy does, can be done, without much ado, by common salt also*.

Sorry for being repetitive. Just wanted to summarize and answer.

PS: 19th century medicine was just barbaric. Half the bodily functions were not know, and even less was known about the right method of treatment. Medical treatment during that time was nothing less than a torture, some sort of a trial and error method. "Modern medicine", as we know it today, was in its infancy, slowly, but surely taking shape. Quoting statistics (not to mention, those sources are far from reliable) from that era will serve no purpose for homeopathy, and certainly not prove homeopathy is better. It is absolutely ridiculous to quote 19th century data in 2008.

There is a recognized method of drug trials. First these are tested on animals. When the results meet certain criteria, these are then tested on humans. And only if these meet another set of criteria, these are allowed to be marketed or prescribed. It is disgustingly true, that corporates, sometimes do not go through these field trials on humans for lure of profit. But, again it is a question of ethics and modern science has nothing to do with it.

Frankly, i am getting tired of hearing that science is "flawed". In spite of @legolas's quite articulate commentary on our achievements with our "flawed" science, the harping continues. Not withstanding the fact that "fallacies" are intentionally being labeled as "flaws", it just seems that hundreds and thousands of correct applications of our science is not proof enough, that we got our basic science correct. Just because something can't be explained today, it does not automatically transpire that it can never be explained. This has been driven home by so many members for so many times. And it is absolutely asinine to predict that "science can't move further".


----------



## mediator (Mar 25, 2008)

@karnivore : long time no see 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 1. "Vitality", which is something non-physical and automatically outside the scope of science, is the core tenet of homeopathy.
> 
> This begs for an explanation. How does the physical substance interact with something non-physical or vice-versa ? Homeopathy medicine is material (physical), vital force is non-material (non-physical) and body, again, is material (physical). We are given to understand that science can't answer that question. Fine. How about an answer on a purely philosophical level. Also, which part of the body acts as the liaison between the physical and non-physical ? Even if we consider that vital force is true, there has to be some part of the body with which it has to interact, otherwise, the body won't heal.


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??

Chinese developed accupressure/accupunture. They produced a term called "yin-yang". They say our body is made up of yin yang (-ve energy and +ve energy). Its the imbalance of these that causes diseases, pain etc. Why is that inspite of being so old and successful it has yet not been scientifically explained?

One of the critics says, "The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes.". But those black spots have their own principles in accupuncture!! Shud I then mark science as a failure??

People here argue with me that if science has not been so successful, then we wud not have learnt so much about universe, planets etc. But we see modern scientists telling and explaining the Universe with the use of hypothetical terms like "dark matter" and "dark energy" to make things work out!! Yes we have invented telescopes and modern infrastructure. But even then 1000s of years ago our ancient Indians knew of the color of planets, how planets rotate etc.

Modern Science likes to talk "about" Universe and what universe comprises of. But has it actually understood what Universe is?? Does science know what how vast universe is and anything regarding its boundaries?? What is beyond our universe?? Yes it has formed "theories" and people like to tell others how cool they are by knowing the theories even when they really don't know that its just a theory not a fact!! It doesn't know "why" and it doesn't know "how"!

If homeopathy works n is found to be effective, then why is the only option left is to start doubting them, simply becoz they violate the laws of chemistry?? Why can't we be skeptical towards the prevailing "theories and 'limited' laws" since science is known to be changing, modifying itself to attain perfection??



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> This is more a question of ethics and morality, than anything. The question is, is it ethical to trick a patient into believing that he is being treated when actually he is being fleeced for money. Isn't it exploitation of ones weakness (These apply to all form of medicine, including Allopathy). Also, isn't it a moral responsibility of the claimant of "miraculous" healing to prove how "miraculous" his healing really is.


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"!!

On the other hand a lotta modern medcines are known to have lotta side affects. Some even have caused deaths. So shud I say those scientifically tested modern medicines are ineffective where taking of one causes a side effect for which we have to take another medicine, or may even lose our life?


			
				repeated said:
			
		

> The current damage from use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone causes in excess of 10,000 deaths a year. And overall, iatrogenic disease (caused by medical treatments) is responsible for as many as 140,000 deaths a years.
> ..
> In 1854, the British Parliament authorized the London Board of Health to appoint a commission to see which treatments were best for cholera victims. They found "regular" hospitals had a death rate of 54 percent; the homeopathic hospital's death rate was 16 percent.
> ...
> ...


This again leads me to repeat a small copy....

*www.jcrows.com/modernmedicine.html


> The idea of scientific medicine is a great one, but is modern medicine truly, or even adequately, "scientific"?
> 
> *Modern medicine uses the double-blind and placebo-controlled trial as the gold standard by which effectiveness of a treatment is determined. On the surface, this scientific method is very reasonable. However, serious problems in these studies are widely acknowledged by academics but remain unknown to the general public. Fundamental questions about the meaning of the word "efficacy" are rarely, if ever, raised.
> 
> ...





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Frankly, i am getting tired of hearing that science is "flawed". In spite of @legolas's quite articulate commentary on our achievements with our "flawed" science, the harping continues. Not withstanding the fact that "fallacies" are intentionally being labeled as "flaws", *it just seems that hundreds and thousands of correct applications of our science is not proof enough, that we got our basic science correct.* Just because something can't be explained today, it does not automatically transpire that it can never be explained. This has been driven home by so many members for so many times. And it is absolutely asinine to predict that "science can't move further".


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.


Also, spirituality and science are different topics, each having its own place. So don't tell if science cannot explain spirituality and vice versa.



> Home / Table of Contents
> Chapter 4
> Scientific Temper and Vedic Science
> 
> ...


/Source

If u understand this, then u wont have any problem acknowledging that even our ancients had both scientific approach and spirituality.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Sorry, took me a while to post. Sunday turned out to be unusually hectic and so did Monday. Anyway, here goes.


U dont need to say any of this.


----------



## legolas (Mar 26, 2008)

mediator said:


> If homeopathy works n is found to be effective, then why is the only option left is to start doubting them, simply becoz they violate the laws of chemistry?? Why can't we be skeptical towards the prevailing "theories and 'limited' laws" since science is known to be changing, modifying itself to attain perfection??


@mediator, 1) if cyanide is diluted a million times, will it get stronger??


mediator said:


> Also, spirituality and science are different topics, each having its own place. So don't tell if science cannot explain spirituality and vice versa.


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?
Here, you have to understand that there are many theories that exist in science which are only *concepts*. But, they are not put into practice or for ex: say, published on text books. Its research and without imagination, and thinking and understanding the limitations, you and I wouldn't be communicating in the way we do. Science doesn't claim it to be ultimate. But, it doesn't put into practice while its just a concept.


mediator 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.


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).
what makes you sure that the *tough cough* you had for 4 months is not a result of taking medicine from homeopathy an year back or so? 
(assuming you did take homeopathy that time, just for the sake of argument).


mediator said:


> *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"!!


the problem is, the doctor himself doesn't know why he gave you that particular medicine! 


mediator said:


> On one hand we have cases of thoroughly tested modern medicines and yet failing. On the other hand successful homeopathy, but not scientifically explained.


Now this is being so wanting to prove homeopathy is the best. while they claim to cure only certain diseases. 
We can't even compare the number of patients going for "modern medicine" and getting cured (small pox vaccination, measles vaccination, and tons and tons of modern medicine vaccination has eradicated those diseases.. they alone are enough for outwitting the number of cases you claim to have cured from homeopathy). so, don't even compare these two. its just being desperate.

There is a very big distinction between Scientific theories expressed out of imagination (even call if fiction) and with a ray of hope in the truth in it, studies are performed. But, till it is verified to pin point accuracy, its not declared as a proven theory, its just another concept which is subjected to criticism, ridiculing and all sorts of scientific gobbledygook. Homeopathy if it claims to be science, is just another unproven concept. full stop.


----------



## kalpik (Mar 26, 2008)

^^ And you sir, most definitely win the prize for the longest post on this forum, EVER! 

Ah.. bad timing.. it was meant for Mediator


----------



## legolas (Mar 26, 2008)

^ ^ ha ha ha  
ha ha ha
ha ha ha
@mediator, no offense, but how old are you?


----------



## mediator (Mar 26, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> 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?
> Here, you have to understand that there are many theories that exist in science which are only concepts. But, they are not put into practice or for ex: say, published on text books. Its research and without imagination, and thinking and understanding the limitations, you and I wouldn't be communicating in the way we do. Science doesn't claim it to be ultimate. But, it doesn't put into practice while its just a concept.


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:
			
		

> 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).
> what makes you sure that the tough cough you had for 4 months is not a result of taking medicine from homeopathy an year back or so?
> (assuming you did take homeopathy that time, just for the sake of argument).


Seems u don't understand plain English! Where did I say that it took 4 months to cure?  You really are something!!



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> the problem is, the doctor himself doesn't know why he gave you that particular medicine!


And now I think u never ever read any of the links!! Is English really that hard??



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> Now this is being so wanting to prove homeopathy is the best. while they claim to cure only certain diseases.
> We can't even compare the number of patients going for "modern medicine" and getting cured (small pox vaccination, measles vaccination, and tons and tons of modern medicine vaccination has eradicated those diseases.. they alone are enough for outwitting the number of cases you claim to have cured from homeopathy). so, don't even compare these two. its just being desperate.


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:
			
		

> ^ ^ ha ha ha
> ha ha ha
> ha ha ha
> @mediator, no offense, but how old are you?


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!!


----------



## karnivore (Mar 26, 2008)

Homeopathy is *PLACEBO*, *PLACEBO*, *PLACEBO*, *PLACEBO*, *PLACEBO.*
Thats how science explains HOMEOPATHY. What more do you want. But tell me, why is it not acceptable to the quacks. 

And how come, having side effects is equal to failure of modern medicine. Where the side-effects far out weigh the cure, then it is the failure of the specific drug, in the sense, that it is not acceptable. It is certainly not the failure of the entire "modern medicine". 

The question is, are the laws of chemistry being followed or are the laws of biology being followed and are the chain of events occurring as they are supposed to. As long as the answer is yes, modern medicine is right. If, however, such chain of events are doing more bad than good, it is best avoided.


----------



## sreevirus (Mar 26, 2008)

@ mediator, sorry for being late again, but I’m really stealing time these days to come here because of all the work that I have pending (I’m notorious for procrastinating).  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 haven’t read The Final Theory, but from whatever I could gather (from reviews and articles), author seems to have used situations where phenomena do not appeal to common sense to debunk modern physics. That is plain puerile. It seems like he’s using argument from personal incredulity to debunk modern physics. Common sense would tell you wrong things many times. Some centuries ago, common sense would've told people that the earth was flat. Then, common sense would've also told people that the earth was at the centre of the Universe. Some time back, common sense would’ve told me (and I’m sure many others) that when you invert a glass filled with water covered by a paper, the water will fall to the ground, or that when you lie on a bed of nails, you’d be pierced through. But science tells otherwise, with reasons. Common sense told many people some years ago that it was a miracle that Ganesha statues drank milk, but science gave them a rational explanation as to why it happens. If you put an argument from common sense, I can prove 1=2 using flawed algebra or calculus, but people can find that it fits with common sense (heck, i've befuddled my engineering classmates).

  A flaw that I found with McCrutcheon’s expansion theory is that if the theory were true, and if gravity is indeed because of acceleration due to increase in mass (because of input of extra energy), then the earth and moon would’ve surely collided. Their masses are increasing right? And if the theory of relativity is wrong according to him, then the orbits of the earth and moon won’t change, would they? That would mean an imminent collision. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe my concepts are weak, but at least that’s what my little knowledge of physics and some things that I read in on the net tell me.

  Coming to dark matter, well, from whatever I know of the concept of dark matter and dark energy from watching some programmes on NatGeo and the Discovery Channel, I’ll try to explain it vaguely here. The concepts of dark matter and dark energy were propounded to explain deficiencies in mass and energy because of various equations and observed facts, differences in calculated and observed values (if I’m not wrong). And from what I’ve read, these “hypothetical” concepts do indeed fit and explain things scientifically (and mathematically). 

  If you feel that something hypothetical like dark matter is being forced into the picture and is a flaw, I’ll give you an instance where a flaw in calculation and observation actually explained a process (of course, I would not be able to explain dark energy here, because I’m no theoretical physicist  and I have not studied it, nor can I associate myself with its studies, hehe, its being done by some of the brightest minds on this planet, I have only read articles and seen TV shows on it). But, a defect (as you would put it) on these lines was used to explain radioactive processes like nuclear fission. The formation of energy from nuclear fission is explained as conversion of mass into energy. Something that was explained in my Standard 12 physics I’ll put here:

  In the textbook, the explanation was something like: there was a difference in the observed and calculated mass of the heavy atom and the byproducts of fission. I’ll try to explain it here (please bear)

  If A is the mass number (sum of neutrons and protons) of a radioactive isotope, and if Z is it’s atomic number (number of electrons *or *protons), then the total mass of the atom would be:
  M = Z(mp + me) + (A - Z)mn 
here, mp, me and mn represent mass of proton, electron and neutron respectively.

  The mass should’ve been the same before and after fission. But after the process of fission, a deficiency in mass, termed mass defect (Δm), was observed, i.e., the mass of the original atom and the byproducts were not equal. But Einstein’s theory came to the rescue here. When the mass-energy equation _E_ = _mc_² was applied here, it explained the conversion of the mass defect into energy (I think gamma rays). This was actually observed and proved through experiments. The mass defect here was used to explain binding energy in the atom (basically, its explaining the nuclear force which binds the electrons, protons and neutrons together in the atom). And it accounts for the large amounts of energy released during fission. At least that’s what my tiny brain can explain.

  But you see, the point here is that something that was thought as a defect actually was found to be true scientifically. Its something similar that is being done when they use “hypothetical” terms like dark matter. They are mathematical deficiency or observed deficiency that can actually explain various phenomena. Its like solving mysteries of science, putting together pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle that will ultimately give us a clearer view of the universe. There are fallacies everywhere. Some explanations raise questions. The concept of graviton was introduced to explain gravity. Read the Wikipedia article on graviton and you’ll see that while it fails at a level with standard model, it is consistent with string theory. Here is an example where, as karnivore and legolas said, you see that science continuously tries to find answers to everything, with assumptions based on strong scientific fundamentals.

  Now before you apply the same analogy to homeopathy or astrology, let me say that the concepts used to explain anything in these fields are merely speculations that have no scientific support. Ok, homeopathy works, but to explain how it works, they never explained anything scientifically, but put forth a term like “vital force” that has no scientific explanations or theoretical proofs. You just have to believe the homeopaths here, its all a matter of faith. Do you see the difference? Unlike homeopathy, astrology, feng shui, etc., science does not pull theories like the Big Bang or dark matter out of thin air. Theories in science are made out of available evidence, and there have to be conclusive proof to those (atleast mathematically). (And as to how homeopathy works with a scientific explanation, I think placebo has been elaborated here by legolas and karnivore).

  And people can believe in totally lame things with sincere conviction. Take the case of Ganesha statues drinking milk. Some people were truly amazed by it and were convinced that it was a divine miracle that clay statues were drinking milk. But science explained why it happened. But some people just refused to accept those explanations, because they were convinced it was a miracle. It doesn’t take much effort to spread superstition and irrational beliefs among people. And it only takes a little rationalism and scientific temper to debunk a lot of misconceptions. But those who are steeped in superstition will never see things through, and will continue to believe what they want to believe (a case of warped reality?).




  PS: It might be a while before I make a post on this thread again, because I’ll be damn busy for the next couple of weeks. I got a project to complete and I got about a little over two weeks to do it (procrastination again, you see), and the reason I’ll be using the net will mostly be for literature for my project. So until next time, take care.


----------



## kenwatts (Mar 26, 2008)

@Karnivore



> The status of any blogger on any given day, is always that of a "Tom, Dick and a Harry". Academic or professional achievements only beg for a more close reading and thats all that there is.


I couldn't agree more--and you've put it better than I did.



> Reading your blog, i did not stumble upon anything ground-breakingly new or radical.


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 doubt very much that substance dualism, in the Cartesian sense, will turn out to be the case, if we ever figure out what _is _the case. 

My own position, at the moment (and I'm not claiming it's a novel one) is that there will likely turn out to be more to matter than we now understand, and that spiritual phenomena (by which I mean things like pain, as opposed to things like ghosts) will turn out to be completely natural, and part of an extended materialism. 

Of course, I may well be wrong.

So, your first argument doesn't _exactly _capture my position, but it's close enough. The second, "mischievous" argument, is one that I see no problem with at all. 

I came out of a _very _religious background -- I was raised a fundamentalist, and have gone through various religious positions before abandoning religion altogether. Many people I knew in that context looked with suspicion on spirituality in general, and would _not _want to be called "spiritual". 

So I see nothing absurd in a person claiming to be a non-spiritual theist.

Of course it all depends on what one means by the word "spiritual". I take it that you mean something by that word which is automatically connected to God or religion, and I agree that many people use the word that way.

You are right that I haven't been too clear on the blog about my own definition of the word "spiritual". I have touched on it here, and here, and here--recognizing some of the different uses. And I am actually in the middle of writing the first of a series that addresses that question at the moment. 

My definition--which I'm still formulating--comes out of doing a great deal of work on spirituality in various religious contexts while I was still religious, and how those experiences fit into my current worldview. 

Obviously, different people mean different things by the term, so I don't really see myself as disagreeing with what you said, so much as just using the word in a different way than you do.

Nice chatting with you.

Ken Watts,
The Daily Mull


----------



## legolas (Mar 26, 2008)

mediator said:


> 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!!


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.
From the theory of homeopathy,
If I dilute say a 32N (normality) of HCN (hydrogen cyanide) by a million times, say, a ppm (parts per million), then will become so strong that if I drink it, I will die??

As regarding the big bang theory, you must also have read about "pulsating theory" in the same context, and you must have also read about, "corpuscular theory of light", "huygen's wave theory", "Quantum theory's dual nature of light". These are theories which suggest how the concept came into existence and which is the *most satisfying* explanation for the current *concept.* For the nth time, I am repeating this. Please understand.

I am not questioning the concept of homeopathy regarding the guy's imagination of how the drugs become stronger when diluted, as much as stupid it appears to me, science would have welcomed if it contains proper argument. Please please please make a note of this!!!
The only strong point of homeopathy you have is that, for certain ailments, homeopathy has better statistics than allopathy. Would this be a convincing argument if you advertise this to people with all the other mentioned facts about homeopathy too. Do you think people will believe this??? honestly? 
So, please stop comparing scientific concepts which still claim only as the best understanding to science so far and which always welcomes better theories in those regards as a counter-argument for homeopathy. That is not my argument at all. I hoped you understood about this. But I am sorry, I don't think you did. Did you understand now??

Science does not claim Big bang theory as *THE* theory and no other theories exist. It says its the best explanation Science could come up with so far. You see the difference???

As far as homeopathy is concerned, I can't put more strongly than *karnivore*. But even if the concept is strikingly imaginative which science always encourages... "how it came into existence while the underlying principles in the first place (where some people who din't even know what this thing is about would have been made guinea pigs, without any documentation what so ever) is not well understood is questionable. For that matter, you can not question any other medicinal views which come under the same pretense and pretext, because homeopathy is not questioned.

That is why I said, just as if alcohol was invented today it would be declared illegal just as ecstasy is NOW (in spite of the fact that the number of deaths produced by alcohol consumption is 100s of thousands in the UK itself, based on a BBC documentary, where as in the UK, ecstasy based deaths are only 18). Alcohol is placed on the 4th most harmful drug with cigarettes at 9th and ecstasy at 18 (with 20 being the least harmful and 1 being most harmful).

Similarly, if a similar concept (as homeopathy) was to be introduced today, with these claims of "internal or vital energy" and claims based on "statistics" ( even though they wouldn't have any coz they would be just introducing), the people are gotten in awareness by the media that much now-a-days that they will start questioning its claim. Homeopathy's only strong point and its sustainence comes from the fact that it was introduced long time back when people did not question its validity.

I hope what I am arguing against is made clear enough so that you dont start comparing that homeopathy was better with the deaths in cholera being 19% during a calamity bla bla... because the vaccination by which most harmful diseases are cured as in, small pox, measles, polio and many other (which I am not aware of) and the lives the so called "modern science" has saved is *innumerable*. This is what is called the *outcome of understanding*. So, stop quoting numbers and start claiming its validity.



mediator said:


> And now I think u never ever read any of the links!! Is English really that hard??
> 
> 
> legolas said:
> ...


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?



mediator 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!!


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.


----------



## Kiran.dks (Mar 26, 2008)

Big thread as big as the big bang theory.
Some simple questions if science is able to answer, I would or rather many will believe that  "Science is everything". 

1. What triggered "Big Bang"?
2. What existed before " Big Bang" ? 

Till now science has no answers! Our space technology is still nothing to explain the formation of Universe.


----------



## legolas (Mar 26, 2008)

@ kiran_tech_mania,
Science doesn't claim it as *the only possible* theory. Its just the best explanation science is able to offer so far.
I don't know about you, but, rather than saying, God created the world in 7 days, which is flawed in 2 ways,
1) Ridiculing God's power by saying he needs 7 days to create it
2) Asking the question, who created God?
Philosophy or better put religion explains, God just created it. Again, I don't know about you, but, it just doesn't convince me.
I find a better explanation from science offers, if not, a hope that a better explanation will be offered.



Kiran_tech_mania said:


> 1. What triggered "Big Bang"?
> 2. What existed before " Big Bang" ?



As far as your questions go, I can only give a rhetorical answer as to how Science tries to explain those. But, it wouldn't be convincing or arguably argumentative. But, what you must understand about the beauty of science is that, there are equal amount of scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang Theory (which is again welcomed by Science because it is not a stable theory) and claim their validations and supposedly better suggestions to it.
Without imagination, we would be lost. Without questioning we would be no different from animals. Blind faith demands it. you do the math.


----------



## karnivore (Mar 26, 2008)

@ kenwatts.

Best of luck with your new articles and since we have agreed to disagree, there seems to be no point in carrying on with this argument. We will end up repeating all that has already been said, both in favour and against of "Duality" and "Spirituality".

Take care.

@ kiran-tech-mania


Your first question is the age old "First Cause" argument in favour of god (of course you don't mention that, but the sarcastic flavour of your question does point in that direction only). @legolas has already answered it and needs no further clarification.

As with your 2nd question, the answer is given by Stephen Hawkins himself. Since all evidence of what existed before "Big Bang" is automatically lost with the "Big Bang", "We will never know".


----------



## mediator (Mar 26, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> If I dilute say a 32N (normality) of HCN (hydrogen cyanide) by a million times, say, a ppm (parts per million), then will become so strong that if I drink it, I will die??


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.
Use of snake poison
*homeopathykate.com/



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> As regarding the big bang theory, you must also have read about "pulsating theory" in the same context, and you must have also read about, "corpuscular theory of light", "huygen's wave theory", "Quantum theory's dual nature of light". These are theories which suggest how the concept came into existence and which is the most satisfying explanation for the current concept.


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!!

So now that u know that textbooks contain stories and theories, u tried to fix attention that they are "most satisfying"?? But still they r theories. I didn't know that laws which theroretically were defined as "universal,absolute etc" can be practically "limited" at the same time and now we have people arguing that some of the theories r most satisfying. Let me ask, do u really understand what a theory is?? Even things like "dark matter", "dark energy" are "most satisfying" to make things work out.

"That law is not well
understood and only seems to hold for closed systems, just like the law of entropy." : scientist/reviewer of final theory on law of conservation of mass-energy!!





			
				legolas said:
			
		

> I am not questioning the concept of homeopathy regarding the guy's imagination of how the drugs become stronger when diluted, as much as stupid it appears to me, science would have welcomed if it contains proper argument. Please please please make a note of this!!!
> The only strong point of homeopathy you have is that, for certain ailments, homeopathy has better statistics than allopathy. Would this be a convincing argument if you advertise this to people with all the other mentioned facts about homeopathy too. Do you think people will believe this??? honestly?
> So, please stop comparing scientific concepts which still claim only as the best understanding to science so far and which always welcomes better theories in those regards as a counter-argument for homeopathy. That is not my argument at all. I hoped you understood about this. But I am sorry, I don't think you did. Did you understand now??


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!!

So please take a look in the reality. If I mentioned patients, that homepathy is a success, it has been used for 100s of years etc and explaining that science is still researching on it, then most will certainly look towards its success. On the other hand if u tell a scientificically tested medicine has huge side effects, has a history of causing deaths, some are tested on animals to develop medicine for humans, then u can certainly guess what the patient will think!

And I'm repeating this for another zth time that I'm not comparing, but simply telling from the start that science has not been able to explain homepathy yet and if the critics like to call it a crap, then they shud look towards reality a lil bit more. I'm certainly not calling science a "joke", that wud be silly of me. So don't get ur blood pressure high and it wud be wise to see things in a more real ways.




> That is why I said, just as if alcohol was invented today it would be declared illegal just as ecstasy is NOW (in spite of the fact that the number of deaths produced by alcohol consumption is 100s of thousands in the UK itself, based on a BBC documentary, where as in the UK, ecstasy based deaths are only 1. *Alcohol is placed on the 4th most harmful drug with cigarettes at 9th and ecstasy at 18 (with 20 being the least harmful and 1 being most harmful)*.


 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.




			
				legolas said:
			
		

> Similarly, if a similar concept (as homeopathy) was to be introduced today, with these claims of "internal or vital energy" and claims based on "statistics" ( even though they wouldn't have any coz they would be just introducing), the people are gotten in awareness by the media that much now-a-days that they will start questioning its claim. Homeopathy's only strong point and its sustainence comes from the fact that it was introduced long time back when people did not question its validity.


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.

*myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dakini/plants-0.1/plant-kingdom.html



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> I hope what I am arguing against is made clear enough so that you dont start comparing that homeopathy was better with the deaths in cholera being 19% during a calamity bla bla... because the vaccination by which most harmful diseases are cured as in, small pox, measles, polio and many other (which I am not aware of) and the lives the so called "modern science" has saved is innumerable. This is what is called the outcome of understanding. So, stop quoting numbers and start claiming its validity.


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:
			
		

> 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?


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:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but, rather than saying, God created the world in 7 days, which is flawed in 2 ways,
> 1) Ridiculing God's power by saying he needs 7 days to create it
> 2) Asking the question, who created God?
> Philosophy or better put religion explains, God just created it. Again, I don't know about you, but, it just doesn't convince me.
> I find a better explanation from science offers, if not, a hope that a better explanation will be offered.


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 title . May be we shud honour u with "reluctant to read" title!!




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> I haven’t read The Final Theory, but from whatever I could gather (from reviews and articles), author seems to have used situations where phenomena do not appeal to common sense to debunk modern physics. That is plain puerile. It seems like he’s using argument from personal incredulity to debunk modern physics. Common sense would tell you wrong things many times. Some centuries ago, common sense would've told people that the earth was flat. Then, common sense would've also told people that the earth was at the centre of the Universe. Some time back, common sense would’ve told me (and I’m sure many others) that when you invert a glass filled with water covered by a paper, the water will fall to the ground, or that when you lie on a bed of nails, you’d be pierced through. But science tells otherwise, with reasons. Common sense told many people some years ago that it was a miracle that Ganesha statues drank milk, but science gave them a rational explanation as to why it happens. If you put an argument from common sense, I can prove 1=2 using flawed algebra or calculus, but people can find that it fits with common sense (heck, i've befuddled my engineering classmates).


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:
			
		

> Coming to dark matter, well, from whatever I know of the concept of dark matter and dark energy from watching some programmes on NatGeo and the Discovery Channel, I’ll try to explain it vaguely here. *The concepts of dark matter and dark energy were propounded to explain deficiencies in mass and energy because of various equations and observed facts, differences in calculated and observed values (if I’m not wrong)*. And from what I’ve read, these “hypothetical” concepts do indeed fit and explain things scientifically (and mathematically).


@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:
			
		

> If you feel that something hypothetical like dark matter is being forced into the picture and is a flaw, I’ll give you an instance where a flaw in calculation and observation actually explained a process (of course, I would not be able to explain dark energy here, because I’m no theoretical physicist and I have not studied it, nor can I associate myself with its studies, hehe, its being done by some of the brightest minds on this planet, I have only read articles and seen TV shows on it). But, a defect (as you would put it) on these lines was used to explain radioactive processes like nuclear fission. The formation of energy from nuclear fission is explained as conversion of mass into energy. Something that was explained in my Standard 12 physics I’ll put here:
> 
> In the textbook, the explanation was something like: there was a difference in the observed and calculated mass of the heavy atom and the byproducts of fission. I’ll try to explain it here (please bear)
> 
> ...


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:
			
		

> PS: It might be a while before I make a post on this thread again, because I’ll be damn busy for the next couple of weeks. I got a project to complete and I got about a little over two weeks to do it (procrastination again, you see), and the reason I’ll be using the net will mostly be for literature for my project. So until next time, take care


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!!


----------



## legolas (Mar 26, 2008)

@Mediator, I think we should restrain from btiching about one others potentiality in reading/writing towards an argument and start replying the arguments. Otherwise, this is never going to end. But first, in order to respond to your reply,
I read all the links you gave including the 1908 snake pdf which was letter to the editor explaining that the press made false prejudice against the venom treatment, and the other which again explains homeopathy as "like heals like".

1) regarding your first point reg. *snake venom*, i read *here* that *Hering paralyzed himself later* (which is what I am against) with repeated use and its side effects. I would like you to read that to see the side effects of a "Natural medicine". Also, reg. my actual question, you still dint answer and it certainly does not require a homeopathy and a high school chemistry would be sufficient, unless you don't believe in it. Either ways, just as an answer to my question, it is impossible to get stronger by diluting.
2) Reg. your *we are not interested in the "most satisfying"*..... reply,
Well, Science explains to the best it can. And there are not yet better convincing theories, and what more do you expect? Its already said, its the most convincing theory available and therefore there are also many other theories being considered by other professors who consider this as crap. you are demanding science to give a perfect answer the first time the concept is introduced, which you and I both know is lame.
3) The answer reg. God's power and stuff was to *@Kiran_tech_mania* and I don't understand really what the fuzz is all about with your reply? I know you are a "spiritual atheist" and it wasn't for you, if you had seen my reply targetting him.
4) 





mediator said:


> legolas said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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.

Ok now I try to rephrase my arguments as concise as possible. 
1) The principle by which the venom which is claimed to cure came into existence. He trying it on himself and then getting paralyzed. He did not understand how it works, and it was a measure of desperation. It is this which I disapprove of.
2) It also has side effects, the Lachesis, from the website I linked, and so, I think its not entirely true to base an argument that Scientific medicines alone have side effects and homeopathy doesn't.
3) This is the most important question I would like you to answer as concise as possible. Its hypothetical. I try to explain my point as best as possible. Its very simple question to which I propose to ask further questions after you respond.
IF, again IF (only), there is a new claim of another medicine/field to be more effective than homeopathy and allopathy both, but the inventor has the same issues as homeopathy in explaining entirely scientifically (say, the concept is something like dilution), how do you think we must accept or nix aside his theory? or on what grounds should we allow the hypothesis to be tested to prove its value? or How would he want to validate the claims of his theory? thank you!
4) I accept all the claims you put forth reg. Science's inability to explain what the universe is and so on. But, the thing is Science itself agrees, the theories are not the entire answers and that is why the research goes on. But Homeopathy claims its the best and alternative to allopathy, yes, it does and points out allopathy's side effects. But, it doesn't cure every disease too. What I am trying to say is, comparing two concepts based on imagination where 1 is entirely harmless and can only give you good results (if the theory is proved), and on the other hand, a similar unproven theory which claims to have no side effects (while I myself read it has) and practising on human lives with such claims -> its not really a valid comparison.


----------



## mediator (Mar 26, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> @Mediator, I think we should restrain from btiching about one others potentiality in reading/writing towards an argument and start replying the arguments. Otherwise, this is never going to end.


Finally!




			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 1) regarding your first point reg. snake venom, i read here that Hering paralyzed himself later (which is what I am against) with repeated use and its side effects. I would like you to read that to see the side effects of a "Natural medicine". Also, reg. my actual question, you still dint answer and it certainly does not require a homeopathy and a high school chemistry would be sufficient, unless you don't believe in it. Either ways, just as an answer to my question, it is impossible to get stronger by diluting.


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?

Thats why I said I'm not a homepath and that even poison cud be used to cure. Homeopathy tells it gets stronger upon dilution. But if u take and treat upon using the prinicples behind "modern science", then u can ofcors it can get stronger on concentration. U shud be now knowing that homeopathy is not like "modern science" where a medicine is used to supress the disease. But the body's own healing process is improved. There's a certain difference that u shud know. 

But neways It seems u took the para/link in wrong context



			
				source_ by_lego said:
			
		

> In homeopathic terms, fresh L. mutus venom was "proved" as a remedy by Constantine Hering around 1830. Although born in what is now Germany, Hering is considered to be the founder of American homeopathy. In 1827 he went to Surinam, South America, to conduct biological research for his government. In experimenting with lachesis venom in an attempt to find a homeopathic inoculation for smallpox, he accidentally poisoned himself with a small amount of venom. This led him to his "proof" that lachesis was a homeopathic remedy. *Ever the curious scientist, Hering later [size=+2]accidentally paralyzed[/size] his right side by [size=+1]continuing to test higher and higher doses of lachesis on himself.[/size]*


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. 
I hope u know that in any field be it medicine,surgery or operation anything can go wrong even a simple mistake. e.g Its always recommended not to use the same needle after its use. It shud be thrown away. There have been cases in INDIA where a patient caught AIDS within the hospital itself. Reason? The doctor used an already "used" needle; A small mistake in chataract operations can even blind u permanently.

Neways for the development of modern medicine many clones are sacrificed, animals killed. I don't see u raising ur voice against them.



> *The Law of Similars*
> 
> The principle that like shall be cured by like, or Similia similibus curantur. This principle, recognized by physicians and philosophers since ancient times, became the basis of Hahnemann's formulation of the homeopathic doctrine: the proper remedy for a patient's disease is that substance that is capable of producing, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those from which the patient suffers.
> 
> ...


Source




			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 2) Reg. your we are not interested in the "most satisfying"..... reply,
> Well, Science explains to the best it can. And there are not yet better convincing theories, and what more do you expect? Its already said, its the most convincing theory available and therefore there are also many other theories being considered by other professors who consider this as crap. you are demanding science to give a perfect answer the first time the concept is introduced, which you and I both know is lame.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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.

In the light of accupuncture I can question how do the yin-yang balance if a "modern medicine causes huge side effects for which another set of medicines are to be taken". It certainly doesn't improve upon ur "vital force" either as stated by homeopathy.




			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 2) It also has side effects, the Lachesis, from the website I linked, and so, I think its not entirely true to base an argument that Scientific medicines alone have side effects and homeopathy doesn't.


I don't understand why r u going nuts. Simply tell u haven't understood homeopathy or its principles yet.


			
				source_by_legolas said:
			
		

> Side Effects
> 
> When taken in the recommended dilute form, *no side effects* have been reported. *However, concentrated quantities of the venom cause paralysis and hemorrhaging, and can be fatal.*


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??



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> 3) This is the most important question I would like you to answer as concise as possible. Its hypothetical. I try to explain my point as best as possible. Its very simple question to which I propose to ask further questions after you respond.
> IF, again IF (only), there is a new claim of another medicine/field to be more effective than homeopathy and allopathy both, but the inventor has the same issues as homeopathy in explaining entirely scientifically (say, the concept is something like dilution), how do you think we must accept or nix aside his theory? or on what grounds should we allow the hypothesis to be tested to prove its value? or How would he want to validate the claims of his theory? thank you!


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:
			
		

> 4) I accept all the claims you put forth reg. Science's inability to explain what the universe is and so on. But, the thing is Science itself agrees, the theories are not the entire answers and that is why the research goes on. But Homeopathy claims its the best and alternative to allopathy, yes, it does and points out allopathy's side effects. But, it doesn't cure every disease too. What I am trying to say is, comparing two concepts based on imagination where 1 is entirely harmless and can only give you good results (if the theory is proved), and on the other hand, a similar unproven theory which claims to have no side effects (while I myself read it has) and practising on human lives with such claims -> its not really a valid comparison.


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.

I think this is for a few people here. I wud like to repeat again.. science and spirituality are 2 different fields and u cannot measure everything with the instrument of science. Like it is said in the article, "Our physical senses can guide us, but they can also fool us. We can imagine a rope to be a snake from some distance and so on....". I wud like people to ponder on this!!


----------



## legolas (Mar 26, 2008)

mediator said:


> Finally


Only your word seems so. But you have littered with sarcasm through out the post. Lets continue it that way! 


mediator 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!! *in response to* 3)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## mediator (Mar 27, 2008)

If thats the question then I believe the "new claim" shud satisfy its principles/methods. The methods shud be well thought of, pondered in depth  and shud be successful so as to turn the heads of the masses. To validate it we shud use its own precise principles/methods and not done half-heartedly just to rebuke it.


----------



## legolas (Mar 27, 2008)

you mean they should explain to people that, this is the theory. It has not been tested yet. And, it works in the principle of <superficial term supplied here, like internal energy or external atmospheric balance or unlike heals unlike> and we couldn't tell you the working of the drug as to how it does coz is not known. And we need volunteers to prove my principle so that this medicine will be proven superior to the 200+ year old homeopathy even!! ???


----------



## mediator (Mar 27, 2008)

Why do u say its a theory? Its a principle. Can u explain to person who knows a language A in another language B?
The principles are well defined and methods are outright clear!! The success of homeopathy isn't the testing on random guinea pigs whose life is useless, but their success on humans who have taken it.



> Allopathic medicines are often tested only on animals. The testings for cosmetics
> on animals can be to such detriment to the animals, we see products promising their
> ingredients have not been tested on animals. Many of the drugs and other over-the-counter
> medicines used daily by people have no actual proof of effectiveness. We also see drugs
> ...


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. 


Don't mind but ur questions speak that u really haven't known homeopathy yet. And the hypothetical terms we discussed I guess aren't less superficial then what u r talkin bt.




> *Over-dosing is in sharp contrast to homeopathy.* Here are some factors to consider:
> 1) Homeopathy uses highly diluted substances. Remedies are given in minute amounts.
> Homeopathy alternately dilutes and succusses/shakes substances to make a potency.
> The results are alternative medicines that operate on a vibrational not chemical level in the body.
> ...


*www.elixirs.com/principles.cfm


----------



## legolas (Mar 27, 2008)

hahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
*Why do you say its a theory, its a principle* 
hahahaaaaaa and here we are now playing mumbo-jumbo from the man who is delirious and out-of-superficial-gobbledygook.
Its a theory because its what the inventor thinks is happening. Nobody knows its happening that way or not, as you love to quote "the big bang *theory*, not "big bang principle". He accidentally took the venom and it cured him. He starts giving others coz it cured him, only to be paralyzed out of utter ignorance and obsessiveness and resulting in detrimental effects, again, paralyzing him, because he wouldn't use his brain and based facts on empirical evidence.
*Can u explain to person who knows a language A in another language B?*
Are you telling that a doctor can't explain a patient just because he *wouldn't * understand? Bull siht!! Well, even if it were the case, try explaining to ones who know about it and they ask it, then we get the reply *I don't know it, no body knows!*  Isn't that awesome!

Now, who is desperate??  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!!


----------



## karnivore (Mar 27, 2008)

^^ Let go dude. Its not worth it.


----------



## mediator (Mar 27, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> Its a theory because its what the inventor thinks is happening. Nobody knows its happening that way or not, as you love to quote "the big bang theory, not "big bang principle". He accidentally took the venom and it cured him. He starts giving others coz it cured him, only to be paralyzed out of utter ignorance and obsessiveness and resulting in detrimental effects, again, paralyzing him, because he wouldn't use his brain and based facts on empirical evidence.


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?







> However, there are mysteries of the universe that are not explained by the Big Bang model alone. *For example, a region of the universe 12 billion lightyears distant in one direction appears little different than a region 12 billion lightyears distant in the opposite direction. But since the universe is 'only' around 13.7 billion years old, it would appear these regions could never have been causally connected. How, then, can they be so similar?* Alan Guth's 1981 theory of cosmic inflation, a short, sudden burst of extreme exponential expansion in the very early universe, provided an explanation for this horizon problem and several of the features unaccounted for by the original Big Bang model. The successor to Guth's original theory has found some circumstantial support, *but it is not yet nearly as well supported as the Big Bang model.
> *


*
So u see to rescue one one theory, another one came into existence which is not well supported itself.




Nobel Prize physicist Hannes Alfven considered the Big Bang to be a scientific myth devised to explain creation.[56] He held that "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago" [1]. Alfvén and colleagues proposed the Alfvén-Klein model as an alternative cosmological theory.

Other astronomers, such as Halton Arp or Sir Fred Hoyle, are also known for their rejection of the Big Bang theory. Hoyle, one of the most vocal critics of the theory, was also ironically responsible for coining the term "Big Bang". The theory had previously been known as the "Dynamic Evolving Model", but Hoyle referred to it as the "Big Bang" in a series of radio presentations on different scientific topics. Hoyle was also a co-creator the Steady State theory, which was meant as an alternative to the Big Bang, along with fellow scientists Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold.
		
Click to expand...

Source




			
				legolas said:
			
		


			Can u explain to person who knows a language A in another language B?
Are you telling that a doctor can't explain a patient just because he wouldn't understand? Bull siht!! Well, even if it were the case, try explaining to ones who know about it and they ask it, then we get the reply I don't know it, no body knows! Isn't that awesome!
		
Click to expand...

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?

I hope its quite clear to u. Homepathy has its own principles and methods and it works. On the other hand "modern science" doesn't even have physical evidences in many cases but simply putting up its own hypothetical terms and more set of theories to fill the missing blanks.

I can also question beyond of ur little understandings of what are the fundamental particles, why do the charge exist on them, why do the fundamental particles exist in the first place?? What is the driving force behind all of it? Can u give me the "what, how and why" of all of it?? U might answer some questions. If u do, then u question the "what,why and how" of that solution. Here's an interesting read.

Scientists tell a person is dead if he has no pulse and heart beat stops. So do the INDIAN yogis get second life after they do their practice of pausing the heart beat for considerable amount of time?? There is a lot to question and a lot that cannot be explained with our limited science. Even to explain many things it forms theories and hypothetical and fill in the blanks that it encounters with another set of theories and terms not supported by physical evidence but observation, making the whole episode look like a story.

So @legolas, pease understamd what theories are. It certainly saves u from looking well, "not dumb"!
Like I said homeopathy and modern science are different where both have their own approach and terminology!! Whereas homoepathy is being seen as successful, humane way of treatment, on the other hand many scientific remedies are seen has harsh, full of side effects and even casuing deaths.

If u still don't understand then listen to @karnivore atleast. Ur limited scope of understanding and ten inclusion of pathetic terms like "fart" and then "hahaha" is only making me feel sympathetic. I know u can do much more than that. U just need to try!! How dare I critice science? *


----------



## legolas (Mar 27, 2008)

Ok, here we go again.
1) chinese have the yin-yang theory/principle/concept/philosophy.
2) homeopathy is based on vital energy theory/principle/concept/philosophy.
3) Modern science can not explain everything.
4) Big bang theory is just a theory.

again, I have no problems and am not arguing this. I have no interest in these. However, I would like to insert 1 concern here. Which is, Comparing a moral issue in claiming lives of humans (read below why I tell this) with that of a scientific theory that does no harm but letting imagination lead its way to a conclusion is not really a comparison, it doesn't cost or isn't immoral. *People are given the liberty to think, but before acting their thoughts on others are expected to be extremely precise and sure about what they are doing so that it doesn't intentionally or unintentionally harm others* So claiming scientists who are at liberty to think to doctors who have the moral obligation to save lives is pointless and baseless.

But that is not my question. So, ergo...
Do you accept the method adopted in testing with the humans FIRST HAND (the time it was invented) while the principle/theory/concept/philosophy was not known as to why or how it works, for ex: the guy who got paralyzed, you can understand he was obsessed with it for trying heavier doses.. it is obvious. because it (supposedly) cured him, he declared that its a cure. Would you accept testing stuffs on humans (again, I am sorry for the animals, but when it comes to survival between us or them, you and I are not going to say, save the animals), under those claims at that time when the drug was yet to be tested. Even if its claimed to have worked on him, do you think, say, the venom medicine should be immediately administered by taking his word for granted and then over years observe people for side effects and then thankfully claiming its safe. *Do you accept this premise of working? Would you participate yourself in a similar claim from some other medicine, say, as I hypothetically told in the above posts were to be introduced? I would not*. Assuming every drug came by accident even, claiming its true and starting to test on humans and observing the side effects is just treating them as "guinea pigs" is what I feel, really. *And are you telling me, not even 1 of those drugs which were detected by accident or really by concept but while testing on humans for side effects really had some and so stopped on the others???* *Not even 1 in the whole of 200 years??* I just need the answer to these 2 questions. And please, answer to these questions alone. Its a simple yes or no, but I know its going to be longer than that.

And regarding the "fart" and "hahahaaa", I already mentioned, your senses are not tuned to appreciate a sense of humor or subtle sarcasm. You should probably nix them aside. They are for the ones who do appreciate some humor while reading.



karnivore said:


> ^^ Let go dude. Its not worth it.



Probably yes.


----------



## mediator (Mar 27, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> 3) Modern science can not explain *everything*.


Many things!=everything...seems u need to meditate on the difference first.



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> But that is not my question. So, ergo...
> Do you accept the method adopted in testing with the humans FIRST HAND (the time it was invented) while the principle/theory/concept/philosophy was not known as to why or how it works, for ex: the guy who got paralyzed, you can understand he was obsessed with it for trying heavier doses.. it is obvious. because it (supposedly) cured him, he declared that its a cure. Would you accept testing stuffs on humans (again, I am sorry for the animals, but when it comes to survival between us or them, you and I are not going to say, save the animals), under those claims at that time when the drug was yet to be tested


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". 

Regarding animals, I wud vote for them and may test the medicine on the corrupt politicians instead if the need arises.



			
				lego said:
			
		

> Do you accept this premise of working? Would you participate yourself in a similar claim from some other medicine, say, as I hypothetically told in the above posts were to be introduced? I would not.


Why not?..as per the reply to the question u put (in prev. post).


> By contrast, each Homeopathic remedy has had documented Provings done on humans.
> Healthy humans agree to take a substance and have their symptoms recorded. This shows
> also the safety of Homeopathy, when even test subjects suffer no ill effects after the testing is over.


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!



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> And regarding the "fart" and "hahahaaa", I already mentioned, your senses are not tuned to appreciate a sense of humor or subtle sarcasm. You should probably nix them aside. They are for the ones who do appreciate some humor while reading.


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 (Mar 27, 2008)

legolas said:


> 3) Modern science *can not* explain *everything*.
> 
> 
> mediator 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.


mediator said:


> Wud u like to be an astronaught after witnessing the episode of Kalpana Chawla??


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.



mediator said:


> 1) Regarding animals, I wud vote for them and may test the medicine on the corrupt politicians instead if the need arises.
> 2) Why not?..as per the reply to the question u put (in prev. post).


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.

And no comments reg. the sense of humor. I assume we differ there too! I hope there would be no more heat discussions in this particular regard between us. Thank you for your arguments and take it easy!!!


----------



## mediator (Mar 27, 2008)

The session was already stalled. We were merely repeating!! But neways I hope u took it all lightly and only pondered over the relevant discussion like I did.


----------



## legolas (Mar 27, 2008)

yeah, its true. But at least I came to know definitively where we differed. I was trying to pin point it... finally I was able to convince myself.
Sure, no hard feelings!


----------



## karnivore (May 17, 2008)

In 1954, Einstein wrote a letter to Eric Gutkind, where he clarifies his view on "GOD". 


> *The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses*, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. *No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this*.


Read more here or here
Now, this will either douse the fire or fuel it some more.

DISCLAIMER: Legitimacy of the letter is yet not established.


----------



## Faun (May 17, 2008)

^^what was Newton's view ?
Btw Einstein is overrated.


----------



## legolas (May 17, 2008)

T159 said:


> Btw Einstein is overrated.


says Pauli's 4th cousin


----------



## karnivore (May 17, 2008)

T159 said:


> ^^what was Newton's view ?


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:
			
		

> says Pauli's 4th cousin



1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins are....


----------



## Faun (May 17, 2008)

friggin campers


----------



## legolas (May 17, 2008)

karnivore said:


> 1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins are....


presumably dead 
@T159, its coming!


----------



## karnivore (Jun 8, 2008)

*Ancient Nuclear India as Evidenced at Mohenjo-Daro*

This post has reference to this link, provided in a post in another thread.

  The crux of the matter is that, some people are claiming that our ancestors had nuclear weapons, and proof of the fact is in the radioactive skeletal remains at Mohenjo-Daro itself. Apparently, a reference to an incidence in the _Mahabharata_ looks too similar to a nuclear explosion. Since it is impossible to imagine such events with such vividity, it has to be more than a mere coincidence.

  Apparently some other tangible proofs of ancient nuclear India exist too. Remains at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa are apparently highly radioactive. Radioactivity, of such high proportion, as has been allegedly recorded at the archeological sites, can’t come into existence right out of the blue. Coupled with the fact that these two civilizations came to an abrupt end, which in it self is a mystery, the nuclear explosion, apparently, fits quite snuggly.

  Lets examine, if there is any evidence to the above conclusions.

*What is the source :

*   Site after site, relentlessly claim the above story, basically copy/pasting each other, but fail to give any reference to original news article. There is no mention of a press release, or something similar, by the Government of India or Pakistan or Britain. This huge event i.e. unearthing of such a radioactive skeleton, which has the potential of turning our history book right on its head, is not even mentioned in any archeological web sites like ASI, or Mohenjodaro.net or Harappa.com, or even the Hindu propaganda web sites. (These _Hindu_ apologist sites do claim that the vedic India was nuclear, but, thankfully, do not point at the ruins of Indus Valley civilization as evidence. They have their own reasons, of course.)

  Unless there is a huge conspiracy to cover up the fact, for some unknown reason, in which even the Government of India is actively taking part, this story is absolutely bunk and that too, a sloppy one. 

*The Fountainhead : 

*


			
				Rense.com said:
			
		

> This file shared with *KeelyNet* courtesy of Bryant Stavely. Excerpt from the *World Island Review*, January 1992.


 Source [We meet again, Rense.com]

  Apparently, the story was broken to the world by World Island Review and was fist referenced by KeelyNet, in January 1992. Strangely the story is no longer available on KeelyNet. Also, the World Island Review, seems to be a fake, which hardly surprises me. 

*Skeletal Remains :* 



			
				link said:
			
		

> When excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro reached the street level, they discovered *skeletons scattered about the cities*, many holding hands and *sprawling in the streets* as if some instant, horrible doom had taken place. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]


  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:
			
		

> Why did the bodies *not decay* or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent *cause of a physically violent death*[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]


  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.

  Debunk time:

  The total number of skeletons found at the main site of Mohenjo-Daro, during the initial archeological digging during 1922-1931, was, just 37. 14 of those, including a minor, were found inside a small room, 1 was found in a blocked lane. Let me quote Prof. G.F.Dales from his “_The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro__”,_ (he was of course debunking the myth of Aryan invasion, much to the joy of _Hindu_ apologists).


> Nine years of extensive excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1922-31) - a city of three miles in circuit – yielded the total of some 37 skeletons, or parts thereof, that can be attributed with some certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations. Some of these were found in contorted positions and that suggest anything but orderly burials. Many are either disarticulated or incomplete….Where are the burned fortresses, the arrow heads, weapons, pieces of armor, the smashed chariots and bodies of the invaders and defenders? Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan Invasion.


  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.] 

  It is an absolute lie that bodies littered the streets of these ruins. There isn’t a shred of evidence of an instantaneous mass death, as evidenced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some of these skeletons were actually buried at different ground level, pointing to different periods of time. There isn’t any evidence of any major war or invasion itself. And after few thousand years of being underground, is it possible for skeletons to retain flesh. Decide for yourself. [Male], [Female]

*Nuclear Explosion ?

*


			
				link said:
			
		

> Historian Kisari Mohan Gangulisays that "Indian sacred writings" are full of such descriptions, which sound like an atomic blast as experienced in *Hiroshima* and *Nagasaki*.


  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. 

  Besides, when there was no major battle, or conflict, or invasion – at least there is no proof of it - why would anybody even detonate a nuclear warhead, assuming this detonation actually happened. Absence of proof of conflict, itself, removes the motive behind such macabre event.

*Nuclear Radiation ?

*


			
				link said:
			
		

> At one site, Soviet scholars found a skeleton which had a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.





			
				link said:
			
		

> These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]


  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 ?

*Who is Kisari Mohan Ganguli ?
*


			
				link said:
			
		

> Historian *Kisari Mohan Ganguli *says that "Indian sacred writings" are full of such descriptions, which sound like an atomic blast as experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He says references mention fighting sky chariots and final weapons.
> 
> "The passage tells of combat where explosions of final weapons decimate entire armies, causing crowds of warriors with steeds and elephants and weapons to be carried away as if they were dry leaves of trees," says *Ganguli.*
> 
> "Instead of mushroom clouds, the writer describes a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds as consecutive openings of giant *parasols*. There are comments about the contamination of food and people's hair falling out."


  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.

  The above quote will give the impression that Mr Kisari Mohan Ganguli, actually gave the interview to that mag/ site. But that is impossible. Also, his references to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also very unlikely. It is possible, he was not even alive when the events happened. I can’t be sure. However, it is highly unlikely that he would misquote from his own translation. In entire Mahabharata, translated by him, there is no mention of “parasol” or anything that resembles a “parasol”. 

*Who is Francis Taylor ?

*   There is no archeologist named Francis Taylor, [Google Scholar search]accept for an amateur English gentleman, as is clear from the first link. However, he is more concerned with local archeology e.g. Stonehenge etc and there is no evidence, at least on line, that he ever visited the archeological sites of Mohenjo-Daro or Harappa. There is, rather was, another Francis Taylor, who was the museum curator, but he died in 1957. 

*Misquoting The Mahabharata:*


			
				Rense.com said:
			
		

> "A single projectile charged with all the power in the Universe...An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as 10,000 suns, rose in all its splendor...it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes an entire race.
> 
> "The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. Their hair and nails fell out, pottery broke without any apparent cause, and the birds turned white.
> 
> "After a few hours, all foodstuffs were infected. To escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves into the river."


  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.

  These misquotes were dutifully(sic) fathered by Mr David Hatcher Childress.

  Closest you will ever come to that quote is as below:


			
				sacredtext.com said:
			
		

> Endeavoured to be deceived by those wicked ones, those ascetics, with eyes red in wrath, looked at each other and uttered those words. Having said so they then proceeded to see Keshava. The slayer of Madhu, informed of what had taken place, summoned all the Vrishnis and told them of it. Possessed of great intelligence and fully acquainted with what the end of his race would be, he simply said that that which was destined would surely happen. Hrishikesa having said so, entered his mansion. The Lord of the universe did not wish to ordain otherwise. When the next day came, *Samva actually brought forth an iron bolt through which all the individuals in the race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas became consumed into ashes*. Indeed, for the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas, *Samva brought forth, through that curse, a fierce iron bolt that looked like a gigantic messenger of death*. The fact was duly reported to the king. In great distress of mind, the king (Ugrasena) caused that iron bolt to be reduced into fine powder. Men were employed, O king, to cast that powder into the sea. At the command of Ahuka, of Janarddana, of Rama, and of the high-souled Vabhru, it was, again, proclaimed throughout the city that from that day, among all the Vrishnis and the Andhakas no one should manufacture wines and intoxicating spirits of any kind, and that whoever would secretly manufacture wines and spirits should be impaled alive with all his kinsmen. Through fear of the king, and knowing that it was the command of Rama also of unimpeachable deeds, all the citizens bound themselves by a rule and abstained from manufacturing wines and spirits.


 Last paragragh

  Does not even come close to the description of a nuclear explosion.

*Other radioactive cities*


			
				link said:
			
		

> Radiation still so intense, the area is highly dangerous. A heavy layer of radioactive ash in *Rajasthan,* India, covers a three-square mile area, ten miles west of *Jodhpur.* Scientists are investigating the site, where a housing development was being built. For some time it has been established that there is a very high rate of birth defects and cancer in the area under construction. The levels of radiation there have registered so high on investigators' gauges that the Indian government has now cordoned off the region.
> 
> Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an *atomic blast* dating back thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people. One researcher estimates that the nuclear bomb used was *about the size of the ones dropped on Japan in 1945*.


  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.


> .
> .
> This is a story told to Surendra Gadekar. One day in Narora a worker with a geiger counter went to take tea in the canteen. His geiger counter suddenly went crazy. On investigating he found that the radioactivity was coming from the fire used for preparing the tea. Further investigation led to the discovery that the wood being burnt had originally been used for scaffolding inside the plant, and had got contaminated and hence should have been stored as low-level waste. Instead it had been sold to a contractor, who had fortunately sold it back to the canteen: hence this sordid practice of how the establishment deals with its waste was detected.
> .
> ...


 Source


> [FONT=&quot]I studied medicine in Calcutta. But even there I had never seen so many patients with tumors in a single day. On talking to these people in Tamlao I found that almost all the symptoms had appeared after five or more years of the reactor's commissioning. [/FONT]


 Source

  I have already discussed why an atomic bomb, “about the size of the ones dropped on Japan in 1945” can’t possibly be the reason behind any radioactivity in an area, after thousand of year of its detonation.

*Lonar Crater :

*   The crater near Mumbai is the Lonar Crater [Image]. It is hardly a mystery anymore. Here’s the HTML version of a PDF file, which is not downloadable, at the moment.


			
				khaghalmandal.com said:
			
		

> In 1973, based on the work done by K. Fredriksson of [Smithsonian Institution], Washington DC, D.J. Milton of US Geological Survey, California in collaboration with A. Dube and MS Balasundaram of Geological Survey of India impact origin of *Lonar crater* was established. They discovered breccia with shatter cones and material containing maskelynite. Maskelynite formation requires very high pressure almost 4 lakh times the average atmospheric pressure on the Earth. And this is created only during hypervelocity impact…Thus impact origin of *Lonar crater* was proved.



  All rational persons follow a rule of thumb. If something is too good to be true, then, in all likelihood, it is not true. A little skepticism is actually a sign of a healthy mind. Unfortunately, for some people, with a giant gullible bone, anything that shines, is gold.

  Hopefully, we have seen the last of this kind of garbage on this forum.

  [Valuable inputs from xenophilia.com]

P.S. I have embedded number of links, but unfortunately, these are not appearing in separate colour.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 10, 2008)

*Indian scientists and their faith*

A recent survey on Indian scientists, by Institute for the Study of Secularism in India, reveal to us, the personal faiths and belief of these scientists. 



50% scientists believe in *homeopathy.  [WTF ?]
*



49% believe in *prayer*.  [WTF ?]



16% believe in f*aith healing*.  [WTF ?]



14% believe in *vastu* and *astrology*. 



10% believe in *palmistry*. 



8% believe in *reiki*. 



6% believe in *numerology*. 

I would, however like to see, how these percentages look among the general population. Then, we can actually put a meaning to these percentages. Without a basis for comparison, interpretation may be very subjective. 

As we know that a study in US revealed something very similar. But comparing to the data obtained from the general public, the picture became a little clearer.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jun 20, 2008)

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.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jun 20, 2008)

vamsikrishna919 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




Hi there...

These kinda lame equations and theories only make us stop from knowing the truth...

As for your bell division stuff... There is nt any power... But its all complex chemicals and hormones which causes these after sperm fertilises the ovum.. So next time dont just say things like that... Atleast try to do some research...  Or google it..

As for your godly witness ... Todays guruji's are tom's godly witness..,fortunately today we have all those media, camera, etc to say he did this by trick and did that by another trick! In those days its wasnt like that... Hope you get my message..


----------



## Faun (Jun 20, 2008)

now the question arises who came first egg or hen ??
  

You just cant define everything, what are those chemical and why they behave in that way ? why a child inside a womb is able to survive the liquid surrounding him but fails to breath in water when outside the womb ? What is memory of water ? 

But then science is just all about facts and deductions. You derive as what u can best assume


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jun 20, 2008)

For answering the first question tell me... Who was before god or say who created god... 

As for second thing...

From the contact of head of sperm, and release of lysozyme like material to formation of full placenta there is a complete pathway dude... 
As for fetus... In the sac... They get all the nutrient and the sac in many ways protect the fetus...


----------



## Faun (Jun 20, 2008)

u didn't got the gist of what am saying, its just that we assume and make facts and deduction on what seem to be true in our frame of reference.

What is a sperm ? and why there is perfect chance of only one making it to the egg and fertilizing it. Why the hell differentiation of cell occurs too fast in some species and too slow in others ? Why every human born baby is so perfect and hardly a few suffers from anomalies ? What is that made such a perfect replication mechanism for DNA ? Who was the architect for that? 

We know we created artificial intelligence but who created the natural one ?? Why there is a balance between the each organism ?

These are just few questions which even science can't explain clearly nor the beliefs ? What I want to convey here is that there is always room for possibility, facts are a dead end to nowhere.

If I knew the answer to these question, I wouldn't be questioning .


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jun 20, 2008)

I would love to answer each of your questions in detail...but unfortunately i am on mobile and have a exam tom morning... But will do it by tom evening...

I will leave you with one thing though... 
Instead thinking why it happened, oh thats great... It cant be done naturally. . Think in a scientific perspective...you will find the answer! For every question you asked there are loads of proof and articles and theories... Or say facts...
Its like asking why current flows when you switch the butto on... You know why... 
Thats how things work... How many times have you seen short circuit? Hope you get the point... But will post a detail reply later... C ya...


----------



## Faun (Jun 20, 2008)

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 ? Whats the reason behind Simulated Annealing ?

I want absolute answers and no theory or assumptions 

And what is the future of mankind ? Is it a vicious circle /
What happens after death ? Is there an afterlife ?
I was dead before I was born and will be dead after I die ? So relatively speaking I am dead for a considerable amount of time as compared to life am enjoying. So what do you think is death, another form of life or something else ?
What is near death experience ?
What is Spontaneous human combustion and where are the proofs of it ?


----------



## karnivore (Jun 20, 2008)

^^ You are asking some right questions (and some nonsense, as well), but looking at the wrong place for answers.

Non of us are experts in Evolutionary/ Molecular biology or Applied physics or Astrophysics or Neuroscience or similar subjects. The kind of details that you are looking for need real expertise. The best we can do is direct you to sites. But, believe me that won't be enough.

Besides, it just seems that you are asking for the sake of pointing out the gaps in scientific knowledge, typical of a god-of-gap syndrome. It you are sincere about those questions, then the first step in the right direction would be to visit some credible sites, run by some credible people.

SciencBlog, ScienceBlogs [here you will find a whole bunch of real scientists]
JREF, [a forum that is a must for all skeptics], Physics Forum [don't need introduction]
Cornell University, Stanford [philosophy]

There are hundreds of similar forums/ blogs/ sites run and/or maintained by reputed Ivy League Universities and scientists, all of which can quench your thirst for knowledge.

But, the question is, do you have the courage to learn ?


----------



## Faun (Jun 20, 2008)

^^ should i point you to the other side too ? 

I was an atheist, needless to say science was not enough to quench my thirst.

I never believed in idols or other beliefs. 

But there is still something that neither science nor beliefs can explain. You are relying too much on science for the sake of truth, then comes another scientist with another theory and a brand new proof, its like bringing out patches and service packs when u can't provide an absolute image.

Life is all about possibility. I appreciate the science way of proving things with approximations and assumptions. FYI most of the theory explanation exists for ideal cases and for unreachable once we have extrapolations, regression analysis and statistics.

Indeed science is all about exceptions. What you can't explain reasonably with science becomes myths and paradoxes. 

I condemn the idea of following either cult. It simply sucks when u believe in things just coz it has got modern proofs and some xyz gave the demonstration, only to be later refuted by another pqr.

Rigidity of thoughts hamper development.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 20, 2008)

T159 said:
			
		

> ^^ should i point you to the other side too ?


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:
			
		

> But there is still something that neither science nor beliefs can explain.


True.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> You are relying too much on science for the sake of truth...


What else can I rely on, other than science.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> ...then comes another scientist with another theory and a brand new proof, its like bringing out patches and service packs when u can't provide an absolute image.....It simply sucks when u believe in things just coz it has got modern proofs and some xyz gave the demonstration, only to be later refuted by another pqr.


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 all about possibility...FYI most of the theory explanation exists for ideal cases and for unreachable once we have extrapolations, regression analysis and statistics.


Life is indeed all about possibilities. But not about absurdities.

Once again, look around you. Right from that simple pencil to your PC, every thing is a result of some theory/ explanation.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> Indeed science is all about exceptions.


Science is all about knowing and the process of knowing.



			
				159 said:
			
		

> What you can't explain reasonably with science becomes myths and paradoxes.


True



			
				159 said:
			
		

> Rigidity of thoughts hamper development.


True. But a friendly advice - "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls off."


----------



## mediator (Jun 21, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> T159 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> What else can I rely on, other than science.


Relying on science is good! But u need to know how science goes & progresses then.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> A little skepticism is actually a sign of a healthy mind.


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.

In a nutshell its the same old story that science can't explain everything!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jun 21, 2008)

before i start answering all these .. i want u to understand that whtever i say in a friendly manner.. if i ever cross my limit ... please tell me so



T159 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
> ...



[/quote]

I





> want absolute answers and no theory or assumptions



as for tha absolute answer... let me say once and for all.. todays theory is tom`s fact...the thing is many theories need loads of experiment to back it up.. there are many theories in the history which had to wait for more than a century to prove those theories...

lets say theories are the first step to uncover the truth...

so instead of not believing in theories.. try to think rationally .. so that we can find some answer or say.. accept the theory if we find them acceptable.. 


> And what is the future of mankind ? Is it a vicious circle /
> What happens after death ? Is there an afterlife ?




wht was the future of dinosaur?? we can never predict those things.. wht if a huge asteroid strikes and we all die ??? where is the future then?? more over i dont get u ... wht do u mean by future of humans ??

wht happens after death.. well i too think of it very often..

but then realize .. what happens when u sleep or put on anesthesia in a surgery ??

ok simply say .. can u say where u are while sleeping ( deep sleep )... u dont .. u cant ... thats wht happens after death .. with one exception... that u wont get up and dont get dreamzzzz.....

i dont believe in afterlife....



> I was dead before I was born and will be dead after I die ? So relatively speaking I am dead for a considerable amount of time as compared to life am enjoying. So what do you think is death, another form of life or something else ?
> What is near death experience ?
> What is Spontaneous human combustion and where are the proofs of it ?



i dont get you first of all.. if u die.. u die just like a insect... thats all.. gone as dust.. no return back... !! no afterlife.. it exist only in films....

death is point where ur brain suffers massive hypoxia and shock.. medically speaking.. death is equalent to death of ur brain.. there is nothing beyond it...

just one thing .... there is nothing called or exist as afterlife... simply because those are myths... / legends...

near death expireince ??? 

can we take it as a recover from accident ??? coz i simply have no knowledge in them.. but i can only speculate...
also about spontaneous combustion






> What is a sperm ? and why there is perfect chance of only one making it to the egg and fertilizing it. Why the hell differentiation of cell occurs too fast in some species and too slow in others ? Why every human born baby is so perfect and hardly a few suffers from anomalies ? What is that made such a perfect replication mechanism for DNA ? Who was the architect for that?
> 
> We know we created artificial intelligence but who created the natural one ?? Why there is a balance between the each organism ?
> 
> ...



but instead of going through al;l these links.. go to a medaical college lib 

few links 

*www.indiana.edu/~anat550/embryo_main/
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eelyg_k5iw&feature=related

more to come.. give me some time....


----------



## mediator (Jun 21, 2008)

naveen-preloaded said:
			
		

> ok simply say .. can u say where u are while sleeping ( deep sleep )... u dont .. u cant ... *thats wht happens after death* .. with one exception... that u wont get up and dont get dreamzzzz.....


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:
			
		

> i dont get you first of all.. if u die.. u die just like a insect... thats all.. gone as dust.. no return back... !! no afterlife.. it exist only in films....


O'Reilly?





			
				naveen_preloaded said:
			
		

> ust one thing .... there is nothing called or exist as afterlife... simply because those are myths... / legends...


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. 



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Afterlife research in the early 20th century
> 
> *Science, in general, either describes the universe and human beings without reference to a soul or to an afterlife, or tends to remain mute on the issue.* A notable exception is a famous study conducted in 1901 by physician Duncan MacDougall, who sought to measure the weight purportedly lost by a human body when the soul departed the body upon death.[2] MacDougall weighed dying patients in an attempt to prove that the soul was material, tangible and thus measurable. These experiments are widely considered to have had little if any scientific merit, and although MacDougall's results varied considerably from "21 grams," for some people this figure has become synonymous with the measure of a soul's mass.[3] The title of the 2003 movie 21 Grams is a reference to MacDougall's findings.


maybe its a myth, may be not.



			
				naveen_preloaded said:
			
		

> death is point where ur brain suffers massive hypoxia and shock.. medically speaking.. *death is equalent to death of ur brain.. there is nothing beyond it...*





			
				naveen_preloaded said:
			
		

> if i ever cross my limit ... please tell me so


U r crossing ur limits nows!


----------



## Faun (Jun 21, 2008)

naveen_reloaded said:


> but instead of going through al;l these links.. go to a medaical college lib


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.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jun 21, 2008)

T159 said:


> 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.
> ...



no atleast just borrow one and go through first few pages.. u will find your answer regarding foramtion of baby... etc...

as for ur second question... its a logicless question ( pardon me for saying that... i too agree thinking that way is a different path.. but think it in a rational way.. it may appear different ) ... to answer it .. i can say .. u were NOT BORN ( not the other way around ... dead ) before u were born... 

to simply put... the concept of dead b4 born is like heat which gets converted into electricity... ( ie ur birth ) and u reach the tubelight.. and wasted ... gone ( meaning u r dead )....  there is no cycle here...

i think i came close to answering ur question in a bizzare way....

i never meant to hurt you... in anyway... i too like to think like you... but after thinking for a while and putting fullstops @ neccesary areas... i will find a answer...

ok i have a best site for embryology.... 

hope those contents work..

*cna.uc.edu/embryology/chapter1/animations/contents.htm


----------



## Faun (Jun 21, 2008)

naveen_reloaded said:


> no atleast just borrow one and go through first few pages.. u will find your answer regarding foramtion of baby... etc...


I have more than three reference books with me, man i love biology
but wat i was talking about is that few things during fertilization and differentiation that even biologists don't know why occur.

For example in genetic engineering to pass a verctor containing the marked plasmid you can employ three techniques.
1. electric shock treatment to the cell (scientists don't know why this works but they know that it works)
2. heat treatment
3. i forgot, and am too lazy to check it now



> as for ur second question... its a logicless question ( pardon me for saying that... i too agree thinking that way is a different path.. but think it in a rational way.. it may appear different ) ... to answer it .. i can say .. u were NOT BORN ( not the other way around ... dead ) before u were born...


Logic is a subset of information representation. Its best in maths and other things. But not where your instinct comes to rescue.
a logic can't define the gravity of a situation and ambiguity in conveyance.
there is something more to brain than logic.


> to simply put... the concept of dead b4 born is like heat which gets converted into electricity... ( ie ur birth ) and u reach the tubelight.. and wasted ... gone ( meaning u r dead )....  there is no cycle here...


so isn't that mean the same am talking about; you were something before and will be something after. 
Energy can change or transform but never get destroyed.
May be some one might put it to recycle  


> i think i came close to answering ur question in a bizzare way....
> 
> i never meant to hurt you... in anyway... i too like to think like you... but after thinking for a while and putting fullstops @ neccesary areas... i will find a answer...


bizarre and oddities serves as a mean to find new things and exceptions 
just go to this site :
*www.snopes.com/
i really loved wasting my time on this site

hurt is a feeling that doesn't hurt me anymore, you replies were not in any way harsh. I appreciate the calm composure.

PS: may be i am wrong at few instances.


----------



## legolas (Jun 22, 2008)

you seem to be over-employing the term of "rationality", it seems to masquerade often to express your scientific views while its not even close to explaining.
Its important to know what Science helps with. Science answers "what and How" more often than "why"!!! Its the difference. Light is a phenomenon and we have exploited it for many years now.. Electricity... from Maxwell's equations. But no one knows why it behaves the way it behaves... Even Science relies on contentment. We see/hear/feel things and understand them thro' science. Well, there are only a handful of things we have been able to do, that too near perfect. So, it is not highly rational for a rational person to not think of the other possibilities. In my view, a rational person always admits equiprobable chance for everything to be present but tries to find peace with the best explanation possible while not neglecting the other possibilities.


----------



## karmanya (Jun 22, 2008)

I have to believe that there are some forces that science doesn't understand. Remember that compared to religion, modern science is nothing more than a baby. Will science reach a point where we have more answers? I believe it will. Till then all we can do is ask.
To fuel the debate- What's the difference between a person in a beta coma and a dead person?


----------



## karnivore (Jun 22, 2008)

mediator 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.


Yes, believing in reincarnation/ OBE/ Spiritual Hypnosis and all kind of imaginary pink unicorns make perfect sense. 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Relying on science is good! *But u need to know how science goes & progresses then*.


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. 

Time to bring my dog back.
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gif

About the brain dead woman, there are hundreds of criticism all over the net. I will give just one.
www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/09/25/is_she_conscious/
A minor correction though. "Vegetative State" is not equal to "Brain Dead"

Edited To Add: OOPS, I almost forgot. You did not "specifically ask" us to consider your links as source. Hmmmm........thinking of deleting my reference


----------



## mediator (Jun 23, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> Yes, *believing* in reincarnation/ OBE/ Spiritual Hypnosis and all kind of imaginary pink unicorns make perfect sense.


Nope, not rejecting is not equal to believing! Its high time that materialists start passing a few aptitude tests now.



			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> Edited To Add: OOPS, I almost forgot. You did not "specifically ask" us to consider your links as source. Hmmmm........thinking of deleting my reference


Well I don't think materialists are that retarded to have any problem to understand that. Do u form an exception? 

Back to ur drawing board : Can science explain everything? I wonder why my questions that I asked a long time back still haven't got any answer to them.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 23, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> Nope, *not rejecting is not equal to believing*! Its high time that materialists start passing a few aptitude tests now.


Let me get this straight. You are not rejecting _*pink unicorns*_ ? Instead mocking science ?

Uh...OK...
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image13.gif



			
				mediator 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.


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* 

And it is strange, why, when homeopathic medicines are individual specific, the homeopathic doctors would practice, clinical homeopathy or complex homeopathy or even, isopathy ? Then, there are homeopathic research that claims homeopathy works - scratch a little bit and hey presto, none of those are "individual specific". In fact, Shang et al simply repeated those non-individualised studies done by homeopaths and found the results to be -ve, but look at the criticisms, and one would get the impression, Shang et al had devised their own studies. (Not to mention that they did repeat 18 of the "individualised" studies). 

Hmmm........someone seems to be so close to his herd, that he is now sniffing their arse. 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Well I don't think materialists are that retarded to have any problem to understand that. Do u form an exception?


Want me to copy/paste your memorable comments ? 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Back to ur drawing board : Can science explain everything? I wonder why my questions that I asked a long time back still haven't got any answer to them.


No science does not explain everything. But, science can explain everything.

And those questions would be ? [Twice your arse has been beaten to pulp, once by @sreevirus and once by yours truly, still hungry for more?]
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image06-3.gif


----------



## mediator (Jun 23, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight. You are not rejecting pink unicorns ? Instead mocking science ?


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:
			
		

> *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**
> 
> And it is strange, why, when homeopathic medicines are individual specific, the homeopathic doctors would practice, clinical homeopathy or complex homeopathy or even, isopathy ? Then, there are homeopathic research that claims homeopathy works - scratch a little bit and hey presto, none of those are "individual specific". In fact, Shang et al simply repeated those non-individualised studies done by homeopaths and found the results to be -ve, but look at the criticisms, and one would get the impression, Shang et al had devised their own studies. (Not to mention that they did repeat 18 of the "individualised" studies).
> 
> Hmmm........someone seems to be so close to his herd, that he is now sniffing their arse.


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:
			
		

> ant me to copy/paste your memorable comments ?


Ah sure, entertain me as u wish, that u will! 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> No science does not explain everything. But, science can explain everything.


Ah, the faith of a materialist!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And those questions would be ? [Twice your arse has been beaten to pulp, once by @sreevirus and once by yours truly, still hungry for more?


"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? 

Funny, The same old "keyboard commando" who said Dr.Novella has already  explored the case of that hypnotism case is talking bt "arses" and his favourite pulp from them? 

I wonder how the materialists can even live in such a narrow minded world of them, n then they hallucinate, have nightmares, think of theories as facts n think of themselves as some experts with some self-righteous opinions!


----------



## karnivore (Jun 23, 2008)

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.


Okie dokie. So you are not rejecting any _*pink unicorn*_ ? In that case....
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image24.gif


> 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!


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."

Good call. 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Ah sure, entertain me as u wish, that u will!


Okie dokie. Post #35, #36, #37



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Ah, the faith of a materialist!


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.....?

Hell yeah



> "Mom see...I won, I won"?


Mom see...we won, we won. YABA DABA DOOOOOOOOOO.



> Funny, The same old "keyboard commando" who said Dr.Novella has already explored the case of that hypnotism case is talking bt "arses" and his favourite pulp from them?


Of course, why not. I see yours splattered all over the threads you post in. 



> I wonder how the materialists can even live in such a narrow minded world of them, n then they hallucinate, have nightmares, think of theories as facts n think of themselves as some experts with some self-righteous opinions!


Have you been....
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image15.gif


----------



## sreevirus (Jun 23, 2008)

@mediator: And these are facts, right?



> The atomic energy fissions the ninety-nine elements, covering its path by the bombardments of neutrons without let or hindrance. Desirous of stalking the head, ie. The chief part of the swift power, hidden in the mass of molecular adjustments of the elements, this atomic energy approaches it in the very act of fissioning it by the above-noted bombardment. Herein, verily the scientists know the similar hidden striking force of the rays of the sun working in the orbit of the moon." *(Atharva-veda 20.41.1-3)*


I can't recall the meaning of the word _*scientific*_ now! DAMN! I've developed Alzheimer's. 
Oh and I just forgot what hallucination means. Gotta look that up in the OED. Oh wait, isn't that a word that mediator uses in almost all of his arguments?


 Uhhhhhhhh....



Cough cough ... what was the overlord of the real 5 space?


----------



## mediator (Jun 23, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> Okie dokie. Post #35, #36, #37


LOL n u win the great INDIAN laughter challenge! May u cud not "comprehend" the words in very simple English.....


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> But neways, *for all those who want to take a break from this troll thread, Here's a more serious discussion,*


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. 
And hence, entertain me as u wish that u will.  
I hope the chicken pox is over.



			
				karnivore 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.....?


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?



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> I can't recall the meaning of the word scientific now! DAMN! I've developed Alzheimer's.
> Oh and I just forgot what hallucination means. Gotta look that up in the OED. Oh wait, isn't that a word that mediator uses in almost all of his arguments?


Rather ur post has made me even more hungry and dig deeper into what is original! Thanx for that. 

Like I said, I'm not here to win or defeat, feel victorious or defeated! My talk was more based on "Science is there in Vedas and was in past". I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda. Cough cough Meera Nanda?

So if u r done with ur exams, u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few? Thats not called a discussion in the first place! Cough cough the universe (observable?), the boundaries, the rotation, revolution, testabilty, dark <wateva> to name a few? I ask again do u even comprehend what a "theory" is? Most satisfying doesn't mean anything to support ur childish claims.

So if u r willing to discuss seriously, don't vanish next time, when I ask some questions, saying "Oh I have exams"! 



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Silence on our part would only encourage gullible minds who would come across these sort of debates to accept these kind of malarkey as truth. The least we can do is to play our part as skeptics and make people think twice


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!


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2008)

lolz 
* Why people are recognizing the essence of Vedas ? Is it orthodox to believe in it if it works ? What science is giving us had been already Vedas (it was already there and we searched the whole universe to see that we took the million dollar worth efforts to find it instead utilizing it on human welfare).
* Try to learn Vedic maths. You will know how hard it was to multiply numbers in conventional ways.
* Science is just another cult that did more bad than good. I wonder next moment you could be sitting(or may be a part of it) on a pile of human ashes fried by WW 3.
* Pick the best things from everything. Its not that everything except one thing is crap, its just you are too adamant.
* I know i wrote that algorithm and it works. But who wrote the DNA coding ? Is that another life above us ? or is it a matrix or is there other world ?
* Lastly, we are not the supreme power here, we have limitations, may be there could be some other organ to complement it. We have a brain, heart and few other organs to judge, but still a third eye wouldn't hurt. We could be able to see the another dimension. Or may be a little bit more truth and a bit more detail, but still limited.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 23, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> u win the great INDIAN laughter challenge


Ahem...where do i collect my prize ?



			
				mediator 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.


Now its time for my favourite Panda.
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/Avatar/thum_774747b9049aba24e.jpg


> 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!


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.

Science is the knowledge. How we use that knowledge is entirely our choice. You are as usual, confusing the practice with knowledge.

The way you have posed the question, it seems we would be better off if we could take a million steps back to the stone age.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ...u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few?


I though Final Theory was dealt with. 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda.


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.

There is no reason to go ga-ga about ayurveda. All ancient civilizations like the Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese all had their own medicinal knowledge based on plants and shrubs. Of course, much of it was based on placebo, but many actually worked.

So whats the big deal.


			
				T159 said:
			
		

> What science is giving us had been already Vedas (it was already there and we searched the whole universe to see that we took the million dollar worth efforts to find it instead utilizing it on human welfare)


Thats something that comes out of a bull's behind.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> Try to learn Vedic maths.


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:
			
		

> Science is just another cult that did more bad than good. I wonder next moment you could be sitting(or may be a part of it) on a pile of human ashes fried by WW 3.


Again, confusing the knowlege with practice.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> Pick the best things from everything. Its not that everything except one thing is crap, its just you are too adamant.


Welcome to reality. Everything except science is indeed a big pile of BS.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> I know i wrote that algorithm and it works. But who wrote the DNA coding ? Is that another life above us ? or is it a matrix or is there other world ?


Nature wrote it through a process of natural selection. There is extremely dim probability for another life above us.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> Lastly, we are not the supreme power here, we have limitations, may be there could be some other organ to complement it. We have a brain, heart and few other organs to judge, but still a third eye wouldn't hurt. We could be able to see the another dimension. Or may be a little bit more truth and a bit more detail, but still limited.


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.


----------



## mediator (Jun 24, 2008)

karnivore 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.
> 
> Science is the knowledge. How we use that knowledge is entirely our choice. You are as usual, confusing the practice with knowledge.
> 
> The way you have posed the question, it seems we would be better off if we could take a million steps back to the stone age.


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. 
"Limited laws"? I read laws are supposed to be universal, absolute! I won't repeat it all and agree science is the knowledge and Veda in sanskrit means "Knowledge" itself. But heck a few will read "opinions" by some fanatic to show that veda are useless. I guess its a sin itself to bring in "opinions" in a debate not marked by anything factual. Meera Nanda? WTH!  



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> I though Final Theory was dealt with.


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:
			
		

> 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.*
> There is no reason to go ga-ga about ayurveda. All ancient civilizations like the Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese all had their own medicinal knowledge based on plants and shrubs. Of course, much of it was based on placebo, but many actually worked.


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! 

Also, I have no motive to compare chinese's, mayan's or egyptian's equivalents of Ayurveda. If they had, then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few? U talk of peers and their review, then go and learn what the peers talk of the Vedas!

The question only becomes then how unbiased u r. One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher! I agree the greatness should be shown and not merely preached blindly and that goes same for science, where some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then! 

But if it shud be shown and not merely preached, then I guess it should also be dug deeper and explored without any unbiased and selfish attempts to falsify it. I don't think a skeptic's role is to laugh like a goon, or to give cheap remarks or opine like that, but to pour some rational and scientific thoughts and to question what he finds irrational!!

We are no experts but people who hold interest in such knowledge, but just like u gave a few links to @T159, similarly u can clear ur skepticism in the forums of the relevant subjects we discussed  instead of guessing and opining! So who won? I am not here to win. Are u?


----------



## sreevirus (Jun 24, 2008)

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?


 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:
			
		

> Like I said, I'm not here to win or defeat, feel victorious or defeated! My talk was more based on "Science is there in Vedas and was in past". I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda. Cough cough Meera Nanda?


  Likewise, no one is here to win or lose. But the only thing we are doing is debunking pseudoscience.

  And would you let Meera Nanda rest in peace for a while? Her topic was more against superstitions among the scientific Indian people and compartmentalization of science and faith among Indians in general. Why are you trying to hold on to any twig that you find suitable?

  What would I say about Ayurveda? It is just knowledge gained by previous generations. They might have tested stuff out. And they came to know that some plants and herbs help in healing. There is nothing further to it. These things actually work. But what really are ridiculous are the explanations that they came up at that time. The prime concern for instance is the so called Divine Origin of the Ayurvedic science. Other things like the Tridosha philosophy (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) are also unscientific to say the least. Sure the ancients could be termed as men of science who tried to come up with answers, only that the science at that time was not as advanced as it is now. The least people could do is build on such knowledge and discard the unscientific beliefs behind it. That would actually make it more convincing. 

Various explanations were given as an answer to things unknown, and where something didn't seem right to the senses, they were attributed as paranormal at that time. So how about moving on? The Chinese had yin and yang, we had our own mumbo-jumbo, the Egyptians had their own answers. They can't be blamed for their answers because they really didn't know much at that time. But we know more now. Why still lurk in the dark now, trying to pull out answers from nowhere?

  Like karnivore said, there has been such knowledge in every civilization, like the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Chinese and Native Americans. There have been witch doctors too, and some people still believe in them, and they, like you, have their own reasoning to their beliefs, but those reasoning don't necessarily have to be rational and scientific.

  I would accept that science is there in the Vedas when I get a verse which explicitly says something like "All metal conductors oppose the flow of electrons when a potential difference is applied across it" rather than "A hundred men were opposed from their march forwards by rocks in their way" which might be misconstrued as a sign for Ohm's law. The last time you where quoted stuff about nuclear technology was just another example of follies that people make up to fit science in the scriptures. 

I had asked you before and I ask you before and I ask you again, do you know who was the person who came up with the idea of nukes in the Vedas? Or did you just copy-paste stuff from some random website.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> So if u r done with ur exams, u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few? Thats not called a discussion in the first place!


 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.

  Oh BTW, this is a bulletin board. Posts made are not going anywhere. So even if someone can't answer anything immediately doesn't mean that the other should stop posting stuff altogether. So if you have something worthwhile to say, quit being so concerned about *my* exams and blurt out whatever you have to say. People can come and see later and reply when they do have time. If you think being civil and giving a reason for absence is an excuse to chicken out, then you are hallucinating yourself.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Cough cough the universe (observable?), the boundaries, the rotation, revolution, testabilty, dark <wateva> to name a few? I ask again do u even comprehend what a "theory" is? Most satisfying doesn't mean anything to support ur childish claims.


  OK, time for a refresher course in SCIENCE. The word theory in this context is a "scientific theory". So, from Wikipedia


> In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.


  and


> In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.


  ALSO


			
				National Academy of Sciences said:
			
		

> Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.


  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.

  BTW, no scientist worth his salt would ever come up with a scientific theory out of thin air.

  Well, if a "scientific theory" didn't satisfy you, maybe you could provide a sound reasoning for that. But what is irking is that you continually fall for "theories" made up by unscientific sources and even an ounce of such stuff will make you go ballistic against more concrete ideas. Why do have this chronic problem with theories like the big bang and evolution that you keep barking about them in every other post of yours? If it is a matter of satisfaction, then only you can help yourself.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Also, I have no motive to compare chinese's, mayan's or egyptian's equivalents of Ayurveda. If they had, then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few? U talk of peers and their review, then go and learn what the peers talk of the Vedas!


So? Every civilization had scientific minds. The answers/inventions they came up with are nothing supernatural, to be in awe of. 
And did you yourself read any Vedas?



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> The question only becomes then how unbiased u r. One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher! I agree the greatness should be shown and not merely preached blindly and that goes same for science, where some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!


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. 

I never mocked the Vedas for the content in them, and I never will, if it is viewed as a work of art. What is ludicrous is the rigid belief system built around it and the pile of trash that people come up with, with their wishful thinking after reading it. No one in their right mind can or should accept back-fitted science in literature. These are just things that unscrupulous masochistic people come up with to satisfy themselves about the righteousness of their religion, the brilliance of their ancestors, and the glory of their nation and to have a false and grim satisfaction in their nationalist pride. And to top it off, it proves absolutely nothing except how one can whine about having everything in the past before things were invented or discovered.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> But if it shud be shown and not merely preached, then I guess it should also be dug deeper and explored without any unbiased and selfish attempts to falsify it. I don't think a skeptic's role is to laugh like a goon, or to give cheap remarks or opine like that, but to pour some rational and scientific thoughts and to question what he finds irrational!!


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) 


PS: I think this is the 5th, 6th or 7th time that I'm asking you. Since you put so much faith in the claims of vedicganita.org, then how is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5 space? And how does it prove any mathematical problem? Any answers? Considering the fact that you claim to know so much about it, and assuming that you have read it through, the answer should've been a piece of cake for you. 

And you still haven't clarified your stance on the nukes yet.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 24, 2008)

Don’t you ever get tired of bluffing.

  Re: Vedas;

  Earlier you had declared that @sreevirus’s effort has made you dig “deeper into what is original”. That’s a BS. Forget digging deep. You haven’t even scratched. If you had even scratched, you would not have continued with this vedic nonsense.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Just like people be skeptic, they can read the originals of vedas too instead of relying on some sites to "prove" their frustrated agenda.


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. 

  Rig-Veda is the oldest of all Vedas, presumably written between 1500 BCE an 500 BCE (The time frame is a rough estimate for the entire Vedas, not just Rig-Veda). Rig-Veda itself is subdivided into 10 books and the chronologically earlier books are some of the oldest texts in human history. The Vedas were not written by one person, but by number of persons who were generations apart. The evidence is the gradual change in the syntax, grammar and dependence on local words (not to mention the different writing styles).

  The Rig-Veda was written in a very ancient, actually the earliest, form of Sanskrit. Much of its grammar is lost forever. In other words, some of the hymns can’t be read without much accuracy and can be read only on the basis of some extremely complicated process of permutation and combination. It is the job of the philologists, not Sanskrit scholars, which you continue to believe. (In fact there are very few people who can read “the originals of vedas”). Let me give you an example of how difficult the job of these philologists are (and I am quoting from B.N.Narahari Archer’s “Measurement of Time”)

Atharva-Veda (XIX; 53)
  “ purnah  kumbhah  ityasya mantrasya bhrgu rsih sarvatmakah  kalo devata tristup chandah harih  om

  purnah kumbho dhikala ahitas tam vai pasyamo bahudha nu santam om tatsat ”
(Excuse me for not being able to put the accentuation marks)

  The various translations are:

  1. A full jar has been placed upon time.
Him, verily we see existing in many forms.(Bloomﬁeld)

  2. The whole of this universe is stationed in the Omnipresent God.
We, the good ones on the earth see him in various ways.(Devichand)

  3. On time is laid an overﬂowing beaker.
This we behold in many a place appearing.(Gri[FONT=&quot]ﬃ[/FONT]th)

  4. A full jar has been placed upon time.
We behold him existing in many forms.(Muir)

  5. Above Time is set a brimful vessel.
Simultaneously we see Time here, there, everywhere.(Panikkar)

  6. A full vessel is set upon time.
We indeed see it, being now manifoldly.(Whitney)

  [Sayanah has a different translation for the _sukta_]

  Note the wide difference between the translation. Next time when you say something like read “the originals of vedas”, try to figure out if most of your favourite hindu apologists have themselves read “the originals of vedas”. I know some have, but the most do not even have a clue. They all depend on Griffith’s translation, although Griffith’s work is not a scholarly work, but was aimed at Victorian era English speaking Indian middle class.

  So don’t bluff.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few?


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. 

  Show me an evidence of our knowledge of “the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon”. If vedic astrology is anything to go by, then it talks of only five real planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) all of which can be observed with naked eyes. Also it is based on the notion that earth is the centre of the universe, proving, that they were not aware of its rotation. 

  Jantar mantar was built much later. And what is so mysterious about that iron pillar ? Although it is good metallurgy, it is bad ironsmith work. The iron pillar is actually pretty inferior iron. So much of slack makes it highly brittle. The Chinese had an amazingly better technique, where they mastered the art of separating the slack in the process of iron making. A good example is the Ninja sword.

  So stop BSing.

  Re: Medicines/ Science etc.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> The ill effects are also because how we form that scientific knowledge. Just to painfully repeat again, how drugs are tested!


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:
			
		

> Some tested on animals to create for humans and even among humans we have varying immunity levels, not the same.


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.

  Once again, stop BSing.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Getting cured and having plethora of side effects isn't called cure in the first place.


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:
			
		

> *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!


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:
			
		

> …learn something if ur agenda is not to mock Ayurveda in the first place!


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:
			
		

> …some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!


Once again. Science DOES NOT explain everything. But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ….how much death has been caused by "modern scientific medicines" as against homeopathy.


Forget about harming the body, homeopathy effects the body just as water does. No sane person would claim that distilled water kills.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> But heck a few will read "opinions" by some fanatic to show that veda are useless. I guess its a sin itself to bring in "opinions" in a debate not marked by anything factual. Meera Nanda? WTH!


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.

  You keep repeating the name “Meera Nanda”, and how she is wrong, but don’t give any evidence of her error. Well, how would you. You don’t have a clue of what she writes about. It will take your entire life time to understand what “post-modernism” is. Only then, you can begin to understand “Meera Nanda”. 


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher !


I don’t think he mocked vedas. He ridiculed, quite correctly, the hindu apologists and their pathetic attempt to retro-fit data.

  And really, you should appreciate that fact that he went out looking for answers instead sitting pretty on his arse and asking “how, when and why”, expecting the whole world to bow to his whims.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I am not here to win. Are u?


Yes, I want to win over LIES. I want to win over MISINFORMATION. I want to win over HYPOCRISY. 


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> The same can be said for the "pink unicorns" that u like to christen that u do.


Whatever that may mean. Let me ask you once again:

*DO YOU ACCEPT PINK UNICORN ?*

  The answer can be given in simple YES or No.

  Now, for some clarifications:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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.


If you had actually read that post of mine, till the last line you would have come across this line:


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> [Valuable inputs from xenophilia.com]


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.* 

*That makes you a lousy fraud*.

  Now I humbly ask the moderators – should a person be allowed to post even when he has himself admitted to intentionally, with full knowledge of the fraud, mislead people. Its one thing to believe something and saying. But it is entirely different, when one is aware of the fraud and still perpetuating it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Added later:_

Before I forget, let me ask this Q

Isn't homeopathy all about "Individualization" ? At least this term has been used umpteenth number of times to dismiss all randomized and double-blinded trials. [Strangely when any of these trials yield positives, homeopaths develop a temporary amnesia and forget to point out that the trial was not "individualized"]

Can anybody please explain what is *veterinary homeopathy* ? Does that mean that homeopaths have learned to MOOOOOOOOOO. Because I don't see how else a cow can be conversed with. After all, homeopaths don't treat the disease, they treat the person, oops, cow. 

A memorable admission at BOIRON's site [Link given already given]:


> As in human medicine, the limits of homeopathy should not be ignored: *parasites, fractures, foreign bodies, etc, are all cases that are not within the realm of its therapeutic possibilities.*


In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?


----------



## mediator (Jun 25, 2008)

@srivirus : STill asking questions and shying to respond to mine! Ah well...



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> What would I say about Ayurveda? It is just knowledge gained by previous generations. They might have tested stuff out. And they came to know that some plants and herbs help in healing. There is nothing further to it. These things actually work. But what really are ridiculous are the explanations that they came up at that time. The prime concern for instance is the so called Divine Origin of the Ayurvedic science. Other things like the Tridosha philosophy (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) are also unscientific to say the least. Sure the ancients could be termed as men of science who tried to come up with answers, only that the science at that time was not as advanced as it is now. The least people could do is build on such knowledge and discard the unscientific beliefs behind it. That would actually make it more convincing.


What is ridiculous about the explanation and how is it unscientific "to say the least"?



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Various explanations were given as an answer to things unknown, and where something didn't seem right to the senses, they were attributed as paranormal at that time. So how about moving on? The Chinese had yin and yang, we had our own mumbo-jumbo, the Egyptians had their own answers. They can't be blamed for their answers because they really didn't know much at that time. But we know more now. Why still lurk in the dark now, trying to pull out answers from nowhere?


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"!

Can Ayurveda Cure HIV/AIDS
Alternative Therapies to AIDS cure
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
*www.natural-health-information-centre.com/modern-medicine.html


"Why try to pull answers from nowhere"?? Thats not a very scientific view!




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> I would accept that science is there in the Vedas when I get a verse which explicitly says something like "All metal conductors oppose the flow of electrons when a potential difference is applied across it" rather than "A hundred men were opposed from their march forwards by rocks in their way" which might be misconstrued as a sign for Ohm's law. The last time you where quoted stuff about nuclear technology was just another example of follies that people make up to fit science in the scriptures.


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?

U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> I had asked you before and I ask you before and I ask you again, do you know who was the person who came up with the idea of nukes in the Vedas? Or did you just copy-paste stuff from some random website.


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?
*www.melbournearya.com/statement_of_my_beliefs.htm
*www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/vedol-0-X.html
*www.hknet.org.nz/plastic-max-page.html
*veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/indology.htm

Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.



			
				srivirus 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.


Can u stop lying now even after exposing how much u have read that pdf u linked? 
Neways, how about giving straight answer to my questions then, that I quoted from the reviewer's pdf? I said it then, I kept saying it which was met with some unusual reply like "Oh, I have exams" and so I say it now, "Answer the questions I asked!". Show me, how great modern science is that it can answer everything!



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Oh BTW, this is a bulletin board. Posts made are not going anywhere. So even if someone can't answer anything immediately doesn't mean that the other should stop posting stuff altogether. So if you have something worthwhile to say, quit being so concerned about my exams and blurt out whatever you have to say. People can come and see later and reply when they do have time. If you think being civil and giving a reason for absence is an excuse to chicken out, then you are hallucinating yourself.


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:
			
		

> OK, time for a refresher course in SCIENCE. The word theory in this context is a "scientific theory". So, from Wikipedia


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....



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> In science *a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena*, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and *capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.* For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity
> In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. *In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements.* True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.


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:
			
		

> Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


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? 
It is not even testable, or has proof for its t=0, has flaws, but the "skeptic" says "Its the most satisfying"! LOL 
On the other hand homeopathy is testable, has success rate etc save science cannot explain it at present! Oh don't repeat bt Placebo now, I already discussed bt it!




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> So? Every civilization had scientific minds. The answers/inventions they came up with are nothing supernatural, to be in awe of.
> And did you yourself read any Vedas?


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:
			
		

> 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.


U r just a disgrace to the skeptics batch, and let me tell I'm not abusing before u start guessing again. 



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> I never mocked the Vedas for the content in them, and I never will, if it is viewed as a work of art. What is ludicrous is the rigid belief system built around it and the pile of trash that people come up with, with their wishful thinking after reading it. *No one in their right mind can or should accept back-fitted science in literature.* These are just things that unscrupulous masochistic people come up with to satisfy themselves about the righteousness of their religion, the brilliance of their ancestors, and the glory of their nation and to have a false and grim satisfaction in their nationalist pride. And to top it off, it proves absolutely nothing except how one can whine about having everything in the past before things were invented or discovered.


But I think true way of science doesn't reject what can be tested, reproduced or has successes for many years!



			
				srivirus 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)


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:
			
		

> PS: I think this is the 5th, 6th or 7th time that I'm asking you. Since you put so much faith in the claims of vedicganita.org, then how is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5 space? And how does it prove any mathematical problem? Any answers? Considering the fact that you claim to know so much about it, and assuming that you have read it through, the answer should've been a piece of cake for you.


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!

The "geometric message" of this enlightenment can be decoded in terms of the following complete parallelism between the idol of Lord Shiv and geometric setup of Hypercubes-5.
Sr.No

Idol of Lord Shiv

Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
1
    Five heads     Five dimensions
2
    Three eyes     Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
3
    Ten arms     Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
4
    Heart     Origin / Centre
5
    Lord of Lord Shiv     6-space as origin of 5-space
6
    Dwadas Adityas     12 hypercubes-5 as (12 Suns) boundary of hypercube-6 (A6:12A5)


U also have the relation between the dimensions! Shud I paste everything? You will find it well, not nonsense, if u read it to the end. You don't even understand what a theory is. Why am I not surprised!

And PS: this is more than the 5,6,7th time I'm asking you, are u going to answer the questions I asked or not? I hope u don't have exams!



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> And you still haven't clarified your stance on the nukes yet.


I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help! 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Earlier you had declared that @sreevirus’s effort has made you dig “deeper into what is original”. That’s a BS. Forget digging deep. You haven’t even scratched. If you had even scratched, you would not have continued with this vedic nonsense.


Can u quit whining....ever?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Atharva-Veda (XIX; 53)
> “ purnah kumbhah ityasya mantrasya bhrgu rsih sarvatmakah kalo devata tristup chandah harih om
> 
> purnah kumbho dhikala ahitas tam vai pasyamo bahudha nu santam om tatsat ”
> ...


Bloomfield, Griffith etc known for their mistranslations? 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Note the wide difference between the translation. Next time when you say something like read “the originals of vedas”, try to figure out if most of your favourite hindu apologists have themselves read “the originals of vedas”. I know some have, but the most do not even have a clue. They all depend on Griffith’s translation, although Griffith’s work is not a scholarly work, but was aimed at Victorian era English speaking Indian middle class.
> 
> So don’t bluff


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! 

Every one can see whose bluffing!




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Show me an evidence of our knowledge of “the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon”. If vedic astrology is anything to go by, then it talks of only five real planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) all of which can be observed with naked eyes. Also it is based on the notion that earth is the centre of the universe, proving, that they were not aware of its rotation.


*www.vibrantskin.net/2/p14a.htm
*ashoktiwari.tripod.com/eved.html
*sanatandharma.tripod.com/index.html
*www.hindusarise.com/achievements.htm
*www.lovearth.net/108.htm

U can easily find more with that "keyboard commando" skills of urs!




			
				karnivore 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.


And boom, the plethora of side effects!



			
				karnivore 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.


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! 
But neways let me put in brief and very simple terms if u still didn't understand all that huge dscussion  this last time. 
I hope u know the meaning of "materia medica", that u do. The homeopath chooses a medicine based on the symptoms of the patient and cross checks with the materia medica and prescribes the medicine that is a "close fit". For that, subsequent examination of the case is necessary to determine the correctness of the remedy, dose and to make any adjustments in the remedy, dosage, treatment plan.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Say this to a person whose only hope of living is dialysis, or chemotherapy or one who has done a laser surgery or…..


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!
*www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061027232826data_trunc_sys.shtml

First u defy nature and then whine! I think world is realising that science with spirituality makes perfect sense! But here r a few who talk of psychedelic drugs. 

So stop bullshiting! 



			
				karnivore 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.


I think u can do side along with Max muller,griffith etc. I certianly didn't say that. Funny materialists! 



			
				karnivore 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.


I understand u r quite a peer!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Once again. *Science DOES NOT explain everything.* But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.


Finally we r starting to here the golden words. Can u now tell why it doesn't/can't explain everything?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Forget about harming the body, homeopathy effects the body just as water does. No sane person would claim that distilled water kills.


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!

I wonder why both doctors and patients are resorting to homeopathy and natural treatments?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> You keep repeating the name “Meera Nanda”, and how she is wrong, but don’t give any evidence of her error. Well, how would you. You don’t have a clue of what she writes about. It will take your entire life time to understand what “post-modernism” is. Only then, you can begin to understand “Meera Nanda”.





			
				meeraji said:
			
		

> What we have here is pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science.


U forgot what I replied with back in that thread!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Yes, I want to win over LIES. I want to win over MISINFORMATION. I want to win over HYPOCRISY.


Nice jokes out there.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Whatever that may mean. Let me ask you once again:
> 
> DO YOU ACCEPT PINK UNICORN ?
> 
> The answer can be given in simple YES or No.


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. 

So then, in ur understanding, if something is fact, then other must just be a fiction. Isn't it? Big Bang, evolution, dark wateva, universe, side effects (modern medicine "cures"?). Fact or fiction? Accept : Yes or no?

I thought I told pretty clearly plenty of times, not rejecting doesn't means accepting! And if the evidences are there and researches going on genuinely and seriously then one is simply too foolish to reject them.



			
				karnivore 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.


Do u even understand what I posted! Compare and Take ur time to understand. 

I dunno how many times, u said it bt wud like to reflect in a humble way "Stop bullsheeteeng"!! Besides, adding something in extra large fonts isn't gonna synchronise my serotonin levels to the randomly up n down shooting levels of urs!

Guess this peaceful discussion, is bringing me closer to Vedas with the help of some pseudo-skeptics or shud I say fanatics? 

And hence, entertain me as u wish that u will.  I hope u understood bt that homeopathic forum link that people can watch instead of that troll thread and not confusing it anymore with some "source" or reference! My memorable moments? Indeed!



*I again ask the materialist brigade, will they ever answer the questions that I asked or just keep asking? One did for spirituality, one for homeopathy, one for Vedas and none for what I asked!* WTH .


----------



## karmanya (Jun 25, 2008)

This thread seems to have degenerated into a bunch of thinly veiled insults. Frankly speaking mediator, I can't even tell what your questions are.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 25, 2008)

^^ Welcome to mediator land. But, hell, you can see the veil ?



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Bloomfield, Griffith etc known for their mistranslations?


And yet, most of the links that you give, use Griffith as their reference. CCCHOOO CCCHWEEEEET.



			
				mediator 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!


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.

  I did mention the author and the piece from where I had copied that part. I did that so anybody can google around and find the original piece - just like you have done. I seriously doubt, if you have actually gone through the entire article.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> *www.vibrantskin.net/2/p14a.htm
> *ashoktiwari.tripod.com/eved.html
> *sanatandharma.tripod.com/index.html
> *www.hindusarise.com/achievements.htm
> *www.lovearth.net/108.htm


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.

  The sites contain numerous out of context quotes, wishful interpretations and misinformation to make it look like good science. Typical.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> And boom, the plethora of side effects!


And boom, no polio, no chicken pox, no plague, no hepatitis C, no………

And boom, average age of human reaching over 70 in medically advanced countries……


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Infinite humans does not mean infinite possibilties. Its not like fingerprint. "Provings" and best case fit?


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:
			
		

> I hope u know the meaning of "materia medica", that u do. *The homeopath chooses a medicine based on the symptoms of the patient and cross checks with the materia medica and prescribes the medicine that is a "close fit"*. For that, subsequent examination of the case is necessary to determine the correctness of the remedy, dose and to make any adjustments in the remedy, dosage, treatment plan.


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.

  Let me give an example: Suppose a plumber has symptoms A, B, C and D. And then a poet has the same symptoms i.e. A, B, C, and D. Now they go to the same homeopath. The homeopath will ask them a lot of gibberish, so as to “individualize” the patients. Then he will go search his MM. He will find that symptoms A, B, C and D “closely fit” to so and so disease and can be treated with medicine X. Now, can you please tell me how will the quack decide, if medicine X is required by both the plumber and the poet , and in which potency. And if he decides that based of varying lifestyle(hope you do realize that a plumber is bound to have a different lifestyle than a poet), they would need different medicines, where and how will he reference that medicine.

    So let me summarize. Provings are not “individualized”, Mataria Medica is not “individualized”, but the practice is “individualized” and the doctor has no reference of his “individualized” patient’ ailment. Wonderful dog$hit.


			
				mediator 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!
> *www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
> 
> First u defy nature and then whine! I think world is realising that science with spirituality makes perfect sense! But here r a few who talk of psychedelic drugs.


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. 

    Let me say this once again: 
*Failure of modern medicine is not the proof of homeopathy. Homeopathy will have to prove itself on its own account.*


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I think u can do side along with Max muller,griffith etc. I certianly didn't say that. Funny materialists!


Tch Tch Tch. Aren’t those sites, you linked to, quoting Max Muller and Griffith ?

 All those explanations are based on Griffith’s translation.[Or have you again posted links without actually reading those ? CCHOOO CCCHWEEET]. So decide first. Are you accepting Griffith or rejecting. If you reject Griffith, then you have to, sadly, reject that explanation of hypercube and that nuke thingie as well.
  Care to explain:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs


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:
			
		

> I understand u r quite a peer!


Peer of whom ? Certainly not yours [would rather put a bullet in my head]


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Finally we r starting to here the golden words. Can u now tell why it doesn't/can't explain everything?


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:
			
		

> 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!


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.

    Homeopathy is indeed wonderful. Wonderfully stupid.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> meeraji 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:
			
		

> So then, in ur understanding, if something is fact, then other must just be a fiction. Isn't it? Big Bang, evolution, dark wateva, universe, side effects (modern medicine "cures"?). Fact or fiction? Accept : Yes or no?


First, why would, “other” be fiction, if “something” is fact. Please explain, in the context of my understanding.

  Second,
Big Bang = Theory, and there is a surprise waiting for you in the coming years.


> Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy.


Evolution = Fact, if not, then please explain how a virus becomes antibiotic resistant.
Dark wateve = Dark Matter is theory, Dark Energy is hypothesis to explain the increasing speed of expanding universe.
Universe = Fact
Side Effects = Fact
Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I thought I told pretty clearly plenty of times, *not rejecting doesn't means accepting*!


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:
			
		

> And if the *evidences* are there and researches going on genuinely and seriously then one is simply too foolish to reject them.


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.

  Now, do you “NOT REJECT” the pink unicorn ?


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Do u even understand what I posted! Compare and Take ur time to understand.


Make me understand:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago


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 ????
  Now, should I call the paramedics to get that foot out of your mouth or would you use HOMEOPATHY ?


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> What is ridiculous about the explanation and how is it unscientific "to say the least"?


Good question. What is NOT ridiculous about the explanation and how is it scientific “to say the least”


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Can Ayurveda Cure HIV/AIDS
> Alternative Therapies to AIDS cure
> Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
> *www.natural-health-informatio...-medicine.html


…and pigs can fly and pink unicorns graze in my backyard.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.


OHO……anecdotes and claims = evidence. OK. Point taken and forgotten - thankfully.


			
				mediator 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?


…but those nuke thingie and all are based on Griffith’s translation. *scratch*


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.


I guess you will not reject the scientific evidence in, say, I don’t know……, say BIBLE or KORAN


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …can it predict Universe itself…


Do you even understand what you are asking. Can you please explain what does “predict Universe” mean ?


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ….when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science,


You mean, your peers……


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
> 1 Five heads Five dimensions
> 2 Three eyes Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
> 3 Ten arms Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
> ...


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:
			
		

> I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!


……and it was based on Griffiths’s translation. [CCCHOOOO CCHWEEEEEET]


----------



## mediator (Jun 26, 2008)

karmanya said:
			
		

> This thread seems to have degenerated into a bunch of thinly veiled insults. Frankly speaking mediator, I can't even tell what your questions are.


There are 2 threads in FIGHT CLUB. One is this one and other about hypnotism. Please read the 2 from beginning.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And yet, most of the links that you give, use Griffith as their reference. CCCHOOO CCCHWEEEEET.


Is that a peer review?




			
				karnivore 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.


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! 



			
				kanrivore 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.
> 
> The sites contain numerous out of context quotes, wishful interpretations and misinformation to make it look like good science. Typical.


Actually those apologists sites tell what and how of the destruction of INDIAN texts and who all had an agenda and part in it.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And boom, no polio, no chicken pox, no plague, no hepatitis C, no………
> 
> And boom, *average age of human reaching over 70 in medically advanced countries……*


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?
Here, This might get u a clue. Speaking of which u must understand how the major population in INDIA simply lives and struggles to earn a bread. Poverty, illiteracy? I think u r not even acquainted to the reality. Even yoga is not widespread among villages and rural areas. Understand how much it is practised in US and some other developed countries. It is well known that the more health conscious u r, the more u respect the nature and live accordingly, the better is ur life expactancy!



			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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. 



> In general terms a homeopath will take *a very detailed history from you* in order to try and ascertain the complete symptom picture. Not only will they want to know your *state of mind* and exactly how the symptoms present, they will also want to know *what makes your symptoms better or worse*. Having obtained a complete picture, the homeopath will then try and match your symptoms to a particular remedy. A prescription for a simple acute problem can sometimes be done over the phone or in a very short period of time.


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!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Let me give an example: Suppose a plumber has symptoms A, B, C and D. And then a poet has the same symptoms i.e. A, B, C, and D. Now they go to the same homeopath. The homeopath will ask them a lot of gibberish, so as to "individualize" the patients. Then he will go search his MM. He will find that symptoms A, B, C and D "closely fit" to so and so disease and can be treated with medicine X. Now, can you please tell me how will the quack decide, if medicine X is required by both the plumber and the poet , and in which potency. And if he decides that based of varying lifestyle(hope you do realize that a plumber is bound to have a different lifestyle than a poet), they would need different medicines, where and how will he reference that medicine.


I was told fanatics don't even try to get it. Indeed!
Physical, psychological conditions etc remember, that form the symptoms? 
Its not like the modern medicine where u just list the physical conditions only and u get the name of a medicine!



			
				karnivore 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.
> 
> Let me say this once again:
> Failure of modern medicine is not the proof of homeopathy. Homeopathy will have to prove itself on its own account.


Oh well, it seems u only read where I quote u whereas they like to form some kinda team here.
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
*www.natural-health-information-centre.com/modern-medicine.html

Google for more!


			
				link said:
			
		

> It is a sad fact that virtually 100% of ALL medical education (both under-graduate and post-graduate) is paid for either directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry.  As such, the industry can control the educational agenda and our doctors are now taught little except how to control the symptoms of disease, preferably with long-term drug use.  It is not the Doctors themselves that are at fault, but the pharmaceutical marketing system that trains them.
> 
> Now lets think about what that means.
> 
> ...


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?

Besides, homeopathy has proved quite a lot for 200+ yrs save science cannot explain it right now. I wonder how homeopathy works on plants and babies too. Placebo? Oh common, babies are already cared too much I guess! Modern medicine it seems is ignoring tooo much at present. But some people it seems do have that giant gullible bone and herd instinct too much.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Tch Tch Tch. Aren't those sites, you linked to, quoting Max Muller and Griffith ?
> 
> All those explanations are based on Griffith's translation.[Or have you again posted links without actually reading those ? CCHOOO CCCHWEEET]. So decide first. Are you accepting Griffith or rejecting. If you reject Griffith, then you have to, sadly, reject that explanation of hypercube and that nuke thingie as well.
> Care to explain:


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:
			
		

> 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.


And the things that are yet to know, have evidences for them be rejected? Again I say, understand how science progresses!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Homeopathy is indeed wonderful. Wonderfully stupid.


Again a peer review? Peers might be abusing themselves to have such a blind fanboy following in their herd!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> First, why would, "other" be fiction, if "something" is fact. Please explain, in the context of my understanding.


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?



			
				kanrivore said:
			
		

> Second,
> Big Bang = Theory, and there is a surprise waiting for you in the coming years.


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"! 

Read this
*www.engadget.com/2007/08/16/german-scientists-claim-to-have-broken-speed-of-light/

And if that goes true, I guess much of the modern physics will fail instantly n the bland cheerleading by the materialists.



			
				kanrivore said:
			
		

> Evolution = Fact, if not, then please explain how a virus becomes antibiotic resistant.
> Dark wateve = Dark Matter is theory, Dark Energy is hypothesis to explain the increasing speed of expanding universe.
> Universe = Fact
> Side Effects = Fact
> Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]


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.
Other questions though not what I had thought can be found here.

Dark wateva = Skeptics like to discard the evidences of homeopathy and love to accept the hypothesis and theories? LOL, Answer straight. Dark wateva : fact or fiction? In ur understanding ofcors!

Side effects = Person not cured! Whats the guarantee that the orginal disease will not resurface? Are we treating the symptoms or the disease? Why do we witness large number of deaths in modern medicine as against homeopathy? U r so annoying!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]


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.

I think u r only getting emotional, asking questions like "What will u do if....". May be I shud ask, what will u do if u get AIDS, what will u do if u go out of $$$$. So don't raise silly questions.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Can you please tell me the meaning of "NOT REJECTING". Although I am not new to mediator land, I am still learning the rules.


Down to English basics now?  The mediatorland is quite compassionate towards such people.



			
				karnivore 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.
> 
> Now, do you "NOT REJECT" the pink unicorn ?


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! 
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. 



			
				kanrivore said:
			
		

> Make me understand:


I surrender! 



			
				karnivore 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 ????
> Now, should I call the paramedics to get that foot out of your mouth or would you use HOMEOPATHY ?


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??. WTH 
*cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3090274





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


U can stop trolling if u have nothing better to say.  Homeopathy is rising and its going to rise even further beyond!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Do you even understand what you are asking. Can you please explain what does "predict Universe" mean ?


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.

Food for thought!
*www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/cosm-m17.shtml
*hetdex.org/dark_energy/discovery.php



			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOOOOOL. And what do u think  @srivirus posted was from? Err, griffith? 
That what happens when u start replying in favour of other comrades. Then u oughtta know what he had spoken exactly!   
So stop lying.

*PS : AGAIN I ask, Show me how great modern science is and answer all the questions I ask. Why is the materialist brigade keeping its mum?  *


----------



## karnivore (Jun 26, 2008)

mediator 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.


How much can those sites be trusted. I have only given a cursory look, and voila, already an anomaly.

Unfortunately for you, Cosmos is a book which I have read and also possess



			
				vibrantskin.net said:
			
		

> "It is the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of."


Carl Sagan does not say that in that book.

Now read carefully, particularly the part bolded 


			
				vibrantskin.net said:
			
		

> "The Hindu religion  is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths.*It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology.* Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang.  And there are much longer time scales still."


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 original

"It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, _*no doubt by accident*_, to those of modern scientific cosmology"

Four simple words left out without any indication of edit. Four simple words that clear up Sagan's position. Four simple words, that imply "coincidence". Four simple words that would not look good on an apologist site that is desperately trying to shoe-horn data into the ancient text and trying to justify.

That, my dear friend, is called cherry picking quotes, that is called mis-information. That is a fraud. Your kinda site, run by one of your peers. You can use it for your source. But remember, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

You can thank your lord shiva, that i have lost all interest in your useless links. Otherwise i might just read those sites more closely and kick some more arse.


----------



## sreevirus (Jun 26, 2008)

mediator 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"!


I’m treating science in the best possible way I can. You, on the other hand, don’t even know the basics of it.

  With reference to your links: Cure for AIDS? Dr. G. Shantakumaran would’ve been hailed as a modern day messiah and he’d have been a household name like Einstein if his claims are to be taken seriously. His work could’ve been a lifesaver for millions of HIV positive and AIDS affected people all over the world. But no. The only documentations of his works are on a few websites. And it’s not anything recent, even a year old; this guy has claimed to have cured an AIDS victim way back in 1992. If it was true, then why is it that AIDS is still spreading like wild fire? It was 1992 and his method, if true, could’ve made this world something else other that what it is now. BUT, there has still been no breakthrough. WHY? The obvious answer is IT’S FAKE.

Now don't give me the usual crap about the west not accepting Indian achievements; people are not so cruel to not acclaim medicines that work. Why would anyone want to deprive the millions of people who are suffering from a potential cure? I could think of the answer that you'd formulate in your mind: a conspiracy theory to continue sales of drugs right? Nah. It doesn't work that way.

  Ah well, to quote Carl Sagan again, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.  It would have been indeed something extraordinary to have a real cure for AIDS. We have unfortunately not got it yet I guess.



			
				mediator 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??


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:
			
		

> Do u even understand who a skeptic is?


 The question is, do you?



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.


 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:
			
		

> 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?


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.

  Oh BTW, FYI, the nukes were created by a western white nutter named Stephen Knapp. The things that you quoted proudly were taken from one of his books titled “Secret Teachings of the Vedas”. I looked into his works and he can aptly be termed somewhat of Hinduism’s equivalent of Zakir Naik. I’m confident that you won’t find nukes in any one else’s translation either, except for Knapp’s own interpretation.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.


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 u stop lying now even after exposing how much u have read that pdf u linked?


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.

  You on the other hand, didn’t even know that I was quoting Griffith’s translations. Practice what you preach, oh wise one.



			
				mediator 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.


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:
			
		

> Who made u a mod here anyways? U talk of bulletin board, do even know the forum rulezzz???


Go ask raaabo. I guess he believes that I know the rules.

  BTW, if you have a problem with me, don’t hesitate to use the report button. I’m not the only mod here, nor am I a sole evil dictator. Maybe if I went wrong somewhere, the concerned people might take action against me.

(Sssh! It’s a secret, don’t tell anyone. I told raaabo that I was a blind follower of Raaaboism, and he made me a mod) 



			
				mediator 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....


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:
			
		

> 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!
> .
> .
> 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?
> It is not even testable, or has proof for its t=0, has flaws, but the "skeptic" says "Its the most satisfying"! LOL


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.

  It was a theory that predicted the existence of objects like black holes, and they have been discovered. I guess these are all fairy tales for you right? But I guess I will no longer be a fairy tale when some nut like Knapp will retrofit that into the Vedas too.

  BTW, man never needed to fly. Neither did the elephants, hence the reason you don’t see them in the sky with wings. Of course, you won't understand that, since you don't understand evolutionary biology. Recommended reading: Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion. But that is just for laymen. I think karnivore can recommend even better books.

  Well, if you find the theory of evolution hard to accept, what else is your answer? Oh wait, I know. Reincarnation, right? Which led to the evolution of the modern man, isn’t it? Well, I know that would be your answer, because I have seen that in so many Hindu websites, and they are in agreement to the Hindu philosophy.

  And I guess the universe was created by Brahma who himself was born out of Vishnu’s navel. So long, science! 

  We still don’t know what happened at the beginning of time (t=0), but that doesn’t mean that answers won’t be known ever. The brightest minds on earth are at work uncovering the secrets. Science evolves.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> On the other hand homeopathy is testable, has success rate etc save science cannot explain it at present! Oh don't repeat bt Placebo now, I already discussed bt it!


Testable indeed. Still, it yielded no poitive results in a falsifiable randomized test. 
From what I saw in the documentary "The Enemies of Reason", every patient taking a homeopathic medicine is getting a dose of Oliver Cromwell's urine, along with the urine and other waste of everyone else.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> But it seems u don't even know about the attempts to mistranslate the vedas and mislead the world, do u?


I did. And I saw the attempts in which the nukes were described.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> U r just a disgrace to the skeptics batch, and let me tell I'm not abusing before u start guessing again.


You are a disgrace to the so called spiritualists who call themselves intellectual. I ain’t abusing either. 



			
				mediator 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"!


Any rational being would term Knapp’s work as pseudoscience. Only you and *your* peers can see anything otherwise.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> The "geometric message" of this enlightenment can be decoded in terms of the following complete parallelism between the idol of Lord Shiv and geometric setup of Hypercubes-5.
> Sr.No
> 
> Idol of Lord Shiv
> ...


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. 

  And no, Fermat’s theorem and Goldbach’s conjecture still have not been solved.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!


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:
			
		

> I was told fanatics don't even try to get it. Indeed!


 True indeed. You don't. 



PS: Those two links that you gave in your latest reply to karnivore as food for thought only explains the why the concept of dark matter came into being. And, they only give more reasoning to the possibility of a Big Bang. If you had given those links as criticism of dark energy, then they are not doing any criticism, instead, only supporting the idea. Did you even read those food for thought?


----------



## Dark Star (Jun 26, 2008)

Ok just for instance I agree to both of you ... People with firm Believe and people without faith in GOD>.

God is everywhere , God save his Child..Ok.. So where was GOD when WTC Blast off .. Where was god when Bombay Bom Blast take off.. Now you will save it was all pre-written.. People usually say Bhagwan ki Sharan me sab thik hota hai..

Then what happened to GOD when Varanasi Blast held  ?It was inside the campus of Sankat Mochan Mandir.. Was GOD sleeping ? OR what ? 

Hindu Religion is baseless. SOmetimes they say GOD Is everywhere then at the same time .. The wander several part to worship GOD ? Is this you called Sense ? GOD is everywhere in everypart.. GOD is one.. Then whats the use of creating Temples and staues ? Just pray a mere stone.. That wouldn't please GOD ?/

There are questions that won't satisfy people.. I don't believe in hypothetical assumptions.. My Mom daily used to send me to nearby Temple.. I do visit the temple daily ! But is it really needed ! If you don't have faith then its all for nothing...

Current Scenario is that GOD = the best way to earn money. .. Curse me buts its truth.. Being a Varanasi guy I had visited several Temples. ANd those Pandits won't allow you to touch GOD if you pay less Dakshina. WHy don't GOD punish them if GOD exists..

Bhagwan sabko dand deta hai ! Well what you can say about Daud Ibrahim , Bill Laden and many more.. Those currup politicians. the  tears of the poor are all for nothing.. We will keep praying but all in vain..

I won't question the existence of GOD people have faith.. Let them have.. But one day or so they will say "Kya Bhagwan Hain " ? Well beleive inwhat you want to sbut until there are proof its all in   vain ..


----------



## mediator (Jun 26, 2008)

srivirus said:
			
		

> With reference to your links: Cure for AIDS? Dr. G. Shantakumaran would’ve been hailed as a modern day messiah and he’d have been a household name like Einstein if his claims are to be taken seriously. His work could’ve been a lifesaver for millions of HIV positive and AIDS affected people all over the world. But no. The only documentations of his works are on a few websites. And it’s not anything recent, even a year old; this guy has claimed to have cured an AIDS victim way back in 1992. If it was true, then why is it that AIDS is still spreading like wild fire? It was 1992 and his method, if true, could’ve made this world something else other that what it is now. BUT, there has still been no breakthrough. WHY? The obvious answer is IT’S FAKE.


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.

But thankfully many people are getting cured of AIDS, if not on a mass scale, then be it on small scale. It's again an example of pseudo-skeptic thinking or a fanatic thinking of giving unnecessary expert opinions.



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Ah well, to quote Carl Sagan again, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. It would have been indeed something extraordinary to have a real cure for AIDS. We have unfortunately not got it yet I guess.


Unfortunately for u, ayurveda has it! Keep bragging bt modern medicine, which neglects so many things, if that makes u feel better.




			
				srivirus 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.


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.

I'm only saying that today's modern science is not without flaws and how it shud progress. U talk about revolution of ayurveda in the case of AIDS, well atleast homeopathy is causing a lot of revolution where both doctors and patients are resorting to it and when use of homeopathy is rising tremendously. Well in "ur understanding n arguments" then, its quite real. 



			
				srivirus 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.*


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"?

Now about the line in bold. Actually go and read with ur eyes wide open this time. Not only will u find "Griffith, Bloomfield etc, but the famous Max muller" tooooo, all which are known to have mistranslated the Vedas!



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Oh BTW, FYI, the nukes were created by a western white nutter named Stephen Knapp. The things that you quoted proudly were taken from one of his books titled “Secret Teachings of the Vedas”. I looked into his works and he can aptly be termed somewhat of Hinduism’s equivalent of Zakir Naik. I’m confident that you won’t find nukes in any one else’s translation either, except for Knapp’s own interpretation.


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.

"Peers", u do understand about the term. So check out!!




			
				srivirus 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.


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 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.


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:
			
		

> You on the other hand, didn’t even know that I was quoting Griffith’s translations. Practice what you preach, oh wise one.


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.

WEll what u can do alternatively is read some "peer review" then which is sole option for u to survive on.




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> mediator 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? 
I wonder why most of ur (materialist) replies aren't without "expert opinions" and "peer remarks" like "Garbage, Crap etc" even when the scientists are still looking on the matters?? U talk of peer review and give remarks urself? How sensible! 




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Go ask raaabo. I guess he believes that I know the rules.


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:
			
		

> 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.


Both row the same canoe.



			
				srivirus 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.
> 
> It was a theory that predicted the existence of objects like black holes, and they have been discovered. I guess these are all fairy tales for you right? But I guess I will no longer be a fairy tale when some nut like Knapp will retrofit that into the Vedas too.
> 
> BTW, man never needed to fly. Neither did the elephants, hence the reason you don’t see them in the sky with wings. Of course, you won't understand that, since you don't understand evolutionary biology. Recommended reading: Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion. But that is just for laymen. I think karnivore can recommend even better books.


U don't have to whine n I don't havt to repeat!



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> Well, if you find the theory of evolution hard to accept, what else is your answer? *Oh wait, I know. Reincarnation, right? Which led to the evolution of the modern man, isn’t it?* Well, I know that would be your answer, because I have seen that in so many Hindu websites, and they are in agreement to the Hindu philosophy.


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.

Ur mere speculations as in line in bold only tells how much frustrated u r. When n where did I say reincarnation led to evolution? ELABORATE PLEASE! 



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> We still don’t know what happened at the beginning of time (t=0), but that doesn’t mean that answers won’t be known ever. The brightest minds on earth are at work uncovering the secrets. Science evolves.


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:
			
		

> Testable indeed. *Still, it yielded no poitive results in a falsifiable randomized test.*
> From what I saw in the documentary "The Enemies of Reason", every patient taking a homeopathic medicine is getting a dose of Oliver Cromwell's urine, along with the urine and other waste of everyone else.


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".  
That debate was "mainly" between me n @karnivore where u contributed nothing. So understand first wht we debated instead posting uselessly!!



			
				srivirus 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.


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. WTH !



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> And no, Fermat’s theorem and Goldbach’s conjecture still have not been solved.


Oh, like AIDS . U r full of guesses, that u r!




			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> PS: Those two links that you gave in your latest reply to karnivore as food for thought only explains the why the concept of dark matter came into being. And, they only give more reasoning to the possibility of a Big Bang. If you had given those links as criticism of dark energy, then they are not doing any criticism, instead, only supporting the idea. Did you even read those food for thought?


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! 


*PS : You r yet to answer the questions I asked!*. Besides, I'm pretty bored with such repeating discussion and reminding u continously of what u have to answer yet to show how great science is that it can explain everything. The rest is upto u to continue, I won't mind continuing!


----------



## karnivore (Jun 26, 2008)

Everytime I think, ok, too much gibberish to even consider replying to, our good friend, always manages to shovel in some more garbage that just, well, cracks me up. Well, he can’t help it – GARBAGE IN, is GARBAGE OUT. 

  Re: HOMEOPATHY



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> karnivore 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:
			
		

> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and…


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Its not like the modern medicine where u just list the physical conditions only and u get the name of a medicine!


also…


			
				quoted by mediator said:
			
		

> In general terms a homeopath will take *a very detailed history from you* in order to try and ascertain the complete symptom picture. Not only will they want to know your *state of mind* and exactly how the symptoms present, they will also want to know *what makes your symptoms better or worse*. Having obtained a complete picture, the homeopath will then try and match your symptoms to a particular remedy. A prescription for a simple acute problem can sometimes be done over the phone or in a very short period of time.


(Emphasis, all yours)

I fully understand the factors that contribute to the symptoms. Because I do I am asking that question. And because you don’t, you are not getting the point or pretending not to get the point. Just for example, take a look at the symptom reference of ALUMINA . It lists the symptoms right from mental to physical to men and women [surprise, surprise, just like modern medicine does]. Now, show me where does it speak of psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc that CAUSE those symptoms. [Those stuffs under “Mind” are themselves the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms]. 

So explain to me, how is homeopathic “individualization”, any more different than a mainstream medical practitioner asking questions to his patient to determine the symptoms as noted by modern medicine. Also explain to me how does a homeopath come to know, in total absence of any reference, “*what makes your symptoms better or worse”*. 


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> karnivore 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:
			
		

> I wonder how homeopathy works on plants and babies too.


and……


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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.


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.

  Can you please explain *how is this “individualization” done on the plants and babies*. Oh BTW, you probably missed out on the following comments of mine at the end of post#615:

  Isn't homeopathy all about "Individualization" ? At least this term has been used umpteenth number of times to dismiss all randomized and double-blinded trials. [Strangely when any of these trials yield positives, homeopaths develop a temporary amnesia and forget to point out that the trial was not "individualized"]

Can anybody please explain what is *veterinary homeopathy* ? Does that mean that homeopaths have learned to MOOOOOOOOOO. Because I don't see how else a cow can be conversed with. After all, homeopaths don't treat the disease, they treat the person, oops, cow. 

A memorable admission at BOIRON's site [Link given already given]:


			
				Boiron said:
			
		

> As in human medicine, the limits of homeopathy should not be ignored: *parasites, fractures, foreign bodies, etc, are all cases that are not within the realm of its therapeutic possibilities.*


  In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?

  Re: AIDS

  Actually I don’t know where to begin. A few years ago, a tele-yogi claimed in a press conference that yoga can cure cancer. When IMA pressed on, the tele-yogi started claiming that “hey, I did not say that”, and then said, that he has proof and will show it to the world. We are still waiting for his “proof”. 

  Well, this time around we have some *Dr.G.Shanthakumar*, telling us how ayurveda can cure AIDS. Well, isn’t that a good news and I would personally love to see a cure. A colleague of mine got infected during a blood transfusion and he is now breathing his last few days, for no fault of his.

  Anyway, ayurveda is not homeopathy. So I guess “randomized trial” and “double-blinded” trials are not a taboo. Or is it. Question is: has our doctor here conducted any kind of randomized, double-blinded trial ? Anecdotes can’t be evidence, because of hundreds of factors, placebo being one, self-limiting nature of the disease being another, wrong diagnosis, itself being yet another.

  Our doctor here gives examples of only 4 patients, on the plea that all other patients did not agree of provide details. Understood. The taboo of AIDS is too much for these already dying patients. But how does he conclude that these 4 patients were cured. 

  NO HE DOES NOT CONCLUDE.

  He only says: “Now the patient is healthier” for the first patient, “The treatment continued for 6 months in the same pattern, and patient is improving well” for the second patient, “TREATMENT IS BEING CONTINUED, WITH SLOW FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PATIENT” for the third (emphasis, his own), and finally “The same treatment continued for 1 year and the patient improves drastically without any complications yet” for the fourth. 

  Nowhere does he claim, that AIDS was cured – only the patients got healthier, and that can be for hundreds of reasons and that’s where randomized, double-blinded trials kick in. He also does not tell us if the treatment has been concluded or not, and it is more than likely, from the wording, that the treatment is going on. That makes this publication unethical, as well.

  He continues:

  “I simply assured a longer span of life, with a constitution and metabolism which functioned as close to normal as possible. Out of a total number of 104 patients I treated in the course of the previous ten years, 83 are living healthily and normally”

  Firstly *he does not claim, that HIV was removed from his patients body, or if AIDS was cured*. Secondly, how does he know that his treatment was THE CAUSE for better health and not a mere CORRELATION? What steps did he take to remove the possible biases ? Nah, he does not answer. And 83 “CURED” patients but only 4 references ? (How in this world would any independent researcher even locate these patients, if he wished to carry out an independent fact-finding research ?) Have those 4 patients being brought to the media ? Have these patients being made subject to independent evaluation ? No answer. 

  Finally, what follow up measures did he take to see if his “CURED” patients are doing well ? He only claims, just like any woo-woo practitioner. How typical. 

  The only case where he claims that the pathological result was negative, after his ayurvedic treatment, he forgets to mention the name of the patient. Yes I know of the taboo. But the patient was cured, wasn’t he. And such a proof. Had I been in that doctor’s place I would have begged, borrowed or whatever, to bring him to the media and kick the arse of this modern medicine.  

  Nah, this doctor would not, cause he knows, its his arse, that would get kicked.

  In the words of that English band, The Queen:

  “And ’nother one’s gone, And ‘nother one’s gone, ‘nother one bites the dust”


----------



## mediator (Jun 27, 2008)

karnivore 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” ?


Aren't u done already ? First u ridiculously brought James Randi, then talked about evidences n now...... WTH 




			
				link said:
			
		

> Homoeopathic proving is the process in which new remedies are *discovered* for use in homoeopathic treatment. Provings involve provers, 'healthy' individuals taking a newly prepared homoeopathic remedy. A prover, under the sway of the remedy, is believed to exhibit symptoms that reflect the properties of the substance. The symptoms experienced by provers are collectively analysed to build the foundations of a new remedy picture.
> 
> The process of proving has been credited to the founder of homoeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. The popular history of Hahnemann's first proving begins with his discovery of the poisoning effects of Cinchona bark. Hahnemann was struck by the similarity between the symptoms of Cinchona poisoning and the symptoms of malaria. He therefore decided to administer a dose of Cinchona Bark upon himself and record the symptoms that ensued. Thus in 1790, Hahnemann had conducted his first experiment, later termed proving.
> 
> Since the time of Hahnemann the proving process has evolved and grown into a multi-faceted mode of investigation. *Methods of proving are highly personalised and of individual relevance to the homoeopath or experimenter.* The most common method is the classical or Hahnemannian proving. Of late an extension from the classical proving has been towards intuitive and scientific models.


*www.fhsc.salford.ac.uk/hcprdu/projects/homeopathic.htm




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> I fully understand the factors that contribute to the symptoms. Because I do I am asking that question. And because you don’t, you are not getting the point or pretending not to get the point. Just for example, take a look at the symptom reference of ALUMINA . It lists the symptoms right from mental to physical to men and women [surprise, surprise, just like modern medicine does]. *Now, show me where does it speak of psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc that CAUSE those symptoms.* [Those stuffs under “Mind” are themselves the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms].





			
				alumina said:
			
		

> A very general condition corresponding to this drug is dryness of mucous membranes and skin, and tendency to paretic muscular states. Old people, with lack of vital heat, or prematurely old, with debility. Sluggish functions, heaviness, numbness, and staggering, and the characteristic constipation find an excellent remedy in Alumina. Disposition to colds in the head, and eructations in spare, dry, thin subjects. Delicate children, products of artificial baby foods.
> 
> *Mind.--Low-spirited; fears loss of reason. Confused as to personal identity. Hasty, hurried. Time passes slowly. Variable mood. Better as day advances. Suicidal tendency when seeing knife or blood.*
> 
> ...



I think u really don't even know the definition of the term psychological. Ofcors the stuffs under " 'Mind' are themselves the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms" n psychological, physical factors etc form the set of symptoms!! U really had a long talk and now u pretend as if u know nuthing bt homeopathy! Like I said skepticism looks healthy when u really know the subject.




			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Can you please explain how is this “individualization” done on the plants and babies. Oh BTW, you probably missed out on the following comments of mine at the end of post#615:
> 
> ...


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?

And bt veterinary homeopathy, sure go ahead and ask that in a good hompathy forum if u really wanna know it as per ur use of the term "explain". Ur remark of "MOOOOO, 'person, oops, cow'" on the other hand doesn't present very well that u want to learn but make fun of it. So remove that smirk of ur face. U r only making urself look foolish. 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?


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:
			
		

> Well, this time around we have some Dr.G.Shanthakumar, telling us how ayurveda can cure AIDS. Well, isn’t that a good news and I would personally love to see a cure. A colleague of mine got infected during a blood transfusion and he is now breathing his last few days, for no fault of his.
> 
> Anyway, ayurveda is not homeopathy. So I guess “randomized trial” and “double-blinded” trials are not a taboo. Or is it. Question is: has our doctor here conducted any kind of randomized, double-blinded trial ? Anecdotes can’t be evidence, because of hundreds of factors, placebo being one, self-limiting nature of the disease being another, wrong diagnosis, itself being yet another.
> 
> ...


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 ....



			
				link said:
			
		

> Ayurvedic practitioner Dr G. Shanthakumar, based in Mumbai, India, claims that ayurveda identified AIDS over 2,000 years ago. The ancient malady was termed Rajayakshma (the king of diseases) and its symptoms were identical to AIDS going by the descriptions of Vagbhata in Ashtanga Hridayam (Chikitsitam section) and its supplementary text, the Ashtanga Sangraham, as well as in another ayurvedic classic, Charaka Samhita (Nidanam section).
> 
> The major symptoms are: (1) drastic loss of weight (2) fatigue and lethargy (3) susceptibility to allergies and contagious diseases (4) skin irritations (5) bronchial disorders, often leading to tuberculosis of the lungs (6) damage to intestinal flora resulting in diarrhoea, dysentery, gastritis and (7) wide fluctuations in body temperature.
> 
> ...


Read it! Destroying the virus? Tested negetive after the treament?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> The only case where he claims that the pathological result was negative, after his ayurvedic treatment, he forgets to mention the name of the patient. Yes I know of the taboo. But the patient was cured, wasn’t he. And such a proof. Had I been in that doctor’s place I would have begged, borrowed or whatever, to bring him to the media and kick the arse of this modern medicine.


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?


Like I said, u think everything can be found using mere google search? I agree atleast the pdf of some books can be found, but not all. Show me if the "nuclear know how" which countries keep confidential and because of which Pakistan's A.Q Khan is in trouble can be found on net. Grow up! 




*PS : I think u missed the last lines of the previous 3 posts of mine. I say it again, "ARE materialists like u going to answer all the questions I asked or not"? 
Even in the previous posts I talked bt evolution, dark energy etc asking for straight answers!! Do u wanna talk or not?* or else stop ur troll. Discussion is not one way!


----------



## m-jeri (Jun 27, 2008)

^^^^^.....

Guys stop this....

one belive other dont...no ones placing u in point blank....
hold on to your belief....thats the only thing important....


----------



## karmanya (Jun 27, 2008)

A. Its relatively simple to test negative for HIV. That is why doctors insist on multiple tests during the first diagnosis.
B. Even allopathy has  a few cases where HIV infected patients are able to live relatively normal lives.
C. obviously you would be hard pressed to find confidential documents on the web. However, this does not mean that you can't find enough information for  a normal citizen on it. For a normal citizen, it is enough to know that centrifuges are used to purify uranium for reactors and weapons. Do they care what the minimum velocity to purify uranium has to be? To what purpose? Its not like they're going to find a lump of uranium on the street and say "Hey lets try and purify this".
D. Its intresting to see how this thread has digressed from science vs god to Homeopathy vs Allopathy. Please stop beating dead horses and leave this topic alone.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 27, 2008)

Exactly what I had expected of you.



			
				link said:
			
		

> *Methods of proving are highly personalised and of individual relevance to the homoeopath or experimenter.*


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.

More so, if indeed the provings are individualized, refer me the database that contains the medicines as, Individualised behaviour = symptoms = medicine. The only reference is MM and it follows the pattern, Symptoms = medicine.

So, other than one-liner claims, show me that provings are indeed INDIVIDUALIZED. [Of course for that you have to understand the difference between a “CLAIM” and a “PROOF”]



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> karnivore 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]:


			
				MM said:
			
		

> *Mind.--Low-spirited; fears loss of reason. Confused as to personal identity. Hasty, hurried. Time passes slowly. Variable mood. Better as day advances. Suicidal tendency when seeing knife or blood.*


and*...
*


			
				MM said:
			
		

> *Sleep.--Restless; anxious and confused dreams. Sleepy in morning.*


and……


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> That would obviously be decided by the homeopath.


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. 

For example, take "low spiritedness" AND “restless sleep”. Those can be for a whole host of reasons, like missing a promotion, losing a gf/bf, losing a favourite book, insults, etc. How in the hell, will a homeopath know, that “low-spiritedness” and “restless sleep” due to missing a promotion or due losing a gf/bf or due to insults, will require separate medicines of different potencies or they will require the same medicine of same potency.

  Where is the reference ?

  Yes individual psychological and physiological symptoms, together form a set of symptoms. But is that set unique to a disease as CAUSE or unique to the person as CAUSE or unique to a disease and person as CAUSE. I would understand if that set is unique to a disease, just as modern medicine treats a set of symptoms. But homeopathy does not treat diseases. It treats humans (and plants and cows).

  So show me, how can that set of symptoms be correlated to a person. Again, where is the reference ?

  Besides, you do not answer the other question: How is the process of “individualization” any more different than inquiries made by a doctor, practicing modern medicine - particularly when both will have to rely on set of symptoms.


			
				mediator 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?


Here is the ELABORATION.

  Homeopaths and their uninformed lackeys, reject all randomized, double-blinded trials, that yield negative results (not those, which yield positives) for homeopathy on the ground, that the experiments were not “Individualzed”. They claim, it is this “individualization” that separates homeopathy from modern medicine. Fair enough.

  But how is this individualization done ? By ASKING various <irrelevant> questions about the patient. Now, I am sure, that the homeopaths, have not yet mastered the language of plants or babies or cows. So when they apply their medicines on plants or babies or cows, they do not (because they can not) “individualize” their treatments. But isn’t homeopathy all about individualization, and isn’t it the reason, or lack of it, that negative result yielding randomized, double-blinded trials are rejected.

  So, in other words, if indeed homeopathy works on humans because, it is individualized, then it is impossible to work on plants, or babies or cows. (This follows from their own arguments). But if homeopathy works on humans, which is individualized, as also on plants or babies or cows, which are not individualized, then:

a) individualization is a sham, and

  b) randomized, double-blinded, non-individualized trials are just as good.
  Clear ?


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …u ridiculously brought James Randi, then talked about evidences


and…


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ..rejecting something that has evidences, cures and its testing done by skeptics via *flawed methods*…


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]

  Like <you> said, <lackey-ism> looks healthy when u really know the subject.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> And bt veterinary homeopathy, sure go ahead and ask that in a good hompathy forum if u really wanna know it as per ur use of the term "explain". Ur remark of "MOOOOO, 'person, oops, cow'" on the other hand doesn't present very well that u want to learn but make fun of it. So remove that smirk of ur face. U r only making urself look foolish.


So the cat is finally out of the bag.


			
				mediator 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…


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.



			
				link said:
			
		

> * Heated blood is also said to weaken, and even destroy, the virus in some cases *


and…


			
				link said:
			
		

> *After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.*


also…


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Destroying the virus? Tested negetive after the treament?


(All emphases’ are yours)
  I have one word for you. *PROOF*. Has our doctor provided any proof supporting his claim ? More over, he claims to have treated 104 patients and “CURED” 83 patients (he seems to be confused with the word CURE, for once he says he has ‘CURED’ and then he says “I NEVER CURE”), but claims negative test for HIV in only 1 case, which he does not support with any evidence, i.e. the actual pathological report. 

I was going to make the same points here, but @karmanya beat me to it:


			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> A. Its relatively simple to test negative for HIV. That is why doctors insist on multiple tests during the first diagnosis.
> B. Even allopathy has  a few cases where HIV infected patients are able to live relatively normal lives.


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.  


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> U must understand cutural and tradition is not the same everywhere…


I think I recognized the problem…


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> The taboo of AIDS is too much for these already dying patients.


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 ?

  All he has done is claim. Something which any tom, dick or harry can very well do. 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> If something good is there, then why even mock it? The treatment procedure is out there. Why not verify it?


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:
			
		

> Like I said, u think everything can be found using mere google search?


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:
			
		

> Show me if the "nuclear know how" which countries keep confidential and because of which Pakistan's A.Q Khan is in trouble can be found on net.


and…


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> I think u missed the last lines of the previous 3 posts of mine. I say it again, "ARE materialists like u going to answer all the questions I asked or not"? Even in the previous posts I talked bt evolution, dark energy etc asking for straight answers!! Do u wanna talk or not?


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>".

  Anyway, here’s 24 myths about evolution - BUSTED. And I got this by e-mail, just today. One more gap - PLUGGED. 

  And I think I have answered, quite clearly, what I think of big bang, evolution, dark wateva, as, this = that. What more do you want ? Nevertheless, here’s some more clarification, which excludes evolution:

  Are those theories facts ? NO
Are there any basis for those theories ? YES
Are there evidences for the basis ? YES
Are those evidences observable and testable ? Hell, YES

  You have suggested me to grow up. Nah, I won’t suggest that. Growing up is beyond you. But perhaps you can still wake up.



			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> Please stop beating dead horses and leave this topic alone.


Agreed, point taken, keyboard locked and keys thrown away.


----------



## mediator (Jun 28, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> More so, if indeed the provings are individualized, refer me the database that contains the medicines as, Individualised behaviour = symptoms = medicine. The only reference is MM and it follows the pattern, Symptoms = medicine.


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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> For example, take "low spiritedness" AND "restless sleep". *Those can be for a whole host of reasons, like missing a promotion, losing a gf/bf, losing a favourite book, insults, etc.* How in the hell, will a homeopath know, that "low-spiritedness" and "restless sleep" due to missing a promotion or due losing a gf/bf or due to insults, will require separate medicines of different potencies or they will require the same medicine of same potency.


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"!

U sure know how to troll indefinitely!




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Here is the ELABORATION.
> 
> Homeopaths and their uninformed lackeys, reject all randomized, double-blinded trials, that yield negative results (not those, which yield positives) for homeopathy on the ground, that the experiments were not "Individualzed". They claim, it is this "individualization" that separates homeopathy from modern medicine. Fair enough.
> 
> ...


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:
			
		

> 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]
> 
> Like <you> said, <lackey-ism> looks healthy when u really know the subject.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> (All emphases' are yours)
> I have one word for you. PROOF. Has our doctor provided any proof supporting his claim ? More over, he claims to have treated 104 patients and "CURED" 83 patients (he seems to be confused with the word CURE, for once he says he has 'CURED' and then he says "I NEVER CURE"), but claims negative test for HIV in only 1 case, which he does not support with any evidence, i.e. the actual pathological report.


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?

You seem to be too much speculative that he is "confused" when he says, "I NEVER CURE". LOL, many scientists are theists too. Does that add to ur confusion?
But if u wanna entertain, then u can contact him and enlighten us about the reports! 



			
				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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


Its not called frustration, but entertainment! This debate has quite nicely been debated over n ur merely repeating! 
Your skepticism is nuthing but a mere attempt to mock homeopathy affirmed by ur remarks and expert opinions bt homeopathy all over. You r not trying to learn neways!




			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> t159 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				link_24_myths said:
			
		

> *Shared misconceptions:*
> 
> Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection
> 
> ...


LOL, thats what u call "busted by ur own article"! 

U don't appreciate or read well of what I had posted.



			
				link said:
			
		

> *TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION - REVISED*
> 
> by Randy Alcorn
> (with additional editing by Jim Darnall)
> ...



BTW, where r the fossils of creatures "evolved gradually" of "each n every" stage? The email u showed, doesn't answer that question anyways! The process is "gradual" remember!




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Are those theories facts ? NO


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:
			
		

> Are there any basis for those theories ? YES


Two of them i.e big bang n evolution are already flawed!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Are there evidences for the basis ? YES


Tell me when u r done explainin bt the "revised flaws" n giving evidences of that "gradual evolution"!




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Are those evidences observable and testable ? Hell, YES


Big Bang is testable? LOL  

What about my other questions? U forgot it seems, or read it but kept it aside thinking I'll forget or pretend not to have read them. But neways,

1. Is Universe rotating? 
2. What is "beyond" Universe?
3. If there is anything beyond, then is Universe revolving like everything else?
4. Where did all of this come from?
5. What is the fate of the Universe?
6. Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs?
7. "Puzzling" Dark matter, dark energy? Yet it likes to explain the ever expanding universe on that basis?
8. Can science explain "the placebo effect"?
* Why fanatics rely on existing skepticism as a source of their skepticism, instead of first learning the field itself? 

Here's for the reviewer's pdf. I hope u have read that pdf!

More questions will come if we start warming up on such discussion!














			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Agreed, point taken, keyboard locked and keys thrown away.


You r too emotional for that, with serotonin levels on the loose and I can predict that u'll return! => KARNIVORE RETURNS!  






			
				madjeri said:
			
		

> ^^^^^.....
> 
> Guys stop this....
> 
> ...


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.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> A recent survey on Indian scientists, by Institute for the Study of Secularism in India, reveal to us, the personal faiths and belief of these scientists.
> 
> * 50% scientists believe in homeopathy. *[WTF ?]*
> 
> ...


Post 585.

I don't understand why do people have to append acronyms like "WTF" if they r frustrated and demonstrate such samples! Skepticism is fine, "peer review" is also fine as long as u don't blindly acccept it, as blind acceptation canot help in progress of science anyways, and then make remarks out of ignorance. The picture is really hilarious : i ask for "peer review, but its crap/garbage/<insert mocking word>".  


*PS : STILL WAITING for answer to my questions*


----------



## karmanya (Jun 28, 2008)

> Originally Posted by karnivore
> 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.
> 
> For example, take "low spiritedness" AND "restless sleep". Those can be for a whole host of reasons, like missing a promotion, losing a gf/bf, losing a favourite book, insults, etc. How in the hell, will a homeopath know, that "low-spiritedness" and "restless sleep" due to missing a promotion or due losing a gf/bf or due to insults, will require separate medicines of different potencies or they will require the same medicine of same potency.





> originally posted by mediator
> 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"!
> 
> U sure know how to troll indefinitely!


Do you even know how to read?



> 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?
> 
> You seem to be too much speculative that he is "confused" when he says, "I NEVER CURE". LOL, many scientists are theists too. Does that add to ur confusion?
> But if u wanna entertain, then u can contact him and enlighten us about the reports


So you want us to catch HIV, visit a quack and get wierd treatments just to "verify" randomn rants?
And we're speculative because he constantly contradicts himself. He claims to have "cured" 83 out of 104 people and then he turns around to say "I don't cure".


> Lol, again a waste/repitions! Care to explain the questions I asked in the previous posts itself? Show me how great modern science is now.


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.



> 1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
> A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.


 Because it's complex you assume that someone had to create it? what are you, twelve?


> Natural selection is the only means of evolution


 Yes natural selection is not the only means of evolution, theres also artificial selection, drift, and a variety of other factors.


> No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
> Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.


Planaria developed eye-spots and various creatures have eyes, if that isn't an obvious proof of evolution, then call me crazy.



> Big Bang is testable? LOL


 Yes it is. ever hear of something called the LHC?

Why should the universe have to revolve? just because fish in a  pond revolve, does the pond revolve as well?

The universe came from a point of infinite temperature, pressure and density. The steady state theory has already been disproved.

Science can't explain thoughts and beliefs, but can religion? Does any holy book say, you think because of "XYZ"?

Why is it that when anyone stops putting blind faith in wierd half cooked mumbo-jumbo you call it skepticism? Why don't you just come out and say "You're stupid because you don't agree with me!" and start bawling like a little baby?


----------



## karnivore (Jun 28, 2008)

Sorry @karmanya, I had to unlock my keyboard, and thanks for being able to see through his willful misrepresentation of my statements about homeopathy.

I still think I need to re-clarify my position, on evolution, where again, a comment made in the passing, has been used, to flog his reincarnated horse.

I am fully aware of this amazing process of nature called evolution and how it happens, that is, as much as a layman can understand. That reply to @T159's comments, was made in the passing and there was obviously no need for me to get into the details of evolution. Unfortunately (for me, and fortunately for you), @T159 never got around to ask for an explanation, which I would have gladly given/ posted links, and then, it would have properly clarified what I had meant. 

I understand, that it was one of your rare moments under the sun, when you read that New Scientist article. I am sure, if you were, yourself aware of the fact that evolution is not just natural selection, you would have pointed that out, a long time ago. So enjoy that sun shine, for as long as it lasts.

It is also very strange that a self-claimed ATHEIST, is quoting an Intelligent Design theorist to point out the alleged flaws of evolution, where, the theorist is actually implying that it is GOD, that is responsible for everything. In addition to your lack of understanding of evolution, it seems, that you have absolutely no clue as to what is atheism. (Or are you a THEIST, pretending to be an ATHEIST ?)

Sorry could not resist this:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/creationist.gif

Besides, from your demand, that fossil of each and every species be shown to you, it is clear, that you neither seem to understand paleontology and geology nor do you appreciate the difficulties of finding the fossils. The fact that whatever fossils have been found, have CONFIRMED to the prediction, is more than enough proof of evolution. The fact that E-Coli bacteria are seen to evolve, in the lab, following the predictive path, is more than enough proof of evolution(That is evolution tested in lab). The fact that bacteria are getting antibiotic resistant is enough proof of evolution, as well. 

But since I have linked you to the new find in the evolution of tetrapods, here is an updated, gradual evolutionary road map of the tetrapods:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/ventastega.jpg
Source

If you have further questions to Dr Ahlberg, about his new find, you can directly ask him. He has opened a thread at Talkrational.org.

I know, nothing is enough. Just tried.

Re: Theory

Well, @karmanya, if he has ever clicked on any of the links that I have provided, then, I am sure he has heard of Large Hadron Collider (LHC). What eludes him is the basic understanding of the enormity of those three words, and why the scientists all over the world are so excited about it (There is every reason for us, as Indians ,to be proud of the project as well, because, some of the vital chips are made, here in India ). But what is this LHC looking for ?


			
				The Telegraph said:
			
		

> With the collision of two nuclei, man will create a speck of energy window, within a very very tiny volume, equivalent to one million times the temperature in the interior of the sun. Indeed, the universe, a microsecond (a millionth of a second) after its birth from the Big Bang, according to conventional wisdom, must have been in this state. So, *LHC is having a “peep” into the very early stages of the creation of the universe and, of course, into the history of its evolution through space and time since then. And now, 14 billion years later on this planet, we shall mimic that primordial epoch.* Colliding proton with proton, one can trace back to even earlier times of the universe, coming even closer to the Big Bang.​


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. 

Now....​


> Nevertheless, here’s some more clarification, *which excludes evolution*:
> 
> Are those theories facts ? NO
> Are there any basis for those theories ? YES
> ...


Note carefully, that this argument, excluded EVOLUTION, but strangely enough, you have still considered it in your reply.

Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, that you have completely misinterpreted that argument because you did not realise that I was actually providing a regressive argument - starting from theory back stepping to provability of evidence. In other words, THEORY, which has a BASIS, which has EVIDENCE, which can be OBSERVED and TESTED. Read in proper english, it would be, observable and testable evidence forms the basis of the theory. Those comments could not be replied to, individually, as you have done, intentionally or otherwise, because, that simply would not make any sense at all.

Example:
THEORY = Big Bang,
BASIS = Expanding Universe and Left over of the Bang (among others)
EVIDENCE = Red Shift (evidence of expanding universe), background microwave radiation (evidence of left over of the Bang)
TESTABILITY = Red Shift and Microwave Radiation have been tested on numerous occation.

One can only do so much to bring a horse to the well - the rest is upto the horse.

BTW, congratulations, you got your prediction right. (Finally, you got something right)


----------



## karmanya (Jun 28, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong, how is red shift proof of the theory? red shifting was just used to explain why we can't see residual light. the fact that residual light from the initial big bang remains is proof of the possible validity of the theory.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 28, 2008)

^^ Only that you are absolutely correct that red shift is not the proof of the Big Bang theory and I have, also, never said that. I have referred to Red Shift as the proof of the expanding universe, which <i.e. the expanding universe> forms one basis for the theory of big bang.

If you would pardon me for quoting Wiki, 



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> An observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from the observer, corresponding to the Doppler shift that changes the perceived frequency of sound waves.



In the context of expansion of universe,


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths.....That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation.



From, _A Brief History of Time_, by Hawkins


> It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appeared red-shifted: nearly all were moving away from us! More surprising still was the finding that Hubble published in 1929: even the size of a galaxy’s red shift is not random, but is directly proportional to the galaxy’s distance from us. Or, in other words, the farther a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away! And that meant that the universe could not be static, as everyone previously had thought, is in fact expanding; the distance between the different galaxies is changing all the time.


I must put a rider here. Redshift is not Doppler shift, which is often referred to in this context.


			
				astronomycafe said:
			
		

> It is tempting to refer to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts. This choice of interpretation has in the years since Hubble's work led to an unfortunate misunderstanding of big bang cosmology, obscurring one of its most mysterious beauties. As noted with a hint of frustration by cosmologists such as Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, "The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light...in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.".


----------



## mediator (Jun 29, 2008)

karmanya said:
			
		

> So you want us to catch HIV, *visit a quack* and *get wierd treatments* just to "verify" randomn rants?
> And we're speculative because he constantly contradicts himself. *He claims to have "cured"* 83 out of 104 people and then he turns around to say *"I don't cure".*


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.



			
				Shanthakumar said:
			
		

> The Healed Ones
> Dr Shanthakumar first treated an AIDS victim in 1992: "About eight years ago, an AIDS patient met me. I applied the ayurvedic therapy keeping his symptoms in mind. He would collapse with high temperature once a week, though he did not harbor malarial parasites. After a month's treatment, the fever and shivering subsided. After three months, his weight increased from 43 kg to 48 kg. After ten months, *he tested negative for HIV.*
> 
> "I then became confident about *treating AIDS.* Through my first patient, two others came to me and were both equally successful. *But I never cure.* I simply assure a longer lifespan with a constitution and metabolism that functions as close to normal as possible. Out of the 64 patients *I have treated* in the past eight years, 43 are leading healthy, normal lives. Of course, three of my patients died, possibly because they had reached the last stage."


Read Carefully! 




			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> Because it's complex you assume that someone had to create it? what are you, twelve?


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:
			
		

> Planaria developed eye-spots and various creatures have eyes, if that isn't an obvious proof of evolution, then call me crazy.


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:
			
		

> Yes it is. ever hear of something called the LHC?


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:
			
		

> Why should the universe have to revolve? just because fish in a pond revolve, does the pond revolve as well?


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:
			
		

> The universe came from a point of infinite temperature, pressure and density. The steady state theory has already been disproved.


O really? and whats the proof?


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything *must have been closer together in the past*. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory. *But these accelerators can only probe so far into such high energy regimes.*
> 
> *Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition.* The theory accurately explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.


Sorry for givin Wiki but a few people like to read wiki.  

Further, I wonder why "puzzling dark energy" is being used to explain the "faster" expanding universe!




			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> Science can't explain thoughts and beliefs, but can religion? Does any holy book say, you think because of "XYZ"?


Again, I'm not playing an apologist for religion either. But why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence etc?



			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> Why is it that when anyone stops putting blind faith in wierd half cooked mumbo-jumbo you call it skepticism? Why don't you just come out and say "You're stupid because you don't agree with me!" and start bawling like a little baby?


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!

So its not as if those "anyones" are stopping to put blind-faith in those "half-cooked mumbo-jumbo" which u opine quite wisely, but criticing something without even reading bt those "mumbo jumbos" is quite absurd neways!




			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> Do you even know how to read?


And I was wondering why u r posting randomly. Don't mind, but it seems u too r just here to troll.
@karmanya : If u think words like "baby, 12 yr old etc" are gonna provoke me then u can pack ur bags already! I wasn't thinking to reply to ur road side comments, but here I'm mostly repeating of what I said earlier. So stop trolling if u can't read the two threads from the start, that I asked u to read. Its not like I'll entertain anyone who jumps in an already heated debate and then whines over making the discussion start from t=0. U r next post will tell itself how much u have read the 2 threads. Besides, my discussion regarding science has just started as previously materialists brigade was going one way. So u may start from here discussing science. 









			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Besides, from your demand, that fossil of each and every species be shown to you, it is clear, that you neither seem to understand paleontology and geology *nor do you appreciate the difficulties of finding the fossils.* The fact that *whatever fossils have been found, have CONFIRMED to the prediction, is more than enough proof of evolution.* The fact that E-Coli bacteria are seen to evolve, in the lab, following the predictive path, is more than enough proof of evolution(That is evolution tested in lab). The fact that bacteria are getting antibiotic resistant is enough proof of evolution, as well.


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:
			
		

> If you have further questions to Dr Ahlberg, about his new find, you can directly ask him. He has opened a thread at Talkrational.org.
> 
> I know, nothing is enough. Just tried.


Thats more sensible actually! 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> EVIDENCE = Red Shift (evidence of expanding universe), background microwave radiation (evidence of left over of the Bang)


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!
Some flaws to be pondered over. With many thought provoking qustions, the obvious question becomes "Did it ever banged that big"? 


And how about answering the remaining questions as well or shud I goto another site that might be told by u and start questioning there? Take ur time and on a second thought @madjeri's word reflect on my mind. Its ur wish.


----------



## karmanya (Jun 29, 2008)

a. 





> 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.


I call them quacks because i've tried all of the wierd acupuncture, homeopathy and various other **** for my asthma. Never worked.
b.





> Read Carefully!


I'd suggest you follow your own advice instead of paraphrasing and removing quotes out of context.
c.





> 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!
> So its not as if those "anyones" are stopping to put blind-faith in those "half-cooked mumbo-jumbo" which u opine quite wisely, but criticing something without even reading bt those "mumbo jumbos" is quite absurd neways!


I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.  Do you even know what skepticism means?
d.





> 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.


Philosophical questions? You posted some random article, and i replied. theres no philosophy involved.
e.





> 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.


 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.
f.





> 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.


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.
g. 





> O really? and whats the proof?


 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.  
h. 





> And I was wondering why u r posting randomly. Don't mind, but it seems u too r just here to troll.
> @karmanya : If u think words like "baby, 12 yr old etc" are gonna provoke me then u can pack ur bags already! I wasn't thinking to reply to ur road side comments, but here I'm mostly repeating of what I said earlier. So stop trolling if u can't read the two threads from the start, that I asked u to read. Its not like I'll entertain anyone who jumps in an already heated debate and then whines over making the discussion start from t=0. U r next post will tell itself how much u have read the 2 threads. Besides, my discussion regarding science has just started as previously materialists brigade was going one way. So u may start from here discussing science.


you so obviously didn't get the point i was trying to make there so i won't even bother elaborating.
i. 





> 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!
> Some flaws to be pondered over. With many thought provoking qustions, the obvious question becomes "Did it ever banged that big"?


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.
We don't have all the answers yet, but we will. I'm sure of it.

Please try to be more lucid with your responses from now on, you say we haven't answered your questions, have you considered that your responses are so unintelligible that we don't even know what your questions are?


----------



## karnivore (Jun 29, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> So now u r whining bt the difficulties! "wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm


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.

And which fossil do not seem to confirm. If you are talking about Nebraska man, then it is a noted and admitted error, while Piltdown man was a hoax. Can you please give examples where fossils don't fit in as predicted.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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?


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.

A comment summarizes, in one line, what you are essentially saying: 


			
				Szkeptik said:
			
		

> *But it didn't turn into a bird so it's not evidence for evolution*.
> 
> The ignorant and stupid have spoken.





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Some flaws to be pondered over.


One more IDiot, OOOPS, IDist and one more crackpot, OOOOPS, "Chaotic" theory.

Some memorable comments of Andrei Linde


			
				Andrei Linde said:
			
		

> What my theoretical argument shows......is that we can't rule out the possibility that *our own universe was created in a lab by someone in another universe who just felt like doing it.*


MUHAHAHAHA....TEEHEEHEEHEE......AHAHAHAHA.....OHOHOHOHO......
[Man,I didn't know that there were so many kinds of LOL.....up until now, that is]


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ...a wise guy called for James Randi without even "learning" bt homeopathy...


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.

1. Are provings "individualized" ? If yes, first prove it and then show how are the symptoms recorded in terms of cause-effect reasoning.

2. If non-individualized treatments work on plants and animals, then why should non-individualized trials, yielding negative results, be rejected ?

3. What is difference between homeopathic "individualization" and inquiries made by a practitioner of modern medicine, particularly, when both of them will have to rely of symptoms ? 

"More questions will come if we start warming up on such discussion."


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> *I'm not playing an apologist for the creationist theorists*!


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.

That happens when someone googles with his favourite blinkers on.


----------



## mediator (Jun 29, 2008)

karmanya said:
			
		

> I call them quacks because i've tried all of the wierd acupuncture, homeopathy and various other **** for my asthma. Never worked.


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:
			
		

> I'd suggest you follow your own advice instead of paraphrasing and removing quotes out of context.


Stop trolling if u can't read. Those were psychological symptoms that they r.




			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. Do you even know what skepticism means?


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:
			
		

> Philosophical questions? You posted some random article, and i replied. theres no philosophy involved.


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 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.*


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. 

Besides, can u stop with that God thing? 




			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> 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.
> *We don't have all the answers yet, but we will. I'm sure of it.*


I have nuthing against ur "faith"




			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> Please try to be more lucid with your responses from now on, you say we haven't answered your questions, have you considered that your responses are so unintelligible that we don't even know what your questions are?


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.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


U can simply stop whining.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And which fossil do not seem to confirm. If you are talking about Nebraska man, then it is a noted and admitted error, while Piltdown man was a hoax. Can you please give examples where *fossils don't fit in as predicted.*


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:
			
		

> 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.


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!



			
				link said:
			
		

> No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.


And finally if its not a ladder, then where did all of the creatures come from?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> One more IDiot, OOOPS, IDist and one more crackpot, OOOOPS, "Chaotic" theory.
> 
> Some memorable comments of Andrei Linde


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).....




			
				Andrei Linde said:
			
		

> 1. If you work out the physical equations governing the big bang, they predict that such a universe would be very small, even though we can see that our universe is large. One way to gauge the size of a universe is to talk about how many elementary particles it has in it - how many electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on are present. When I look out of my window, the matter I see is made up of perhaps 1088 elementary particles, but a typical theoretical big-bang model envisions a universe with only 10 elementary particles in it! This is perhaps the most serious problem with the big-bang model. It gives a false prediction about the size of the universe. For a number of years, this mathematical flaw in the big-bang theory was not taken seriously by many scientists.
> 
> 2. But even if a big-bang universe is of the proper size, the theory doesn't explain why different regions of the universe resemble each other. In a big-bang model, it could just as easily have happened that most of the galactical matter would wind up, say, in only one half of the sky, but we can observe that in our universe, the distribution of distant galaxies is uniform in every direction.
> 
> ...


So with LHC, I think we r "creating" a Universe like situation, with some "external energy". Don't u think so?


And here r the final words from Andrei Linde that seems to be the same of what I have been saying....


			
				Andrei Linde said:
			
		

> I don't entirely think of this possibility as a joke. Even if something seems counterintuitive, *you must be honest and follow the thought line and not be influenced by the common point of view. If you agree with everything everybody else thinks, you never move.*






			
				karnivore 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.


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!

And sure I will very well try to answer ur questions bt individualizations that u ask as I'll read more bt homeopathy. But as I said, I'm no homoapath and it wud be actually wise of u to "learn" the deeper concepts if u ask it on some homeopathic forum itself!



			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> That happens when someone googles with his favourite blinkers on.


Fixed for u!


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2008)

lolz...nice explanation @mediator

Infact some people don't want to be in unknown, let the scientists discover for them, provide a theoretical explanation and then if possible a practical explanation based on the set of premises already known and some new assumptions includes with consistency checking. 

@Karnivore
matrix wasn't from the movie (i have a better theory to explain our origin), matrix in general means that the whole thing we are is a mesh where we are working for some other upper life form. Just like the several tissues working inside our body for us.

Even energy can change from particle to energy state.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 29, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> 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:
			
		

> karnivore 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.

I meant, that "wateva fossils" that have been found, confirm to the predictions, which are based on accurate understanding of evolution, and to which the latest find, _Ventastega_, confirmed. Nobody claims that all fossil records are complete. Nobody claims that all missing links have been linked up. 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:
			
		

> ...then another shows up E.Coli as an evidence of evolution


And that E.Coli experiment is not evolution because..........

Oh silly me, because, those bacteria did not turn into a bunch of hippos.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> And finally if its not a ladder, then where did all of the creatures come from?


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.

PSSST......don't tell anyone. But I have a theory where those creatures came from. They were carried in a large douche bag, by a super giant storkosorous, all the way from a black hole in the 3rd Universe, spinning like a top on someone's commode. 


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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


  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.

What happened before Big Bang cannot be explained by science. Because, data regarding whatever existed before Big Bang, would be lost with Big Bang. And unlike pseudoscience, science needs raw data to work on. No data, no science and hence no answer. Linde correctly calls these questions to be philosophical, cause he knows better than you, that no science can explain those questions. You, on the other hand, still don't get it and expect science to answer those questions. 

First you seek philosophy in evolution, which is science all the way, and then look for science to answer philosophical questions. "Dumb" is a word, that does not even come close to describe your answers.

And no, LHC will not create a universe in lab, but will create the physics that existed immediately after the Bang. And if that physics is created in accordance to the prediction, it will be the second direct evidence of the Bang, after microwave radiation, and Linde et al, will have to put their *bleep* back into their pants. Frankly, I can't wait to see their faces.

And yes those final words of Mr Linde are same as a crackpot, who expects the whole of science to change its paradigm just to accommodate his figment of imagination, and who for some unknown reason, does not get his ideas peer-reviewed. (OOOOH, that dreaded word)


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> So don't whine already! It seems u didn't read the thought provoking article on Big Bang theory neways.


It may provoke thought in you.....it only provokes shite in us. Too bad.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> A few here say that "science can explain everything"


Ahem....misrepresenting my quotes again. Naughty, naughty.


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Science *DOES NOT* explain everything. *But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.*


This was THE explanation to an earlier comment of mine, which you have conveniently ripped out of context.


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> No science *does not explain everything*. But, *science can explain everything*.





			
				mediator 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!


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.

That colleague of mine will probably not see the turn of this year. But he has already lived about 4 years more than was previously expected - all thanks to modern medicine. So what did he gain in these 4 years. Well, for one thing, he got to see his kid, crack WBJEE and get admission to Jadavpur University to do his engineering. So, probably he will die with at least some peace. Again thanks to modern medicine.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> And sure *I will very well try to answer ur questions bt individualizations that u ask as I'll read more bt homeopathy*. But as I said, I'm no homoapath and it wud be actually wise of u to "learn" the deeper concepts if u ask it on some homeopathic forum itself!


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.

Firstly, on this forum, you are the only one who is debating stubbornly in favour of something, which, by your own admission, you are not aware of. So the questions were directed at you. Secondly, how in the hell do you know that I have not asked those questions to a homeopath, on any homeoPATHETIC forum. Thirdly, stop BSing, take a lesson in MOOOOOeopathy, come back and then continue debating. Till then don't spill your brains all over the thread.


			
				mediator 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".


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)


			
				T159 said:
			
		

> ..nice explanation @mediator


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:
			
		

> Infact some people don't want to be in unknown, *let the scientists discover for them,* *provide a theoretical explanation* and then if possible a practical explanation based on the set of premises already known and some new assumptions includes with consistency checking.


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:
			
		

> i have a better theory to explain our origin


So have I, about those pesky pink unicorns. They have now started to steal all our jackfuits. Grrrr......


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2008)

isn't the language limiting you, beside we have different interpretations.

i haven't discovered anything, or may be its there waiting for the time I assemble it together. 
*i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/11507823438155bx-1.gif

watch this video and see how deceiving it can be:
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvVfcyVCdNA


----------



## karnivore (Jun 29, 2008)

T159 said:
			
		

> isn't the language limiting you, beside we have different interpretations.


Agreed again. But if you leave one liners, then the prospect of different interpretations rises exponentially.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> i haven't discovered anything, or may be its there waiting for the time I assemble it together.


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:
			
		

> watch this video and see how deceiving it can be:
> *www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvVfcyVCdNA


End of the month, out of bandwidth, will watch later.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2008)

karnivore said:


> Agreed again. But if you leave one liners, then the prospect of different interpretations rises exponentially.


am too lazy to write essays 



karnivore 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.


I prefer my instincts. Try it, it never fails
Faith and evidence are a term too vague to believe, but it works within assumptions and majority approach
If you want to explore then start from yourself. 



karnivore said:


> End of the month, out of bandwidth, will watch later.


as u wish

oh and for the matter of unknown, we are seeking out other planets whereas we don't know what lies beneath Oceans


----------



## karnivore (Jun 29, 2008)

T159 said:


> am too lazy to write essays


HE HE HE.......i understand.



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> I prefer my instincts. Try it, it never fails
> Faith and evidence are a term too vague to believe, but it works within assumptions and majority approach
> If you want to explore then start from yourself.


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.

[naughty]
Hey....i am too old to explore myself
[/naughty]



			
				T159 said:
			
		

> oh and for the matter of unknown, we are seeking out other planets whereas we don't know what lies beneath Oceans


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.


----------



## ico (Jun 29, 2008)

This is my 1st post in the this thread.... So, don't get hard on me straight away....

Science can't give the answers of everything but the answer for those things whose answers Science can't give IS NOT GOD......[It will give one day, but at the moment, it hasn't found any answer]

Well, thousands of years ago, when humans were mercilessly killed by animals for food, Wasn't God there to protect us that time?? So, when humans got their brain developed and started to think like a **human**, (when could it be......around 10-12K years ago), they created this imaginary thing called GOD.....an answer for those things, which they couldn't answer.......


----------



## karnivore (Jun 29, 2008)

Well, according to this NY Times article, trying to correct misinformation may actually have an opposite effect and strengthen the lie itself.


			
				NY Times said:
			
		

> Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true...Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger.


So may be, I should really stop posting here. But the provocation is tooooo tempting.


----------



## mediator (Jun 30, 2008)

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"


We have seen that already in hypnotism thread where the funny materialist gives his opinon n says "case explored"! 



			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> I meant, that "wateva fossils" that have been found, confirm to the predictions, which are based on accurate understanding of evolution, and to which the latest find, Ventastega, confirmed. *Nobody claims that all fossil records are complete. Nobody claims that all missing links have been linked up.* 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.


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:
			
		

> And that E.Coli experiment is not evolution because..........
> 
> Oh silly me, because, those bacteria did not turn into a bunch of hippos.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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. 


I think my questions are cracking ur brain walls!
U think I'm playing an apologist for the creationists and then the materialists brigade seems to be getting different interpretations of evolution. Gets ur concepts straight. If u can't answer then simply say so! 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> PSSST......don't tell anyone. But I have a theory where those creatures came from. They were carried in a *large douche bag*, by a super giant storkosorous, all the way from a black hole in the 3rd Universe, spinning like a top on someone's *commode*.


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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> *What happened before Big Bang cannot be explained by science. Because, data regarding whatever existed before Big Bang, would be lost with Big Bang. And unlike pseudoscience, science needs raw data to work on. No data, no science and hence no answer. Linde correctly calls these questions to be philosophical, cause he knows better than you, that no science can explain those questions. You, on the other hand, still don't get it and expect science to answer those questions.*


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:
			
		

> *First you seek philosophy in evolution, which is science all the way, and then look for science to answer philosophical questions.* "Dumb" is a word, that does not even come close to describe your answers


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:
			
		

> And no, *LHC will not create a universe in lab*, but will create the physics that existed immediately after the Bang. And if that physics is created in accordance to the prediction, it will be the second direct evidence of the Bang, after microwave radiation, and Linde et al, will have to put their *bleep* back into their pants. Frankly, I can't wait to see their faces.





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> So with LHC, I think we r "creating" a *Universe like situation*, with some "external energy". Don't u think so?


Where did I say, it will create "Universe" in LAB? LOL, comprehension is something I asked u to improve on long time ago.
"Creating Universe" is not equal to creating "Universe *like* situation". Its "testability" that u whine n say "will happen" is simply "universe like situation"! Science has not been able to explain Universe  itself and so my use of the term "universe like situation"!! But ur use of terms like "creating Universe" is rather a verification that u don't even understand the theories and stuff bt Universe!!  Did the Big Bang model get an "external energy" to start on? We r only creatin a model, n so was the original model also "created"? But I wish to see it "self sustain". Sure we will learn a lot from it, but I guess I rather not talk on LHC that is cracking ur brains up.

And sure what remains to be seen can't be predicted. Why speculate already? Its not bt their faces as if they will change, as true scientists are not arrogant like u, but rather "flexible".




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And yes those final words of Mr Linde are same as a crackpot, who expects the whole of science to change its paradigm just to accommodate his figment of imagination, and who for some unknown reason,
> does not get his ideas peer-reviewed. (OOOOH, that dreaded word)
> 
> It may provoke thought in you.....it only provokes shite in us. Too bad.


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:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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?


Sorry to burst the bubble gain, but Take ur pick. Both r correct! 
It seems its a funny new tactic of urs to quote me "partially" thinking I might forget my own words. It seems u have taken an oath to seriously help me develop 8 pack abs. 




			
				karnivore 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.
> 
> Firstly, on this forum, you are the only one who is debating stubbornly in favour of something, which, by your own admission, you are not aware of. So the questions were directed at you. Secondly, how in the hell do you know that I have not asked those questions to a homeopath, on any homeoPATHETIC forum. Thirdly, stop BSing, take a lesson in MOOOOOeopathy, come back and then continue debating. Till then don't spill your brains all over the thread.


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.  

BTW, I don't even observe if I'm alone or have a gang in favour of my arguments. EVEn if all the digitians were here to start debating against me that would actually increase my experience and fun exponentially! And if u had actually asked for those questions on a homeopathic forum, then u wudn't have even babbled bt "random n double blind trials"! Can u quit lying....ever?






			
				karnivore 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)


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.  



AGAIN, as Anderi Linde said...


			
				Andrei said:
			
		

> I don't entirely think of this possibility as a joke. *Even if something seems counterintuitive, you must be honest and follow the thought line and not be influenced by the common point of view. If you agree with everything everybody else thinks, you never move.*





*PS : I think u can't really answer my questions, save make a few frustrated remarks and abuse theists. So it wud be wise to stop as stopping is better than witnessing remarks and abuses against other's beliefs. What say? If u wanna continue, then I have no objection!!*


----------



## karnivore (Jun 30, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> ..practising for great INDIAN LAUGHTER CHALLENGE publicly..


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.

BTW, thanks for your contribution.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> It seems u have taken an oath to seriously help me develop 8 pack abs.


That would be Rs 1000 for an ab. I will have it in cash, in Rs 100 bill. Thank You very much.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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.


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*.
----------------------------------------------------------
Edited To Add:



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> We have seen that already in hypnotism thread where the funny materialist gives his opinon n says "case explored"!


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:
			
		

> The dumbness arises when the person cannot understand the question in the first place. I have been stressing on "gradually" continuously…


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. 

  That, my dear friend, is dumb strawman, and one more confirmation that you are indeed the best specimen of _PREPOSTERUS LUDICRUS. _


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> karnivore 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:
			
		

> But it seems u r dodging the other arguments against evolutionary theory. Why?


  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:

  11 claims of creationists - BUSTED (Ouch……that’s gonna leave a mark)

  [Don’t you hate it when that happens. But here’s a business proposition for you. Quickly learn to scrape those eggs off your face. You can start a Fast Food Centre in no time]


			
				mediator 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?


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.

  Those bacteria did not just adapt, they evolved through genetic mutation. With such weak understanding of evolution, why do you even bother to open your loud mouth and constantly put your foot in your mouth. Or is it that you were born with your feet in your mouth. Lord “ruler of five spaces” knows best.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Sorry to burst the bubble gain, but Take ur pick. Both r correct!
> It seems its a funny new tactic of urs to quote me "partially" thinking I might forget my own words.


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.

  *clink* *clank* *bang*……….oh, those are sounds of me, rebuilding my bubble. Don’t bother. 


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> ..u wudn't have even babbled bt "random n double blind trials"..


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:
			
		

> I think my questions are cracking ur brain walls!


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:
			
		

> U think I'm playing an apologist for the creationists….


I don’t think so, I know so.


			
				mediator 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?


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:
			
		

> Where did I say, it will create "Universe" in LAB? LOL, comprehension is something I asked u to improve on long time ago.


No, you did not say that, and when I was replying I had Linde on mind. 


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> "Creating Universe" is not equal to creating "Universe *like* situation". Its "testability" that u whine n say "will happen" is simply "universe like situation"! Science has not been able to explain Universe itself and so my use of the term "universe like situation"!! But ur use of terms like "creating Universe" is rather a verification that u don't even understand the theories and stuff bt Universe!! Did the Big Bang model get an "external energy" to start on? We r only creatin a model, n so was the original model also "created"? But I wish to see it "self sustain". Sure we will learn a lot from it, but I guess I rather not talk on LHC that is cracking ur brains up.


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. 

Also, you did not reply about why Linde’s model will work, specially when his model is entirely based on CREATOR hypothesis. 

[Strange, that you find a simpler explanation of start of universe, perverse, but consider the CREATOR hypothesis to have food for thought. I understand that position though. You have so much committed yourself into quackery, that even though you can see the holes in these ridiculous theories, you can’t step back.] 

Question time (Don't be scared, its not about MOOOeopathy)


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …it seems it overflows in ur hollow upper shell filled with dark <waveta>…


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.

*PS: I have many more eggs in my basket.* “*What say? If u wanna continue, then I have no objection!!”*


----------



## mediator (Jun 30, 2008)

karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.”


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:
			
		

> 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:
> 
> 11 claims of creationists - BUSTED (Ouch……that’s gonna leave a mark)
> 
> [Don’t you hate it when that happens. But here’s a business proposition for you. Quickly learn to scrape those eggs off your face. You can start a Fast Food Centre in no time]


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:
			
		

> mediator 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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> *clink* *clank* *bang*……….oh, those are sounds of me, rebuilding my bubble. Don’t bother.


Like I said, can u quit whining? 




			
				karnivore 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”.]


I'm not interested in 'gotcha', but the correct way of testing homeopathy and thats obviously not "random and double blinded trials"!




			
				karnivore 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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! 
U need to understand that we need to know what happened at t=0, what was there and what was before!




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Also, you did not reply about why Linde’s model will work, specially when his model is entirely based on CREATOR hypothesis.


I think we r discussing BIG BANG at the moment or u forgot?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> [Strange, that you find a simpler explanation of start of universe, perverse, but consider the CREATOR hypothesis to have food for thought. I understand that position though. You have so much committed yourself into quackery, that even though you can see the holes in these ridiculous theories, you can’t step back.]


Like I said, u can whine as much as u want!



			
				karnivore 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.


It seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air! 




BTW, u still didn't answer many questions that I asked. Please don't make me recompile. Also where did we get life into lifeless particles? 
So reboot and restart that service of "keyboard commando"! So sure lets continue.....


----------



## legolas (Jun 30, 2008)

mediator said:


> It seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air!


You sure are something  Your interpretations about things are the world's interpretations  definition of hollow . Ok. noted.

I think the only difference between those scientists or how you prefer to call as materialists and you whiners is that, when we claim a theory, we label it "theory" and not fact. Coz, to simply put it.. its just a theory. 
But, the amount of faith you build from a dumb translation about vedas having interpreted about nuclear weapons and stuffs and even arguing about it is what woes. 
In science, until it is proved, its just a theory and we let the world know it that way. Science is not ashamed to tell it has not found evidence (for example even Homeopathists dont know why it works or how the hell it works  ). 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!  
But you have already chosen to believe whatever is said without even documentation and viable proofs where people can tell anything without other people documenting it or wanting necessary proofs and criterias, testings, experimental procedures and what not...
And then you have your own definitions of things! 
I guess now I am getting my definition of "Spiritual atheist" 
Ignorance is bliss, Enjoy it.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 30, 2008)

legolas said:


> Ignorance is bliss, Enjoy it.


Ignorance is bliss or piss ? (Baaah........i keep forgetting)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to Add:


> 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!
> U need to understand that we need to know what happened at t=0, what was there and what was before!


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.


> Two beams of subatomic particles called 'hadrons' – either protons or lead ions – will travel in opposite directions inside the circular accelerator, gaining energy with every lap. *Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang,* by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy


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.

Occam's Razor will eliminate this huge PHILOSOPHICAL problem by means of Big Bang. 

Yes we may want to know what existed at T=0, and what happened right at that moment. But what existed at T<0, is absolutely irrelevant for science. If there is no data, then there is no way that this non-existent data effects our universe. (Yes there are physicists who would disagree on the last point). Hence there is no need for science to explain what happened at T<0. But perhaps, for the sake of knowing we may want to know. But then again, science can't explain something that is non-existent. Here in PHILOSOPHY kicks in, and the possibilities are infinite.


----------



## karmanya (Jun 30, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> It seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air


I think the word you're looking for is empty. Not hollow. for example, all human heads are *hollow*; mediator's head is _empty_


----------



## karnivore (Jun 30, 2008)

Sorry for answering in parts:


> 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".


Yes, the tetrapods show the fossils of body with limbs that evolved gradually, from fins to limbs.
Here is the gradual evolutionary tree (partial):
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/tiktaalik_phylo.jpg
The image is not updated and shall include _Ventastega_, between _Tiktaalik _and _Acanthostega_. _Ventastega_ is - rather _was_ - the missing link that was predicted and recently found. However you can use your imagination to include _Ventastega_:

Ventastega:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/ventastega-1.jpg

Here is the gradual evolution of fins to limbs:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/tiktaalik_limb.jpg
Again not updated and shall include _Ventastega_

Here is the gradual evolution of skulls:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/ventastega_skull_comp.jpg

I know that this is not enough. Now you will ask for centimeter by centimeter "gradual" evolution. 

FYI, this is called researching and backing up one's position. Not like yours, where you sit on your numb *bleep* and float theories into air without any support or evidence.

NOTE: All the images are sourced from P.Z. Meyer's blog from HERE and HERE. If anybody posts any objections to the images, I will gleefully remove them.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 1, 2008)

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.........


----------



## skippednote (Jul 1, 2008)

with don't need to write this much cause wat was there when there was nothing.
All the science is derived form our religious books.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 1, 2008)

How do you know there was nothing..........who told u so...read from ur RELIGIOUS books....heard from ur granny.........???
Religious books and God is not same. The books are written about our ancient civilization......when we were prosperous and advanced than any other civilization.......Priests or whoever were documenting those details didn't want normal people to get to know all the whys and hows..............
U r only superior until n unless u know something more than the people u want to rule. Who doesn't love power, control........they too.....and they created those concepts and hypothesis........and people rather finding truth are blindly following wat was told to them........
Yeah science need imagination and we are thankful to the religious books to give us enough imagination to make things in real.......


----------



## karnivore (Jul 1, 2008)

@rhitwick,

WOW......the fact that you managed to read 3 pages of our lengthy bitter nothings, deserves felicitations.

And yes, I do agree that this thread has degenerated into we believe v/s they believe and is no longer about science v/s god. This bickering and brooding are too shrill to turn any sane person away from this thread. But this is probably, natural if you are discussing such controversial, and some make-belief, ideas.

Coming to your point, I completely agree with you. If we put doG at the end of every regression, there won't be much for us to look for, in the first place. The cartoon below explains it.

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/creationism.gif

Take doG away and put any theory that has a doG-like-vagueness, and you have got yourself a perfect woo.

And this cartoon, explains how this doG takes away the credit of human toil

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/faithhealing.jpg


----------



## legolas (Jul 1, 2008)

^^ ha ha... the doctor one is hilarious!


----------



## k6153r (Jul 1, 2008)

I'm quiet happy, atleast there are more theists than atheists. (As of 1.7.2008)


----------



## karnivore (Jul 1, 2008)

Exactly, 150 yrs from today, on 1st July, 1858, the Theory of Evolution was first announced to the world. It was on this day, 150 years ago, that the papers of Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace (probably you have not heard of him as the joint-proposer of the Theory of Evolution), were read at Linnean Society of London, and world never remained the same, ever since. 

Read more...


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2008)

I rememner wallace  
guess still biology is popular in me.


----------



## yogeshm.007 (Jul 3, 2008)

Science Is God


----------



## mediator (Jul 12, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> I think the only difference between those scientists or how you prefer to call as materialists and you whiners is that, *when we claim a theory, we label it "theory" and not fact. Coz, to simply put it.. its just a theory.*
> *But, the amount of faith you build from a dumb translation about vedas having interpreted about nuclear weapons and stuffs and even arguing about it is what woes.*
> In science, until it is proved, its just a theory and we let the world know it that way. Science is not ashamed to tell it has not found evidence (*for example even Homeopathists dont know why it works or how the hell it works*  ). 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!
> But you have already chosen to believe whatever is said without even documentation and viable proofs where people can tell anything without other people documenting it or wanting necessary proofs and criterias, testings, experimental procedures and what not...
> And then you have your own definitions of things!


@Legolas why don't u just read the posts "carefully" n "slowly" instead of showing time n time again bt ur childish trolls. 

The links I presented simply state that nuclear war "might" have happened. If Vedas speak of nuclear material then only adds to that probability that nuclear war "was possible". Again, nobody is saying that it is a fact and that it did happen. U must understand & stick it in ur mind that Vedas itself means "Knowledge". I have never even debated on "Vedas Vs modern science" as it wud be utterly stupid. 

Yes, science is not ashamed but if u have even an iota of hint of what has already been discussed with u and ur brigade, then u wud have known that its not as if "science that is ashamed" but "the scientists" who are ignoring too many things at present. Homeopaths also call "homeopathy" as a science. Its ur wish to laugh like an arrogant and adamant teenager and start over again or read what has been debated. Homeopaths themselves tell that they don't know how it works. Even I stated it countless no. of times. Studies even tell that it can be used on babies n plants. How Exactly? U may ask the deeper concepts in homeopathy forums itself if u wish to learn genuinely! But its effect and use is rising as we talk. The "memory of water" in this regard is again just a theory. But a few like to joke around saying "other's pee's taste is there" n using similar statements treating that "theory" as a fact again. Now go back in that spiritual discussion where another member of ur brigade stated that we had "a common sea ancestor" as if it were a fact, which is again nothing but a theory!

So before coming next time for one n only purpose of urs i.e troll, u must read, read n read!  









			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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! 
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"!!







			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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?







			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> I think the word you're looking for is empty. Not hollow. for example, all human heads are hollow; mediator's head is empty


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! 


			
				google_meanings said:
			
		

> not solid; having a space or gap or cavity; "a hollow wall"; "a hollow tree"; "hollow cheeks";


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!


----------



## legolas (Jul 12, 2008)

mediator said:


> @Legolas why don't u just read the posts "carefully" n "slowly" instead of showing time n time again bt ur childish trolls.


AUTO SPEECH -> "Mediator talk detected... Not giving a d*mn and skipping it"




mediator said:


> *Homeopaths also call "homeopathy" as a science.* Its ur wish to laugh like an arrogant and adamant teenager and start over again or read what has been debated. *Homeopaths themselves tell that they don't know how it works.* *Even I stated it countless no. of times.* Studies even tell that it can be used on babies n plants. How Exactly? U may ask the deeper concepts in homeopathy forums itself if u wish to learn genuinely! But its effect and use is rising as we talk. The "memory of water" in this regard is again just a theory. But a few like to joke around saying "other's pee's taste is there" n using similar statements treating that "theory" as a fact again. Now go back in that spiritual discussion where another member of ur brigade stated that we had "a common sea ancestor" as if it were a fact, which is again nothing but a theory!



Ok... regarding the first and second bold line... just because I claim my theory to be right, *it does not mean its SCIENCE.* If that were the case, there is no need of a *scientific panel* where VIABALE proofs are required before you go around poking needles and drugs on to other people with nothing but *sheer ignorance* and *faith* over its history. This is *no religion*. Your definition of "not knowing how it works but it works" seems to only point it towards RELIGION!! I do not encourage even a single life being hurt with some people's claims of the medicine working when they don't have a clue of how it works and provide crappy philosophical concepts like *memory of water*. If so, let them be used as experimental drugs and people be advised of its own risks and then let it be allowed to be taken. By all acceptable means, *it is NO SCIENCE*. I repeat it a gazillion times if I have to.
I did not know you have stated "countless number of times". Probably you should go back and read your posts yourself.



mediator said:


> So before coming next time for one n only purpose of urs i.e troll, u must read, read n read!


You know! 

For once, stop reading what you have already read "countless" times and brainwashed your peanut-sized brain with so much irrelevant facts that you have become so CLOSE-MINDED and start reading the articles we claim too! I am more tired in convincing you to have read "your articles and blogs" rather than reading them now-a-days..
uff!


----------



## karnivore (Jul 12, 2008)

mediator 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!
> 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!
> ...


*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image02-1.gif
For someone who does not know the difference between science and philosophy.....science and pseudoscience.....

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/damnpy2.gif

shoooo shoooo shooo
[Don't take it in any other way. I am shooing away these pesky pink unicorns]
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image06-1.gif


----------



## mediator (Jul 12, 2008)

legolas said:
			
		

> Your definition of "not knowing how it works but it works" seems to only point it towards RELIGION!!


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!!  




			
				legolas said:
			
		

> I do not encourage even a single life being hurt with some people's claims of the medicine working when they don't have a clue of how it works and provide crappy philosophical concepts like memory of water. If so, let them be used as experimental drugs and people be advised of its own risks and then let it be allowed to be taken. By all acceptable means, it is NO SCIENCE


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!



			
				legolas said:
			
		

> For once, stop reading what you have already read "countless" times and brainwashed your peanut-sized brain with so much irrelevant facts that you have become so CLOSE-MINDED and start reading the articles we claim too! I am more tired in convincing you to have read "your articles and blogs" rather than reading them now-a-days..
> uff!


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!!


----------



## karnivore (Jul 12, 2008)

Hypothesis : *Pink Unicorns graze in my backyard.
*
Proof        : *Science can't prove everything.*

Experiment : *I saw them, my whole family saw them, my entire neighborhood saw them.*

Result       : *Hypothesis proved.*

I challenge everybody to prove my hypothesis wrong.


----------



## mediator (Jul 12, 2008)

Materials needed : A hollow upper shell filled with nuthing but <dark wateva>

and u have the above hypothesis, proof, experiment and result that a mentally "challenged" mind can think of and then challenges everybody to prove his joke wrong! The keyboard commando service needs a repair it seems for which it needs to shutdown!

Funny instead of replying to the relevant questions u start to show ur "natural talent" again!


----------



## karnivore (Jul 12, 2008)

mediator said:


> and u have the above hypothesis, proof, experiment and result that a mentally "challenged" mind can think of and then challenges everybody to prove his joke wrong! The keyboard commando service needs a repair it seems for which it needs to shutdown!


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.

Time starts now : 00:00:00

Yeah, I did not mention the "materials needed". But since you carry it along with you, all the time, I thought it won't be necessary to mention. Thanks for remembering, though.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> But u can become a fine entertainer!


Nooo........we can't possibly beat you. You have raised the bar so high.....

---------------------------------
Tick Tock Tick Tock
3 Days 12:10:06
May be I should stop the clock now. Pity, mediator chose not to provide any evidence.


----------



## pushpal (Aug 1, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



Kiran_tech_mania said:


> This is a big debatable and sensitive issue.
> Science is not yet able to explain the formation of Universe. Big Bang theory which most trust now-a-days doesn't explain the formation of Universe completely. Till mankind probes into these deeply, we can't ignore the existence of supernatural powers. Atleast for now.



universe->big bang->collision of gases->formation of gases->a big furnace

can anyone tell me who is handling this furnace???

'GOD' exists.

science is a way to discover the creativeness of 'GOD'


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 1, 2008)

^ abe...........acha khasa thanda ho raha tha ye thread..................kyoun ungli kar raha hai????

Even our gr8 mighty fighters(karnivore and mediator) have dropped their swords


----------



## pushpal (Aug 16, 2008)

chal bhai.... nahi karta aur ungli...tera dard mere se aur dekha nahi jata....


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



Sykora said:


> @cvvikram : The Curiosity of Man
> 
> Agreed, science is not yet capable of explaining everything. But I think the keyword is "yet". I believe that it is only a matter of time before science is capable of giving reasons for what is not known today.



Dude...No postdated cheques have place dude....God is GOD...and this science is just a material science...and is a fractional energy of GOD..Do you know what science has done better.. It doesn't know the basic facts like who you are .. what happens at death.. what is the difference between death body and a living body..etc....and for the concept universe there is a damn imagination called theory of evolution..  monkeys and stuff... Thats all trash and has been proved recently too that its just a mundane timepass imagination(made quite intelligently to earn fame).  All the time science keeps updating and its never ending...!!! God Can be known through science and that is spiritual science.... What material science can teach u is explained by einstien himself that "after I these research I just have to accept that there is GOD who has created all this creation "..  Any sane man in his senses would understand that there is some creator behind any creation and it just doesn't come by chance... Do you think This thinkdigit forum has come by chance???? No// /There was some webdesigner developers testers etc involved who made this and there is one owner... And there starts the science of GOD....! Man... Science Just can't even understand the basis of living and is trying to cater to pamper humans covering up their suffering stress pain etc...! Thats all science is all about... Read some philosophical topics related to science an you will get to knwo what science is really doing to humanity...!



rhitwick said:


> 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.
> ...


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>>>>!!!



mediator said:


> 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!!
> 
> ...




Yes... I definetely agree with him and that's one of the point I wanna make.. Science is just hanging with new and new theories coming up... Your Damn mind may say that yes this is logical and correct and in 1 yr or so a new theory comes up and says a different thing for the same concept and you mind says that this is also logical ... You are doomed... Your mundane mind doesnot have the capacity to judge things based just on logic ( logic is neverthless needed but not that alone!!!).... 

One best point from mediator is the faith is the very part of human life... You have to keep faith somewhere or the other in you life...  If you try to manipulate everything with logic .. You will be dumped off...!!! Believe me....See for yourself..!

And I donno what legolas is talking about..>!!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 9, 2008)

^How old r u?
Which class r u studying right now?
What is ur favorite subject?


----------



## karnivore (Sep 10, 2008)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



keshavasiva said:


> And I donno what legolas is talking about..>!!


....for that u would need to grow a little something called brain.


----------



## mediator (Sep 10, 2008)

^^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....


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 10, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> ^How old r u?
> Which class r u studying right now?
> What is ur favorite subject?



Dude ... I really now understand what science has done to you... Instead of taking a point regarding science and accepting or rejecting or debating... jus .. putting diamond like time in holy ****!!!



karnivore said:


> ....for that u would need to grow a little something called brain.



Oh Yeah.... great finding of a hypothesiser.. aren't you!! 
Buddy.. Firing some oneliners r not gonna work.. Be substancial in your posts..
You must be out of your BRAIN to say that cuz any sane man would say that what legolas was saying was a complete mess and i m referring here to the post where is says some damn countless things... !!
You btr try to look into the main matter than sideways...


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 10, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Dude ... I really now understand what science has done to you... Instead of taking a point regarding science and accepting or rejecting or debating... jus .. putting diamond like time in holy ****!!!



I asked ur details to save more 





> diamond like time


 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.

Open ur eyes and Open ur mind..............don't listen to me, not even anyone.......
Ask questions...........as many as u can............"don't be santust".............

I want to know more and science at least tries to quench my thirst.............


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 10, 2008)

> legolas
> I do not encourage even a single life being hurt with some people's claims of the medicine working when they don't have a clue of how it works and provide crappy philosophical concepts like memory of water. If so, let them be used as experimental drugs and people be advised of its own risks and then let it be allowed to be taken. By all acceptable means, it is NO SCIENCE



Dude! Please first know what's hemeopathy.
The founder himself was an Allopathy doc infact a famous and great scholar of that time.
He got puzzled when patients were coming again and again even after the treatment reporting a similar problem. He being a genuine doc, and hence such puzzle(others would just mind to see whther they are getting big bucks), came across a principle that whenever a person suffering from a disease has specific symptoms and when a medicine which can produce similar symptoms artificially can cure that person. This method cures the root cause and not the effects produced by the cause(Allopathy way..this may show immediate results but won't last longer cuz the root cuz is still active). 

For example, when you have acidity .. it is because of some dynamic invasion on your body(virus) or might be some other reason. What  allopathy does is, it gives eno things so that acid gets neutralised... is'nt it.. But the production of acid is still going on. You have to keep on taking the tablets. but in homeopathy you first identify the symtoms then based on that you understand that along with acidity there is a mild headache and it comes only in the evening, and some or the other medicine would produce similar symptoms(hanmen(founder) has researched as recorded all the medicines their symptoms and its all most enough for humans) . So we just use the medicine so that the root cause is destroyed.... Thats what is called science... in true sense... What ever you see externally is not real always. you should know the root cause of the things happening and scrutinizingly study the symptoms.. 
If you are genuinely willing to understand real homeopathy(understanding that you know very little what it really is) i recommend you to read *www.lifemedical.us/flu/Organon%205th%20&%206th.pdf (ORganon of medicine)
Just try to read 1 or 2 pages i really recommend you... its just like a real novel... perfect book...Please do understand that i just want you to know what it is and in no sense to criticize or any act of that sort... no offence.. .but do read that book


----------



## Faun (Sep 10, 2008)

^^one thing that is bad about artificial meds are they only assuage the pain and come with lots of side effects.


----------



## karnivore (Sep 10, 2008)

mediator said:


> ^^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!
> ...


 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.

If u don't like our answers, then the problem lies with u. Then again, a popular saying goes something like this.
"A fool may ask more questions in an hour than 7 wise men can answer in 7 years"


keshavasiva said:


> Oh Yeah.... great finding of a hypothesiser.. aren't you!!
> Buddy.. Firing some oneliners r not gonna work.. Be substancial in your posts..
> You must be out of your BRAIN to say that cuz any sane man would say that what legolas was saying was a complete mess and i m referring here to the post where is says some damn countless things... !!
> You btr try to look into the main matter than sideways...


[YAWN]Scroll back and read, if u want to [/YAWN]



keshavasiva said:


> Dude! Please first know what's hemeopathy.
> The founder himself was an Allopathy doc infact a famous and great scholar of that time.
> He got puzzled when patients were coming again and again even after the treatment reporting a similar problem. He being a genuine doc, and hence such puzzle(others would just mind to see whther they are getting big bucks), came across a principle that whenever a person suffering from a disease has specific symptoms and when a medicine which can produce similar symptoms artificially can cure that person. This method cures the root cause and not the effects produced by the cause(Allopathy way..this may show immediate results but won't last longer cuz the root cuz is still active).
> 
> ...


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).


----------



## mediator (Sep 10, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.*


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! 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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).


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).


----------



## Psychosocial (Sep 10, 2008)

I beleive in Science and not in Gawd......but I do beleive in 666 \m/


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

mediator said:


> 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!
> 
> ...


AHA....lets see now. A "detailed explanation of flawed logic". Where, post no ? My pink unicorns have turned red, waiting for ur explanations.

Everytime u open ur piehole about evolution, I just find myself a in frenzy of laughs, that almost choke me to death. Just too much....

And now it seems u have reached the last stages of alzheimer. Post#628, @karmanya, Post#626, Post#616 by yours truly, many posts by @srivirus, @legolas. Visit your nearest MOOOOeopathETIC doctor.

As with u finding me on a professional homeopathy forum. Why should u care ? I am not asking u to go to JREF, am I, or for that matter to BAUT, or any other skeptic forums. I get the feeling that u have so run out of answers - u never had them in the first place - that u need "professional" help. Pity. Pity.

Since u asked, here we go again, for the bazillionth time
Dark Matter, Dark Matter, Dark Matter
Did I mention LHC

And please...don't harvest so many butterflies inside your skull. U r hurting humanity.


----------



## mediator (Sep 11, 2008)

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.


Why do u want others to do ur homework everytime?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Everytime u open ur piehole about evolution, I just find myself a in frenzy of laughs, that almost choke me to death. Just too much....


Materialists seems to be laughing often than answering genuinely.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> As with u finding me on a professional homeopathy forum. *Why should u care ?* I am not asking u to go to JREF, am I, or for that matter to BAUT, or any other skeptic forums. I get the feeling that u have so run out of answers - u never had them in the first place - that u need "professional" help. Pity. Pity.


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:
			
		

> Since u asked, here we go again.
> Dark Matter, Dark Matter, Dark Matter
> Did I mention LHC
> 
> And please...don't harvest so many butterflies inside your skull. U r hurting humanity.


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!


----------



## karmanya (Sep 11, 2008)

> 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!


The unquestionable popes of modern science?
Dude, Science is all about questioning what others say. Science probes at everything around us. Even Einstein has been proved wrong.


> 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!


Yes Dark matter is currently just a theory. But a theory based on sound physical data.
Religion is _defined_ as blind faith in what can not be proved.
So if all you want to talk about is hard fact. Prove to me that God exists.


----------



## Faun (Sep 11, 2008)

^^
prove me that God exists is like prove me that Devil exists !

I know that some pathetic *******s have ruined the very image of religion. 

Science is just another tool to know things, science is not a new concept its been there in vedas. 

Then prove me people were that stupid at that times so that they were able to write something as spectacular as vedas ?

If you look at the symmetry, we are in a cycle of evolution and destruction. Before us there have been countless evolution cycles and the corresponding destruction too. To begin with new. Now that sounds stupid, isn't it, Just because science can't prove it.


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

mediator said:


> Why do u want others to do ur homework everytime?
> 
> Materialists seems to be laughing often than answering genuinely.
> 
> ...


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 ? 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.

Alas, one more failed attempt to elevate hocus pocus to the realm of science, with frustrated followers around.


T159 said:


> ^^
> prove me that God exists is like prove me that Devil exists !


Makes no sense.



T159 said:


> I know that some pathetic *******s have ruined the very image of religion.


Can't expect anything better from something which is based entirely on faith.



T159 said:


> Science is just another tool to know things, science is not a new concept its been there in vedas.
> 
> 
> Then prove me people were that stupid at that times so that they were able to write something as spectacular as vedas ?


Aha...that vedas gambit. 



T159 said:


> If you look at the symmetry, we are in a cycle of evolution and destruction. Before us there have been countless evolution cycles and the corresponding destruction too. To begin with new. Now that sounds stupid, isn't it, Just because science can't prove it.


No its sounds stupid, because it IS stupid.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

> 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).



Then you should be really in diapers right now since you don't even understand what homeopathy is. Dude... you must be licking my *** if u hope that u read that book long back cuz u ain't got brians to understand whats disease is all about and just wondering bout ur soul mates bacterial ... fu**.. y do u need 'em foa? You don't keep ur damn hand inside and say... shooo  bacteria shoo to drive out the disease.. or just pour in some acid to kill 'em off...>!! What the hell do you mean by bacteria??? Don't go the Allopathy way.. go the generic way.. You have a disease caused by some living agent ... need not be bacteria!ok ! it can be anything which science hasn't discovered yet (its is always 'yet'). you just get to know the situation u r in and find the right medicine. There is no need to knwo bacteria. Thats the speciality...I am talking about pure disease cure thingy and not any bacteria uses its types and some bateriology.! It may be required in other fields or places but no atleast in disease curing. 
Now will you stop pi**ing in ur stinky... diapers???



karnivore said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




No No u sound MORON cuz  u  r MORON.
What do you about vedas and its spectacular science which so called modern age science is struggling to prove... People have lived more better and civilized life well before we claim to be living now(which isn't). Read some stuff b4 stumblin!
Religion is not faith.... 
It is an ettiquette, way of life.
Religion without science is a blind faith
Science without religion is a pure mental speculation... (which our modern scientists are doing!!!)
How the hell can u say something btr about science when it sucks big time with defeats of one scientist from another all the time and u don't know whether the present theory is for real as there may be another in the pipeline waiting just for time to take over and spoil your so called logical conclusion of your imperfect senses which always think that they are perfect.



karmanya said:


> The unquestionable popes of modern science?
> Dude, Science is all about questioning what others say. Science probes at everything around us. Even Einstein has been proved wrong.
> 
> Yes Dark matter is currently just a theory. But a theory based on sound physical data.
> ...



Oh Karanmaya.. you know that electrons exist only by the characteristics and the effects it produces.
Same way you can understand that God exists only if are willing to try to understand and not just arguing sitting on you point.
God exists. Go through the authorised scriptures and if you don't believe them then like einstien go do some research and at the end you will accept there exists god and will start trying to explore about Him. (I didn't mean that einstien didn't believe ..he used to read scriptures.)
First make your efforts or else you are wasting your time here. Dude, a person requires so much of time in understanding a stupid IIT problem .. then y not to understand GOd the supreme person??? The is a creation and there is a creator.. there is nothing like chance...  Do you think that the computer screen you are lookin at right now has come by chance?? NO... Think



karnivore said:


> 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.



That LHC is a holy ****... just another waste of money.! May be wasting money in a fashionable scientific fuc*** way. 
And listen, science can only strive to become perfect and can never become.. Talk the facts dude...there is no history of perfection in science regarding the worldy origins or anything thing related... Y don't you talk about difference between a dead and live person.. Do you think there is not driving force which science cannot understand with material means and measurements cuz u can't use telescope to hit a cricket ball... everything require the instruments they need. 
What the fu** is science trying to find the basic concepts of human life?? life did I say... yes l.... life.!!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 11, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Then you should be really in diapers right now since you don't even understand what homeopathy is. Dude... you must be licking my *** if u hope that u read that book long back cuz u ain't got brians to understand whats disease is all about and just wondering bout ur soul mates bacterial ... fu**.. y do u need 'em foa? You don't keep ur damn hand inside and say... shooo  bacteria shoo to drive out the disease.. or just pour in some acid to kill 'em off...>!! What the hell do you mean by bacteria??? Don't go the Allopathy way.. go the generic way.. You have a disease caused by some living agent ... need not be bacteria!ok ! it can be anything which science hasn't discovered yet (its is always 'yet'). you just get to know the situation u r in and find the right medicine. There is no need to knwo bacteria. Thats the speciality...I am talking about pure disease cure thingy and not any bacteria uses its types and some bateriology.! It may be required in other fields or places but no atleast in disease curing.
> Now will you stop pi**ing in ur stinky... diapers???


First .............mind ur language.............has anyone abused u here.......not even the person whom u r replyin............

next........reading ur reply..............it always seems u r not mature enough to understand the facts of life..........now u r disagreeing of the existence of bacteria...........any "educated " theists, believe or whoever is mature and literate enough to understand FACTS proved by a lot of research can not deny d existence of bacteria.........
I think to u any good deed is a blessing of God and any bad deed or problem is curse of God...........
wat r doing..............get up from that chair.........go out.........open your mind...........open ur eyes...........


----------



## mediator (Sep 11, 2008)

^^


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> ......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


@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.  


@karmanya: I asked that time when u left, and I ask again. Please tell why modern medicine is ignoring too many things? Roll back n read. Refreshing ur memory would a good warm up!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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 don't u save ur rants and really improve upon ur comprehension?


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> So did the situation created *immediately after Big Bang* have a *foreign hand* like humans doing now with LHC with some "*external energy*"??



Amazing, that I'm asking if the situation created 'afterwards' have a "foreign hand and energy" like the modelled one on earth (Yes or No?) and here u r fulfilling the legend of a true funny materialist explaining what LHC is & what its doing instead! So save ur rants, u have already embarrased urself a lot.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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


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:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> So u still can't prove if Pink Unicorns exist or not ?


1. Reproducable?
2. Observable worldwide?
3. Is the data consistent?

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!


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

Ohmmm... I beg pardon for that... forgive..!

But I never denied the existence of bacteria!! 
You are the educated fool not understand what I am talking abotu and behaving like a kid and thinking others too to be kids!! hmmm.... !


----------



## Faun (Sep 11, 2008)

@karni
you sound nothing more than science evangelist and some kind of fanatic. Sorry but now am sure.

Faith is something without which no one can survive. Its not something you relate to God only.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> I asked ur details to save more  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.
> 
> Open ur eyes and Open ur mind..............don't listen to me, not even anyone.......
> Ask questions...........as many as u can............"don't be santust".............
> ...




Oh.. dude.. i missed this one of urs!!

So here we go! again.. is it... no... 
Just one sentence..... Science sucks big time. It just quenches your thirst which is ever coming as thats a temporary belief that science gives you....!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 11, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Science sucks big time. It just quenches your thirst which is ever coming as thats a temporary belief that science gives you....!


Now what should I tell u................u've provided enough evidence to call u a n00b....
thats why in each reply to u I asked ur age...........
shame on me I'm still arguing wid u...........


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Then you should be really in diapers right now since you don't even understand what homeopathy is. Dude... you must be licking my *** if u hope that u read that book long back cuz u ain't got brians to understand whats disease is all about and just wondering bout ur soul mates bacterial ... fu**.. y do u need 'em foa? You don't keep ur damn hand inside and say... shooo  bacteria shoo to drive out the disease.. or just pour in some acid to kill 'em off...>!! What the hell do you mean by bacteria??? Don't go the Allopathy way.. go the generic way.. You have a disease caused by some living agent ... need not be bacteria!ok ! it can be anything which science hasn't discovered yet (its is always 'yet'). you just get to know the situation u r in and find the right medicine. There is no need to knwo bacteria. Thats the speciality...I am talking about pure disease cure thingy and not any bacteria uses its types and some bateriology.! It may be required in other fields or places but no atleast in disease curing.
> Now will you stop pi**ing in ur stinky... diapers???


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.



keshavasiva said:


> No No u sound MORON cuz  u  r MORON.
> What do you about vedas and its spectacular science which so called modern age science is struggling to prove... People have lived more better and civilized life well before we claim to be living now(which isn't). Read some stuff b4 stumblin!
> Religion is not faith....
> It is an ettiquette, way of life.
> ...


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 ?



keshavasiva said:


> Oh Karanmaya.. you know that electrons exist only by the characteristics and the effects it produces.
> Same way you can understand that God exists only if are willing to try to understand and not just arguing sitting on you point.
> God exists. Go through the authorised scriptures and if you don't believe them then like einstien go do some research and at the end you will accept there exists god and will start trying to explore about Him. (I didn't mean that einstien didn't believe ..he used to read scriptures.)
> First make your efforts or else you are wasting your time here. Dude, a person requires so much of time in understanding a stupid IIT problem .. then y not to understand GOd the supreme person??? The is a creation and there is a creator.. there is nothing like chance...  Do you think that the computer screen you are lookin at right now has come by chance?? NO... Think


Hmmm....except that u can SEE electron under a microscope. I have one question to doG. Do you fart, oh doG ?



keshavasiva said:


> That LHC is a holy ****... just another waste of money.! May be wasting money in a fashionable scientific fuc*** way.
> And listen, science can only strive to become perfect and can never become.. Talk the facts dude...there is no history of perfection in science regarding the worldy origins or anything thing related... Y don't you talk about difference between a dead and live person.. Do you think there is not driving force which science cannot understand with material means and measurements cuz u can't use telescope to hit a cricket ball... everything require the instruments they need.
> What the fu** is science trying to find the basic concepts of human life?? life did I say... yes l.... life.!!


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....



mediator said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> Now what should I tell u................u've provided enough evidence to call u a n00b....
> thats why in each reply to u I asked ur age...........
> shame on me I'm still arguing wid u...........



Yes really... I agree... Shame on you ..
Its bcoz u don't realize the concepts and instead try to sidetrack things by saying .... 
before saying somthing .. see to yourself and only a noobie can may be feel others to be noobie!!!
Yes .. get the hell out  .. don't argue with me.. .dare u.. will ya... hah!



karnivore said:


> 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 ?
> ...



I did a mistake.. and that . is to beg pardon before.. hmmm... 
doggie ji.. please don't bark your way out and no ones gonna peee rather pee at you!

BODY...!!! Its a dynamic cause and it does recognize that disease is casued by a dynamic cause.... and doesn't care whether its a bacteria...Now it got fed  up wid u telling this fu**8 no of times... u understand or k** ma ***.

Internet is technology which is nothing but manipulation of an existing thing.
Here we are talking about science concerned to creation medicine etc.. which deals with humans life and creation itself...!!  
I feel like holding your damn muscle rite at the tip of the nail of your little finger on your leg which will slip off.. and thats wat i call brain!! hmmm..... 
take few minutes to relate what this topic is and wtf you are TALKING?

Oh ya.. I farta s I am a human that too at your little opening below you nose ... heeee.

Clearly one can understand that you are intelligently(socalled) putting words and skipping the qs that prove ur science a crap...!!
Do u fart... internet..scinec....now you pik my doggie's tail and kiss ***

>
>
One mention,,,  DUMBOS.. plz be to the topic.. and don't try to be smart by smellin your fart thats wat i say for diverting from the topic and not understanding what science related to the science in this topic!!!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 11, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Yes really... I agree... Shame on you ..
> Its bcoz u don't realize the concepts and instead try to sidetrack things by saying ....
> before saying somthing .. see to yourself and only a noobie can may be feel others to be noobie!!!
> Yes .. get the hell out  .. don't argue with me.. .dare u.. will ya... hah!
> ...



Buddy u r warned............u r using too much abusive language............
another one and u r REPORTED...................mind ur toungue........


----------



## mediator (Sep 11, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.

And we shud preach evolution, something which concludes from partial discovery of fossils without explaining why the organism got one eye rather than 2 (ah it needed to see), when was it exactly that limbs were formed (ah, it needed to move), why didn't humans fly (after all its their centuries old wish), why did we witness small animals after big dinos (they say dino extinction story is a mystery)??
I understand rationality is something that is indeed lost on many who find it rather easy to believe blindly what a material scientist says. Just say its what scientists say and YAY, we got the stamp and subject approved. It simply gets funnier when someone plays an apologist for a theory n then tells theories shud be taught in skool!!

Yes u have hit the target. Now laugh & bark ur fave, the yabadabadooo song! 

Since u have shown that u r quite unapt to answer, with materialist approach, the questions that I asked, may I know ur views bt strings, quantum physics and that of parallel universes?? Afterall these r some hot topics in the world of science!


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> Buddy u r warned............u r using too much abusive language............
> another one and u r REPORTED...................mind ur toungue........


^^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!



rhitwick said:


> First .............mind ur language.............has anyone abused u here.......not even the person whom u r replyin............
> 
> next........reading ur reply..............it always seems u r not mature enough to understand the facts of life..........now u r disagreeing of the existence of bacteria...........any "educated " theists, believe or whoever is mature and literate enough to understand FACTS proved by a lot of research can not deny d existence of bacteria.........
> I think to u any good deed is a blessing of God and any bad deed or problem is curse of God...........
> wat r doing..............get up from that chair.........go out.........open your mind...........open ur eyes...........



Can't find answers to qs i asked prior to this post... Oh yeah then your reply is the best way of escapism!


----------



## Richard.David (Sep 11, 2008)

science mostly
but god always


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

@rit
Common. Let him have some fun. Don't report. Its fight club after all.


			
				T59 said:
			
		

> you sound nothing more than science evangelist and some kind of fanatic. Sorry but now am sure.


First congratulations. second, thanks for the complements . Its better to be a science fanatic that a doG-fanatic or woo-fanatic.


			
				T59 said:
			
		

> Faith is something without which no one can survive. Its not something you relate to God only.


I guess I am not a zombie. Or am I....?



			
				keshavasiva said:
			
		

> I did a mistake.. and that . is to beg pardon before.. hmmm...
> doggie ji.. please don't bark your way out and no ones gonna peee rather pee at you!
> 
> BODY...!!! Its a dynamic cause and it does recognize that disease is casued by a dynamic cause.... and doesn't care whether its a bacteria...Now it got fed up wid u telling this fu**8 no of times... u understand or k** ma ***.
> ...


U don't have a clue of what u r talking about, do u ? It happens with babies. Don't worry.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Why don't u save ur rants and really improve upon ur comprehension?
> 
> Amazing, that I'm asking if the situation created 'afterwards' have a "foreign hand and energy" like the modelled one on earth (Yes or No?) and here u r fulfilling the legend of a true funny materialist explaining what LHC is & what its doing instead! So save ur rants, u have already embarrased urself a lot.


First the answer - NO. Second, read slowly and if necessary spell it out as well
IT IS CREATING THE PHYSICS THAT EXISTED AFTER BIG BANG. Clue "PHYSICS". If u still don't get it then first try have a sense of magnitude and proportion, then consult a MOOOeopathETIC quack.

Bet, you still don't have a clue of what I am saying.



			
				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!


Pope Randi ? Hey thats catchy. But... OHO....then how r the animals and plants (another laugh attack) individualised.



			
				mediator 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.


Well 3rd standard is still better than illiteracy.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 1. Reproducable?
> 2. Observable worldwide?
> 3. Is the data consistent?



1. YES
2. YES
3. YES

Now prove.


			
				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!


Aha...some fine philosLOPPY. 

All questions have been answered. If u don't like those answers, well, its upto u.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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.


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.

Homeopathy can't kill, because distilled water can't. Ayurveda can't kill, because it only works on common ailment and not any complicated ones.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> And we shud preach evolution, something which concludes from partial discovery of fossils without explaining why the organism got one eye rather than 2 (ah it needed to see), when was it exactly that limbs were formed (ah, it needed to move), why didn't humans fly (after all its their centuries old wish), why did we witness small animals after big dinos (they say dino extinction story is a mystery)??


I knew it. I knew it. You are a creationist. So much for your ATHEISM. So u are a lair as well. 

As with evolution. First learn the basics. Then try to criticize. Just to get u started evolution is not about future, it is about present. Evolution is not about wishes, it is about survival. Evolution is not about what is BEST. It is about what is NEEDED to survive.

Why one eye and not 2 eyes ? Read "_The Blind Watchmaker_". When were the limbs formed ? Were u sleeping when I was talking about Tiktaalik. Why don't humans fly ? Because flight was not necessary for our survival. Why small animals after big dinos ? Sorry, can't say, because I don't know. Haven't read much about it.

String theory = BUNKUM (LHC in a very different way will give insight into it - if the theory is at all tenable or not)
Quantum Physics = Amazing theory, a theory of bizarre, but incomplete.
Parallel Univers = Serial Universe is more LOGICAL, and in that I differ from Dawkins.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 11, 2008)

karnivore said:


> @rit
> Common. Let him have some fun. Don't report. Its fight club after all.


Karni if I had to, I would've but I warned him twice................

all members of this thread has contributed their point of view............specially u, legolas, mediator know what u r talking and clear about ur standing...........
b4 d visit of this n00b, this thread was having a healthy conversation........one fine day.....a newbie comes and starts abusing us..........he doesn't care any point/logic...........if runs out of logic starts abusing...........

thats d reason I was angry............

again he was abusing u........now, if u r fine with getting abused for no reason.......wat can I say...........


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

^^^^^Karnivore
^^ WIll you stop baby sitting and start talking something sensible... U still believe that evolution is true after there are many naked facts proving it false

Just think.... This earth .. so wonderful... so many kinds of entities...many hidden caves minerals .... seas oceans..
Now what to speak of other planets or universes or so forth...

Now tell me how far you believe that such an organized intelligent perfect creation has just come by chance(Big bang, evolution ... both come here). 

After the bucket you use for bath has a creator .... How can you say that this whole manifestion so huge unending organized perfect creation is without creator and just came by some junk explosion which you don't even have clue and there is no basis of such though.. such a midnight dream and you just start thinking.. whether this MAY BE that MAY BE the cause of creation.



rhitwick said:


> Karni if I had to, I would've but I warned him twice................
> 
> all members of this thread has contributed their point of view............specially u, legolas, mediator know what u r talking and clear about ur standing...........
> b4 d visit of this n00b, this thread was having a healthy conversation........one fine day.....a newbie comes and starts abusing us..........he doesn't care any point/logic...........if runs out of logic starts abusing...........
> ...



Everyone comes one fine day and may u haven't .!!!

I am telling you again that I just reused the words posted.

Yes for * like you; you won't understand the substance of my posts and atleast the last one .. .will ya??

Oh... god he is angry save.. me.... hah... who the cares if u r angry...  
just try to prove your point or get the hell out... don't try to divert by judging others and giving your opinions as if you are a mahatma here.....!!!!!



karnivore said:


> @rit
> Common. Let him have some fun. Don't report. Its fight club after all.
> 
> First congratulations. second, thanks for the complements . Its better to be a science fanatic that a doG-fanatic or woo-fanatic.
> ...



yes you are if you say that literally you don't have faith in anything in you life!
Don't you have faith in scientists when they  put forward a theory and prove it using some logic which again someother will disprove and propose a new theory ... where has your faith gone then... Ok if you don't call it faith then see this...VVVVV

You read text books. rite.... for each line they rite do you go and ask the author whether he has written it or not  !! Even he has written it .. do you experiment each and every thing in there testing it by logic and praticals???

You are a better person to put a situation where you have faith!  Mother Relative(someof em)  etc... Yourself????


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 11, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> ^^^^^Karnivore
> ^^ WIll you stop baby sitting and start talking something sensible... U still believe that evolution is true after there are many naked facts proving it false
> 
> Just think.... This earth .. so wonderful... so many kinds of entities...many hidden caves minerals .... seas oceans..
> ...


C karni, I told u he's a n00b........he again proved that........
LOL......*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/17large.png
don't get tempted on his replies............don't try to clarify him............his gray matter is not evolved(oh.....I used d word evolve he's not going to get that too) that much to understand these........




> Everyone comes one fine day and may u haven't .!!!
> 
> I am telling you again that I just reused the words posted.
> 
> ...


Man.......u r hopeless.........
just do us a favor.........read every post in this 24 page thread........I think that will clear ur basics...............


----------



## karmanya (Sep 11, 2008)

Explain A couple of things-
1.Why is it so hard for you guys to form perfectly coherent sentences?
2. @mediator- What is modern medicine ignoring? Yes we don't have all the answers- does that mean we will never reach there? thats ridiculous.
3. @Keshavasiva- If God did exist, he would be omnipresent and omnipotent correct? If he is so powerful and can create the universe, why doesn't he simplify the concept his so called message bearers bring to the common people? How hard would that be?
If a regular mortal can bring down a question based on string theory to something a class  10th student can understand, it tends to reason that a being that is all powerful will be able to bring the concept of his existence and his methods of working to something a regular person can understand.
also T159- Faith is a concept in all fields, blind faith is pretty much restricted to religious faith.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> C karni, I told u he's a n00b........he again proved that........
> LOL......*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/17large.png
> don't get tempted on his replies............don't try to clarify him............his gray matter is not evolved(oh.....I used d word evolve he's not going to get that too) that much to understand these........
> 
> ...



Dude... all you to say is that you can't answer what I pointed out or believe that everything you have came by chance even your PC may not be yourself .. no not..
*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/17large.png
I have to say like this cuz your posts always show criticism and never ever a scientific point to reject or accept(u r here just to argue and i know that) what is said?? Can you show me one in your recent posts??


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 11, 2008)

karmanya said:


> also T159- Faith is a concept in all fields, blind faith is pretty much restricted to religious faith.


agreed..............rightly said dude..........


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

karmanya said:


> Explain A couple of things-
> 1.Why is it so hard for you guys to form perfectly coherent sentences?
> 2. @mediator- What is modern medicine ignoring? Yes we don't have all the answers- does that mean we will never reach there? thats ridiculous.
> 3. @Keshavasiva- If God did exist, he would be omnipresent and omnipotent correct? If he is so powerful and can create the universe, why doesn't he simplify the concept his so called message bearers bring to the common people? How hard would that be?
> ...


If faith is not blind then what else is it?? not blind faith?? faith and blind faith are same!

And regarding messages of LOrd...   It is available .. String theory is just a mortals creation of imagination and so can be understood by a mortal... Everybody gets an opportunity or a situation to choose whether to hear the message of god or not.. Why don't u read bible .. do u read?? not the tampered one but the real one said by Jesus! 
Or y don't you read Bhagavad Gita (The message of Bhagavan) written by Message bearers and not anyone and everyone! It is available at a price cheaper than any damn inventions or the cost of them that scientists do.. lik string theory.  

God doesn't force anyone .. everyone has freewill.. he can choose to do this or that! But it is left to him to choose God or Science(In this concept) and so this thread and debate. God did leave the literature here and it is up to us to take it and follow.


----------



## Dragoon (Sep 11, 2008)

Everything is wrong man!!! JUST THINK about it.....

1. Someone found God and called him the creator and started worshipping him.
2. A hell load of fools followed him/her and became his disciples.
3. Thus God was created.

This is how people are..........THIS IS TOTALLY ABSURD!!!
And just think what a waste of time it is..........

*i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/43large.png


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 11, 2008)

karmanya said:


> 2. @mediator- What is modern medicine ignoring? Yes we don't have all the answers- does that mean we will never reach there? thats ridiculous.



Hey.... ain't that blind faith ... ??
Are you sure? You say yes... and thats wid no basis... You can't say anything for sure .. are you a fortune teller..???

See in AI they digest the previous acts and then do some prediction rite...
And that is prediction ...  and it goes .. that no history of perfection for things related to this context!!!



Dragoon said:


> Everything is wrong man!!! JUST THINK about it.....
> 
> 1. Someone found God and called him the creator and started worshipping him.
> 2. A hell load of fools followed him/her and became his disciples.
> ...



Aha! God is not created.... If he is then he is not God!!! Get ur basics correct!

What a story makeup .. thats just the imagination of your brain! who cares... 
Plz live in your imaginative world..


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

@rhit,
I can now see what u saw a lot earlier. I was thinking, that everybody has a right to speak his mind, even if it means nonsense. Now, I am not sure, I feel that way.

@keshavasiva
Although it will fall on deaf ears, lets give it a last shot.

Faith in science : Science has proved itself a bazillion times. Otherwise, Instead of debating like this,in the cozy comfort of our homes or office, we would have been roaming in the wild, in a wee bit lioncloth and clubbing each other to death for food and women. This whole civilization is a gift of science. From the knowledge of how to grow crops, to blasting off rockets into the space, and everything in between, is a result of relentless quest for knowledge, by man. That quest is what science is all about. Having faith in science means having faith in this method of learning. Considering the gulf of difference between our knowledge, 2000 years ago and today, it is safe to bet, as @karmanya has quite rightly done, that whatever is unknown today, will be known tomorrow, whatever is speculation today, will be theory tomorrow, whatever is theory today, will be fact tomorrow. This faith, is based on the history of science and the evolution of our knowledge.

Faith in people/things : It is again based on personal or cumulative experience, interaction and understanding of persons or things. When I am typing a letter, I know, that if I hit the key "A" on my key board, it is more than likely that the shape "A" will appear on screen. That faith is based on experience. It has happened before and so it will happen again, untill of course, the key or my computer, is damaged. Similarly when u have faith in people, u have it on the basis of ur past experience with that person and of course with interaction. Your knowledge of the persons ability to do certain things, will also help u to have faith in that person. For example, if your plumbing is broken, u would go to a plumber not an ironsmith. Because, u would expect a plumber to know a lot more about plumbing than an ironsmith. 

Faith in writers : It is usually based on their professional qualifications, their achievements and how much they are considered worthy of their words by their peers. Your own understanding of the subject and logic would go a long way as well. Stephen Hawkins made many predictions in the 'Brief History of Times', many of which would probably never come true. Does that mean he can't be trusted anymore. Einstein had spent the last 30 or so years on gibberish research. Does that mean Einstein is a kook. NO. Because, they got more things right, than they got wrong. So when these scientists, with proven track record say something, odds in their favour are automatically high.

Faith in doG/ supernatural etc : Well thats just about it. I believe it. Hence it is. That faith is a belief without a basis. And most of us here are against this faith. It is this faith that is blind, because it refuses to see that there is no basis that is logically tenable. 

People like u make mockery of science. Fine. No problem. But do take your time out and think, if science is only about gigantic fantastical theories like Big Bang or it is also about teeny tiny things that surround us and make our lives comfortable. From that innocuous pen in your pocket, that ticking watch on your hand, that ipod plugged in your ears to that electricity that is running your AC, your PC, your microwave, your refrigerator, to that car that you drive or that plane you have to catch today - all science. The fact that we live in a civilized society, is proof, that we got at least something right.



> Please tell why modern medicine is *ignoring* too many things?


IGNORING...? *sigh* no wonder.


----------



## karmanya (Sep 11, 2008)

@keshav- Theres a little thing called extrapolation. Hundreds of years ago, people had no idea why sailors would get bleeding gums, exhaustion and would suddenly drop dead. Now we know it was because of scurvy.Extrapolating from the fact that science _usually_ finds out why stuff happens, I think it's pretty safe to say that we will reach a point when we know a lot of stuff that we don't know today.


> And regarding messages of LOrd... It is available .. String theory is just a mortals creation of imagination and so can be understood by a mortal... Everybody gets an opportunity or a situation to choose whether to hear the message of god or not.. Why don't u read bible .. do u read?? not the tampered one but the real one said by Jesus!
> Or y don't you read Bhagavad Gita (The message of Bhagavan) written by Message bearers and not anyone and everyone! It is available at a price cheaper than any damn inventions or the cost of them that scientists do.. lik string theory


Even ignoring your thinly veiled attempt to question my literacy, there are quite a few things wrong with this post.
Firstly, have you even read the bible? Both, the Old Testament and the New Testament, have very little about what Jesus said. The Old Testament, has very little to do about Jesus(If at all) and is more about Judaism. The New Testament, which is a collection of stories not only about Jesus's life and teachings but the molding of sectarianism inside Judaism. Incidentally, _both books have been written by people_. Infact since the Da-Vinci Code, Pretty much everyone knows about Constantine and how he decided to re-write the rough draft of the New Testament to make Jesus "God's Son".
The Bhagavad Gita is not "the message of Bhagvan", but a transcription of the speech that Krishna gave Arjun, justifying the war against the Kauravas, at Kurukshetra.
Infact, if you read the Vedas, which pre-date the Bhagavad Gita, it strictly says that there are no omnipotent, omnipresent beings called Gods. Images like Krishna,Vishnu and a whole host of others, are exactly that-images. They were meant to make the idea of your subconscious being God, easier to understand.
So frankly speaking, I would recommend that you do your research and actually read, before accusing others of being unable to.


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

While we were sleeping, Earth came close to being roasted. Do watch the quicktime animation, just about 2 MB.


----------



## roshan1236a (Sep 11, 2008)

Can anyone tell me how GOD was born????


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

doG's dad got drunk and took a <you know who> to a hotel. 9 months later doG was born.


----------



## Dragoon (Sep 11, 2008)

That's a stupid story..... Who do you think is god's dad then???


----------



## karnivore (Sep 11, 2008)

^^ Thats the whole point of the "stupid story". Infinite regression.


----------



## nvidia (Sep 11, 2008)

> That LHC is a holy ****... just another waste of money.! May be wasting money in a fashionable scientific fuc*** way.


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. 

 So what do you suggest to understand the Universe without spending money..?
 Sit under a tree and meditate? 



> And listen, science can only strive to become perfect and can never become.. Talk the


Thats the complexity of the subject.


----------



## Dragoon (Sep 11, 2008)

nvidia said:


> 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.
> 
> So what do you suggest to understand the Universe without spending money..?
> Sit under a tree and meditate?
> ...



I totally agree with you.

Remember, *"The Fittest Survive**www.thinkdigit.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif*, while The Others Perish**www.thinkdigit.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif*"*


----------



## mediator (Sep 11, 2008)

karmanya said:
			
		

> 2. @mediator- What is modern medicine ignoring? Yes we don't have all the answers- does that mean we will never reach there? thats ridiculous.


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.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *First the answer - NO.* Second, read slowly and if necessary spell it out as well
> IT IS CREATING THE PHYSICS THAT EXISTED AFTER BIG BANG. Clue "PHYSICS". If u still don't get it then first try have a sense of magnitude and proportion, then consult a MOOOeopathETIC quack.
> 
> Bet, you still don't have a clue of what I am saying.


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:
			
		

> Pope Randi ? Hey thats catchy. But... OHO....then how r the animals and plants (another laugh attack) individualised.


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:
			
		

> Well 3rd standard is still better than illiteracy.


Good point for a science fanboi who plays a funny apologist for theories n treats em as facts.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 1. YES
> 2. YES
> 3. YES
> 
> Now prove.


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:
			
		

> *All questions have been answered.* If u don't like those answers, well, its upto u.


  
Thats where one gets a good laugh to rejuvenate his mood. ALL QUESTIONS ANSWERED n ur utopia becomes perfect. Its not new for me to see materialists chicken out n refraining to answer the questions I ask & at the end they hallucinate that they answered all! Psychedelic drugs are surely amazing.... 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Homeopathy can't kill, because distilled water can't. Ayurveda can't kill, because it only works on common ailment and not any complicated ones.


Ah, the expert on Ayurveda spoke! You seem to be out of words to be imagining "all questions answered" & now this.
You still didn't tell if u'll get ur friend suffering from AIDS treated with Modern Medicine or Ayurveda??



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> I knew it. I knew it. *You are a creationist. So much for your ATHEISM.* So u are a lair as well.
> 
> As with evolution. First learn the basics. Then try to criticize. Just to get u started evolution is not about future, it is about present. Evolution is not about wishes, it is about survival. Evolution is not about what is BEST. It is about what is NEEDED to survive.


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!

By ur logic in the bold, guess I wasn't wrong when u abused the creationists/theists & labelled them as morons. Regarding evolution, it seems like ur chinese made clock, the boundary of ur upper shell is also getting rusty. 
As about evolution, it seems u really have nothing else to say save whining bt what is already known or theorised! So now, didn't the first unicellular organism evolved? What r we talking about after looking at the fossils? Its a good time to evolve some material in the hollow upper shpere of urs than being lurking in the dark.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Why one eye and not 2 eyes ? Read "The Blind Watchmaker". When were the limbs formed ? Were u sleeping when I was talking about Tiktaalik. *Why don't humans fly ? Because flight was not necessary for our survival.* Why small animals after big dinos ? Sorry, can't say, because I don't know. Haven't read much about it.


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!

Besides, who are u to decide whats necessary for our survival? All of us, afterall, are vulnerable to mosquitos, deadly virii, pollution, natural disasters, terrorism etc. just like small organism are vulnerable to bigger ones, herbivores to carnivores, and humans being from bacteria, virii near the earth n also the materialists who fail to logic properly leading to an eminent threat to humanity! And so why didn't rats or the animanls started flying?

I understand the part for "can't say" for dinos. No spoon feeding from scientists there, eh?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> String theory = BUNKUM (LHC in a very different way will give insight into it - if the theory is at all tenable or not)
> Quantum Physics = Amazing theory, *a theory of bizarre*, but incomplete.
> Parallel Univers = Serial Universe is more LOGICAL, and in that I differ from Dawkins.


Thank you very much, the 'theory of bizarre' is where science heading n discussing these days.


----------



## kalpik (Sep 11, 2008)

Ok, i know this is fight club, but please maintain decorum. This is a warning to all involved.

My take on the topic: I belive in science and not god. I wouldnt really care to explain why, as many have tried to in this 24 page topic, but it doesnt really matter to anyone


----------



## karnivore (Sep 12, 2008)

mediator 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!


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:
			
		

> Besides, *who are u to decide whats necessary for our survival*? All of us, afterall, are vulnerable to mosquitos, deadly virii, pollution, natural disasters, terrorism etc. just like small organism are vulnerable to bigger ones, herbivores to carnivores, and humans being from bacteria, virii near the earth n also the materialists who fail to logic properly leading to an eminent threat to humanity! And so why didn't rats or the animanls started flying?


*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gif

That, my dear friend, is a clincher. First take lessons in evolution, then turn a few pages of "Your Inner Fish". (There u go, recommended a book). No matter how much u choose NOT to learn, there is still a chance in a trillion that u may just learn something worthwhile.



			
				mediator 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.


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. 

By your own admission, you do not understand homeopathy. So i guess, its you who needs to take a lesson first. When u r done come back to papa. Papa's got candy for u.

And i bet 10 bucks that neither do u have $ 1 million to bet, nor have u seen any.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Thats where one gets a good laugh to rejuvenate his mood. ALL QUESTIONS ANSWERED n ur utopia becomes perfect. Its not new for me to see materialists chicken out n refraining to answer the questions I ask & at the end they hallucinate that they answered all! Psychedelic drugs are surely amazing....


Yup...keep saying that to yourself.  

Seriously though, u r making Bozo the clown look like a bore. Now, that is sheer talent.


----------



## iinfi (Sep 12, 2008)




----------



## mediator (Sep 12, 2008)

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.


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!! 

I can see how much phun u r having, since u can't even sing ur fave 'the yabadabadoo song' which I guess was a tragic result of evolution in ur former stages, or evolve this thread properly! Its a smirk people usually develop when emotionally charged with loss of words leading towards a continous use of terminology like "pink unicorn/yawn/diaper/moron etc". And so u "answered all", eh? 

Its 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! 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> That, my dear friend, is a clincher. First take lessons in evolution, then turn a few pages of "Your Inner Fish". (There u go, recommended a book). No matter how much u choose NOT to learn, there is still a chance in a trillion that u may just learn something worthwhile.


Ah, the inner fish now. It was becoz of survival right?  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. 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> By your own admission, you do not understand homeopathy. So i guess, its you who needs to take a lesson first. When u r done come back to papa. Papa's got candy for u


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!!


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 12, 2008)

karmanya said:


> @keshav- Theres a little thing called extrapolation. Hundreds of years ago, people had no idea why sailors would get bleeding gums, exhaustion and would suddenly drop dead. Now we know it was because of scurvy.Extrapolating from the fact that science _usually_ finds out why stuff happens, I think it's pretty safe to say that we will reach a point when we know a lot of stuff that we don't know today.
> 
> Even ignoring your thinly veiled attempt to question my literacy, there are quite a few things wrong with this post.
> Firstly, have you even read the bible? Both, the Old Testament and the New Testament, have very little about what Jesus said. The Old Testament, has very little to do about Jesus(If at all) and is more about Judaism. The New Testament, which is a collection of stories not only about Jesus's life and teachings but the molding of sectarianism inside Judaism. Incidentally, _both books have been written by people_. Infact since the Da-Vinci Code, Pretty much everyone knows about Constantine and how he decided to re-write the rough draft of the New Testament to make Jesus "God's Son".
> ...



Dood! Bhagavad Gita does mean the song of God or message of God.
Its an opportunity taken by Krishna to speak knowledge and is not just limited to kurukshetra or arjuna. It is for all of us. Why don't you substantiate your claims of gods??? I can prove to you that gita. You better read Gita first. 
Man... u tell me about research here... so lame... I have done too much of it...but don't pose... did u read vedas??? Atleast BG is alrite but vedas reading is not a joke and reading a point here and there and putting it here is nonsense... 
I have a source and its BG which is awesomely perfectly written .. u will have to admit all your wrong ways and wits when you read it . After all its a song of God. If you don't want to read it atleast know its vastness of knowledge by knowing who reads it in this world.



Carnivore....in the next post why don't you just restrict your talk to evolution or homeopathy or any substance than talking **** like in your previous posts jus making your goal as better criticism!!??Or defamy or wateva....Karanmaya is lot better in this regard as he is atleast putting on some point which he feels is not right or I don't know or wateva. But he does speak substance.

Now lemme  see ..

Even if evolution is true , then....Why are apes and monkeys not extinct??
Where are the intermediate forms between ape and Man??(Missing Links)

[FONT=&quot]“There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life... …there is no such things as missing links.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]*Dr. Austin H. Clark
*[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Biologist, Smithsonian Institute[/FONT]​ 

[FONT=&quot]Darwin confesses[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]towards the end of his life[/FONT]​ 

[FONT=&quot]“Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has changed.”



Now try to be to this topic and don't again start your kaki gola saying u r like this u don't know.... etcetc... which just proves ur mental instability. I hope u would rather answer it.!
[/FONT]​


karnivore said:


> @rhit,
> I can now see what u saw a lot earlier. I was thinking, that everybody has a right to speak his mind, even if it means nonsense. Now, I am not sure, I feel that way.
> 
> @keshavasiva
> ...



Dood i missed this.....!
Hmm yes... i just want you to speak out these things... So if you see one with track record.. you start believing.... What the f888 you know about Religion and i told you its along with science. Read BhagavadGita or any other scripture which says lot of things which are true in this modern age and so you have to start putting faith in it 
Its not blind.... Its very logical... why d hell do you think professors start reading this gr8 knowledge just blindly??  Its for real.. and you have a blind faith that god is a blind faith... come out of it... open your mind and try reading BG and then think of it.
First let us complete the science part and then full fledgely come to god part.. Its more logical i feel.



>
>
Just a point to add....
[FONT=&quot]Once thought to be a simple bag of chemicals, the cell is now understood to be an elaborate system of molecular machinery that surpasses a modern city in complexity.

Do u think that such a complex thing which are there in trillions of number just came by chance or an explosion.... if yes then a county like manhattan should have come into existence when a big bomb explodes(instead of getting destructed). 

[/FONT]



roshan1236a said:


> Can anyone tell me how GOD was born????



Why man... Please know the defition of GOD... he is unborn.! And its out of world for your small brain



nvidia said:


> 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.
> 
> So what do you suggest to understand the Universe without spending money..?
> Sit under a tree and meditate?
> ...



Good way to escape and so you accept that its so complex that humans can't perfect .. and thats wat it is!

First understand what is saving for you?
I know that Earth won't last forever and it need not. Ok let us see what the experiment understands about the 'world'.



karnivore said:


> doG's dad got drunk and took a <you know who> to a hotel. 9 months later doG was born.



You stupid ass hole... will ya stop abusing god or i will have to kick your ass. 
Persons deranged and unable to make their point become unstable and talk like a ass blown. .u know.... and u r the one... I should have to make use of more ugly ****... if you continue making up stories like this and likcing ur dogs ass..


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 12, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> You stupid ass hole... will ya stop abusing god or i will have to kick your ass.
> Persons deranged and unable to make their point become unstable and talk like a ass blown. .u know.... and u r the one... I should have to make use of more ugly ****... if you continue making up stories like this and likcing ur dogs ass..



is the language used above to express someone's view is seemed to be offending only to me or this is the right way to express urself??*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/3.png


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 12, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> is the language used above to express someone's view is seemed to be offending only to me or this is the right way to express urself??



Is it ... u thoroughly try to support him... are u his **.??
Yo middle man.. don't gimme a damn... The post clearly offends GOD! and that is the treatment to that coward cuz he can't go on wid his stupid offenses against GOD... u think offending your admired won't offend u?? tell me dude!*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/3.png


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 12, 2008)

I don't talk to n00bs.........thats why I stopped responding ur post........

u use that kind of language any further............I'm going to report u........
then let MODs(GODs) save u...........


----------



## karnivore (Sep 12, 2008)

mediator said:


> 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!!
> 
> I can see how much phun u r having, since u can't even sing ur fave 'the yabadabadoo song' which I guess was a tragic result of evolution in ur former stages, or evolve this thread properly! Its a smirk people usually develop when emotionally charged with loss of words leading towards a continous use of terminology like "pink unicorn/yawn/diaper/moron etc". And so u "answered all", eh?


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.



mediator said:


> Its 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!


If that gives u a good night's sleep...I am cool




mediator said:


> Ah, the inner fish now. It was becoz of survival right?  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.


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.



mediator said:


> 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!!


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. 



keshavasiva said:


> Even if evolution is true , then....Why are apes and monkeys not extinct??
> Where are the intermediate forms between ape and Man??(Missing Links)


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.



keshavasiva said:


> “There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life... …there is no such things as missing links.”
> Dr. Austin H. Clark
> Biologist, Smithsonian Institute


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.



keshavasiva said:


> What the f888 you know about Religion...


Know enough to know not to know it...



keshavasiva said:


> Do u think that such a complex thing which are there in trillions of number just came by chance or an explosion.... if yes then a county like manhattan should have come into existence when a big bomb explodes(instead of getting destructed).


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.



keshavasiva said:


> You stupid ass hole... will ya stop abusing god or i will have to kick your ass.
> Persons deranged and unable to make their point become unstable and talk like a ass blown. .u know.... and u r the one... I should have to make use of more ugly ****... if you continue making up stories like this and likcing ur dogs ass..


 I luv it when kids loose their heads  The question is, did u have it in the first place.

BTW, doG's mom is really good in bed . Guess how I know it.


----------



## mediator (Sep 12, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> 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


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! 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.*
> 
> ...


Is that what another book spoon fed u with? Nice theory. But then again u r not using ur upper.....m sorry again! Its hollow 
1. Humans too are endangered by epidemnics, deadly virii, pollution, terrrorism, natural disasters like in Bihar, hurricanes, tsunami etc. It seems u r forgetting how many natural distasters INDIA faces alone n loses lives more than that in terroism. Food shortage is there in many parts of the world specially in developing economies, let alone suffering from diseases in these part of world. Many don't even get fresh water to drink.

2. If its necessary for survival then why didn't land creatures still retain the ability(*give a thought*) to survive in water? I'm waiting for another theoretical essay on this. Good Boy.

3. If the evolution lead to big dinos, then why did we get short animals afterwards? You may leave this, as I guess there is no scientific spoon feeding or conjecturing upon this for u.

4. Philosphically thinking, we don't do much aggression against our parents, grandparents, great-great-great.... grandparents a hierarchy that follows the same philosophy mostly. Thats a true case even in the animals & birds. So why do you think unicellular organisms or even the mutlicellular organism "evolved" to some species that endangered them?? 
Comparing that to humans we remain a threat to ourselves where people with diff. philosophies kill each other in the name of religion or incompatibility. So then, the threat seems to be much greater for humans! I guess idealism n philosophy is absent in animals which makes them less endangered among themselves than humans.

5. Where are the evidence of centimeter by centimeter (little by little) evolution? U understand evolution was a slow process don't u? Or they suddenly got limbs?

6. Also reveal how we got a "hippo" if it's "not like a ladder" that u mentioned?

7. And since u talk of BRAIN, it has developed tools both for survival as well as extinction. A mass of matter that has created religious differences, hatred, intolerance, anger etc as well and a situation where we fear for our survival becoz of global warming which in return is leading to food depletion from both land & sea. A time might come when hills will be the only last resort!

If having a brain means living a happy life, then I guess animals have more brains than us who atleast live in accordance with the nature unlike the humans who are corrupting it everyday for their own selfish needs leading to pollution, terrorism, toxic/nuclear wastes, global warming etc lessening their own "chance for survival".

And one important point that since u mentioned BRAIN, then u must have been the first one to fly! 

So then why didn't animals or humans started flying? So now, please write a big essay on such a marvellous theory most of which, I fear, again will be plaguirized.




			
				krnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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.


Since u forget it everytime here it goes once again...

1. 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

2. Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?

3. Can science explain "the placebo effect"?

4. Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence?

5. What do u think will happen if accidental experminet by German students that lead to discovery of speed greater than that of light is confirmed?

6. My quotations on the pdf are still left unanswered! 

7. Why do u think modern medicine is ignoring too much? Just an eye opener.... Though there is plenty if u search nad refresh urself on this thread.


			
				link said:
			
		

> It is a sad fact that virtually 100% of ALL medical education (both under-graduate and post-graduate) is paid for either directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry. As such, the industry can control the educational agenda and our doctors are now taught little except how to control the symptoms of disease, preferably with long-term drug use. It is not the Doctors themselves that are at fault, but the pharmaceutical marketing system that trains them.
> 
> Now lets think about what that means.
> 
> ...




For a science fanboi who believes in fancy n puzzling stuff like dark wateva this shud be a piece of cake to answer!

BTW, u still didn't answer whether u'll get ur friend suffering from AIDS treated with moodern medicine or Ayurveda?? I guess I repeated this like more than 5 times now.


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!! 



			
				karnivore_to_keshaviya said:
			
		

> BTW, doG's mom is really good in bed . Guess how I know it.


I guess u were conniving urself when u asked @rhitwick to let @keshaviya continue with his abuses. Tragic effects of evolution!


----------



## Faun (Sep 12, 2008)

^^you know he is living without any faith (seems to be a stolid look on face), so guess our explanations are ultrasound vocals for him.


----------



## karnivore (Sep 12, 2008)

*"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.


> 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!


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.


> 1. Humans too are endangered by epidemnics, deadly virii, pollution, terrrorism, natural disasters like in Bihar, hurricanes, tsunami etc. It seems u r forgetting how many natural distasters INDIA faces alone n loses lives more than that in terroism. Food shortage is there in many parts of the world specially in developing economies, let alone suffering from diseases in these part of world. Many don't even get fresh water to drink.


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.


> 2. If its necessary for survival then why didn't land creatures still retain the ability(*give a thought*) to survive in water? I'm waiting for another theoretical essay on this. Good Boy.


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.


> 3. If the evolution lead to big dinos, then why did we get short animals afterwards? You may leave this, as I guess there is no scientific spoon feeding or conjecturing upon this for u.


Not that I do not know, but i am not convinced.


> 4. Philosphically thinking, we don't do much aggression against our parents, grandparents, great-great-great.... grandparents a hierarchy that follows the same philosophy mostly. Thats a true case even in the animals & birds. So why do you think unicellular organisms or even the mutlicellular organism "evolved" to some species that endangered them??
> Comparing that to humans we remain a threat to ourselves where people with diff. philosophies kill each other in the name of religion or incompatibility. So then, the threat seems to be much greater for humans! I guess idealism n philosophy is absent in animals which makes them less endangered among themselves than humans.


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".


> 5. Where are the evidence of centimeter by centimeter (little by little) evolution? U understand evolution was a slow process don't u? Or they suddenly got limbs?


Scroll back. The images are still there, if u r not blind.


> 6. Also reveal how we got a "hippo" if it's "not like a ladder" that u mentioned?


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. 


> 7. And since u talk of BRAIN, it has developed tools both for survival as well as extinction. A mass of matter that has created religious differences, hatred, intolerance, anger etc as well and a situation where we fear for our survival becoz of global warming which in return is leading to food depletion from both land & sea. A time might come when hills will be the only last resort!


Your point here ?


> If *having a brain means living a happy life*, then I guess animals have more brains than us who atleast live in accordance with the nature unlike the humans who are corrupting it everyday for their own selfish needs leading to pollution, terrorism, toxic/nuclear wastes, global warming etc lessening their own "chance for survival".


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".


> So then why didn't animals or humans started flying?


Thats called myopia. Scroll back u will see the reasoning.


> ....again will be plaguirized


First learn its meaning. I can smell your frustration right from here.


> 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.


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. 


> Where did the matter came from?


Don't know


> What was before Big Bang?


No data no proof


> Proof of t=0 is not there! Where is it going to end?


Why is it that something HAS to come to an end ?


> is there any boundary? YES OR NO?


YES


> If yes, what beyond the boundary?


No data no proof


> CAN SCIENCE EVER EXPLAIN IT ??????


Not in its current avatar.


> Answer me line by line


Yes my lord. Your wish is my command.


> Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?


Amino acids + chemical reaction. Life may have come from outer space. Can't completely reject the idea, although chances are slim.


> Can science explain "the placebo effect"?
> Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence?


No, at least not in the sense that can be replicated. Yes, in terms of correlation.


> What do u think will happen if accidental experminet by German students that lead to discovery of speed greater than that of light is confirmed?


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.


> My quotations on the pdf are still left unanswered!


*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) 


> 7. Why do u think modern medicine is ignoring too much? Just an eye opener.... Though there is plenty if u search nad refresh urself on this thread.


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.


> BTW, u still didn't answer whether u'll get ur friend suffering from AIDS treated with moodern medicine or Ayurveda??


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. 


> 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!!


Look who's talking, Lord mediator.
Did i miss pink unicorns. There you go. Had to make your predictions come true.



> I guess u were conniving urself when u asked @rhitwick to let @keshaviya continue with his abuses. Tragic effects of evolution!


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



T159 said:


> ^^you know he is living without any faith (seems to be a stolid look on face), so guess our explanations are ultrasound vocals for him.


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.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 12, 2008)

karnivore said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




Oh Dude... Now I get your deeper meaning...!!!  U r a dog and u sleep wid she-dogs(hope not he..mayb) ... hmm... good doog. 

u think i am gonna type instead of copy paste for a doG like u? No... copy paste of FACTS is enough... its more than enough.! Clarke was ur uncle right? Darwin was your Master. ...Oh the ^^^ pic mite suggest Darwin ur dad but the species won't .
Why don't u ans the qs on chance.... Aha ... the gambit has what size and u know that he was the creator of it rite... so U yourself accept that there is a creator for cells and so the universe.!! Good dooG.



rhitwick said:


> I don't talk to n00bs.........thats why I stopped responding ur post........
> 
> u use that kind of language any further............I'm going to report u........
> then let MODs(GODs) save u...........



Yes Thats Y u replied me again right and lemme ask u one thin... are u modding around here ...  this is after all a fight club. 
Don't try to be man in the middle going no where but just modding around..!



karnivore said:


> *"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.
> ...




Dood...  T159 pointed out correctly ..  Its naked in your posts.
Oh... I think mediator has become your basis to judge others/??? Don't even think yourself to be somewhere near to him... he always rightly says... true  gross materialists around!


----------



## karnivore (Sep 12, 2008)

> U r a dog and u sleep wid she-dogs(hope not he..mayb)


...and she sends regards to u. But she says, that you need some more practice...


> Don't even think yourself to be somewhere near to him...


Not even in any nightmare....


----------



## Faun (Sep 12, 2008)

karnivore said:


> So the patent for all emotions and sensibilities are with the HAVEs. And HAVE NOTs are machines.


Lolz...wasn't it you who said it when I asked.



> I guess I am not a zombie. Or am I....?



You kind of denies everything that our ancestors wrote. That has been practiced for years.

Its not the question of God and Science now. Its the question of how much one can cling to science and deny everything else which he sees labeled as unknown or anything that is not in modern science book as trash.

You don't even know what 80% brain part do ? And you blabber that telepathy, telekinesis are not possible. Just try to study the complete anatomy and system of our own body, its much more intriguing than any other things. 

So we are evolving in a sense that we are more dependable on other things than being independent. There are more medical error deaths caused now. I have seen that medicines all do is to suppress the inflammation and not the actual source or cause. Just a temporary side effect kicked solution...lolz

Placebo effect and will to survive plays an important part in recovering a person than what medicines actually do. I would have lost my pet if I was just gulping down his throat the meds provided by docs (in this case they just said that it will not survive, all they wanted was money - another thing that is a part of flawed design)

If I were to be living on science completely then I would have become nothing more than a mechanical bot. 

And some words you spoke were despicable. Nonetheless it will come back to you, there is no one to bear the load of it...lolz


----------



## karnivore (Sep 12, 2008)

T159 said:


> Lolz...wasn't it you who said it when I asked.


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.



T159 said:


> You kind of denies everything that our ancestors wrote. That has been practiced for years.
> 
> Its not the question of God and Science now. Its the question of how much one can cling to science and deny everything else which he sees labeled as unknown or anything that is not in modern science book as trash.


Wrong. I deny the lies that are perpetrated in the name of Vedas etc. I do not deny Vedas. There is a subtle difference. 

When I was your age, may be little more younger, I was like you. I would get excited by the fantastic theories and ideas. But age, has taught me, that something which is too good to be true, generally turns out not to be true. Unless there is some proof, some basis, I would give it a pass.



T159 said:


> You don't even know what 80% brain part do ? And you blabber that telepathy, telekinesis are not possible. Just try to study the complete anatomy and system of our own body, its much more intriguing than any other things.


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.

That 80% thingie, that you have mentioned, is typical of GAP hunters. Since we don't know, just run your imagination. No body can verify it. So say anything...anything goes in the gray area.

Don't want to tell u how to run your life. Nevertheless, stop living in the shades. Come out in the sun. Its fantastic. And, the glass is half filled as well.



T159 said:


> So we are evolving in a sense that we are more dependable on other things than being independent. There are more medical error deaths caused now. I have seen that medicines all do is to suppress the inflammation and not the actual source or cause. Just a temporary side effect kicked solution...lolz


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. 



T159 said:


> Placebo effect and will to survive plays an important part in recovering a person than what medicines actually do. I would have lost my pet if I was just gulping down his throat the meds provided by docs (in this case they just said that it will not survive, all they wanted was money - another thing that is a part of flawed design)


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. 

As with your pets, I am with you. I have the same experience.



T159 said:


> If I were to be living on science completely then I would have become nothing more than a mechanical bot.


Wrong idea. But hey....doesn't matter to us.



T159 said:


> And some words you spoke were despicable. Nonetheless it will come back to you, there is no one to bear the load of it...lolz


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.


----------



## karmanya (Sep 12, 2008)

Despite its own inadequacies, science has an amazing ability to adapt.
Back when the steady state theory was popular, even greats like Einstein were too stubborn to believe that any other theory could exist(so much so that they even published a few papers believing gravity to be repulsive at large distances). It took a certain Kepler to prove them wrong. So what did they do? Did they fall over themselves crying about a saviour who would come and rid them of this evil- no they did not, They re-worked the  numbers and adapted.
Incidentally Mediator, the page you sent about mendel-*www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i4/genetics.asp.
Actually I would like to tell you(as can any class 10 student) that Darwin's theory of evolution has actually been re-worked. Now the current theory is the Neo-Darwinian theory which factors in Mendel's experiments.
Also the claim that Mendel's findings were ignored is quite laudable. Mendel like a lot of scientists was not as good a marketer as Darwin or Einstein were. The idea has to be sold to the people. A monk in Georgia may not have been the best equipped to do that.
T159- I cannot speak for Karnivore, but personally I don't disbelieve that our ancestors had better technology-Look at the ancient weapons-damascus steel, 1 metre long chinese swords with multiple edges, these techniques have been lost for ages, though I doubt that some "holy" being delivered them to us as a gift. I *believe* that scientists of that age created them and the religious-superstitious mindsets led people into believing them to be gifts from the "Gods".
And Finally, Mediator, You ask these questions and we answer to the best of our ability. You refuse to accept the answers, and then when you run out of arguments that you can re-cycle without being too obvious you revert back to saying"YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS!". So frankly speaking, why not stop acting like a baby, and calmly debate? Arguments don't necessitate insult and (in Keshav's case curse words.)
Also karnivore, please don't play the age card, it irritates me no end when while talking to my grandmother or her Guruji and after a discussion, have him say- "You're too young to understand".


----------



## mediator (Sep 12, 2008)

karmanya said:
			
		

> You ask these questions and *we answer* to the best of our ability.


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 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *It was not required on land.* It was more important to adapt to terrain conditions than to retain marine abilities. Economy. *Besides u r forgetting hippos, crocks etc*.


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..  




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reasons for ur not getting convinced? Please do tell what u know.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Not even wrong. *Evolution did not endanger them. Evolution actually allowed their genes to survive instead of being totally extinct.* Thats why "gene" is considered as the unit of evolution and not "species".
> Empathy gives evolutionary benefit of survival of gene.


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??



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Scroll back. The images are still there, if u r not blind.


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??



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.*


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.  



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> . And since u talk of BRAIN, it has developed tools both for survival as well as extinction. A mass of matter that has created religious differences, hatred, intolerance, anger etc as well and a situation where we fear for our survival becoz of global warming which in return is leading to food depletion from both land & sea. A time might come when hills will be the only last resort!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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?
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??



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Thats called myopia. Scroll back *u will see the reasoning*.


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.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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 plagerizing. 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.


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!





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Quote:Where did the matter came from?
> 
> Don't know
> Quote:What was before Big Bang?
> ...


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:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Explain about the boundary then. I hope its not 'observable' or a mere guesswork.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> mediator 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:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amino acids?  Do u even understand what amino acids are? Have a second try and re-read ur sources again!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Don't get too exited. So far they have not been able to replicate their experiments, provide data to others so that it can be repeated by others, and current status of their experiments is that of JUNK.


Why shud I get excited? I only asked what will happen. So what do u think will happen if it confirms?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> My quotations on the pdf are still left unanswered!
> 
> *www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ead.php?t=4584
> *kasperolsen.wordpress.com/200...he-final-junk/
> ...


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:
			
		

> *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.


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.






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> U say that because.....?


A man(?) of ur age doesn't have to feel proud after abusing someone like that. 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And what is more important is the niceties that science has provided us with. Whether it can explain to the full satisfaction of some alternative theorists, every single phenomenon is really a minor matter.


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:
			
		

> Thanks @mediator, *for this mental masturbation*. Now I can point to this post, everytime u say ur queries were not answered.


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. !!


----------



## karnivore (Sep 12, 2008)

WOW...Ignorance is needed bliss.

U have missed a lot of inserts that I had made latter. May be u would want to revise your reply.

Anyway, tell me two simple things:

Just how much have u read on EVOLUTION ? Names of books or sources would be appreciated. I can see u r making mistakes which will be considered basics in the study of evolution. 

What do u think will constitute as evidence in favour of EVOLUTION ?

Evolutionary changes will be triggered only if the conflict is regular. Food is a good example. Predator is another (and u need to learn the meaning of predator as well). Floods, or rising water level etc. are mostly irregular. The easiest way to avoid those is by migration. It is not enough reason to spark a evolutionary change, or as u r arguing retaining the marine abilities. However, if the primary habitat and food habit are regularly effected by such disturbances, e.g. swamps, species do tend to retain their marine abilities as well. Platypus.

Yes there are predators in the sky as well. But there was NONE when FIRST flight happened. (You could figure that part, if u had actually thought about it). Gradually competition in the sky triggered natural selection among birds as well. Thus you have eagles and then you have sparrows as well. You are again making the basic error of thinking that evolution has foresight. The process happens only on the basis of what is happening NOW, NOT on what may happen in future. Assuming there were already predators in sky, it still won't matter. Because for the species taking flight, if it is at all due to predator, the predator is on land. Priority of the species will be to survive the predator at hand and not the future one. If it really can't evolve to beat the predator in sky, it will automatically become extinct.

U have accused me of plagiarism. Fine. Can u please back up your accusation. Can u please cite a single site or book or paper from where I have plagiarized. Intellectual bankruptcy does look good on you though.

And it is irony of ironies that a creationist apologist calls me a flat-earther.

I was actually waiting for u to equate evolution with Hitler's brutality, but u came close. Terrorism etc. seem to u to be good counter arguments to brain being the greatest evolutionary weapon of survival.  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.

One more thing about terrorism etc. Terrorists, anarchists etc. use bullets to kill. I guess it is the fault of kinetic energy then, that there are killers around.

And no, you are not asking any "genuine questions". You are just foolishly and adamantly nitpicking, that too, without knowing even the A-B-C of the subject u r nitpicking on.

BTW, Mendel's theory of heredity was well assimilated within Darwin's theory of Evolution, way back in 1940. But you would not know it, would you. Your favourite creationist site did tell u that.


			
				karmanya said:
			
		

> Also karnivore, please don't play the age card...


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.


----------



## mediator (Sep 13, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> U have missed a lot of inserts that I had made latter. May be u would want to revise your reply.
> 
> Anyway, tell me two simple things:
> 
> ...


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


----------



## karnivore (Sep 13, 2008)

mediator 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.
> 
> ...



How much does not mean to what extent. Names of books are very good way to judge the quality. 

As with evidence, u still haven't replied. WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE ? It means, how much fossil gap is allowed. If someone takes a snap of u today then 5 yrs later it can be safely said that the person in the picture is u, not considering accidents that may completely change the look. One would not need a second by second snap of yours to conclude that. However if one takes a snap of u when u were 1 month old, then that gap is way too much. So tell me, how much gap is acceptable.

Sorry for those inserts. If u want then I can delete those.


----------



## mediator (Sep 13, 2008)

Suppose the human race starts developing long wings someday, then how do u think that will happen, immediately like in 10 yrs or gradually like in 10000s yrs. How do u think the human fossils over the gradual period of evolution will look like?? Won't the fossils show a very gradual change in the structure of body and the development of wings?  Neways, I'm not an expert to state how much fossil gap shud be allowed but the consistency with what is theorises, that evolution is gradual, shud be there after all in each n every transition. If its a theory then let it be, if its an undeniable truth then it shud be simply consistent, that answers everything!

Neways leave the inserts, it will be a happy memory of a peaceful discussion although I don't hold any grudges with anyone.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 13, 2008)

Guys, 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


----------



## mediator (Sep 13, 2008)

You know what? I have had this casual conversation with many people just to know what they think. Two of them i.e a friend (science follower) , some guy older than me & an uncle (a  theist) in his 40s. Trying to argue with them against their views just to know their opinions n what they think, at the end of the conversation they said, "Well, in the end all that remains is we do our work efficiently. 2morrow we have to go for job n thats whats the ultimate truth." 

So @rhitwick, understand the ultimate truth!


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2008)

@rhitwick

Dont you think same is the case with science now. It started well but now its much like selective divulge.

So do you know what is happening in NASA, what they secretly boiling up ? Do you know that every scientist is genuinely working towards welfare or research than just mere fame or money ? Aren't we scavenging on science now, you put anything under the label of science and we accept it. Of course it needs a lot of knowledge in that field to know if its really true or just some shallow proof ?

Like I said if every thing was on default that GOD made it then how come we have Great Pyramids, the sword which Karmanya talked about and various other wonders which were quite impossible to make without an open mind and great technology. Why Mayans did a precise job of making calendar if they knew that GOD wouldn't want it in first place...lolz. Science is not a new phenomenon. Infact its just a tool to explore things and provide some explanations within limits.

How many of you remember Mendel ? I think you don't even know the name if you never had bio but everyone know Einstein ! Why ? Even He got noble prize for something of not much importance. So much for science but the same fellows in science know how to push back others to have your theory and proof at the top...lolz

There is a difference between fan and fanatic/fanboi. The later one is what I don't want anyone to be, it simply sucks to lock up in a confined space filled with same sh!te.

There are good things to assimilate from everything. Its upto you to choose the good and leave the rest.


----------



## karnivore (Sep 13, 2008)

T159 said:


> So do you know what is happening in NASA, what they secretly boiling up ? Do you know that every scientist is genuinely working towards welfare or research than just mere fame or money ? Aren't we scavenging on science now, you put anything under the label of science and we accept it. Of course it needs a lot of knowledge in that field to know if its really true or just some shallow proof ?


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.

Although not a great fan of A.P.J.Abul Kalam, I did like something he said when he was severely criticized for building the Agni missile. It is not ad verbatim, but essentially what he said was, "I have made a carrier. Now it is upto u whether u want to send a nuclear warhead or a bouquet of roses to ur enemy. Whatever u choose, it can be done". I think that captures the true spirit of a scientist. Otherwise, we will start blaming Einstein for Nuclear warheads, Newton for missile and so on. It is the spirit that matters not the purpose. Remember Dolly. She was cloned purely for commercial reasons. But the question is didn't we learn anything from those experiments.

And no. Anything that is sold under the brand name of "science" does not become science. Just because something looks like, sounds like and walks like duck, it is not always a duck.



T159 said:


> Like I said if every thing was on default that GOD made it then how come we have Great Pyramids, the sword which Karmanya talked about and various other wonders which were quite impossible to make without an open mind and great technology. Why Mayans did a precise job of making calendar if they knew that GOD wouldn't want it in first place...lolz. Science is not a new phenomenon. Infact its just a tool to explore things and provide some explanations within limits.


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.



T159 said:


> How many of you remember Mendel ? I think you don't even know the name if you never had bio but everyone know Einstein ! Why ? Even He got noble prize for something of not much importance. So much for science but the same fellows in science know how to push back others to have your theory and proof at the top...lolz


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.



T159 said:


> There is a difference between fan and fanatic/fanboi. The later one is what I don't want anyone to be, it simply sucks to lock up in a confined space filled with same sh!te.
> 
> There are good things to assimilate from everything. Its upto you to choose the good and leave the rest.


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.

Personal faith is harmless. But when it spills into the public domain, thats when it gets ugly.


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2008)

karnivore said:


> 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.


So the whole technology they had was devoted to GOD !!! So they were orthodox but not completely...lolz

Or may be that GOD of them was an ET...lolz. After all they werent fool to make such great things to an imaginary creature.





karnivore said:


> 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.


How abt a Zealot ? I know words are twisted but then one can understand easily in context.

Im not insisting on theories but avoiding the cliches of anything.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 14, 2008)

T159 said:


> Or may be that GOD of them was an ET...lolz. After all they werent fool to make such great things to an *imaginary creature*.


Rhere u go..........answering urself.......


----------



## karnivore (Sep 15, 2008)

T159 said:


> Im not insisting on theories but avoiding the cliches of anything.


Glad to know...but i hope that u can walk the talk.


----------



## mediator (Sep 15, 2008)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> *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.


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.

I believe what essential is, that you read what all is given "without any bias" in your mind on either any matter of science or any holybook or past. If you already form an opinion based on people's recommendations, then you've already lost your 'own' perspective on the subject. Its like watching a bollywood/hollywood movie after acknowledging its 'stars' in the newspaper. When you watch it you may say, 'it was boring or stupid' & hence differing from the newspaper reviews. Whereas, sometimes watching even a lowballed movie can be interesting.

So its not that you form an opinion 'before' reading a book or a subject, but I guess the opposite that you read it completely and then, form an opinion. If it interests you, then u may read more and conform from diff. sources!

Theists will question & argue about the existence of the world/universe/matter & from where did all of it originate. If u try to answer them, then consequently from this will arise more questions like what is beyond universe? If its revolving like earth? If it has boundaries or if it ends anywhere? Consider it like, asking what covers earth's inner crust? Earth's outer crust? Beyond that we have atmosphere in the form of five layers?? Then, it goes to galaxy? Whats beyond that? Universe? Then...Then...Then....why, how, where, what?? Can it be like an irrational number or a mathematic figure  that has no ending?

Scientists have defined 1 light year as the distance covered by light in one year. Based on this measure we say that a star A is 1000 light years away, B is 2000 light years away and hence so on. That means the light we are seeing now from A left it around 1000 yrs ago, from B it left 2000 yrs ago. Doesn't that mean we are viewing star A 1000 yrs in past & b 2000 yrs in past, the light "from  something" which we are sensing/acknowledging right now, "that something" might not be there in reality?? Similary we view SUN 8 minutes in the past. The same goes for sound. Considering all the advancement of science till date, which have "enchanced" the reach of naked eye/ears etc to see distance stars clearly and even tiny particles, can we answer all these philosophical questions??

On the other hand, science will argue who created God. If its a he or a she? If he exists & if he's good, then why not save humans from being exterminated by terrorists or help the poor?

So when u ponder on these two sets of eternal questions, then u see that there happens to be a stalemate. You may have a different opinion, but you might see such a stalemate only if you shed your personal bias & emotions regarding either God or Science. Well u can see my vote in the thread, after all I too believe in the ULIMATE TRUTH, that I do.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 15, 2008)

karmanya said:


> Despite its own inadequacies, science has an amazing ability to adapt.
> Back when the steady state theory was popular, even greats like Einstein were too stubborn to believe that any other theory could exist(so much so that they even published a few papers believing gravity to be repulsive at large distances). It took a certain Kepler to prove them wrong. So what did they do? Did they fall over themselves crying about a saviour who would come and rid them of this evil- no they did not, They re-worked the  numbers and adapted.
> Incidentally Mediator, the page you sent about mendel-*www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i4/genetics.asp.
> Actually I would like to tell you(as can any class 10 student) that Darwin's theory of evolution has actually been re-worked. Now the current theory is the Neo-Darwinian theory which factors in Mendel's experiments.
> ...


^^ Now this is what i call substantial talk ...
Lets see. Do you even know that Darwin Theory was a imagination and a great fiction novel kinda thingy by darwin?? He Himself says towards the end of his life as i quoted in my previous posts.! Now you say that class10th students know that there is a thingy called neodarwinism?? which just is a speculation over a speculation... Doesn't this sound correct as what is it and As AMOF, it is.
Its nothing lesser than a chance theory..  How many things in your life you believe have come by chance?? 
You quote that you believe something. Why not the opposite true? You know how advanced the weapons used in Kurukshetra war were? And don't say its a mythology... There are findings in that place of war equipment... And don't think people are so perfect that they can find everything that were used.. You can find the description written in the holy books and ya.... If you Don't BELIEVE that then how do you think people of that age could even write such books?? They know the technology far better than we do and they know what to use the technology for ... only for dharma yudda.... now to not go deep into.. i just want to tell you that darwinism or neo or wateva is just a pure mental speculation as claimed by the orginator himself(indirectly) ... you don't really want your grant parents to be monkey's /.//do you?? ... jus kidding tho..... !



mediator said:


> 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????
> ...



Dude... I got tired scrolling.. but was really remarkable to point out what karnivore is really upto .
@Karnivore...


> Atheists commonly accuse theists of hav*ing created the idea of God to satisfy certain psychological needs. A more reasonable person, they say, can do without this crutch and instead learn from the cold, hard facts of science, whose findings inevitably lead us to conclude there's no God.
> Atheists, however, are not free of biases and psychological needs, and these influence both their experimental findings and their attitude toward various scientific theories. Though they may flatter themselves, they are not immune to seeing things the way they want. The theory of Darwinian evolution is a case in point.
> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectu*ally fulfilled atheist," says Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. For those with atheistic tendencies, Darwin was a savior. He made it possible for the scientists to do away with the need for God. His theory supposedly shows that all life forms evolved through strictly mechanistic processes.
> Evolution is really the only alternative to the idea of creation. Either someone created this world or it evolved on its own. That's why Darwinian evolution is so important to atheists, and they'll do anything to defend it. But is it truly defensible?
> In _The Origin of Species_, Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down."


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 15, 2008)

mediator said:


> Exact time of 'when' scripting started is still debated. They say, that the first seers in vedic age used to *'remember'/'memorise'(bold 1) *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(bold 2),* 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(bold 3)*. 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.


Bold 1: I've already posted it in my reply and I think mentioning it here u r not disagreeing me

Bold 2: In any place of the world statues of Mahatma Gandhi is same, he looks like same, same type of bald head, same type of thin hands....dhoti, stick etc. but in dif. states, would it be wrong if I say even districts have different looking Gods of same name. U know the reason why is they r not similar in everywhere, its because they are IMAGINARY, its because people in diff. places imagined differently the same God. So.....

  Bold 3: Agreed, I also believe our mythologies are twisted truth, they are not scripted as same as happened. My theory is that, all these Gods were actually powerfull scientists (now don’t laugh), they invented all these things but didn’t want the common people to know it. I’ve already told in my previous post how (I think) they kept these from common view and why they didn’t want to reveal. 



> I believe what essential is, that you read what all is given "without any bias" in your mind on either any matter of science or any holybook or past. If you already form an opinion based on people's recommendations, then you've already lost your 'own' perspective on the subject. Its like watching a bollywood/hollywood movie after acknowledging its 'stars' in the newspaper. When you watch it you may say, 'it was boring or stupid' & hence differing from the newspaper reviews. Whereas, sometimes watching even a lowballed movie can be interesting.
> So its not that you form an opinion 'before' reading a book or a subject, but I guess the opposite that you read it completely and then, form an opinion. If it interests you, then u may read more and conform from diff. sources!


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 

And replying to the inner meaning of ur comment on movie viewing...........no I don't judge people or events on someone's comments. I'm from a very much theist family, at least 2-3 big pujas hapen in my home, everyone goes to temple etc. This came from my whys and hows? I used to ask them to my parents, they either answerd "God" as reason or "Don't know". I was not satisfied.........I went to libraries (when in class 3) and read books on both type, read mythology books (includes iliad-odisi, russian, chinese, ramayana, mahabharata but missed out koran) and read “GODS, DEMONS & SPIRITSvs Dr. Kovoor”(Yeah in class 3 I read it). And prepared my individual opinion on these, that I should be atheist. I stopped going temples, stopped praying, stopped using stones, rings etc...everybody in my home was furious but I stood strong…..if pressured to wear stones I would throw them, we were not that rich so that thing stopped. Whatever, the meaning is I don’t build my opinion listening someone. My strategy is I build an opinion like I don’t believe God, now its ur turn to convince me, u’ve to try hard as I don’t convince so easily. U give logics, I’ll give counter logic, until n unless u prove me wrong I’m right, if proved wrong ,I’ll happily accept ur claim. But u’ve to prove me wrong.



> Theists will question & argue about the existence of the world/universe/matter & from where did all of it originate. If u try to answer them, then consequently from this will arise more questions like what is beyond universe? If its revolving like earth? If it has boundaries or if it ends anywhere? Consider it like, asking what covers earth's inner crust? Earth's outer crust? Beyond that we have atmosphere in the form of five layers?? Then, it goes to galaxy? Whats beyond that? Universe? Then...Then...Then....why, how, where, what?? Can it be like an irrational number or a mathematic figure that has no ending?


  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”



> Scientists have defined 1 light year as the distance covered by light in one year. Based on this measure we say that a star A is 1000 light years away, B is 2000 light years away and hence so on. That means the light we are seeing now from A left it around 1000 yrs ago, from B it left 2000 yrs ago. Doesn't that mean we are viewing star A 1000 yrs in past & b 2000 yrs in past, the light "from something" which we are sensing/acknowledging right now, "that something" might not be there in reality?? Similary we view SUN 8 minutes in the past. The same goes for sound. Considering all the advancement of science till date, which have "enchanced" the reach of naked eye/ears etc to see distance stars clearly and even tiny particles, can we answer all these philosophical questions??


 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? 

Seriously I didn’t see anything philosophical here. I’ve read this portion several times but I couldn’t figure out…………the things u mentioned r scientific F A C T S!



> On the other hand, science will argue who created God. If its a he or a she? If he exists & if he's good, then why not save humans from being exterminated by terrorists or help the poor?
> 
> So when u ponder on these two sets of eternal questions, then u see that there happens to be a stalemate. You may have a different opinion, but you might see such a stalemate only if you shed your personal bias & emotions regarding either God or Science. Well u can see my vote in the thread, after all I too believe in the ULIMATE TRUTH, that I do.


  Sorry I’ve not seen ur vote, do I need to? 
  Another thing u’ve answered a lot of things and intelligently escaped these:-




rhitwick said:


> * Who created us?*
> God.
> 
> *How?*
> ...


  These are my imaginary conversation between a theist, a confused and a silent atheist.
I again say these are imaginary, so would u like to be responsible enough to make the confused person to explain more, in your own language.
  U know u can’t, really u can’t because u don’t know. But science can. Things we know, we can give minute details about them, not u (*plz read theists, don’t take personally*). Our answers might be wrong today but would be right tomorrow because we are always asking question ourselves, trying to c the answer from every aspect, every angle. But that is not happening with u, no new theories are coming, no new research is going. Even u’ve started to acknowledge our explanations, in times of India they published a news today, some church is going to apologize officially to Darwin for not accepting his theory of Evolution. It has started, u c, it has started (may be it’s a hoax, but its in talk, people are discussing about it).


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 15, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> Guys, 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.
> 
> ...


Its time for you really... and I am very much thankful for such a non-MOd post .

But dude... you are nicely referring to science... but what the theist is gonna refer to ?? It nonetheless, scriptures.
Ok cool....  You think he is gonna think about holy **** like why birds fly .. why sogs fart?? etccc.... no offense.. just to point out.... Yes... science can explain only this ones.. but not .. qs like 
1) *who are u? *
Are u a bunch of chemicals or your name or wat??
2) *What is the difference between dead and living*
No.. science won"t and can"t explain these thing cuz it only deals with what it can perceive and only material science!!!!
There are so many cases of OBEs(Out of Body Experiences) etc in the operating theatres which science has no clue of!
Instead of answering the basic qs of humanity or life .. why know about bird flying, donkey braying!! What do you gain even by knowing about it..! 
Science tricks people by putting a postdated cheque in hand saying we are going to prove ... are in the way... but nvr near to destination...!! 
No one can create a single living organism in a laboratory.... Thats the creation of God ... How can ever a sane man having lots of brains say this huge wonderful creation came by chance .. a BANG .. a reaction....damn it.!


----------



## karnivore (Sep 15, 2008)

@keshavasiva
Generally when we make quotes, we also provide the source. It helps to understand the true context.

Anyway....


> "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectu*ally fulfilled atheist," says Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. For those with atheistic tendencies, Darwin was a savior. He made it possible for the scientists to do away with the need for God. His theory supposedly shows that all life forms evolved through strictly mechanistic processes.


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.



> In _The Origin of Species_, Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down.


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 Origin of Species said:
			
		

> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. *But I can find out no such case.*


The part in bold was conveniently left out.



			
				keshavasiva said:
			
		

> .. why know about bird flying, donkey braying!! What do you gain even by knowing about it..!


Brilliantly spoken. What possible reward can there be by knowing, how we evolved anatomically ? 



			
				keshavasiva said:
			
		

> No one can create a single living organism in a laboratory.... Thats the creation of God ...


Would cloning and in vitro fertilization qualify as creating "living organism in a laboratory" ?


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 15, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Its time for you really... and I am very much thankful for such a non-MOd post .


Thanx I'm honored 



> But dude... you are nicely referring to science... but what the theist is gonna refer to ?? It nonetheless, scriptures.


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 below


rhitwick said:


> U know u can’t, really u can’t because u don’t know. But science can. Things we know, we can give minute details about them, not u (*plz read theists, don’t take personally*). Our answers might be wrong today but would be right tomorrow because we are always asking question ourselves, trying to c the answer from every aspect, every angle. But that is not happening with u, no new theories are coming, no new research is going.





> Ok cool....  You think he is gonna think about *holy **** *like why birds fly .. why sogs fart?? etccc.... no offense.. just to point out.... Yes... science can explain only this ones.. but not .. qs like


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.


> 1) *who are u? *
> Are u a bunch of chemicals or your name or wat??


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.



> 2) *What is the difference between dead and living*


 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.



> There are so many cases of OBEs(Out of Body Experiences) etc in the operating theatres which science has no clue of!


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.



> Instead of answering the basic qs of humanity or life .. why know about bird flying, donkey braying!!


 Can u or can't? 





> What do you gain even by knowing about it..!


 Its of no gain, can u answer or not?


> Science tricks people by putting a postdated cheque in hand saying we are going to prove ... are in the way... but nvr near to destination...!!


?????


> No one can create a single living organism in a laboratory.... Thats the creation of God ...


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??!!! 





> How can ever a sane man having lots of brains say this huge wonderful creation came by chance .. a BANG .. a reaction....damn it.!


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.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 15, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> 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, in previous post, plz read it once) some part of the post is given below
> ...



Dude... noobie post .. but look.... testtube baby or clone are created only with the help of a living being....
Sperm is taken from a living being... thats just external sex...as i say...
I said and again am saying... CAN SCIENCE CREATE LIFE IN THE LABS from just chemicals.  it boils down here to the ingredients of external sex .. that is the sperm and the ovum!!. Just use some common sense... you do the same sex outside and claim you created the life from chemicals... dude...!! u r sooo noobie ..!! do get angry..!! 

Ok You say that you are a bunch of chemicals and some ++= .. what are those neurons and dendroids/?? Aren't they some chemicals too??  
Emotions and conscience cannot be brought from chemicals... Go through google once for more reliable resources .
You say that you are not more than a robot??? 
You are more than that buddy!! You have consciouiness which is the missing link between the living and dead which is not gotten by some bunch of chemicals and glands. 

And now... who am I..
Yes I know..  Not too stupid to say that I am god like many in the society claiming just to make money theses days (BABAS). 

I am a living entity.... as you and everyone are... and God created me .. yes... where the loop?? its no where.... GOD is the one meaning... unborn.. and 
LIving entity is here.... With a soul enclosed in a material body...
The consciouness is the effect of soul being present in the body.

Please apply the SOCRATES qs to yourself b4 telling others.... and do listen to socrates words.
socrates: I BELIEVE THAT SOUL EXISTS AND IS ETERNAL AND NO ONE CAN HURT IT.
Now that you trust socrates as a reliable source and so quoting it in your previous post "SHOULD BELIEVE IN THIS TOO" .. what do you say???


regarding qs and ans
You tell me which q is more important ! and which should be answered first! And no backbiting here.... just ... the most q is to know who you are... and thats true.. lets talk bout that first.... and then go to birds hogs and dogs... ?
you will understand about its unnecessity and uselesness once you understand the main Q.!!


----------



## mediator (Sep 15, 2008)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> Bold 1: I've already posted it in my reply and I think mentioning it here u r not disagreeing me


Sorry, if I overlooked it.



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> Bold 2: In any place of the world statues of Mahatma Gandhi is same, he looks like same, same type of bald head, *same type of thin hands....dhoti, stick etc.* but in dif. states, would it be wrong if I say *even districts have different looking Gods of same name.* U know the reason why is they r not similar in everywhere, its because they are IMAGINARY, its because people in diff. places imagined differently the same God. So....


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:
			
		

> Bold 3: Agreed, I also believe our mythologies are twisted truth, they are not scripted as same as happened. My theory is that, all these Gods were actually powerfull scientists *(now don’t laugh)*, they invented all these things but didn’t want the common people to know it. I’ve already told in my previous post how (I think) they kept these from common view and why they didn’t want to reveal


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:
			
		

> And replying to the inner meaning of ur comment on movie viewing...........no I don't judge people or events on someone's comments. I'm from a very much theist family, at least 2-3 big pujas hapen in my home, everyone goes to temple etc. This came from my whys and hows? I used to ask them to my parents, they either answerd "God" as reason or "Don't know". I was not satisfied.........I went to libraries (when in class 3) and read books on both type, read mythology books (includes iliad-odisi, russian, chinese, ramayana, mahabharata but missed out koran) and read “GODS, DEMONS & SPIRITSvs Dr. Kovoor”(Yeah in class 3 I read it). And prepared my individual opinion on these, that I should be atheist. I stopped going temples, stopped praying, stopped using stones, rings etc...everybody in my home was furious but I stood strong…..if pressured to wear stones I would throw them, we were not that rich so that thing stopped. Whatever, the meaning is I don’t build my opinion listening someone. My strategy is I build an opinion like I don’t believe God, now its ur turn to convince me, u’ve to try hard as I don’t convince so easily. U give logics, I’ll give counter logic, until n unless u prove me wrong I’m right, if proved wrong ,I’ll happily accept ur claim. But u’ve to prove me wrong


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:
			
		

> 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”


Please don't abuse me like I'm stuck to something! 
My point is pretty simple which can be found repeatedly if you had managed to read it all. I doubt the possibility if science can answer everything, the simple and sole statement for which I've been discussing here all this time! I would like to correct you on the bolds. Its like, in 'most case' we have still not found it and in 'some cases' only 'theorised' it!




			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> 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?
> 
> Seriously I didn’t see anything philosophical here. I’ve read this portion several times but I couldn’t figure out…………the things u mentioned r scientific F A C T S!


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", are
1. Aren't our senses decieving us also? How accurate can you be when you see a star.
2. As I recall even when we have developed great telescopes, the universe still looks the same almost everywhere.  

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. 




			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> Sorry I’ve not seen ur vote, do I need to?
> Another thing u’ve answered a lot of things and intelligently escaped these:-


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:
			
		

> These are my imaginary conversation between a theist, a confused and a silent atheist.
> I again say these are imaginary, so would u like to be responsible enough to make the confused person to explain more, in your own language.
> U know u can’t, really u can’t because u don’t know. But science can. Things we know, we can give minute details about them, not u (plz read theists, don’t take personally). Our answers might be wrong today but would be right tomorrow because we are always asking question ourselves, trying to c the answer from every aspect, every angle. But that is not happening with u, no new theories are coming, no new research is going. Even u’ve started to acknowledge our explanations, in times of India they published a news today, some church is going to apologize officially to Darwin for not accepting his theory of Evolution. It has started, u c, it has started (may be it’s a hoax, but its in talk, people are discussing about it).


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.

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.


----------



## karnivore (Sep 15, 2008)

keshavasiva said:
			
		

> The consciouness is the effect of soul being present in the body.


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 (Sep 15, 2008)

karnivore 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 ?



Dude... ! Its not that the soul is not present ... its only that THe consciouness is not spread due to physical dysfunction. 
Soul(You) is(are) there until your death.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 15, 2008)

mediator 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?


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.*




> 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.


Wow!!! the great poster on behalf of theism is a self claimed *atheist, *even ur gr8 foe karnivore was not able to discover it. 



> I would like to correct you on the bolds. Its like, in 'most case' we have still not found it and in 'some cases' only 'theorised' 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)



> Scientists have defined 1 light year as the distance covered by light in one year. Based on this measure we say that a star A is 1000 light years away, B is 2000 light years away and hence so on. That means the light we are seeing now from A left it around 1000 yrs ago, from B it left 2000 yrs ago. Doesn't that mean we are viewing star A 1000 yrs in past & b 2000 yrs in past, the light "from something" which we are sensing/acknowledging right now, *"that something" might not be there in reality??* Similary we view SUN 8 minutes in the past. The same goes for sound. Considering all the advancement of science till date, which have "enchanced" the reach of naked eye/ears etc to see distance stars clearly and even tiny particles, can we answer all these *philosophical questions??*


and


> 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", are


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.*
Now, now don't start by saying that ball and light is not same, so my example is not right. I'm sure u've got what i wanted to express??



> 1. Aren't our senses decieving us also? How accurate can you be when you see a star.


 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. 


> 2. As I recall even when we have developed great telescopes, the universe still looks the same almost everywhere.


 at least more magnified than previously which helps to know what is the(any)thing.



> 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.


 awwww.......now u r kidding with me, u've pretty much understood what I wanted to tell.  



> 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.


hmmmm.......
I saw ur post.
U voted in "who cares/*don't have time* option" and and u've most number of replies on this topic.
U r a self claimed atheist
U post for theism.
 Now I'm really confused, do u know what r u or what do u support? I think u r an agnostic



> You must understand that I'm a completely *neutral party* much like an observer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 15, 2008)

rhitwick 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.*


 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



karmanya said:


> Images like Krishna,Vishnu and a whole host of others, are exactly that-images. They were meant to make the idea of your subconscious being God, easier to understand.



OOps ! I missed this subconcious thing!
There is nothing like imagination for explanation or ease making.!
They are for real... That is the next thing after you understand ifrst that god exists otherwise your mind won't appreciate it .. rite... ! there are many people who think that everyone is god and light is god etc.... so first they believe that there exists some god... After we transit that phase, it makes sense, atleast for me, to talk bout it..!!
Make me clear on that part.. will ya?


----------



## Faun (Sep 15, 2008)

lolz *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/70.png


----------



## mediator (Sep 15, 2008)

rhitwick 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.


Isn't that the same I'm talking of? 



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> Wow!!! the great poster *on behalf of theism is a self claimed atheist*, even ur gr8 foe karnivore was not able to discover it.


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'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.*
> 
> *awwww.......now u r kidding with me,* u've pretty much understood what I wanted to tell.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Faun (Sep 15, 2008)

I can see some gushing of youth-hood 

People are aggressive for either they still got that little less control over them or they are trying to force some thing on others out of I_have_seen_it_all_kiddo attitude. *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/81.png


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 16, 2008)

T159 said:


> lolz *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/70.png


U mean... my post made u laugh,..... oh man... go thru it carefully...!! '
Whats the point uve got?



rhitwick said:


> 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.



Really..! Hats Off... Say that you can only understand their posts.... but not smart enough to digest so much against your atheism.... which stands above such insane ideas!


----------



## karmanya (Sep 16, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What exactly do you want me to make clear?
There are no mythical people like Vishnu and Shiva. They are concepts!. Please dude, while I haven't actually read the vedas- I have read translations of the BG and have attended a lot of those religious seminars with my grandparents(ever saturday and sunday for 2 years at the essex farms) and all of them say the same thing.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 16, 2008)

karmanya said:


> What exactly do you want me to make clear?
> There are no mythical people like Vishnu and Shiva. They are concepts!. Please dude, while I haven't actually read the vedas- I have read translations of the BG and have attended a lot of those religious seminars with my grandparents(ever saturday and sunday for 2 years at the essex farms) and all of them say the same thing.



If that is the case then u attended seminars by impersonalists.!
BG condemns impersonalists for they deny the existence of a personal GOD.. This in itself is a big topic... 
Its a straight away fact that GOD is person and not just a concept. BG itself says this. Hope you know this as u have read some of it!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 16, 2008)

every time I think I won't reply ur posts, u do some blunders that I can't stop myself from posting, watever,


keshavasiva said:


> personal GOD


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)


> Its a straight away fact that GOD is person and not just a concept. BG itself says this.


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,


> 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)


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 16, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> 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)
> ...


lallybhai! y turn out a dumbo! U don't even no about the huge topics personalism and impersonalism..! Dude.. I pity u!
SO now listen... personal GOD means that GOD is a person and not just some vague junk concept and surely not light. 
Hah .. there I got ya.. English tutorial!..... Now see... 'personal' has a meaning which doesn't agrees with yours in this context ... 
Personal doesn't mean ...saying..."personal issues.. personal talk etc..."
Its like a person... lemme give ya example...
When you speak to someone very nastily or to say very haphazardly.. not treating him like a person.... someone comes and says... " Don't you be impersonal... treat him personally..."   Like that... its no thats he is our own after that.....
I think this is enough to insert that data object into your empty vector!!!
You need not control yourself from posting.. that seems awkward... ain't it?
Just post sensible things and don't think that you know everything and atleast don't think " Ya I know he or she doesn't know anything"... remove your presumptions and you ll sound better!

Regarding that self confidence .. thingy... It sounds that you believe in god and think that he is in everyone .. inside him.... ! Am I right here .. or is it that your post just makes me feel that??? Make me clear here so that i can put forward what i feel there!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 16, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Regarding that self confidence .. thingy... It sounds that you believe in god and think that he is in everyone .. inside him.... ! Am I right here .. or is it that your post just makes me feel that??? Make me clear here so that i can put forward what i feel there!



PLzzzzzzzzz............don't abuse me by saying I believe God.......u r rather welcome with "those" words..........but not this...........

Read my post again, In every line I mentioned u as the reason. Even the Godmen(Good ones like Jesus, Saibaba, Ramkrishna etc) and holy books tried to do that. They told God is in u, so that u start believing u, not that stone piece. I again tell u God is NOT a person its a concept which was invented and modified in time to do good of mankind. But people became so blind that they started worshipping the stone piece and forgot those ideologies. 

Listen to me, the God concept will be here in world till one single person is facing short of confidence. If u r confidence enough to do any task rather asking or depending on anyone or anything, u won't need to wait for any miracle. 

People worship because they r not confident enough, they don't have self belief, so they cling to someone more powerfull than him/her. They c God as a support, like "God is with me I'll surely be successful". This God concept at least helps boosting peoples morale, I don't have any problem here, if its doing good to mankind, no issues; but people become so aggressive and possessive about "their" God, they forget the main purpose of this concept i.e. "Unity" and start fight over it (eg. war between Vaishnab(followers of Vishnu) and Shakt(Followers of Shiva), Mahajan and Hinjan(Diff. b/w Buddisths), Digambar and Shetambar(Jainism), HIndu( So many Gods), Muslims(I'm less informed on this but they do have two diff. groups, maybe Sia n Sunni), Christ(Catholic Protestants(?)).

This is the main reason I HATE personification of this holy concept. 

Atheism is good. Just for 3 seconds u imagine that there is no God, no religion, no Hindu-muslim-chirst, tell me what do u c? The name Rahim doesn't sound odd right? The name Tom is no more diff.,  Its open, no boundaries. 

I've no problem with theism and religion until its doing good for mankind. But everyday there is news of "HOLY" war, "HOLY" bomb blast, "HOLY" lynching. I get so sick and so angry, I feel about shouting, "U fool the reason u r fighting, killing urselves r baseless, there is no such person called "XYZ" God". But I can't, they all will think I'm mad, and some possessive people like u( U were when u started posting in this forum, don't disagree, now u r calming down and getting the points) will kill me. And I'm too coward to be a martyr.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 17, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> PLzzzzzzzzz............don't abuse me by saying I believe God.......u r rather welcome with "those" words..........but not this...........
> 
> Read my post again, In every line I mentioned u as the reason. Even the Godmen(Good ones like Jesus, Saibaba, Ramkrishna etc) and holy books tried to do that. They told God is in u, so that u start believing u, not that stone piece. I again tell u God is NOT a person its a concept which was invented and modified in time to do good of mankind. But people became so blind that they started worshipping the stone piece and forgot those ideologies.
> Listen to me, the God concept will be here in world till one single person is facing short of confidence. If u r confidence enough to do any task rather asking or depending on anyone or anything, u won't need to wait for any miracle.
> ...


 U nEEDn't be one!! 

I just didn't say that.. Your posts made me think like that...thats it
Now look...dude...!! I thot that you might be having such ideas or opinions or notions..

I am talking here pure knowledge.... 
I have the basis when I say GOD is personal... BG
Facts are hard to believe at first....
U r going by your own theory and perception which are correct always...atleast you should consider this when you are dealing with an important issue of your life!! rite?
U see the world .. and you develop an opinion.. thats not the fact but...
please understand that u r like a frog in the well..
GOD is the creator and he can only be one.... but with different names.! and everything through a manual book for mankind that are scriptures(any religion)
no imagination of GOD can be like this like that..... u can't even understand ur own bodily functions completely.. what will u judge god by yourself?? SO go thru the manual!
U say that u hate the personification because u see it as the basis of all the holy wars etc which is not true... Its only because of the personal motives of the particular sect
When the concept is true follow it .. u don't care whether others or using it or misusing it (nuclear tech is the best ex).

God is one.. with many names and forms .. but as given in scriptures but not as per notions going on in the society or the imaginations...!! 
God is one.. everyone serves him and everyone wants to please him and so there is universal brotherhood..   Here i m not saying that its possible rite now and anywhere in the future.. but infering that GOD EXISTS!!!


U r soul and God as Supersoul is present within your material body.. and not 'U'.
U means soul  and GOD is inside U's bodily covering!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 17, 2008)

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) and again impossible.


----------



## m-jeri (Sep 17, 2008)

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...


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 17, 2008)

rhitwick said:


> 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.*
> ...



hell ya!
Not for all the things u said.. !!tho!
Please go on with your self motivated self proclaimed self made imaginatory... theories views etc. then surely i say that u can only b a frog in the well... and wat does it matter whether u r opening your eyes or not!!! its of no use!
Just see to yourself what science has proven about the facts of life .. how logical they are... how far you can say that they are true and how can you believe that it won't be wrong in the future??
I have a basis of BG and it can never be proved wrong atleast not by morons!
I used to be a science freak always after new finding discussions etc... but man.. it blew me off... The reasons were the qs above... 
So I turned to a side where I have complete logical set of answers and truths and I am here just to put them fwd...Its up to you to accept or reject or atleast to analyze with an open mind with an helicoptar view... !!!



madjeri said:


> 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....
> ...



Dude...! This is not a time pass and this is a fight club..!! Try to post or get out of this thread! Kinda Horse **** to expect a healthy discussion in a fight club and that too such a sensitive topic!! Hmmm....
We are not here to change other's minds or feelings or views.... 
We just put fwd the points in relation to others points supporting/opposing... so that not only the appenders but also the viewers get to know many cool points from both the sides and they decide what they choose... There is every chance that a specimen may study this thread(being confused all the time about this concept) and started strongly accepting GOD or science or anything!! We just go on whenever we find time and post whatever we know ..
Its not about knocking anyone or ourself and no way the survival of the fittest(Darwinji) which is nothing btr than dog ****


----------



## m-jeri (Sep 17, 2008)

^^^

Dude...stop crapping and start reading posts well..
If u think anyone that really wants to learn or differentiate about god exist or not exists..this will be the last place they will come..so drop the act that u r doing a favor to others...i understand the concept of a fight club very much.. only bother was a absurd topic..where no wise men ever had reached a conclusion..what the heck u suppose to do there??? u can oppose or support..for all i dont care....

god and science may be a concept or anything for u... but humans are the more real thing that u can encounter in world...that u can beleive... learn to be nice to them and u be OK in world even if u don't give a dime about god or science.

..please if u wanna drop the ****,drop it somewhere else...


and knock urself out..means have fun...which is what fight club is all about...:sigh:


----------



## ksrao_74 (Sep 17, 2008)

*god*


----------



## manistar (Sep 17, 2008)

hey leave it guys.... we cant explain science it to these *****************(try guessing)

Never fight with pig in street... people cant find the difference


----------



## m-jeri (Sep 18, 2008)

^^^
True...

Mods long time this thread should have been closed. its a very good reading material with lost of valid points..



p.s. on i believe in god. and science is for my career.


----------



## karnivore (Sep 18, 2008)

^^ It would be a real shame if any mod feels obliged to lock the thread. Couldn't help but notice the irony here.

Let this thread remain open. Let people express their opinion, however bizarre or disagreeable they may seem to be to one another.


----------



## RajivNairr (Sep 18, 2008)

World without faith would be chaos....

Think about it, Im an atheist too... but how many of us here were born and raised as one... I doubt if I would come across any ... 

We chose to be atheist coz that sounds sensible rather than believing in something which is not bound by reasons....

Or as this piece of dialogue  goes from Mr. Anderson to Morpheus: "I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life" 

whichever way an atheist looks at it ... have ya ever wondered how it would be if there was no faith ... if a person were to believe that he can do anything and get away with it.. and that the only thing stopping us is our conscience, morality and fear of the unknown ....

Suppose if a person was to be told that life was an accident and that there is no God and certainly no afterlife or hell or heaven.. he would have it in him to do all the crimes with no remorse or guilt... imagine how many Hitler's this world would've had to face... I personally believe that losing that fear in faith can bring out the ugliest in a man...

I personally believe the concept of God has been able to bind a mans conscience in terms of sins and fear... its good in a way but it does turn ugly when some decide to use faith as the weapon to use authority(Taleban, Sangh parivar n etc.... )...

My family believes that I am a letdown coz I don't go to temple anymore.. to be honest.. I really don't care as long as my conscience is clear... 

There are lot of questions to be answered which seek logical explanations.. I don't think god explains them all... nothing/no one can change what I believe except for God himself which I believe does not exist.... Heck think about this...

5000 years back everyone believed earth was flat....
500 years back everyone believed that earth was the center of universe...
Poor Galileo Galilei was forced to drink poison by the vatican for making the later hypothesis(at that time)...

I don't know how long its gonna take before we realize that we fought all these wars in name of faith which never existed in the first place... OR to be honest I don't even know if we are going to exist till the day we are going to realize it ....

All I wanna say is believe in what you believe in... live and let live and this world would be a better place for all of us.....


----------



## mediator (Sep 19, 2008)

rajiv said:
			
		

> 5000 years back *everyone* believed earth was flat....


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.
Units


----------



## karnivore (Sep 19, 2008)

Don’t want to nitpick or start another war, but some of the “facts” mentioned at veda.wikidot.com are somewhat misleading. I can’t point to all the WRONGs there, but some, which I know for sure, are as below:

  World’s Oldest Civilization: It is very difficult to say which is the OLDEST civilization. For example, the Sumer Civilization pre-dates Harappan civilization. But then there are other city states which also predate Sumerian cities. 

  Rig Veda being the oldest book: It is somewhat controversial and can’t be said with absolute certainty. The Zoroastrian sacred text Avestha, although said to be younger than Rig Veda by some 500 to 1000 years, may be a contemporary work or little older than Rig Veda. The linguistic similarity is the key to it. Rig Veda and Avestha, both have same gods, narrate some similar incidences, speak of similar rituals etc. It is extremely hard to say which preceded which. It is therefore better to speak of Rig Veda and Avestha, in the same breath, to be SOME of the oldest texts.

  Sanskrit, the mother of all languages: Sanskrit may well be ONE of the oldest (Dravidian languages are another) languages, but she is herself a branch (Indo-Iranian) of Proto-Indio-European (PIE) language. The European languages (pardon my generalization) are derived from a Proto-Celtic language family, which itself is another branch of PIE. Sanskrit is far from being the Mother of ALL languages.

  Nalanda University: It was a Buddhist University and not a Hindu one, the site fails to mention this important fact. Heun Tsang’s details are somewhat fabricated. The figure of 10,000 students living and studying at a time, does not confirm to the archeological studies undertaken there. It could support, only a fraction of that number.

  Baudhayana’s PI: Baudhayana’s Sulbhasastra does not provide the PI value as 3.1416. There are different PI values like, 2.99, 3.00, 3.004, 3.029, 3.047, 3.088, 3.1141, 3.16049 and 3.2022, but not 3.1416.

  Baudhayana’s (Pythagorus ?) Theorem: It is TRUE, that the theorem that we call Pythagorus Theorem is clearly mentioned in Baudhayana’s Sulbhasastra, but is only mentioned as a rule. He does not provide any derivation (proof) of the theorem. Neither does he mention if he has copied it from somewhere else. This “somewhere” could well be of Indian origin, or Greek origin (because the same theorem is found to exist in Greece at about a time, slightly preceding Baudhayana) or a common origin, from where both the Indian and Greek could have copied.

  Measurement of Time: The equation given, makes use of data, which are spread across the Vedas, Upanishads and even Mahabharata. That is insanely crazy. The period-bias has not been considered.

  Extremely Old Universe: The most conservative estimate puts the age at 13.7 billion years. 8.4 billion is certainly far away from the that date. (Ok, I am just nitpicking here)

  Sorry did not read any further. There are some truths as well, the numeric system, Zero, etc.


----------



## mediator (Sep 19, 2008)

Ofcourse, thats why I said they need to be pondered. If you think you have your data intact, then you can very well update the wiki page. As for Sanskrit, afaik, originated from prakrit & si I too believe that it cannot be the mother of all languages. There is a lot that need to be read before saying what "everyone" thought.


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 20, 2008)

madjeri said:


> ^^^
> 
> Dude...stop crapping and start reading posts well..
> If u think anyone that really wants to learn or differentiate about god exist or not exists..this will be the last place they will come..so drop the act that u r doing a favor to others...i understand the concept of a fight club very much.. only bother was a absurd topic..where no wise men ever had reached a conclusion..what the heck u suppose to do there??? u can oppose or support..for all i dont care....
> ...



I won't continue this discussion as I m lil busy thez dayz... just want to piss this guy off, who suddenly popps up and gives a damn! yeah Dude... r really drive me crazy with can't the **** on our own kneees .. do U? Or else.. .how the hell can u say talking bout GOD or explaining about him is crap? Straight... > If u can post something relevant to the topic.. well, post it and discuss... otherwise.. get your stinking ass away from here as atleast others will discuss and come up with many points related to science or god.. but not this kinda shitty posts.!  What ever I am saying is not self proclamation of me *** ho**.  I have to talk lik this cuz ur post really shows off a materialistic...gross ...sense gratifying...attitude .... ! Aha..as If every here is blind to see that humans exists...  Being good to humans .. doing good to humans is not what we are here for... We are here for some higher purpose... To know the Absoulte Truth... Scientifically or Through Spiritual Science(The topic) and I am debating on the side of Spiritual Science... cuz i know what it is and its caliber of knowing what we can't by science (which just can only explain matter but not the inner self) .


----------



## manistar (Sep 22, 2008)

hello keshavesiva,,
                          i dont know y u get angry on madjeri, i dont see any thing wrong in this post, talking about god is not crap... but using science to justify his presence is crap..
right from the starting these religious people says "if there s something tat cant be explained its god" first they cant explain lightning and fire they even called it gods weapons.. they even burnt copernicus home for his theory that earth revolves around the sun and world is round.. then they condemned travel by aeroplanes saying that only angels should fly and if man trys to fly god would take back his legs.. they are the ones who use aero's for their travel.. whenever their s a plane crash they would come up with their theories again...
i heard there still exist a group claiming that earth is flat
previously everyone believed ghost is there when we are in our childhood.. but when we grew up when we use the stuff in our head we reliesed ghost are nothing but our fear..
even god belief is similar.. just use your head stuff.. god will disappear..
i still believe their is some energy and force that created universe.. but simply praying at that energy is simply as tribals worshiping lightning and fire.. 
many worship god only because of their greed and fear.. 
science may now cannot explain origin of universe or creation of life.. but tat ignorance cannot be taken as granted to say god created everything.. 
its not long time science ll find the those and break god belief.. but i m not sure if science can breaf gods belief.. we can wake up sleeping guy but cant the one who acts like sleeping..
god believers are acting that they are sleeping.. they thinking tat talking about existance of god is sin.. hey come up guys.. if god is responsible for everything... if there is phrase that without god not even the atom vibrates.. even atheism is act of god.. even if say god is f****r... its too act of god.. you need not learn the entire science to think about it.. just a common sense should bring you out of god belief...
just let questions come out of your mind.. only questions make you think.. if you think everything is because of god.. nothing ll happen.. to reach the destination you have look at the path not the god in the sky.. if you are doing that you are not going to reach the destination but fell in the man holes..
atlast their is no harm in beleiving god.. it even increases your confidence.. i m not against of god.. i m simply against of using god thoery for communal clashes..
if you re going to love the maker(god).. love the product(man and other living) too..
sorry if i hurt someone.. i never say these to hurt the sentiments of anybody.. please dont fight between yourself on this topic.. fighting against people(product) is fighting against god(maker) (in your principles)


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 22, 2008)

manistar said:


> hello keshavesiva,,
> i dont know y u get angry on madjeri, i dont see any thing wrong in this post, talking about god is not crap... but using science to justify his presence is crap..
> right from the starting these religious people says "if there s something tat cant be explained its god" first they cant explain lightning and fire they even called it gods weapons.. they even burnt copernicus home for his theory that earth revolves around the sun and world is round.. then they condemned travel by aeroplanes saying that only angels should fly and if man trys to fly god would take back his legs.. they are the ones who use aero's for their travel.. whenever their s a plane crash they would come up with their theories again...
> i heard there still exist a group claiming that earth is flat
> ...



There is every reason which I mentioned in my post to get angry! Who do u ask me again?
Look... Einstein too shook his brain of (reg god) as he was trying to find the concepts of universe just to realize that its nothing but the creation of god . I don't wanna waste my life just to come to a conclusion(cuz Im intelligent) at the end of my life that GOD EXISTS! ... Neither u wanna? do ya? 
GOD is just so real without him you can't at this moment expalain any damn thing correctly.. He perfectly logically suits His position... and what on earth makes u all always turn to greeks europe ancient histories? Why not ours.? Ours was well developed civilization .. Just inventing planes or finding the ingredients of fire of some damn thing won't make it all.. What the f did science explain about life? What is life..? Why can't we make life in labs? Why can't we bring the completely dead back to life etc... ! These are the basic and real qs that have to be answered and not the HS u have refered to ... even though they are not useless.. its just that they are fancy little inventions where the basic concept is yet undiscovered(BY SCIENCE). Its always says that it will in future .. but how long will you live? Do u wanna wait for 10 thousand years to wait for science to prove some damn thing which again some neo''theory's gonna counter!?
Get a life buddy.... Science isn't everything and this is material science... and what science i was referring , which can expain god, was spiritual science(spiritual doesn't mean devils hobgoblins etc) . .... 
Spiritual knowledge is much more advanced(math, yoga, armor, medicine everything) and its only we who are incapable of taking it ...! 
Never ever say that ..."People say that god will do this .... that"... People will say anything and everything... Yu should be able to figure out what's right and what's wrong! There are prescribed manuals called scriptures to study these subjects... and only then u can comment something on it and that too with an intention to seek clarification and not arguing for the sake of argument!


----------



## m-jeri (Sep 22, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> I won't continue this discussion as I m lil busy thez dayz... just want to piss this guy off, who suddenly popps up and gives a damn! yeah Dude... r really drive me crazy with can't the **** on our own kneees .. do U? Or else.. .how the hell can u say talking bout GOD or explaining about him is crap? Straight... > If u can post something relevant to the topic.. well, post it and discuss... otherwise.. get your stinking ass away from here as atleast others will discuss and come up with many points related to science or god.. but not this kinda shitty posts.!  What ever I am saying is not self proclamation of me *** ho**.  I have to talk lik this cuz ur post really shows off a materialistic...gross ...sense gratifying...attitude .... ! Aha..as If every here is blind to see that humans exists... * Being good to humans ..doing good to humans is not what we are here for*... We are here for some higher purpose... To know the Absoulte Truth... Scientifically or Through Spiritual Science(The topic) and I am debating on the side of Spiritual Science... cuz i know what it is and its caliber of knowing what we can't by science (which just can only explain matter but not the inner self) .



That one line itself is enough for me to know about u...ur just a person who have no real life...just a lame ass...

I believe in god... u can say whatever crap u want u prev...i dont give a rats-ass... god or science whatever maybe..that created life..in which humans thrive..which is the most significant result of what believers or non believers argue.... if u cant respect that ... dude ... just die....

absolute truth..u think u will get to know that...ever....of all..u??? ... millions of years of evolution and humans are still on the surface of for whatever that we were put here for...and u want absolute truth.. get a life man...that is reserved for ppl with a intellect and spiritual level known to none


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 22, 2008)

madjeri said:


> That one line itself is enough for me to know about u...ur just a person who have no real life...just a lame ass...
> 
> I believe in god... u can say whatever crap u want u prev...i dont give a rats-ass... god or science whatever maybe..that created life..in which humans thrive..which is the most significant result of what believers or non believers argue.... if u cant respect that ... dude ... just die....
> 
> absolute truth..u think u will get to know that...ever....of all..u??? ... millions of years of evolution and humans are still on the surface of for whatever that we were put here for...and u want absolute truth.. get a life man...that is reserved for ppl with a intellect and spiritual level known to none



Hey u also voted for "God" right? U both r in same league, but d diff. is u guyz r clashing in ideologies. To him GOD is everything, every answer starts with GOD and ends with it. And u still have the logical reasoning in u. Good.


----------



## m-jeri (Sep 22, 2008)

^^^

i saw he believed in god... in my eyes humans are his greatest creations... or even in a science believer..human life is the greatest of them all... if not.this thread would cease to exist...

my point is if a guy is such a jerk to ppl who he has never seen or can only make a impression through his words..what will be he in a real world.. a real sore loser...an i am pretty sure...

one can believe in god or science..i have no pblm.coz ones belief should have the power to get him through life..other than that..nothing.....but if he cant be civil with another human being.. all is a moo point..dont u think....???

This is my last sentence in this thread...

All of u..one can believe in science or god.. coz ur belief is urs... its just way u are..no one can take it from you..but the greatest thing that belief made is humans..ur friends and family and the members here... if u have loved and respected that one thing then you all are heroes in life...and brothers.... 


Jerin


----------



## kalpik (Sep 22, 2008)

Final warning to everyone on this thread.. Specially keshavasiva. BEHAVE, else..


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 22, 2008)

madjeri said:


> ^^^
> 
> i saw he believed in god... in my eyes humans are his greatest creations... or even in a science believer..human life is the greatest of them all... if not.this thread would cease to exist...
> 
> ...


Quoting the previous one too...
There is a reason to say all what I have said... cuz u say u believe in GOD but don't try to reallly know who he is or what He is for etc.. U just say I believe in GOD and give damn.... Yes , I didn't say that we shouldn't be and go good to people... Its just that its not just what we are here for ..!!! It is true! 
Ya everyone has their own beliefs feelings etc but beliefs are not thruths or facts. One should come out of his beliefs to understand the real world and the real life . Thats the reason this thread is for... not for dumbos like u who want to be in the darkness of ignorance and want to cast others too.! I say that cuz U encourage indirect intoxication... This means that see... as an ex... A person is full of  anxiety and to get rid of it .. he drinks... Logically and importantly the thruth is that he is not out of the anxiety.... The cause of anxiety is still there and he is just intoxicated enough that it just blinds the anxiety and that too only for a moment... .But Real cure is to go hit the cause.. and thats what u shoudl be... not to suppress the facts by living in ones own imagination feeling very proud that he is so...!!

I think this too might be the last post from me.. unless anyone comes up with btr argument rather than arguing for argument sake.... GOodbye.



kalpik said:


> Final warning to everyone on this thread.. Specially keshavasiva. BEHAVE, else..



Offtopic..
Dude.. Do u think im out of mind to post like that... I am firmly stable and know very well what behavior I had in the last post... It just brings out heated strong points of the persons who pops up or puts up one liners.. Its a trick.. U btr know that I didn't mean any words in there(the -ve ones).


----------



## kalpik (Sep 23, 2008)

I dont care if you meant anything there or not.. I just care that you wrote it..


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 23, 2008)

kalpik said:


> I dont care if you meant anything there or not.. I just care that you wrote it..


Who cares then for what you write?
I hereby see your courage(if you have some) or caliber(i m sure u don't) to do something rather then some modoneliner. 
I know ... .I challenge you to delete all my posts in this or any thread in this whole thinkdigit forums and this is in addition to a ban?!!! Wat do u say... Don't step back coward!


----------



## afonofa (Sep 23, 2008)

kalpik said:


> Final warning to everyone on this thread.. Specially keshavasiva. BEHAVE, else..





kalpik said:


> I dont care if you meant anything there or not.. I just care that you wrote it..


Thank you. Better late than never.




keshavasiva said:


> Who cares then for what you write?
> I hereby see your courage(if you have some) or caliber(i m sure u don't) to do something rather then some modoneliner.
> I know ... .I challenge you to delete all my posts in this or any thread in this whole thinkdigit forums and this is in addition to a ban?!!! Wat do u say... Don't step back coward!


see you later.


----------



## m-jeri (Sep 23, 2008)

keshavasiva said:


> Who cares then for what you write?
> I hereby see your courage(if you have some) or caliber(i m sure u don't) to do something rather then some modoneliner.
> I know ... .I challenge you to delete all my posts in this or any thread in this whole thinkdigit forums and this is in addition to a ban?!!! Wat do u say... Don't step back coward!



Bye...tc...


----------



## keshavasiva (Sep 23, 2008)

^^
U r not in the GOD's own country!! lolz.. so u r n jus a conception not a real place... u r not anywhere... lolz

hell ya... 
bye and TAKE CARE


----------



## m-jeri (Sep 23, 2008)

^^^

Trivandrum is named as Gods Own country by kerala Govt for tourism u dumb fool... sheesh..its not my IP...stop typing on the kbb..please...stop...ur an embarrassment....

Mods ... and who ever thght its not right to close it...

its high time fellows...it is high time... this thread has reached the saturation...

No more valid points are there to debate...


----------



## kalpik (Sep 23, 2008)

keshavasiva banned permanently.. Thread closed.


----------



## kalpik (Oct 18, 2008)

Thread opened again on thread starter's request. But please be careful while posting in this thread. Keep all offtopic posts out!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Oct 18, 2008)

Thanks a lot Kalpik 

*To all other Members who wish to post in this thread...*

** Please Stay on topic
* Please dont start a war and start fighting among yourselves.. ( even though its in Fight Club section)
* Please dont post some nonsense and again pave way to close this Wonderful Thread ! 
* If you are insulted or teased please PM to any of the MODs/ Admins .. please dont  reply to the post and continue the War*


I am not a mod or admin , but i have went great way to re-open this thread... so please maintain Online discipline and be kind to each other.. !!


Thanks ...


----------



## Psychosocial (Oct 18, 2008)

LOL @thread


----------



## karnivore (Oct 18, 2008)

Thanks @kalpik 

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/ThumbsUp.gif


----------



## rhitwick (Oct 21, 2008)

WOW!!!! Back again........
Thanks to Kalpik and Thanks to Naveen

Lets begin d eternal war


----------



## Psychosocial (Jan 31, 2009)

I dont believe in God and I hate religion because :-

1) the existence of God is not proven and he/she is fictious
2) because of that fictious character, the world is divided into something called 'religion'
3) because of religion people fight with each other, kill other and do things which should not be done.
4) if God is almighty then why dosent he stop the killing that the people are doing 'for' him ?
5) if god is almighty then why is there poverty, hatred, suicide, terrorits, crimes, etc ?
6) if God is almighty then why crores of people are homeless ?
7) if God is almighty then why the hell does thousands of corrupt people walk away without punishment
8) if God was almighty and if he really controlled everything then nobody would have smarter or dumber than anyone. Everyone would have been equally smart.
9) ALMOST all so called 'miracles' can be explained by Science and the ones which cant be, will soon be proved in future because we would be having better tech.

Therefore, I hate crap like Religion and God

If I ever HAD to choose a religion to follow, it would Satanism... why ? Simple, because its the most simple and straight-forward religion.

As per now, I am an atheist.

P.S :- all the emos whinning about God can go listen to Disciple by Slayer. Thats today's homework for you.


----------



## comp@ddict (Jan 31, 2009)

Another Atheist Here.

And I think the poll options are not justified, there should be one which says, god doesn't exist cuz there's no proof-by theory of Science.



> In \Science, as long as something is not proven, it's said to be non-existent.


----------



## speedyguy (Jan 31, 2009)

agree wit psychosocial... some f us must hv recvd mails on conversation betwn dr abdul kallam n his profesor whr he proves that science is also abt faith n this is how he does-

he claims wat prof teaches us we beleive coz of faith in his brain....n v cant c his brain still v hv faith...similarily....v cant c god but v hv faith he exists....

but wat he teaches us is not just faith....it is again a proved substance wich everyone knows....god is faith n belv...but nuttin else

Enjoy~!


----------



## IITian (Feb 1, 2009)

how come the sum of percentage votes for the 4 options greater than 100?


----------



## Faun (Feb 1, 2009)

^^lol...now thats a miracle !


----------



## IITian (Feb 1, 2009)

^^which proves that GOD exists!!


----------



## thewisecrab (Feb 1, 2009)

^^
LOL 
Anyway, I'm an atheist
This for the simple reason that man himself is responsible for the luck he desires in life, not "God"


----------



## dips_view (Feb 2, 2009)

everybody can vote 4 more than 1 option..


----------



## cyber (Feb 7, 2009)

well according to me only science has made us think of god


----------



## ionicsachin (Feb 7, 2009)

God is a FORCE or ENERGY which runs a collection of tools and interpretions called SCIENCE, thats why a ball will always fall with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 , which is a number we made as reference, but the real acceleration(not in numbers, but in our feeling) is made by God


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 7, 2009)

And, what is the "Real Acceleration" ??
Would u be kind enough to elaborate?


b/w go through the initial posts of this thread...it would lighten u up a 1000watt.


----------



## ionicsachin (Feb 7, 2009)

well i am enough lightened.....We use the number Nine point eight....thats coz we made number system and that comes fit....just like boiling point is 100 degree celc. 
By real acceleration i meant what we actually see anything falling with, not knowing about that Nine point eight....
By the way my post was just for fun, i m not at all into this


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Feb 8, 2009)

Science. No Doubt.


----------



## amitash (Feb 11, 2009)

science all the way....I feel god was just something some dude came up with to controll and manipulate other people........And I also feel that any scientist/science student/enginner who believes in god is not true to his profession as these professions follow a universal law: "Dont accept anything without concrete proof" ....there is no proof in case of god and I wont blieve untill "god" appears in front of me....I'll probably be flamed for this but I dont care..Its just my thinking.


----------



## virilecliffhanger (Feb 12, 2009)

comp@ddict said:


> Another Atheist Here.
> 
> And I think the poll options are not justified, there should be one which says, god doesn't exist cuz there's no proof-by theory of Science.




What a joke.... Do you want the f**n science to prove GOD??  Science can't even know the origin of life or to produce life... watdahell will it do with GOD.. tats impossible... better stay atheist than leaping towards impossibilities...... Science is there to bring you luxuries... to do things quickly and to advance in all other streams except when it comes to terms like 'soul' 'GOD' 'ORIGIN OF LIFE' etc...  wooo.. tats rite



amitash said:


> science all the way....I feel god was just something some dude came up with to controll and manipulate other people........And I also feel that any scientist/science student/enginner who believes in god is not true to his profession as these professions follow a universal law: "Dont accept anything without concrete proof" ....there is no proof in case of god and I wont blieve untill "god" appears in front of me....I'll probably be flamed for this but I dont care..Its just my thinking.



Keep it up... but do ask for proofs for everything you believe in your life( I will offend if I point out)... and do a good justice to your profession(if u r an engg) LOL


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 12, 2009)

lovelyCliffHanger said:


> What a joke.... Do you want the f**n science to prove GOD??  Science can't even know the origin of life or to produce life


U r so..so ignorant

Please go through first few pages of this thread...and enlighten urself


----------



## Psychosocial (Feb 12, 2009)

lovelyCliffHanger said:


> What a joke.... Do you want the f**n science to prove GOD??  Science can't even know the origin of life or to produce life... watdahell will it do with GOD.. tats impossible... better stay atheist than leaping towards impossibilities...... Science is there to bring you luxuries... to do things quickly and to advance in all other streams except when it comes to terms like 'soul' 'GOD' 'ORIGIN OF LIFE' etc...  wooo.. tats rite
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up... but do ask for proofs for everything you believe in your life( I will offend if I point out)... and do a good justice to your profession(if u r an engg) LOL



There's a more sophisticated way of posting your views about anything/anyone/any crap. Everyone here knows how to swear and curse at each but no-one does that. If you believe in God, fine! Go to a temple/church/sewer and pray. We here, dont give a damn about a fool sitting somewhere posting crap.


----------



## virilecliffhanger (Feb 12, 2009)

Psychosocial said:


> There's a more sophisticated way of posting your views about anything/anyone/any crap. Everyone here knows how to swear and curse at each but no-one does that. If you believe in God, fine! Go to a temple/church/sewer and pray. We here, dont give a damn about a fool sitting somewhere posting crap.



Woo Woo... cool down... I was just wondering if you were rational about your view on proofs... Ur foolishness resounds when u call others fools and crapping up ur post... I don't intend to try to have healthy fight which such kinda illogical fellas who burst out if questioned.. LOL... kid...  I DIDN'T ASK U TO BELIEVE IN GOD n believe me ... who cares after all..



rhitwick said:


> U r so..so ignorant
> 
> Please go through first few pages of this thread...and enlighten urself


/*Atleast this guy is +ve*/

Man.. u tell me to go thru all that f*** stuff behind... do u even realize how long it is... 
hmm.. u guys are tired off repeating what you said already...? Yeah .. I understand....

But I am still not clear of one thing... how da hell can or did a scientist create life from scratch.. I mean.. not from a living cell.. or anything living..!!
Again this is not offtopic. Reason being, I strongly think that creator of life is someone .. mayb GOD but not a sane man.

Guys... I just found this while searching the net for "Scientists creating life from scratch" thought that it wouldn't be off topic.... Quoting it anyway.... Plzz don't get outraged.. u atheists... just be cool and post ur views.. I mean.. any thoughts as to why its not..!


> One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
> 
> The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and mind your own business?”
> 
> ...


----------



## amitash (Feb 12, 2009)

Wouldnt it be a better world if they (believers) stopped wasting so much time and money on god and be responsible for ones own actions? If it werent for god and religion there would have been no "religious" wars like the crusades and the mughal oppression and the modern day "terrorists" who fight in the name of things like jihad...It would just be people, as one and united....
Believers answer me this: An honest man prays devotedly for hours to get success in his job or whatever and he gets the success and starts telling the world it was "gods grace"

A thief or gangster prays to god as devoutedly as the successfull man to help him commit a murder and he becomes successfull in killing someone...how is that justified? They even go and start killing and wars in the name of "god" and all he has to do is go to a temple/church/mosque or whatever and says "Oh lord I have sinned please forgive me" and he is forgiven just like that?

A pair of hands immersed in hard work can achieve much more than a hundred pairs folded in prayer.



> But I am still not clear of one thing... how da hell can or did a scientist create life from scratch.. I mean.. not from a living cell.. or anything living..!!
> Again this is not offtopic. Reason being, I strongly think that creator of life is someone .. mayb GOD but not a sane man.



Science is trying to answer that question and even if the answer is found, they will ask "how did the scientist come into existance?"....Science is too young to understand somethings but its getting there...they have succeded in creating matter from nothing at cern ...now whats the point of worshipping this "creator" when you dont know what it is, how it will help you if you pray to it or anything...It would be better to say "Ok fine there is something that created us, lets not pray to it and waste time, lets do something good for mankind"


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 12, 2009)

lovelyCliffHanger said:


> /*Atleast this guy is +ve*/
> 
> Man.. u tell me to go thru all that f*** stuff behind... do u even realize how long it is...


Yes I'm damn serious on wat I told u. 
Now I know that u r not only ignorant but a very much lazy also.
B4 u there were so many more people who had more strong logics (not an imaginary story like u) and we had answered them all.
IF U REALLY WANT TO CLEAR UR DOUBTS go throughr previous posts. (Me, I've red them all, and had at least posted more than 30 times here, then there is karni, mediator etc.)



> hmm.. u guys are tired off repeating what you said already...? Yeah .. I understand....


Ya, we just don't want to waste our energy on such petty stories based as reason.



> But I am still not clear of one thing... how da hell can or did a scientist create life from scratch.. I mean.. not from a living cell.. or anything living..!!


If u were a man from science stream u would n't ask this question.



> Guys... I just found this while searching the net for "Scientists creating life from scratch" thought that it wouldn't be off topic.... Quoting it anyway.... Plzz don't get outraged.. u atheists... just be cool and post ur views.. I mean.. any thoughts as to why its not..!


That was a story, u found something that u wanted to find...hope u got me.


----------



## virilecliffhanger (Feb 12, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> Yes I'm damn serious on wat I told u.
> Now I know that u r not only ignorant but a very much lazy also.
> B4 u there were so many more people who had more strong logics (not an imaginary story like u) and we had answered them all.
> IF U REALLY WANT TO CLEAR UR DOUBTS go throughr previous posts. (Me, I've red them all, and had at least posted more than 30 times here, then there is karni, mediator etc.)
> ...






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


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 12, 2009)

lovelyCliffHanger said:


> 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


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.


----------



## virilecliffhanger (Feb 12, 2009)

/*hmm... dragging me real bad to post again... but really .. its my last one...*/

Look man... stories are there to realize the moral (which is fact) but not to ignore it as a STORY.. I said WHAT WE ARE DOING  in ma previous posts.. wat we r doin is ain't story d!

Science hasn't proven or can't prove that GOD doesn't exist. All the proofs in this arena are nothing just but to prove that GOD exists...
amino acids... which man claims to be the basic building block of life , had to do so much of research but end up using things already around him(not realizing that he didn't make them) to build what is existing already.... Don't you think there must have been some better or great guy who created them when scientists themselves are so worn out for doin such a basic thing??   BTW amino acids which they created in Labs are dead.. they ain't living!  I have to dig my drives to find an article.. literally burning that thing to ashes..... Let me go search......


----------



## Faun (Feb 12, 2009)

^^fcuk the facts


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 12, 2009)

lovelyCliffHanger said:


> Science hasn't proven or can't prove that GOD doesn't exist. All the proofs in this arena are nothing just but to prove that GOD exists...


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.



> amino acids... which man claims to be the basic building block of life , had to do so much of research but end up using things already around him(not realizing that he didn't make them) to build what is existing already.... Don't you think there must have been some better or great guy who created them when scientists themselves are so worn out for doin such a basic thing??   BTW amino acids which they created in Labs are dead.. they ain't living!  I have to dig my drives to find an article.. literally burning that thing to ashes..... Let me go search......


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.
U also believe dat science was successfull in creating life, dat was a first step. If could create it, we would sure geat a way to sustain it.



T159 said:


> ^^fcuk the facts


Ab tujhe kaya hua??
Not in good mood today?


----------



## ionicsachin (Feb 12, 2009)

Science doesnt explain everything, so the two types of people here fill it with "yet to be known" or "God" here...


----------



## virilecliffhanger (Feb 12, 2009)

T159 said:


> ^^fcuk the facts



fak SCIENCE ..


----------



## Faun (Feb 12, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> Ab tujhe kaya hua??
> Not in good mood today?


that was for him. Obviously he wont need facts. So no point in explaining. He has an assumption of everything. A sandbox.

Probably he believes more in fantasy of genesis in a book rather than proven things.  



lovelyCliffHanger said:


> fak SCIENCE ..


Yes, my majesty. It's a privilege given to believers.


----------



## amitash (Feb 12, 2009)

You say science hasnt proven god does not exist...by that reasoning science hasnt proven that superman doesnt exist either...so it must be true that superman exists in real life....hope you get what i am saying



> 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...

btw you still havent answered my question


----------



## mediator (Feb 12, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> If it werent for god and religion there would have been no "religious" wars like the crusades and the mughal oppression and the modern day "terrorists" who fight in the name of things like jihad


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.

Though, I do believe that "propagandist" religions fuel intolerance.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> without science *we would still* be living like cave men


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?

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.


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 12, 2009)

mediator said:


> 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.


First of all, welcome back..., I hope "he" will be here soon.

Just one question, r u intentionally overlooking the good things that science has done for us or...
U r not someone who just tells something...wassup???


----------



## mediator (Feb 13, 2009)

^U got me there. 
Neways, just to clear the air then, u can call me the biggest science fan out here who is completely neutral/unbiased when it comes to topic as such. The thing many don't realise is that they think that voting out for science or discussing in favour of it would automatically give them the rights to flame or laugh at ones who favour supernatural phenomena or say GOD. I believe the "end arguments" from both the sides hold valid. i.e 

Theists argue :
1. GOD created life
2. God created Universe

You really can't ignore the question where the all the material & energy in Universe came from! Scientists have even started to argue that life came from outside the planet. And what bt string theory and parallel universe??

Science argues :
1. Who created GOD then?
2. Many theories and the stuff!

Well thats also a reasonable question, as to where GOD is residing and whats "his"(?) gender. Some even argue "where GOd was?" when various kinds of injustices and crime happened. 


When it comes to GOD, I really can't argue coz it all becomes illogical and nothing to quesion or intellectually stimulating! But when it comes to science, the power of questioning rises exponentially. That increases your knowledge and with more knowledge many more questions keep piling up. The scenario is such that many theories have been formed with various flaws and setbacks. We already discussed two main theories!

Let me repeat n brief one. We already read bt the various theories regarding Universe. One of such was big bang and expanding and contracting state. Later scientists found out that reality is actually contradicting their assumptions and that universe was expanding even faster. So they filled it with an assumption of dark energy and matter argued by many. To many, who take it for granted that whatever scientists do is right and swallow it innocently, everything seems fine. Thats because they are not questioning! And when they don't question and instead support such theories, then they are obliged to answer many questions to those who actually question. Since it has become a kind of trend to support theories without actually questioning it out of your own understanding, then obviously answering a lot of questions that other might ask might puzzle the supporter.

And so let me ask how many have actually questioned the scientific facts, figures and theories that they support? I'm in no way trying to make myself look as the star of the show. But beware, if you try to logic with science then you are bound for a lot of questions too. And thats what I'm doing n have been doing i.e questioning the science and the scientists here. I guess many didn't realise my reason for posting here. But I neither favoured GOD nor spoke in favour or support of science (though I would favour science anyday). I guess thats what science means to understand how and why things work, isn't it? And I guess that how a scientist should be, to answer any question a person asks or atleast tries to find out and not laugh or mock one who might question something that he(science supporter) might not be able to answer!

Coming back to your next statement, NO I haven't forgotten anything science has done for us. But I was asking to ponder upon the logic in the first para of my previous post. If that same logic is applied too science, then science may also look like an evil thing. But that whole logic is absurd "exceptions" made! 


I guess GOD is a better medicine for those who try to ruin their life with drugs, alcohol and cigars! They say "God helps those who help themselves" right? So I hope, no one will mind if I keep my train of thoughts and questions pouring in periodically corresponding to favourable logic that people (science supporters) might give likewise! So @rhitwick, I hope that answers a lot for u.


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 13, 2009)

@mediator, c, thats why I appreciate both of you. U guys at least believe in logic.

When the questioning part comes to science we accept it, try to answer, but when u ask question about god, u r told "thou sha'nt question god", they can't even tolerate people questioning.

In my previous posts, I've tried to divulge my idea on how and why God was created. And today u seem to match with it. I too believe its a "concept" which was developed for the good of mankind. If u've confidence, belief in something u can do anything. Most of d people r too frightful to believe themselves, but they'll believe in God that everything will be alright. 
This "HOPE" of being alright keeps them going. But I still look for a day when people will prefer saying "I can do it" instead "I can do it if GOD is with me".
I've no problem worshiping the GOD concept if everyone stop doing those nasty things in d name of it. (But, they won't and I won't


----------



## amitash (Feb 13, 2009)

> To many, who take it for granted that whatever scientists do is right and swallow it innocently, everything seems fine. Thats because they are not questioning! And when they don't question and instead support such theories, then they are obliged to answer many questions to those who actually question. Since it has become a kind of trend to support theories without actually questioning it out of your own understanding, then obviously answering a lot of questions that other might ask might puzzle the supporter.



I totally agree but who are the ones questioning the scientists? Other scientists of course..An answer in science spawns a 100 other questions and that i feel is a good thing...I feel its better to try and answer these questions (which inevitably will lead to more questions) instead of ignoring the unanswered questions and puting it on God.




> 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.



From everything we have seen i think we can agree that everything good also spawns evil....advent of nuclear energy meant saving fuel but it led to the development of nuclear weapons..but what say science designs some kind of device that can easily dispose nuclear waste? What if science discovers a way to turn carbon monoxide into oxygen? This is just a cycle of good and evil we will have to accept and move on...If you dont invent something new for the fear of it being used for evil, human society will stagnate.



> I guess GOD is a better medicine for those who try to ruin their life with drugs, alcohol and cigars! They say "God helps those who help themselves" right? So I hope, no one will mind if I keep my train of thoughts and questions pouring in periodically corresponding to favourable logic that people (scien



If the addicts had learnt to "help themselves" they wouldnt be in their position....Its logical that if you help yourself than you will succeed ergo there is no intervening medium i.e. god which will help you.......which is why I quoted: "a hand bent in hard work can do much more than a 100 hands folded in prayer."


----------



## mediator (Feb 13, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> From everything we have seen i think we can agree that everything good also spawns evil....advent of nuclear energy meant saving fuel but it led to the development of nuclear weapons..but what say science designs some kind of device that can easily dispose nuclear waste? What if science discovers a way to turn carbon monoxide into oxygen? This is just a cycle of good and evil we will have to accept and move on...If you dont invent something new for the fear of it being used for evil, human society will stagnate.


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!

Did we foresee the consequence of using carbon related fuels when we first used it? Did we think what will happen if we keep using nuclear fuel? Plastics, non-biodegradable substances? So the circumstances are such that humankind is in danger today coz of his lack of conscience and foresight, screwing up the nature, making animal species go extinct n leadin to the rise of sea level n pollution! So my simple point is that your logic, that GOD does harm, can also bounce back on science in the same way!

@rhitwick : You r right, I do side with logic wherever possible. But I believe logic has its own limits. Science is like a fish in giant aquarium (universe) where the fish doesn't know where the start is and where the end is. It can explore the ways in the aquarium, but can never get out of it. And if it tries to get out of it, it simply dies! The "why" part regarding universe and life is all illogical to me!! The only truth and logical part is that you shud njoy and play ur guitar! 

LOL, forgive me! I didn't mean to become a preacher!


----------



## amitash (Feb 13, 2009)

> So my simple point is that your logic, that GOD does harm, can also bounce back on science in the same way!



My logic actually is that god does more harm than good.....In science not necassarily everything spawns bad things...the good outweighs the bad in the case of science.


----------



## IITian (Feb 14, 2009)

mediator said:


> Science is like a fish in giant aquarium (universe) where the fish doesn't know where the start is and where the end is. It can explore the ways in the aquarium, but can never get out of it. And if it tries to get out of it, it simply dies!



how do u know all this?are u one of those who sees **visions of heaven** 
or are u saying this because u heard it from someone and that someone heard it from someone else and that someone else was "the chosen one"?

someday when u have time, just imagine that if u were born in a society where no one told u about these stories of god, would u have still believed in this notion?

if no, then why now? is it because everyone around u believes? do u depend on others' mind to do the thinking for yourself?

and if yes, then why?just because u can't explain the origin of universe?do u run around shouting "hallelujah!!" everytime u can't explain something?people of science aren't that lame.they don't give credit to some **divine being** for everything they can't explain, they start thinking instead, and when they find some proper explaination, they runs around naked on the streets shouting "Eureka!!" and trust me that's the biggest happiness one can get.

IMO this notion of religion is a widespread incurable contagious psychological disease which has taken millions of lives so far.

all the believers out there grab and watch "Jesus wasn't there" and "The root of all evil-the god delusion" documentaries if u can.


----------



## mediator (Feb 14, 2009)

You r right. IIT must be honoured to have u.


----------



## ionicsachin (Feb 14, 2009)

IITian said:


> widespread incurable contagious psychological disease .



Wow, i thought only Bio had such long names


----------



## IITian (Feb 14, 2009)

mediator said:


> You r right. IIT must be honoured to have u.



was it meant as a sarcasm


----------



## gopi_vbboy (Feb 14, 2009)

God is Theoretical
Science is practical

we are all blinded by so called world around us....after all we r living beings jus in tiny world without knowing the outer part....

both science and god are belief l with distict terminology...i dont see any diff exept the way interpreted...i am semi-atheist...coz i believe thers some unique thing around us ...blessing us...guiding the living beings...may be god or science...both are same....jus an imagination we feel is interpreted in diff way


----------



## IITian (Feb 15, 2009)

gopi_vbboy said:


> thers some unique thing around us ...blessing us...guiding the living beings



was this unique thing guiding the living beings who killed other living beings in godhra jst because they had different faith?


----------



## NVIDIAGeek (Feb 20, 2009)

GOD!!


----------



## darkrider114 (Feb 22, 2009)

God!!
Saying im an atheist has become some sort of a fashion nowadays.
God made human beings and these human beings are oversmart and in the name of science they want to prove that life progresses thru evolution and nt by any force.

God is evry whr and in evry human being not just in idols made of rock!
Thrs no use of breaking the coconuts and throwing some flowers on these idols and asking for wishes which are neverfulfilled.
Is it some kind of bargain with god guys? U give him some offerings and in return he shud fulfill ur wishes? When people in this world are dying from poverty and u don't giv a pie to those children of god and expect him to grant u and u familes good health, money, and fame. 
He doesn't need those flowers and coconuts. Y would he ask for that? He does't want ur sympathy right? Serve those who are suffering and u alone can uplift the humanity. He's just watching! Aptly said 'service to human being is service to god'.

Btw not evryone are atheists and not evry one may think in the same way.  Thr may be some enlightened souls.
Tnx.


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 22, 2009)

darkrider114 said:


> God!!
> Saying im an atheist has become some sort of a fashion nowadays.
> God made human beings and these human beings are oversmart and in the name of science they want to prove that life progresses thru evolution and nt by any force.


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. 



> Serve those who are suffering and u alone can uplift the humanity. He's just watching! Aptly said 'service to human being is service to god'.


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...



> btw not evryone are atheists and not evry one may think in the same way.  Thr may be some enlightened souls.
> Tnx.


Any personal experiences where u were betrayed by an atheist?


----------



## karnivore (Feb 22, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> anyone who has his sense at right place should do this regardless of what he believes in...


Errrr....don't you know we atheists have babies for breakfast. You should try once. Its delicious.


----------



## Faun (Feb 22, 2009)

^^lolwut!



darkrider114 said:


> God!!
> Saying im an atheist has become some sort of a fashion nowadays.
> God made human beings and these human beings are oversmart and in the name of science they want to prove that life progresses thru evolution and nt by any force.
> 
> ...




Ok, do i really need to do good things just to get a favor from God ?


----------



## The Conqueror (Feb 22, 2009)

"God Helps those who Helps Themselves "

Being a successful person requires Hardwork, but you require some luck as well in this world of competition.
If you do the Hardwork,God Will certainly help you (that little amount of luck with your hardwork will help u become successful)..I know you cant prove that god exists,but you cant prove that he doesnt exists either.......


----------



## amitash (Feb 23, 2009)

^ ive said it before and ill say it again... If u help yourself then u will get results obviously, there is no god intervening here its just that u have worked hard... How do u explain all those successfull atheists? They have worked hard an had their fair share of luck....... And u say science cannot disprove god.... By that reasoning science cannot disprove the existence of superman... So will u believe on superman? Of course not! Thats absurd u would say but u will never use that logic on god.... It would be a better world if you believe in urself and the human spirit rather than a spectral being....


----------



## saubrl (Feb 23, 2009)

Science, religion, art and politics are the four miracles of human mind. God is someone who is created by us to keep ourselves in control. Thinking of god is like having a father to govern us. Without a father a child takes wrong path and the god is also the same. So fighting  about and against the existence of god is totally out of question. It is something incorporated in our sanskar. So noone is totally athest and those who follow god are also not totally fools


----------



## IITian (Feb 23, 2009)

amitash said:


> ive said it before and ill say it again... If u help yourself then u will get results obviously, there is no god intervening here its just that u have worked hard... How do u explain all those successfull atheists? They have worked hard an had their fair share of luck....... And u say science cannot disprove god.... By that reasoning science cannot disprove the existence of superman... So will u believe on superman? Of course not! Thats absurd u would say but u will never use that logic on god.... It would be a better world if you believe in urself and the human spirit rather than a spectral being....



damn true..



saubrl said:


> It is something incorporated in our sanskar.


LOL


> those who follow god are also not totally fools



IMO they are.


----------



## amitash (Feb 23, 2009)

I would like to recommend a book called "the god delusion" by Richard dawkins....Its an amazing read... I personally got an *ahem* version of the ebook and the 1st chapter itself is amazing... heres a quote:



> Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine
> no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts,
> no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian
> wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews
> ...



also watch these videos... very interesting:

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8...w.aspx?uid=18427050556268811941&ad=1233879670

This ones my favourite:

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg


----------



## dips_view (Feb 23, 2009)

TO,
     The Conqueror,
                           if *Hardwork=success
                              GOD+Hardwork= success
                              Then God is non existent.
Follow the path of science do not try to block it.*


----------



## IITian (Feb 23, 2009)

amitash said:


> I would like to recommend a book called "the god delusion" by Richard dawkins....Its an amazing read... I personally got an *ahem* version of the ebook and the 1st chapter itself is amazing... heres a quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this book is great.i m also reading it nowadays
this first video is a part of the documentary "root of all evil-the god delusion" which is one hell of a documentary..


----------



## amitash (Feb 23, 2009)

just downloaded the documentary... Will watch it now.


----------



## chicha (Mar 27, 2009)

this conversation is between 2 students and a professor, i am not sure if it really happened or not.

*www.godandscience.org/apologetics/professor.html


i stumbled upon it


----------



## Disc_Junkie (Mar 27, 2009)

The student really brainwashed the professor. lol!!!


----------



## rhitwick (Mar 27, 2009)

chicha said:


> this conversation is between 2 students and a professor, i am not sure if it really happened or not.
> 
> *www.godandscience.org/apologetics/professor.html
> 
> ...


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)


----------



## nayaksunilnaik (Apr 9, 2009)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



the deconstructionist said:


> The debate which will never be solved. For every atheist you have a hundred million believers.


god rocks


----------



## karnivore (Apr 17, 2009)

Here is doG's timeline of creation:
*scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/04/gods_timeline/allcreation.gif

Courtesy: PZ Meyers.


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 18, 2009)

^LOL, From now on I would just point to ur post for newcomers to this thread.


----------



## karnivore (Apr 18, 2009)

^^ he he he...I've another timeline for you. The IDiots timeline

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/id_timeline_lg.jpg
*scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/04/a_better_timeline/id_timeline_lg.php


----------



## nvidia (Apr 18, 2009)

^^ROFL!! Awesome!


----------



## amitash (Apr 30, 2009)

Lol nice timelines


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Apr 30, 2009)

karnivore..


the pics speak thousands words..

it should be enough to say for all those believe in dog sorry god....


----------



## afonofa (Apr 30, 2009)

That timeline is according to abrahamic religions. Here is a concept of time according to Sanatana Dharma.

*img412.imageshack.us/img412/9885/kalpa.jpg

Following is just to show that these "pagans" were probably onto something(relativity, faster than light, inter-dimensional travel, y/n/m?):


> BACK TO THE FUTURE: (A story from the Bhagavatam).
> 
> In the satya-yuga of the first mahA-yuga of the present (vaivasvata manvantara) , i.e.,  around 120 millions of years ago there lived a king of the Solar dynasty by name Kakudmi and his beautiful daughter Revati. Not trusting the astrologers of his time, yet believing in the maxim 'Marriages are made in heaven', Kakudmi took his daughter to the world of Brahma (called Brahma-loka)  -- in every satya-yuga such things are possible - in order to ask Brahma himself as to who would be the best marital match for his daughter. Kakudmi had himself somebody in mind. But Lord Brahma was not available immediately since he was watching a dance performance. Kakudmi noted that it was 11-09 hours in Brahma's clock and waited for *about 20 minutes* (of that world's time!) and then he had the opportunity to ask Brahma his question.  'My dear Kakudmi', replied the Lord, *'From the time you came here your earthly world has passed through 27 mahA-yugas* and so none of whom you have in mind or their descendents are alive now.  Right now people are enjoying the avatAra of Krishna there. Go back and marry your daughter to BalarAma, the elder brother of Krishna'. Thus it was that Kakudmi and Revati travelled back into the future (from the 1st mahA-yuga to the 28th mahA-yuga). Revati was married to BalarAma. Note that 1000 earthly mahA-yugas make one day of 12 'hours'of Brahma. This means
> one mahA-yuga = 43.2 'seconds' for Brahma; and
> ...



Currently we are in the *Kaliyuga*. Some characteristics of this age:


> In Kali-yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man’s good birth, proper behavior and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one’s power.
> 
> Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one’s expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brahmana just by his wearing a thread.
> 
> ...


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 

Q: If all the processing power in the world today cannot predict the future of the computing world 50 years hence, then how did these pagans predict the nature of the human society "_atleast 5000 years_" into the future?

Q: If they were right about the nature of human society, then what else are they right about?


----------



## dips_view (May 1, 2009)

> Q: If all the processing power in the world today cannot predict the future of the computing world 50 years hence, then how did these pagans predict the nature of the human society "_atleast 5000 years_" into the future?


originally posted by afonofa........

Science dont predict future.its the work of religious gurus. Science believes in present and works for better future
and "BELIEVE OR NOT GOD DOES NOT EXITS".


----------



## ico (May 1, 2009)

hmmm, is there any God for the animals?


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 1, 2009)

ico said:


> hmmm, is there any God for the animals?




dude ... GOD is pure creation of our extra sixth sense....




just like Lord of the rings...

as i usually used to say , if LOR was created some 2000 years back... everyone would have worshipped gandolf and aragon... , frodo... how funny


----------



## Disc_Junkie (May 1, 2009)

dips_view said:


> originally posted by afonofa........
> 
> Science dont predict future.its the work of religious gurus. Science believes in present and works for better future
> and "BELIEVE OR NOT GOD DOES NOT *EXITS*".



I know that God doesn't exits, he always remains in!! 

Jokes apart!! I too believe that God doesn't exists and I believe in Buddhism which believes it!!!


----------



## Faun (May 1, 2009)

afonofa said:


> That timeline is according to abrahamic religions. Here is a concept of time according to Sanatana Dharma.
> 
> *img412.imageshack.us/img412/9885/kalpa.jpg
> 
> ...



I believe that there were many awesome scientists before.


----------



## dips_view (May 1, 2009)

To the BELIEVERS
Q.DO you believe in EVOLUTION ?
   If yes Then GOD does not Exits. If No Then read biology again.


----------



## damngoodman999 (May 1, 2009)

Who cares --- > If there is God or Science ---> all i need is food ,  beer & a gaming rig


----------



## i dont exist (May 1, 2009)

guys you got it all wrong it doesn't work the both ways as evolution and god creating the world in 6 days as mentioned in bible
religion is sh**
so as the evolution theory don't tell me to read the the biology lessons that i was though in school you need to get you head out of it and think out of the box you will understand what i mean


----------



## damngoodman999 (May 1, 2009)

> god creating the world in 6 days as mentioned in bible
> religion is sh**



plz dont say like this ,, dont bring relious matter in to this !!!


----------



## ionicsachin (May 1, 2009)

I think this thread shud be banned, it might errupt a religous fight here


----------



## damngoodman999 (May 1, 2009)

^^ this thread is good & gr8 for the guyz because in the future there ll be no difference ,, all humans r EQUAL !! 

THIS THREAD IS REALLY NEEDED !!


----------



## Faun (May 1, 2009)

ionicsachin said:


> I think this thread shud be banned, it might errupt a religous fight here



Well Fight Club is for fighting intellectually without abuse, what do you expect ?


----------



## ionicsachin (May 1, 2009)

ichi said:


> Well Fight Club is for fighting intellectually without abuse, what do you expect ?


Well some fights later turn into something really unwanted and unexpected...


----------



## m@sterchief (May 1, 2009)

Would someone plz tell me who put the stars in the sky or Created the Sun, the moon or the very earth.
For those who say that the Universe started with a big bang. Just tell me who split the atom. Just tell me ya.

Well, for a big bang to work u need to split the atom. And I  believe that God split the atom.


----------



## Disc_Junkie (May 1, 2009)

m@sterchief said:


> Would someone plz tell me who put the stars in the sky or Created the Sun, the moon or the very earth.
> For those who say that the Universe started with a big bang. Just tell me who split the atom. Just tell me ya.
> 
> Well, for a big bang to work u need to split the atom. And I  believe that God split the atom.



*www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm


----------



## amitash (May 2, 2009)

> Would someone plz tell me who put the stars in the sky or Created the Sun, the moon or the very earth.
> For those who say that the Universe started with a big bang. Just tell me who split the atom. Just tell me ya.
> 
> Well, for a big bang to work u need to split the atom. And I believe that God split the atom.



The point is you BELIEVE aka you have FAITH...There is no reasoning, no logic and no evidence for "god splitting the attom" Science does not know everything but the beauty of it is that it attempts to find out anything and everything...Invariably one discovery leads to a hundred more mysteries which are solved one by one....Faith, by principle, never changes...It just says: "God did IT"...and by accepting faith and GOD, you imprison your mind and hamper reasoning and progress....Our ancestors did not know what cauwsed rain and thus said "god does it"...Untill someone dared to go against the belief and found out the water cycle and now god doesnt have anything to do with the rain...hell you can even cloud seed for rain thus "doing gods work"...The point is that whenever you say: "god did it" you stop your reasoning right then and there and hence no progress is made.


----------



## damngoodman999 (May 2, 2009)

If the GOD appears in the past ,, then y dint he appear now ???
in the past everyone is good people ,, i dont think so ???

SOME ANSWER ???


 The point is this human problems should be solved by humans 

apart frm human any supernatural power appears , then we can see the god is it so ,, gosh ----> guyz leave the crap GOD or WHAT else

* 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 <---- *


----------



## Disc_Junkie (May 2, 2009)

damngoodman999 said:


> * 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 <---- *



Yes, I agree!!

Many people who believes in God will say that the Vedas and Puranas and Qurans are there to prove existance of God but they too are written by humans!! Is there any book written by God himself!!?


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2009)

Disc_Junkie said:


> Is there any book written by God himself!!?



Mahabharatha, by Ganesha.

You got pwned


----------



## ico (May 3, 2009)

hahaha niaaaa


----------



## amitash (May 3, 2009)

> Is there any book written by God himself!!?



Any rational person would know that there isnt....anyway, christians claim the bible wa written by God and jews say the ten commandments are....(pure BS if u ask me)

anyway chek out this site:
www.freethoughtpedia.com

Nice place for atheists....and chek out their humour section...Im still LOLing

Offtopic:
wat does niaaaa mean ?


----------



## Disc_Junkie (May 3, 2009)

ichi said:


> Mahabharatha, by Ganesha.
> 
> You got pwned



And I thought Mahabharata is written by Ved Vyas!!
Hasn't he written it??


----------



## Rahim (May 3, 2009)

^Arey Bachcu yeh kya jhadge mein par gaya?


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 3, 2009)

ionicsachin said:


> I think this thread shud be banned, it might errupt a religous fight here





do u know wwht a religious fight ??? 


when two separate religous fanatics quarrel , just like in babar masudi ( spare me for the spelling ) , its then called religious fight

here it between science and religion itself ( as a whole , it doesnt matter whether its hindu , muslim , christian ... etc )

dont just go around and say this should get banned ,....

this thread got banned before and took a lot of pain to bring it on back..


----------



## Disc_Junkie (May 3, 2009)

a_rahim said:


> ^Arey Bachcu yeh kya jhadge mein par gaya?



Mujhe to koi jhagra nahi dikh raha! It is a plain question!!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 3, 2009)

m@sterchief said:


> Would someone plz tell me who put the stars in the sky or Created the Sun, the moon or the very earth.
> For those who say that the Universe started with a big bang. Just tell me who split the atom. Just tell me ya.
> 
> Well, for a big bang to work u need to split the atom. And I  believe that God split the atom.




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


----------



## awww (May 3, 2009)

okay let me clear up somethings first
*god and religion is not the same*
i believe the religion is created to control people through the fear of unknown just like they work shipped lightning and other natural phenomenon few thousands of years ago
as the same that makes the terrorists kill innocent people and but not all Muslims are bad either
so for those above who said that god didn't write any books any such things it is just a religious belief and cannot be taken seriously 
but i still believe in god because of some things happenings in my life but not the way religion tells us
i hope you get my point


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2009)

Disc_Junkie said:


> And I thought Mahabharata is written by Ved Vyas!!
> Hasn't he written it??


Mahabharata, written by Ganesha, narrated by Ved Vyasa

I hope its clear now !


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 3, 2009)

awww said:


> okay let me clear up somethings first
> *god and religion is not the same*
> i believe the religion is created to control people through the fear of unknown just like they work shipped lightning and other natural phenomenon few thousands of years ago
> as the same that makes the terrorists kill innocent people and but not all Muslims are bad either
> ...





do u know permutation ?

life is complex series and loops of permutation ..

anything can happen.. 


AND THERE IS NO " SO CALLED SUPER POWERS " there to control these permutation...


----------



## awww (May 3, 2009)

naveen_reloaded said:


> do u know permutation ?
> 
> life is complex series and loops of permutation ..
> 
> ...


if you think we are just a result of random errors in nature 
what do you think the purpose of all this ?


----------



## sagar.best (May 3, 2009)

i can't say god is there or not  or whatever i just enjoy life and don't care much......


----------



## awww (May 3, 2009)

someone please comment on this video it about evolution theory

*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-...WzDA&q=expelled+no+intelligence+allowed&dur=3


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 4, 2009)

awww said:


> if you think we are just a result of random errors in nature
> what do you think the purpose of all this ?





wht do u think the purpose of a dog other than easting , sh!ting , sleeping n mating ?


how we EVOLVED ... ( note : not created ) is a 1 in a million happening... 

but since there are more than billion galaxies with constant explosion , star creation , black hole etc etc.... i think the permutation wwhere in our favor..


its really incredible to see how we are living here and understanding things..

but that is not to be attributed to a thing / power which has NOTHING to do with it


----------



## awww (May 4, 2009)

naveen_reloaded said:


> wht do u think the purpose of a dog other than easting , sh!ting , sleeping n mating ?
> 
> 
> how we EVOLVED ... ( note : not created ) is a 1 in a million happening...
> ...


see this video *video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-...WzDA&q=expelled+no+intelligence+allowed&dur=3
theres more to the reality than what we learn in school


----------



## awww (May 4, 2009)

and this video explains it very well

*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1...Dqq0qAOosoWdDQ&q=everything+you+know+is+wrong

everyone please see this video


----------



## amitash (May 4, 2009)

> if you think we are just a result of random errors in nature
> what do you think the purpose of all this ?



Ignorance is Bliss isnt it? the thing is science does not know WHY we are here, there might not be a reason, just pure coincidence...Its  just the human tendency to try to explain things unknown and when they cant, they fill it up with gibberish.

Oh and no one is going to waste bandwidth on a 2hr video...The plain and simple truth:
Evolution and natural selection are pretty much facts, plenty of evidence in fossils and similarity in DNA to prove it....For those who say: "we cant SEE evolution", todays science has gotten around that too by biotechnology, you can actually SEE cells developping and, With stem cell research, you can even mix species or give some species a different unique ability of some sort....This is man-made evolution and the reason why the stupid church condemns it.

As for GOD...there is absolutely NO conclusive or even remote proof, no inexplicable miracles have occured, 0 proof.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 5, 2009)

awww said:


> see this video *video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-...WzDA&q=expelled+no+intelligence+allowed&dur=3
> theres more to the reality than what we learn in school





awww said:


> and this video explains it very well
> 
> *video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1...Dqq0qAOosoWdDQ&q=everything+you+know+is+wrong
> 
> everyone please see this video


sorry i am not reasdy to waste my bandwidth on 1+ Hr video... sorry..

no offence thiough


why cant you cut short it and tell me whts in there ?

ans also i repeat agan..

SCIENCE DOESNT ANSWER EVERYTHING !!



one question , when a scientist said that earth is round ... no one believed and there was no way to proove it that time and as history says there are so many incidentsl..

one thing you have keep in mind that , science is a evolving subject .... 

We have come a long way in that .


billions of myths have be broken , thrashed !!


So will be the mythical GOD !!!



why cant u see..... jesus , krishna , allah ..e.tc are just like other mythical figure.. no more!!


do u believe in hercules who held the whole earth on the shoulder ?????


----------



## damngoodman999 (May 5, 2009)

I like greek & norse gods after playing GOD OF WAR & AGE OF MYTHOLOGY !!!


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 5, 2009)

will play it soon when GOW 3 hits ps3..


----------



## geek_rocker (May 12, 2009)

I'm agnostic.


----------



## ionicsachin (May 15, 2009)

This is insane


----------



## micro_vishal (May 16, 2009)

This is my first post in this thread, I dont have the time to read all thread, just read 8-9 pages to get the feel where this thread is going.
The first thing i noticed here is that those people who belives in science do not belive in god. Well theres the loop hole is.
Every great scientist in the history of manking belives in god.
Einstien once said "I just wanted to know if I were the god, how i will create this universe",  when he was trying to formulate his theory of everything.
I can try to give u some facts about god existence.
>>Big bang theory is proven, whoever denies it is stupid. According to big bang all the matter come into existence from a single point or let us say from zero. Acc. to physics energy or matter (both are interchangable) can neither be created nor be destroyed. So, from where all this matter came from. It cant came into existance by itself.
Many scientist belives that this can only be possible with some kind of intelligence involved which have the power to do so.
>>What is happening in zeneva? Scientists are trying to find a partical named Higgs Boson which is theoritically responsible for the mass of all matter. Scientist says that due to this partical, higgs field is generated to which mostly all type of energies interact or slow down probabably to listen to it. those who do not interact are light and some waves. Some physicst believe this partical is a god partical which resides in every partical in the universe.
>>The Dual Nature: Every partical in this universe have dual nature, i.e waves and partical, but we can only see single nature of everything. For eg: Electrons are tiny bit of partical or matter but in fringe slit experiment (Every science student have done this or read this in school), they behave like a wave. But when we try to watch that electron by using some kind of instrument, it starts behaving like partical again. The conclusion is that we destroy the dual nature of matter by simply observing it.
Now, let us say every partical in this universe have a part of god (Higgs boson may be??)
They may have dual nature i.e they are independent to each other like me or you and they can have another nature in which all this god partical unites to form a bigger conciousness. But merely by observing it, we destroy its dual nature or may be thats what the god wants.
God resides in all, but what makes us different from computer, table or a car is our soul.
Our soul also has the part of God.


----------



## ico (May 16, 2009)

^ ok.


----------



## micro_vishal (May 16, 2009)

naveen_reloaded said:


> billions of myths have be broken , thrashed !!
> 
> 
> So will be the mythical GOD !!!
> ...


 
Well you are right my friend. Jesus, Krishna, allah.. etc. are/were not gods. They are some historical figures to whom people worships

It is written in Geeta that great persons will always be followed. and some centuries after, they can be considered as god itself.

But this doen't prove the inexistance of god.
There is a book called "Satyarth Prakash" i.e "The light of truth" written by Swami Dayanand Saraswati. That book contains all his efforts made by him during his whole life regarding the true god. I can give u some conclusions of that book.

>>God never takes birth: why?? because he don't have to. God do nothing out of purpose and his every purpose can be achived without taking birth. if god takes birth in human form, than he have to accept human dirt. God is so holly and pure.

>>God is almighty?? Yes. Why?? God is almighty, no doubt but in different sense than we feel he is. He is almighty because he don't need any assistance in doing his work which is creation, maintainance and destruction. But if u feel he can do everything , you are wrong. He can't kill himself or make another God for eg.

>>God never forgives: why?? because he loves justice. If you have done anthing wrong in your life, you will have to suffer for it. There is simply no escape. No matter how many times you ask god for forgiveness, he wont listen simply because he cant broke his own rules. Some say God is merciful than how can he be just. He is merciful by giving punishment to those who kill others or do some bad to others.

>>Earthly things is just not of his concern:Why??Because he is the ultimate truth. He knows all about life and death, past and future. If people are dying from terrorrist attacks he wont intervene to prevent those people from dying simply because death is not a tragic thing to him. Everyone here will die some day and he knows that so why prevent that which has to happen some day. Got it?? This human civilisation will get destroyed one day or other. It is a natural law of destruction so why prevent this. 

There are some other things in that book which i like to share if you want.
Or read it if you got some time.


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2009)

ok


----------



## geek_rocker (May 16, 2009)

micro_vishal said:


> Well you are right my friend. Jesus, Krishna, allah.. etc. are/were not gods. They are some historical figures to whom people worships
> 
> It is written in Geeta that great persons will always be followed. and some centuries after, they can be considered as god itself.
> 
> ...




Wow, any proof of that? No. 
Then STFU.
Just because it was written in a book doesn't make it true.


----------



## micro_vishal (May 16, 2009)

geek_rocker said:


> Wow, any proof of that? No.
> Then STFU.
> Just because it was written in a book doesn't make it true.


 
Do you know who was dayanand saraswati, may god bless you but you dont have 1% of the intellectual than he had.
He had read Vedas, Quran and Bible. How many person had read vedas and other books inthe first place.
Do you have read vedas, No because u cant because it is written in sanskrit which takes many years to master.

Well, the conclusion drawn by the books are in harmony with todays world, if you had a litte bit of brain, than you were not asking the proof of this points.
And what is your point of believe,may be aethist but dont worry God doesn't really care. He only care what good and bad you do in your life and judge u accordingly.

So, if you dont have any intelligent counter to say,
STFU.


----------



## micro_vishal (May 16, 2009)

naveen_reloaded said:


> ok one logical question ... though..
> 
> if he is one .. who created him ?? he simply just cant appear as the universe did in your sense !!!
> 
> ...


 
Hahahah!!!
Does anybody read about big bang or atleast see a video of it at youtube.
There was no atom which splits up.
There was just large amount of energy in the first billion billion billion parth of second.
matter or atom which is very condensed form of energy created afterwords about 3-5 seconds late.

U have asked a very good question about who created God. 
Well the answer is no one, humans or we cant imagine anything which have no begening or no end no middle. Everything we see in this materialistic world has dimensions with begening, middle or end. This is not the case with God.
He has no begening, no middle, and no end just like a circle.

Cleaning up humans mess in not his work, his work is to give justice or to give reward to those who do hardwork. he like hardworkers.

Death is ultimate truth and he know that so he dont interfere in anyones death .


----------



## geek_rocker (May 16, 2009)

micro_vishal said:


> Do you know who was dayanand saraswati, may god bless you but you dont have 1% of the intellectual than he had.
> He had read Vedas, Quran and Bible. How many person had read vedas and other books inthe first place.


Oooh yeah.
A book written 2000 years ago by shepherds and a guy who really didn't do anything important other than founding the useless Arya Samaj is soooo worthy of respect.



micro_vishal said:


> Do you have read vedas, No because u cant because it is written in sanskrit which takes many years to master.
> 
> Well, the conclusion drawn by the books are in harmony with todays world, if you had a litte bit of brain, than you were not asking the proof of this points.
> And what is your point of believe,may be aethist but dont worry God doesn't really care. He only care what good and bad you do in your life and judge u accordingly.
> ...


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?

Judging by your English, I think you should look at yourself before reminding me of my linguistic skills.

By the way, I'm agnostic.


----------



## amitash (May 16, 2009)

> >>God never takes birth: why?? because he don't have to. God do nothing out of purpose and his every purpose can be achived without taking birth. if god takes birth in human form, than he have to accept human dirt. God is so holly and pure.
> 
> >>God is almighty?? Yes. Why?? God is almighty, no doubt but in different sense than we feel he is. He is almighty because he don't need any assistance in doing his work which is creation, maintainance and destruction. But if u feel he can do everything , you are wrong. He can't kill himself or make another God for eg.
> 
> ...



Ill give u some answers:

1.God never takes birth: why?? :        Because he doesnt exist..how can he take birth?
2.God is almighty?? Yes. Why?? :        Because you *believe* he is "almighty", you have "faith"
3.God never forgives: why?? :            Because he doesnt exist...no forgiveness
4.Earthly things is just not of his concern:Why??:             Because you cant prove he exists    




> Do you know who was dayanand saraswati, may god bless you but you dont have 1% of the intellectual than he had.
> He had read Vedas, Quran and Bible. How many person had read vedas and other books inthe first place.
> Do you have read vedas, No because u cant because it is written in sanskrit which takes many years to master.



Do you know who Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson is? He founded DC comics, which led to the creation of superman....Have YOU read all the superman comics? Do you believe there is a real superman? NO you dont...Why? He was an author, he wrote a book, but y dont u believe it? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF, its sheer FICTION....Isnt there a strong possibility that GOD is fiction too? Just because someone says he exists doesnt mean its true.



> Every great scientist in the history of manking belives in god.



LOL that is NOT true...Einstein was an atheist...google it...there are theistic and atheistic scientists but not all great ppl are theists...here are some examples:

    *  Thomas Jefferson
    * James Madison
    * John Adams
    * Abraham Lincoln
    * Susan B. Anthony
    * Benjamin Franklin
    * Robert G. Ingersoll
    * Ulysses S. Grant
    * George Washington
    * Theodore Roosevelt

philosophers

    * Karl Marx
    * Sigmund Freud
    * Friedrich Nietzsche
    * Voltaire
    * Epicurus
    * Aristotle
    * Sir Francis Bacon

scientists

    * Charles Darwin
    * Albert Einstein
    * Thomas Edison
    * Stephen Hawking
    * Carl Sagan
    * Galileo Galilei
    * Francis Bacon, Sir
    * Richard Dawkins

artists and entertainers

    * Gene Roddenberry
    * Jesse "the body" Ventura
    * Woody Allen
    * Charlie Chaplin
    * Andy Rooney
    * Katharine Hepburn
    * Marlon Brando

writers

    * Samuel Clemens /Mark Twain
    * George Bernard Shaw
    * Ernest Hemingway
    * Isaac Asimov
    * Arthur C. Clarke
    * Stephen King
    * Edgar Allan Poe
    * Bertrand Russell
    * Oscar Wilde
    * Ayn Rand
    * Thomas Paine



> U have asked a very good question about who created God.
> Well the answer is no one, humans or we cant imagine anything which have no begening or no end no middle. Everything we see in this materialistic world has dimensions with begening, middle or end. This is not the case with God.
> He has no begening, no middle, and no end just like a circle.



One simple question: HOW DO YOU KNOW? HOW CAN YOU BE SURE?


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 16, 2009)

micro_vishal said:


> Well you are right my friend. Jesus, Krishna, allah.. etc. are/were not gods. They are some historical figures to whom people worships
> 
> It is written in Geeta that great persons will always be followed. and some centuries after, they can be considered as god itself.
> 
> ...



human dirt ?

wht is human dirt ?

so human are filthy ? as afar as god is concerned.. thats awesome... !!! 
--------------



> >>God is almighty?? Yes. Why?? God is almighty, no doubt but in different sense than we feel he is. He is almighty because he don't need any assistance in doing his work which is creation, maintainance and destruction. But if u feel he can do everything , you are wrong. He can't kill himself or make another God for eg.





he doesnt need ant assisitence ... cool ... !! so to put all athieist question to dust bin , the very basic question , you conclude that he cant be created nor destroyed... 

wait i read this same sentecnce in school .. its called " energy " , but its very different , coz it doesnt consider humans as dirt and doesnt help others or anyone .. its just ENERGY !!! doesnt have super human + super computer brainas god !

---------------



> >>God never forgives: why?? because he loves justice. If you have done anthing wrong in your life, you will have to suffer for it. There is simply no escape. No matter how many times you ask god for forgiveness, he wont listen simply because he cant broke his own rules. Some say God is merciful than how can he be just. He is merciful by giving punishment to those who kill others or do some bad to others.






so u are saying churches are waste and priest can go to home and work as a farmer ?
then why are we having a booth for forgiveness ? in churches ? 
or a tree to wish for ?
if he cant forgive , he is worst than me , ( human ) , thiruvalluvar has said that those who forgive are the real human being , i never knew god was the real dirt !! funny 

your comments / reply are becoming funnier ... keep it goinf bro..

---------------




> >>Earthly things is just not of his concern:Why??Because he is the ultimate truth. He knows all about life and death, past and future. If people are dying from terrorrist attacks he wont intervene to prevent those people from dying simply because death is not a tragic thing to him. Everyone here will die some day and he knows that so why prevent that which has to happen some day. Got it?? This human civilisation will get destroyed one day or other. It is a natural law of destruction so why prevent this.
> 
> There are some other things in that book which i like to share if you want.
> Or read it if you got some time.







you only said he creates , destroyts and does everything by himself... now , you say he does intervene ... so i assume god = terrorist since , god doesnt need any help ... man i cant stop laughing ,

use some common sense bro...

if its going to get destroyed ? why did he create it in first place ? 

my thought is there could be EARTH 1.0 , ours is EARTH BETA version ..... now i get it !!!! damn my brain !!! 

----------------


please we want to know about other books you read ... coz i think they can be even more funnier...!!!










geek_rocker said:


> Wow, any proof of that? No.
> Then STFU.
> Just because it was written in a book doesn't make it true.





hatss off !!!











micro_vishal said:


> Do you know who was dayanand saraswati, may god bless you but you dont have 1% of the intellectual than he had.
> He had read Vedas, Quran and Bible. How many person had read vedas and other books inthe first place.
> Do you have read vedas, No because u cant because it is written in sanskrit which takes many years to master.
> 
> ...




i thought einstein or someone was the most intelligent one ... and i also heard that even he didnt use >1% of his brain .. please dont ask for reference ... i just heard it ...!! as u did hear on dayanand saraswati , who somehow managed to do a IQ test and post it somewhere... 

sorry i dont want to read them ... based on your replies .. i can conclude how great they will be and i think i wont able to understand ... coz i too dont know who was dayanad saraswati is ... 

judge me accordingly ?? how ?

so u say at one point he doesnt intervene when a f()cking bomb goes offf... so whoever dies in that bomb are BAD guys ??

GOD must be awesome , as he had seen the future of a new born , and see thru his all life and conlcude that this child will grow as a bad guy -- let me kill him .... man your god gets more and more funnier and weird ...


seems like a sadist to me 













micro_vishal said:


> Hahahah!!!
> Does anybody read about big bang or atleast see a video of it at youtube.
> There was no atom which splits up.
> There was just large amount of energy in the first billion billion billion parth of second.
> ...




so u say , a power who was not created , destoyred has no middle thing ( pen!s ? ) is just doing the work of judging us ? thats very lame ?

wht his next plan ?

and why doesnt anuimals worship him ?

death is the ultimate one ? so god who is undestuctable made human life limited ? thats mean !!!!



anyway looking forward for you to quote my replies and reply to that... lets see how funnier it can get .... 



















geek_rocker said:


> Oooh yeah.
> A book written 2000 years ago by shepherds and a guy who really didn't do anything important other than founding the useless Arya Samaj is soooo worthy of respect.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 16, 2009)

@ amitash 


AWESOME REPLIES !!! AWESOME ... keep that way bro..


----------



## micro_vishal (May 16, 2009)

geek_rocker said:


> Oooh yeah.
> A book written 2000 years ago by shepherds and a guy who really didn't do anything important other than founding the useless Arya Samaj is soooo worthy of respect.
> 
> 
> ...


 
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.

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.


----------



## amitash (May 18, 2009)

^Well of course our ancestors werent stupid...they had their scientific theories of which some have been proved and some have been woefully wrong...the thing is that whenever that something related to god or anything that has a strong belief system like vastu, astrology, etc are disproved, people dont like it...they arent prepared to change their entire belief system which has been folowed for generations...on the contrary science is ever changing and if you dont respect the proofs offered by it, you are hindering world progress, thus theism is very dangerous.....and is see you havent replied to my other arguements.


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 18, 2009)

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.




thanks and nearly 90% indians dont know.. so that makes everything equal. 


> 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





did he invent anything ? did he sacrifice himself for any good cause ( atleast this is the reason , i came to kow about jesus  LOL ) or did he discover india ?
He is just a founder of another cult , so stop being , dont you know him ... stuff...



> 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



even though i too sometimes give wiki link , they are not that reliable ... simply coz its edited by people , i mean anybody can edit it ....

for eg : *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

if u belive in this fraud too , kindly go thru
Claims of materialization and other miracles

they would have explained many..

more over , since becuse u knew someone doesnt make that everyone should know , making a min requiremnet to comment against religion , we atheist belieeve in common sense not nonsense like dyanand or whoever it is ...



> This is actually not ur fault. Giving arguments against anyone believe system hurts them.




stop whinning !!



> 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.



so wht are u saying ? get hold of your comment dude...



> 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 too dont belive in sun pulled by seven chariot , but i belive in Lord of the rings and belive me , this things are not in bagavagita , again acc to "J.R.R.Tolkien". these things are developed my sony and MPAA to make money out of people !! LOL ROFL !!!



> I urge all the people in this forum/thread to read that people. It has the power to satisfy all ur inner voice questions.




i urge all the people in this forum to read LOFR book and keep your mind free and get freedom from religion which ties you down to earth !! Fly Free !! keep your mind open! and satiffy your inner feelings ...  LOL


> 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.



did they invent nuclear energy ? weird , i never knew they did ...!!!
so what ? begining and the end ? am i seeing a matrix movie here ? DAMN!!

older civilization are advanced ? they are intellignet , i agree ? but ther eis difference between adavanced and intelligent individuals...

for eg : america , UK are advanced civilization ( for eg ) compared to africa!

thats what called advanced... more they use this term advanced in history channel becoz they compare it with " that period " civilization to the one theyare descibing ... so dont be confused...
and wht is that 5000 yrs prosperity ? 




> 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 never said they are fools , there are the briliant scholars and other well known scientist in those period , but all iam saying , wht is the link for them and the god ?

did " I " make my self clear ?


----------



## sujoyp (May 18, 2009)

Great discussion here

I neither belive in god fully coz all indian mythologies r some sort of stories and not even close to some psychological help...Love Gita updesha for its thoughts on day to day life.

I also belive in science....but again science didnt satisfy me totally...It could not explaing beyond vibgyor the seven colors that makes images in our eyes


----------



## rhitwick (May 18, 2009)

sujoyp said:


> I also belive in science....but again science didnt satisfy me totally...It could not explaing beyond vibgyor the seven colors that makes images in our eyes


u r agnostic...

And science created CAMERA which follows the same concept.


----------



## micro_vishal (May 18, 2009)

Sorry for late reply, the site was showing some DB error.


naveen_reloaded said:


> human dirt ?
> 
> wht is human dirt ?
> 
> ...


human dirt = human waste
human dirt = ego, proudiness, selfishness
human dirt = pain, sufferings. Understand????



naveen_reloaded said:


> he doesnt need ant assisitence ... cool ... !! so to put all athieist question to dust bin , the very basic question , you conclude that he cant be created nor destroyed...
> 
> wait i read this same sentecnce in school .. its called " energy " , but its very different , coz it doesnt consider humans as dirt and doesnt help others or anyone .. its just ENERGY !!! doesnt have super human + super computer brainas god !


 
I have said that the god is beginingless and who has no begining, has no end.
If your mind cant imagine such a thing, think of a circle.
Niether could happen by itself, can any?? Energy can not arranged itself to make a galaxy.
The universe around is working on very precise physical laws and physical constants.
small variation in that can cause total collaspe of the universe. This leads only to one thing that whole process is very thought out by some intelligence. Besides whatever you see in this world(just look into your room) has a creator and u think that the whole universe is made by itself, now thats strange.




naveen_reloaded said:


> so u are saying churches are waste and priest can go to home and work as a farmer ?
> then why are we having a booth for forgiveness ? in churches ?
> or a tree to wish for ?
> if he cant forgive , he is worst than me , ( human ) , thiruvalluvar has said that those who forgive are the real human being , i never knew god was the real dirt !! funny
> ...


 
ya! thats what i am saying that all churches, temples etc are waste and priest can go home and work as a farmer or do whatever they like.
By the way, why are you believing in church if you dont believe in God.
It all wrong practises that we have a place for forgiveness or tree....
Think like this, If a judge of a court makes dawood Ibrahim or osama bin laden free from all charges, what will you say that he is a real good human being???
You probably protest outside of the court and demand for some action against the jugde.
Punishment are for to make people a better human being, so that they wont repeat same error again. On the whole, Punishment is more benifieshry for the society than forgiveness. God works for the society, not for individuals.





naveen_reloaded said:


> you only said he creates , destroyts and does everything by himself... now , you say he does intervene ... so i assume god = terrorist since , god doesnt need any help ... man i cant stop laughing ,
> 
> use some common sense bro...
> 
> ...


I cant see any logic in what you are saying, but i try to answer.
I said he does not intervene. God does not kill anyone so he is not a terrorist. Persons who kill another has their own soul to make desicion for them.
The last two question are easily answered in the book that i had suggested earlier (Sorry out of scope to explain)
The universe has a begining and hence will end some day. Then new universe will be created. Its all a cycle. begin-end-begin-end.
See you too getting it right, its ok for me if you name it beta or 1.1.





naveen_reloaded said:


> sorry i dont want to read them ... based on your replies .. i can conclude how great they will be and i think i wont able to understand ... coz i too dont know who was dayanad saraswati is ...
> judge me accordingly ?? how ?
> 
> so u say at one point he doesnt intervene when a f()cking bomb goes offf... so whoever dies in that bomb are BAD guys ??
> ...


So you are saying that only bad persons dies, not good persons???
Death is inevitable for everyone, no one can escape.
So why prevent that which has to happen.
Good persons die too man!! only styles differ. lol
If you can sit on internet all day writing your views here and there, than you can read a page from wikipedia too. Reading is more benefishery than writing crap.
God knows past and future of this creation, not karma of every individual being. 
He does not take account of when you go to sh_t.



naveen_reloaded said:



			so u say , a power who was not created , destoyred has no middle thing ( pen!s ? ) is just doing the work of judging us ? thats very lame ?

wht his next plan ?

and why doesnt anuimals worship him ?

death is the ultimate one ? so god who is undestuctable made human life limited ? thats mean !!!!



anyway looking forward for you to quote my replies and reply to that... lets see how funnier it can get ....
		
Click to expand...

 
He is creating, maintaining, destroying, judging(all in the universe). I think thats very hard for some one to do. If you think its lame, you should try it.
You should be thankful to him that he is doing that. Good persons exist in this worlds because of that. 
God does not ask for worship, If you are not worshiping him, its fine with him.
God needs us to be a hard worker. God needs us to do the work assigned to us. In our case it is work for the betterment of society and nature on this earth.
Didn't you know, animals dont have that much of intelligence.
You or we should be happy that we are humans so we can talk on this subject.lol

At the end, it all a debate. I cant change your belive system, neither you can change mine. I am not seeing any benefit from this to both of us. But if you ask more, i will reply._


----------



## micro_vishal (May 18, 2009)

naveen_reloaded said:


> thanks and nearly 90% indians dont know.. so that makes everything equal.


90% indians believe in God too, so why you dont.
So you are saying that if 90% of indians are idiot then there is no harm to be one.
Man! This is hillarius, suck for u though.



naveen_reloaded said:


> did he invent anything ? did he sacrifice himself for any good cause ( atleast this is the reason , i came to kow about jesus  LOL ) or did he discover india ?
> He is just a founder of another cult , so stop being , dont you know him ... stuff...


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.



naveen_reloaded said:


> even though i too sometimes give wiki link , they are not that reliable ... simply coz its edited by people , i mean anybody can edit it ....
> 
> for eg : *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
> 
> ...


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.



naveen_reloaded said:


> more over , since becuse u knew someone doesnt make that everyone should know , making a min requiremnet to comment against religion , we atheist belieeve in common sense not nonsense like dyanand or whoever it is ...


yes!!! I can see that what you know and dont know. I dont know even you read your science book serieously.



naveen_reloaded said:


> i too dont belive in sun pulled by seven chariot , but i belive in Lord of the rings and belive me , this things are not in bagavagita , again acc to "J.R.R.Tolkien". these things are developed my sony and MPAA to make money out of people !! LOL ROFL !!!


Again, out of logic showing your weekness and DEFEAT




naveen_reloaded said:


> did they invent nuclear energy ? weird , i never knew they did ...!!!
> so what ? begining and the end ? am i seeing a matrix movie here ? DAMN!!


Its hard to make a claim here. But Inventing nuclear bomb is not a clever move by the way.



naveen_reloaded said:


> older civilization are advanced ? they are intellignet , i agree ? but ther eis difference between adavanced and intelligent individuals...
> 
> for eg : america , UK are advanced civilization ( for eg ) compared to africa!


Sorry, I do not understand what are u saying. Please explain this point.



naveen_reloaded said:


> and wht is that 5000 yrs prosperity ?


I am talking about vedic civislisation which stays for 5000 yrs.


----------



## sujoyp (May 18, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> u r agnostic...
> 
> And science created CAMERA which follows the same concept.



whatever u say  
just think for a second....what u cant see u wont believe...and soo our belief is not beyond the seven colours...

ok I am actually not talking abt ghosts and gods bcoz its again a human created thing....but a mere simple thing....that there can be something beyond our eyesight too that science cant not explain


----------



## ico (May 18, 2009)

We're living in a matrix.


----------



## panacea_amc (May 18, 2009)

hey dear enlightened people here,
God and science are all the same thing...


----------



## confused (May 18, 2009)

sujoyp said:


> I also belive in science....but again science didnt satisfy me totally...It could not explaing beyond vibgyor the seven colors that makes images in our eyes


dude what do u mean it couldnt explain???
did u never study physics/chemistry in high school???

Science is my god. but luck has a huge role to play in life.


----------



## geek_rocker (May 18, 2009)

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.
> 
> 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
> ...


You low-minded fool, I was talking about the book written 2000 years ago, i.e. Vedas.

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. 

You don't say you don't believe in devas, i.e., Surya, Indra but you believe in Vedas. 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.

I don't care if you know Sanskrit or not, I know English and Hindi well and that's enough for me. I'm learning spainish btw.



			
				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.
> ....
> 
> ...


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.

Aryans came much later to india.
PWNED.

Also, you are not understanding what Naveen_reloaded is saying, LEARN ENGLISH.


----------



## panacea_amc (May 18, 2009)

hey dear enlightened people here,
God and science are all the same thing...


----------



## geek_rocker (May 18, 2009)

panacea_amc said:


> hey dear enlightened people here,
> God and science are all the same thing...


Dear trying-to-sound-intellctual,
STFU


----------



## confused (May 18, 2009)

ico said:


> ^ ok.


nyaaaah


----------



## micro_vishal (May 18, 2009)

panacea_amc said:


> hey dear enlightened people here,
> God and science are all the same thing...


That true, Science and God go hand by hand, not opposite to each other.
God created science(laws), how can he oppose it


----------



## confused (May 18, 2009)

micro_vishal said:


> That true, Science and God go hand by hand, not opposite to each other.
> God created science(laws), how can he oppose it


ok


----------



## micro_vishal (May 18, 2009)

geek_rocker said:


> You low-minded fool, I was talking about the book written 2000 years ago, i.e. Vedas.


You didn't mention it. Please mention carefully, what u are talking about. That is a sign of retarded person.



geek_rocker said:


> 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.


 
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.



geek_rocker said:


> You don't say you don't believe in devas, i.e., Surya, Indra but you believe in Vedas. 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.


WTF, I dont belive in sun pulled by horses. I never say that i dont belive in surya(Sun) or Indra(Electricity).
Devas have different meaning in vedas. There is a difference between God and devas
Here is a direct extract from Satyarth prakash on this topic.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. What is meant by the mention of various devatas (Gods) in the Vedas then?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A.~Whatsoever or whosoever possesses useful and brilliant qualities is called a devata, as the earth for instance; but it is nowhere said that it is God or is the object of our adoration. Even in the above mantra it is said that He, who is the sustainer of all devatas, is the adorable God, and is worthy of of being sought after, They are greatly mistaken who take the word "devata" to mean God. [/FONT]



geek_rocker said:


> 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.
> 
> Aryans came much later to india.
> PWNED.


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:
*www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html
*www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html



geek_rocker said:


> Also, you are not understanding what Naveen_reloaded is saying, LEARN ENGLISH.


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.


----------



## confused (May 18, 2009)

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.


ok.


----------



## micro_vishal (May 19, 2009)

Direct link to "Satyarth Prakash", if anyone interested
*www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/satyarth_prakash_eng.htm

"They are atheists and of weak intellect, ad continually remain sunk in the depths of misery and pain who do not believe in, know, and commune with, Him who is Resplendent, All-glorious, All-Holy, All-knowledge, sustainer of the sun, the earth and other planets, Who pervades all like ether, is the Lord of all and is above all devatas. It is by the knowledge and contemplation of God alone that all men attain true happiness." RIG VEDA: I, 164, 39.


No need for me to discuss it further.


----------



## amitash (May 19, 2009)

> 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.


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.



> "They are atheists and of weak intellect, ad continually remain sunk in the depths of misery and pain who do not believe in, know, and commune with, Him who is Resplendent, All-glorious, All-Holy, All-knowledge, sustainer of the sun, the earth and other planets, Who pervades all like ether, is the Lord of all and is above all devatas. It is by the knowledge and contemplation of God alone that all men attain true happiness." RIG VEDA: I, 164, 39.


Again, this is just written in some book...how can u blindly believe it??
In fact it shows how evil the vedas were....its indirectly telling u that if you dont believe in god, you will never be happy....im an atheist and im perfectly happy...that sentence was just something used to controll the minds of people and it succeeds even today, like in the case of micro_vishal

"good things and bad things happen to all people and its all based on probability....the number of bad things that happen to you wont change if you believe in god"



> good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion





> 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.


@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?


----------



## geek_rocker (May 19, 2009)

micro_vishal said:


> You didn't mention it. Please mention carefully, what u are talking about. That is a sign of retarded person.


 You are an idiot, a low minded villager and you call me retarded? Hmm.





			
				 geek_rocker said:
			
		

> *A book written 2000 years ago by shepherds* and a guy who really didn't do anything important other than founding the useless Arya Samaj is soooo worthy of respect.


 As everyone can see I made it pretty clear. It is not my fault that you are mentally retarded and cannot understand english.



micro_vishal said:


> 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.


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.



			
				micro_vishal said:
			
		

> WTF, I dont belive in sun pulled by horses. I never say that i dont belive in surya(Sun) or Indra(Electricity).
> Devas have different meaning in vedas. There is a difference between God and devas
> Here is a direct extract from Satyarth prakash on this topic.
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. What is meant by the mention of various devatas (Gods) in the Vedas then?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
> [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A.~Whatsoever or whosoever possesses useful and brilliant qualities is called a devata, as the earth for instance; but it is nowhere said that it is God or is the object of our adoration. Even in the above mantra it is said that He, who is the sustainer of all devatas, is the adorable God, and is worthy of of being sought after, They are greatly mistaken who take the word "devata" to mean God.[/FONT]


 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:
			
		

> 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:
> *www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html
> *www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html


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? 

Websites don't prove anything. There is even a website which claims that the earth is flat. www.flatearthsociety.org Does it prove anything? No.



			
				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.



I have to worry, See my first reply.

*pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/10/27/633607470680331650-trolls.jpg


----------



## amitash (May 19, 2009)

> I once have asked a question in "ask an astrophysicist" on NASA site that what is it that create consiousness from mixing of chemical carbon compounds. They have no answer to it, simply they say that science has not progressed that much yet.



You might as well have asked them wat was the meaning of life...no one claims sciencs has all the answers, but its getting there...and moreover it conclusively proves the answers given by it and doesnt force ppl to blieve in it.



> I know that one day science will have all the answers, and then this civilisation writes a book on it like vedas and when that will be found to other civilisation, they will think of us as fools.
> Vedas at that time were books of science. it consists of many parts like astrology, medical, martial arts and weapons etc.



Thats the beauty of science...it descovers new things every second and debunks outdated things...Its not a flaw as u make it out to be, its the best part.



> You have to look at other side too my friend.
> I cannot belive that life can originate from lifeless matter.
> I cannot believe that matter/energy which has no intelligence can arrange by itself in such a unique way to form Galaxy, Stars, Planets.



In short, u are ignorant.....scientists dont ask you to "believe", they ask you to look at the evidence and proof provided and accept facts and move on...unlike religion and god who tells you and forces you to believe....Its human tendency to always require a creator, a parent, a supreme being that always forgives and helps...like a light in a dark abyss...and this tendency will bite and snap at those who go against it....you say you cant believe in matter giving rise to life etc, etc...if that is the case, then how can you believe that there is god? who created him? why dont u want a explanation for that?



> Moreover, as the quantum physics will progress, shocking results will come about creation, life and God. I am sure of that.



You cant be sure of anything untill its proven conclusively....its your imagination talking, not the logical part of your brain.



> Just think, whenever you thinks to do some wrong, shame and guilt arrises in your mind for a short moment. That shame and guilt arises due to the God inside you which tries to prevent you.



How come that "shame and guilt" never arose in the people who destroyed the world trade center? how come it didnt show itself during the crusades? when hitler killed millions of jews? When Taliban commited those attrocities? when london was bombed? when the Taj was attacked? partition of india? suicide bombings?....after all, the people who did these things were deeply religious and did these things in the name of god...You might argue that people like stalin and Mao were atheists and they still did terrible things, BUT in fact, they did not do those terrible things in the name of atheism...then did not shout: "all hail atheists" and kill religious people...they did it because they were megalomaniacs who wanted to...religion was never a factor...but on the contrary there are millions of wars fought in the name of some god or the other....

What you are talking about is morality....how can ppl be moral without a god? the most likely explanation offered is that morality raises from evolution....certain changes over time, inflicts these changes in morality, not god...for eg: racism was not an issue back in the 18th century....nobody really cared...but as generations rolled by, it was gradually considered as a wrong thing....look at the rights of women for example...it was considered the norm 300 years back to have them just sit and cook or whatever all day...but that gradually changed and now they have equal rights....now we should embrace that change and move on...not stick to old religious sayings that tell you to imprison them...science moves on amending itself, so does evolution...Faith is unchanging and ever fixed.....These religious ppl commit these evil acts because they are sure that if they do it in the name of god, then all will be forgiven.....Isnt it better if there was no concept of a god, and that you control your own destiny? then you would be responsible of your own actions and not commit to evil deeds...



> good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion





> Always belive in that, and follow what it says. You will always be happy.



The only reason that you will be happy is that you will be ignorant of punishment and the plight of others...you wont care if you go to jail for murder, u think god will help you out later because you killed in his name...ignorance is bliss isnt it?


----------



## ico (May 20, 2009)

Urban Dictionary said:


> *God*
> 
> A guy who talked to some Jewish guys, some Christian guys, and some Islam guys, and accidentally caused more people to die than anyone else in human history.
> 
> _And people wonder why he doesn't talk much to us anymore. _


----------



## kalpik (May 20, 2009)

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNy6ziOyxoA


----------



## appserver (May 20, 2009)

Anbe Sivam or Love is God!


----------



## geek_rocker (May 20, 2009)

amitash said:


> 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.


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.

That superman argument is flawed because who knows, in another universe, superman may exist?

See: Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I'm sure I'm not your average Indian fellow, by any chance. 

But yeah, if God exists, he would be still be very different than from what is depicted in the major world religions.
*
*


----------



## amitash (May 20, 2009)

> 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.



so agnostics basically dont care either way? that makes you part ignorant, not "open minded"...since your not bothered, you dont look into any issues and just let it be...no investigation, no proofs or faith or anything...You just dont care....just like average people...do average people care if evolution is proved or not? do they care if relegion slaughters  thousands of people? they dont as long as it hurts them do they? now that imo is stupid....atleast "hard line atheists" care about the world.....so by your statement, it also means that agnostics arent logical as they dont see any proofs to draw conclusions too.... There is not a shred of evidence that God exists, but almost all the things written in any religius book about god have been disproven by science...and science today also goes as far as to find proof of how we came to exist...Yes it is not conclusive that the big bang started everything but atleast there is SOME evidence supporting it....now if you dont look at that evidence, then you are the one that is stupid.



> That superman argument is flawed because who knows, in another universe, superman may exist?



Ok Ok that was just an example i blindly came up with....let me rephrase that to "superman existing on our planet"


----------



## mediator (May 21, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> so agnostics basically dont care either way? that makes you part ignorant, not "open minded"...since your not bothered, you dont look into any issues and just let it be...no investigation, no proofs or faith or anything...You just dont care....just like average people...do average people care if evolution is proved or not? do they care if relegion slaughters thousands of people? they dont as long as it hurts them do they? now that imo is stupid....


1. Treating all religions as same is the most idiotic thing.
2. You could have verified the rigVeda verse you opined as "evil" before. That again raises question if the so called self-proclaimed atheist is actually "following" the scientific way. Opining without verifying?
3. You are getting wrong on the meaning of "agnostic". It simply means "not rejecting and not accepting" or simply being "doubtful" so as to bring in a condition of "may or may not". It doesn't make anyone "part ignorant", "not open minded".
In your logic, you are only accepting things that are scientifically proven. How does life comes to a lifeless seed, that acc. to chemistry is composed of various "lifeless" elements, that grows into a big tree is still a mystery. If science can't explain it, it doesn't mean it is not true.

Like I asked earlier, are you willing to accept the "string theory and parallel universes"?

Next, many religions don't slaughter "thousands of people". Atleast not buddhism, sikhism, Hinduism or Jainism. I hope you won't quote manusmriti now! Intolerance cannot be equated with religion itself if the religion doesn't preach intolerance.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> atleast "hard line atheists" care about the world.....so by your statement, it also means that agnostics arent logical as they dont see any proofs to draw conclusions too....


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?

First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!

Is science bad or the person who is exploiting science?

I hope you understand that "caring about the world" also means caring about animals.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> There is not a shred of evidence that God exists, but almost all the things written in any religius book about god have been disproven by science...and science today also goes as far as to find proof of how we came to exist...Yes it is not conclusive that the big bang started everything but atleast there is SOME evidence supporting it....now if you dont look at that evidence, then you are the one that is stupid.


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.

Read what the scientists say and you may opine....
*www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

So as far as logic is concerned, I see only illogic and "faith in science" in your posts and not a modicum of "true scientific way of discussion". All this time you have only defined what science is and not discussed the science itself!!


----------



## dips_view (May 21, 2009)

originally posted by mediator 


> 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.



SCIENCE is the continuous process to find out the truth.its not like believers who claims god does exits in written books.please read History of Science and you will get the truth.

AND BELIEVE OR NOT GOD DOES NOT EXITS.....


----------



## karnivore (May 21, 2009)

Agnostics are like fence sitters, yet to decide, which way to go. I don't say this in a derogatory sense, although it may sound as such. Agnosticism is the last stop to atheism for every atheist, starts out as an agnostic.

The moment one starts questioning anything that requires giant leaps of faith, e.g. religion or god, one takes a step towards agnosticism. But till one completely severs all association, however vague it is, with his personal belief system, or whatever remains of it, he continues to be an agnostic. It is actually a state of mind, where, one is waiting for more evidence to finally make up his mind. He can't let go either way.

The question therefore is, what and how much of evidence, not merely in quantity, but also in quality, is needed to finally make up one's mind, to be on one side or the other. 

Atheists, are the ones who have come to the conclusion, that they have enough evidence in hand, to make that decision - that, in all probability, there is no god.


----------



## mediator (May 21, 2009)

> Agnostics are like fence sitters


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.



			
				dips said:
			
		

> AND BELIEVE OR NOT GOD DOES NOT *EXITS*


Not Exist or not Exits! May or may not?


----------



## amitash (May 21, 2009)

> 2. You could have verified the rigVeda verse you opined as "evil" before. That again raises question if the so called self-proclaimed atheist is actually "following" the scientific way. Opining without verifying?



I didnt have to...this is a debate...I merely countered his argument...If the oppenent is quoting something then its his job to verify...not mine.



> In your logic, you are only accepting things that are scientifically proven. How does life comes to a lifeless seed, that acc. to chemistry is composed of various "lifeless" elements, that grows into a big tree is still a mystery. If science can't explain it, it doesn't mean it is not true.



I have never said that its not true....Just merely said that you have to look at all the evidence...and i tend to lean towards the side that has more compound evidence....And thats just lean...not totally believe...i will still mostly wait for more evidence...But no evidence of god in thousands of years and that many things that  people claim he can do being disproven and are continuing to be disproven, coupled with the way people use god through religion to commit dastardly acts leads me to atheism.



> Like I asked earlier, are you willing to accept the "string theory and parallel universes"?



Not unless evidence is found to support it...they might have found evidence but i havent read about string theiry so i wouldnt know.



> Next, many religions don't slaughter "thousands of people". Atleast not buddhism, sikhism, Hinduism or Jainism. I hope you won't quote manusmriti now! Intolerance cannot be equated with religion itself if the religion doesn't preach intolerance.



I view religions like buddhism and jainism to be a way of life or behaviour...and it doesnt matter to me if they preach intolerance or not....They are still using religion as a controlling tool...



> 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?
> 
> First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!
> 
> ...



So you ignore all the  good things given by science? You would rather have us live like cave men? Yes for all the good things science has given, its given bad things too...but science itself will find a sollution for the bad things it has given...Like recycling plastic waste for example...We need to progress, to discover new things....after all, science gives most of its inventions to solve problems....Radioactive elements for example...can cure cancer, fuels which are slowly destroying the environment are the reason that we have progressed so much....Scientists see a problem and try to find a solution...more often than not, that solution creates another problem that science has to solve all over again...and that i feel is the beauty of it.



> 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.



Agreed that it hasnt, but its getting there and gathering more and more evidence every day...It should be supported and not condemned.

And i do not have any such "faith in science"...I dont have any faith in anything at all...just evidence and conclusions drawn by them...


----------



## mediator (May 21, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> I didnt have to...this is a debate...I merely countered his argument...If the oppenent is quoting something then its his job to verify...not mine.


And the only job you think you are left with is "opining" rather than "verifying"? Thats quite a brave logic you have.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> I have never said that its not true....Just merely said that you have to look at all the evidence...and i tend to lean towards the side that has more compound evidence....And thats just lean...not totally believe...i will still mostly wait for more evidence...But no evidence of god in thousands of years and that many things that people claim he can do being disproven and are continuing to be disproven, *coupled with the way people use god through religion to commit dastardly acts leads me to atheism*.


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:
			
		

> I view religions like buddhism and jainism to be a way of life or behaviour...and it doesnt matter to me if they preach intolerance or not....They are still using religion as a controlling tool...


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?

There exist lost souls in the present era who call themselves as atheist and scientific and yet utter crap when discussing science. A common example,

Student A : How did life originated? 
Student B (calling himself scientific): Read Darwin's evolution!

Did you understand the example? Please explain! So again who is controlling? 



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> So you ignore all the good things given by science? You would rather have us live like cave men? Yes for all the good things science has given, its given bad things too...but science itself *will find a sollution for the bad things* it has given...Like recycling plastic waste for example...We need to progress, to discover new things....after all, science gives most of its inventions to solve problems....Radioactive elements for example...can cure cancer, fuels which are slowly *destroying the environment are the reason that we have progressed so much*....Scientists see a problem and try to find a solution...more often than not, that solution creates another problem that science has to solve all over again...and that i feel is the beauty of it.


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....  



			
				mediator 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?
> 
> First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!
> 
> ...


Please answer!




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> And i *do not have any such "faith in science"*...I dont have any faith in anything at all...just evidence and conclusions drawn by them...





			
				amitash said:
			
		

> but science itself *will* find a sollution for the bad things it has given



Your statements so far....
1. Science will do this and that.
2. It "will" find a solution to the all the screw ups.
3. Generalizations on theists, and agnostics.
4. Defining science, instead of talking the science behind. Talking superficial, instead of scientific explanations!


Do you really think you are doing any beter than a religious extremist who tries to impose his thoughts, religion etc on other? I can only see "intolerance" in your statements for those who "differ" in the viewpoint and then ranting when someone questions your "faith" asking stupid and irrelevant questions like "Have you forgotten what science has done for us?".

Regarding your emotional rants let us scrutinize your post again.


			
				amitash said:
			
		

> So you ignore all the good things given by science? You would rather have us live like cave men? Yes for all the good things science has given, its given bad things too...but science itself will find a sollution for the bad things it has given...Like recycling plastic waste for example...We need to progress, to discover new things....after all, science gives most of its inventions to solve problems....Radioactive elements for example...can cure cancer, *fuels which are slowly destroying the environment are the reason that we have progressed so much*....Scientists see a problem and try to find a solution...more often than not, that solution creates another problem that science has to solve all over again...and that i feel is the beauty of it.


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.
2. Who exactly will find the solution? How can you "predict"? Will they find a solution after all the global warming is at its peak and tsuamis becoming a regular phenoma?
3. Do you realise that you are equating destruction of environment with "progression"?
4. You find beauty in creating a problem first and then creating more problem as a result of pursuit of a solution for the previous one?


Speaking big about science, considering your thoughts as superior to others, calling others who differ as narrow minded etc, you clearly are not living upto your mark. Also, I asked you to read what scientists say and opine on it. A true scientific soul should rather be eager to digest matters of science instead of being reminded twice! 


So @amitash...
1. You don't want to "read".
2. You don't want to talk "details".
3. You speak as if science "will" find cure for all the problems it created.
4. Only ranting that science will do this and that...

And then you say that you don't have such faith in science?  

You know, "luck" and "hope" are as illogical as a "prayer" and in typical definition one who "prays" is called a "theist". You are only "hoping" big from science.


----------



## rhitwick (May 21, 2009)

mediator said:


> Student A : How did life originated?
> Student B (calling himself scientific): Read Darwin's evolution!


So, u want the answer to be "GOD created it" or "Read Gita/Puran"....hmmm


----------



## mediator (May 21, 2009)

@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.


----------



## rhitwick (May 21, 2009)

mediator said:


> @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.


See, its not me or u.
Till now (at least in recent debate) I've never commented on ur points as they have logics and u were handling it properly.
But, I could n't control to quote when u went out of logic.
Again, its not me or u or anyone. I just could not agree with some arguments which u provided to @amitash.
I got that that I'm making an image to u as "poking my nose to everywhere" but if u r posting ur views in a public forum u should be prepared to face such people. 

And I got ur point in "that" portion I quoted. U wanted to express that all of who just refer to some "book" are hollow in knowledge or just "believe" in science.
But, I just wanted to know what would be the answer if the 2nd student would be a theist. 

AND, IF U WANT ANSWERS ONLY FROM PEOPLE U WANT TO ANSWER; PM THEM .


----------



## mediator (May 21, 2009)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> And I got ur point in "that" portion I quoted. U wanted to express that all of who just refer *to some "book" are hollow in knowledge* or just "believe" in science.
> But, I just wanted to know what would be the answer if the 2nd student would be a theist.


Wrong again!  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....
1. You understand everything that other person is saying.
2. You understand everything I am saying.
3. Reading all the past replies.

It seems you understand a "few" points of amitash, a "few" of mine and forgotten about the past replies. Like I said read the question carefully, its not rocket science!


----------



## risrockz (May 21, 2009)

science of course you can answer every question through science but can you answer the one question *"DOES GOD EXIST?"*


----------



## rhitwick (May 21, 2009)

mediator said:


> Wrong again!


If u say I'm wrong, I must be. As the question was of urs and its a "metaphor"

So, would u please be kind enough to enlighten this pour soul by providing its original meaning.

I promise I won't post until @Amitash replies. 

And, I'm here since d days of "Pink Unicorn" and "Clock"8)


----------



## mediator (May 21, 2009)

> If u say I'm wrong, I must be.


I'm not an authority on science or logic! Quit lowballing urself. 
The meaning is clear from that post itself. You know, it happens sometimes when a teacher says that a question is difficult, the student leaves the normal approach and starts using all the infinite angles to view the problem which really makes him think that the question is difficult. "Only you think" that I have asked something conceptually very deep.  I'm not gonna entertain you now. 

Offtopic --
Watch this *www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUQPhiNaLk


----------



## rhitwick (May 21, 2009)

mediator said:


> The meaning is clear from that post itself.


I accept my dumbness but I still could not get that part.


> "Only you think" that I have asked something conceptually very deep.


C, I'm used to face yorkers from u, and suddenly u do a slower delivery to main thoda wo ho gaya


> Offtopic --
> Watch this *www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUQPhiNaLk


Ummm...mujhe thoda thoda hi samajh aya...


----------



## amitash (May 22, 2009)

> And the only job you think you are left with is "opining" rather than "verifying"? Thats quite a brave logic you have.


Lets take a formal debate for example:
I sit at one table, you sit at the other and theres a mediator (no pun intended )...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...



> 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.


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.



> 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?


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.



> 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....





> 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?
> 
> First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!
> 
> ...


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.



> Your statements so far....
> 1. Science will do this and that.
> 2. It "will" find a solution to the all the screw ups.
> 3. Generalizations on theists, and agnostics.
> 4. Defining science, instead of talking the science behind. Talking superficial, instead of scientific explanations!


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? 

3. yes that is what i see and that is my opinion...I might be woefully wrong (im not saying that i think im wrong) im free to have an opinion am i not? just like your generalisation of science as a tool thats "screwed the world".

4.scientific explanation for what exactly? how the world came to be? havent i already said that science doesnt have all the answers?



> 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.


Ill make myself clear....by using cavemen i actually meant living without any science/knowledge.

And poverty is a thing that as far as i can see, is created by corporate greed, and of course it is using science to fuel that greed and i am totally against it...Im defending the inventions and discoveries of science and how it solves problems, not corporates who use it for a big bank account...I believe that all basic amenities like good food, water, shelter, clothing etc should be free...luxuries shouldnt.



> 3. Do you realise that you are equating destruction of environment with "progression"?


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.



> 4. You find beauty in creating a problem first and then creating more problem as a result of pursuit of a solution for the previous one?


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.



> Speaking big about science, considering your thoughts as superior to others, calling others who differ as narrow minded etc, you clearly are not living upto your mark. Also, I asked you to read what scientists say and opine on it. A true scientific soul should rather be eager to digest matters of science instead of being reminded twice!


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....



> So @amitash...
> 1. You don't want to "read".
> 2. You don't want to talk "details".
> 3. You speak as if science "will" find cure for all the problems it created.
> ...


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.



> Student A : How did life originated?
> Student B (calling himself scientific): Read Darwin's evolution!
> 
> Did you understand the example? Please explain! So again who is controlling?


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


----------



## naveen_reloaded (May 22, 2009)

the funny thing is quoted micro_vishal and damn , i somewht i replied and i dont know wht happened..

it was huge... ...

will try to do it again..


----------



## mediator (May 22, 2009)

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 )...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...


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?

You think a person who "knows nothing" about the subject can even opine? He is not reflecting the opinions, but his stupidity.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> I have never said that its not true....Just merely said that you have to look at all the evidence...and i tend to lean towards the side that has more compound evidence....And thats just lean...not totally believe...i will still mostly wait for more evidence...But no evidence of god in thousands of years and that many things that people claim he can do being disproven and are continuing to be disproven, *coupled with the way people use god through religion to commit dastardly acts leads me to atheism.*





			
				mediator 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.



1. May I know what problem the nature had that needed to be solved? As far as I know science is a way to explore and "explain" the "already" existing unexplained phenomena. 
2. Can you define need? Does it mean luxury? Is "need" is any different from "greed"?




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


1. Fridge is not only giving out CFC, but also a huge amount heat outside the box and heat which used to provide electricity.
2. Do I even need to talk what pollution does? So you use vehicles.
3. Oven gives heat and consumes electricity which gain needs electricity which gives out a lot of heat as a result of electricity conversion.
4. AC is warming up the nature while cooling ur little room. Again it needs electricity and hence a lot of heat generation otherways too.

Remember, a constumer who is buying crackers is equally responsible for the child labour where the children are employed to develop crackers. A customer who buys tiger skin is equally responsible for the killing of the endangered species.

So do you think you are really "caring" for the environment? I'm not interested what science is doing at "the moment" (as per my question). I'm only interested in what you are doing! And again your statement is potraying as if your are treating science as some kind of messiah that will wash your sins! Its again an example how "blindly" you are following science and "hoping" something from it. Do you think you are doing any better than a theist?




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> or 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?
> 
> 3. yes that is what i see and that is my opinion...I might be woefully wrong (im not saying that i think im wrong) im free to have an opinion am i not? *just like your generalisation of science as a tool thats "screwed the world".*
> 
> 4.scientific explanation for what exactly? how the world came to be? havent i already said that science doesnt have all the answers?


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.

3) 1. You did not read my statement carefully. From the start I asked a question, is it science or the people exploiting it who are doing the harm?
   2. My statement that "science screwed the world" is an analogy to your statement that "religions are doing harm".  I myself said it is illogical, for these religion that I mentioned are not "killing 1000s of people". It is the intolerance. This intolerence is clearly visible in your posts where you behaved quite "intolerant" towards those who differed in the viewpoint and even generalised on them inspite of showing illogic and "hopes" in your own statements. It is nice to see that you realise that you erred. Who knows if discussions be carried out with lost souls (religious extremists), they might also realise of their mistakes? Isn't it possible?

Don't think I'm siding with extremists now or make emotional statements again.

4) And yet you are inserting terms like "will"?




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Ill make myself clear....by using cavemen i actually meant living without any science/knowledge.


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:
			
		

> And poverty is a thing that as far as i can see, is created by corporate greed, and of course it is using science to fuel that greed and i am totally against it...Im defending the inventions and discoveries of science and how it solves problems, not corporates who use it for a big bank account...I believe that all basic amenities like good food, water, shelter, clothing etc should be free...luxuries shouldnt


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:
			
		

> 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.


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? 

I hope you know that high temperatures have effects on food productions too. Means of living? 

Considering all the heat generation via all the electrical appliances and infinite number of other problems and we becoming apathetic customers, I don't think "atheists" like you really care about the world". It is simply a BIG LIE.




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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?

May be you should get rid of your problem first i.e "exploitation of nature" by you, before thinking about other problems. What can you do on your part?




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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....


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.

Do you understand the HUGE difference in your statements and mine?

I never said I "feel" superior to you or you or atheists are "narrow minded" or any other person here whereas look at yourself what you stated....



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> "agnostics" are *not ppl who are open minded*, they are just the *average joe* who is *unsure about everything*.





			
				amitash said:
			
		

> so agnostics basically dont care either way? *that makes you part ignorant, not "open minded"*








			
				amitash said:
			
		

> *i merely treat their works as theories* and only *when sufficient proof is given, do i accept their statements*


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:
			
		

> 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....


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:
			
		

> 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.


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.
You simply are as confused as a blind believer in God.

So the point of probability contradicts itself. What is your next term? Going by the definition of science alone and expecting big from it, is nothing but hope!





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Student A : How did *life originated*?
> Student B (calling himself scientific): Read Darwin's *evolution*!
> 
> Did you understand the example? Please explain! So again who is controlling?





			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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


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"!

The point is simple that the science student neither knows the answer nor has read about evolution.



So if religion is exploited by extremists and corrupt pundits, then science is exploited by terrorists, "corporate greeds" etc too. By using their products you are actually enhancing the exploitation and screwing the nature. And then, you are waiting for science to do something better and hoping something big, where the probability factor is in favour of destruction of nature.

Reflect, you are neither caring about the "world" nor doing any better than a religious extremist yourself.


----------



## amitash (May 22, 2009)

> 1. May I know what problem the nature had that needed to be solved? As far as I know science is a way to explore and "explain" the "already" existing unexplained phenomena.


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.



> 2. Can you define need? Does it mean luxury? Is "need" is any different from "greed"?


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 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.


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.



> 1. Fridge is not only giving out CFC, but also a huge amount heat outside the box and heat which used to provide electricity.
> 2. Do I even need to talk what pollution does? So you use vehicles.
> 3. Oven gives heat and consumes electricity which gain needs electricity which gives out a lot of heat as a result of electricity conversion.
> 4. AC is warming up the nature while cooling ur little room. Again it needs electricity and hence a lot of heat generation otherways too.
> ...


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.



> 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.


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) 1. You did not read my statement carefully. From the start I asked a question, is it science or the people exploiting it who are doing the harm?
> 2. My statement that "science screwed the world" is an analogy to your statement that "religions are doing harm". I myself said it is illogical, for these religion that I mentioned are not "killing 1000s of people". It is the intolerance. This intolerence is clearly visible in your posts where you behaved quite "intolerant" towards those who differed in the viewpoint and even generalised on them inspite of showing illogic and "hopes" in your own statements. It is nice to see that you realise that you erred. Who knows if discussions be carried out with lost souls (religious extremists), they might also realise of their mistakes? Isn't it possible?
> 
> Don't think I'm siding with extremists now or make emotional statements again.
> ...


3.I would say it has to be the people who are exploiting science.
4.look at what i said to the last thing i quoted, i admit i was wrong.



> 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!


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.

As for using weapons, bombs etc, things created by science to kill people, its not science thats doing wrong here, people dont go yelling that their scientists and so they want to kill... other differences such as race, territorial conflict, long-time hatred, etc are responsible for creating these wars and not science.



> 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?
> 
> I hope you know that high temperatures have effects on food productions too. Means of living?
> 
> Considering all the heat generation via all the electrical appliances and infinite number of other problems and we becoming apathetic customers, I don't think "atheists" like you really care about the world". It is simply a BIG LIE.


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.

So is it your opinion that no atheist cares about the world? depends on what you view as caring...I view progression via these inventions as caring to the world, because it solved an old problem...new problems have arisen die to these solutions and i see caring as trying to come up with a new solution for these problems, rather than immediately stopping the RESPONSIBLE use of these inventions and therefore, reverting back to the old problem, which means we have gone nowhere at all.



> 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?
> 
> May be you should get rid of your problem first i.e "exploitation of nature" by you, before thinking about other problems. What can you do on your part?


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 never said I "feel" superior to you or you or atheists are "narrow minded" or any other person here whereas look at yourself what you stated....


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.



> 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.
> You simply are as confused as a blind believer in God.
> 
> So the point of probability contradicts itself. What is your next term? Going by the definition of science alone and expecting big from it, is nothing but hope!


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...



> 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"!


I did not expect such a naive arguement...I know that Darwin doesnt explain the orrigin of life...thats why i stated: 


> Or that he *blindly believes*, without reading darwin, that he(darwin) knew how life had originated?


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"

If you had asked me directly the same question, i would not have answered as evolution...I would have said that science just didnt know yet, nor have i denied that there are many ignorant people/scientists in te world.



> So if religion is exploited by extremists and corrupt pundits, then science is exploited by terrorists, "corporate greeds" etc too. By using their products you are actually enhancing the exploitation and screwing the nature. And then, you are waiting for science to do something better and hoping something big, where the probability factor is in favour of destruction of nature.
> 
> Reflect, you are neither caring about the "world" nor doing any better than a religious extremist yourself.


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.


----------



## karnivore (May 22, 2009)

Hmmm....since bullets kill, I guess, Newton should be persecuted for articulating his third law.

*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/BangUrHead.gif


----------



## mediator (May 22, 2009)

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.


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.

For urbanization, large scale deforestation is done. I hope you know that we need 02 (oxygen) to live that is provided by trees and not the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur which are rather injurious to our health.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.







			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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".

May I know "where" ALL religion discourage free thinking and threaten you to damnation? Where it is "enforcing morality" on you Since you said religion does this, then please tell me about ALL religions and where they are forcing such stuff on you.

Further you hate religions because they tell you about God? What kind of logic is that? I'm a critic of evolution theory. Does that mean I should start hating all those people who believe in evolution?




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 3.I would say it has to be the people who are exploiting science.


Don't you think in similar light that, it has to be the people who are exploiting religion?




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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?

I read the discussiong ealier where it said "SUN god rides on seven horses". ANd no one even understood it. We all know light is composed of 7 colors don't we? Remember many of the hindus scripures are written in a poetic form. So think a little deeply before comprehending anything. Regarding God, like I said I don't pray and I don't goto temples. But what if nature is GOD, since it is providing everything for your living?


Now if you are composed of lifeless chemicals which forms "living cells", which die and develop without your own active awareness, and which makes your whole body and a person to be recognised as a living entity, then don't you think universe which comprises of "living objects" like us and non living objects etc can be having "life" itself? Don't you think universe is living? Do you think an ant can understand quantum physics? May be we who consider ourselves as supreme intellectual beings are not able to undertsand something more intense?

Its just a question!



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> As for using weapons, bombs etc, things created by science to kill people, its not science thats doing wrong here, people dont go yelling that their scientists and so they want to kill... other differences such as race, territorial conflict, long-time hatred, etc are responsible for creating these wars and not science.


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:
			
		

> *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.
> 
> *So is it your opinion that no atheist cares about the world?* depends on what you view as caring...I view progression via these inventions as caring to the world, because it solved an old problem...new problems have arisen die to these solutions and i see caring as trying to come up with a new solution for these problems, rather than immediately stopping the RESPONSIBLE use of these inventions and therefore, reverting back to the old problem, which means we have gone nowhere at all.


With temperature rising and nature getting depleted of its beauty in terms of trees, animals, fresh river/sea water etc?

And I'm not opining but simply reasoning. And its not "no athiest cares",but ONLY YOU that I'm talking bt. 



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


1. You admit you are a customer.
2. You admit you have the greed.

So do ou still think you really "care" about the world. I hope you'll agree that "Greed", "customership" and "care" don't look good together.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.




May be the religious extremists because of which you despise religion, can agree similarly if the subject discussed properly.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> *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...


1. YEs its not the science but the greedy men and the mindset.
2. The responsibility, morality and togetherness is preached by religions also.
3. Again, the use of "will" is nothing but "hope" as the future cannot be predicted accurately and the probability is not 100%.
"Will" simply means that you expect "firmly". Even if you want to call it a probability factor, then it is not 100% and hence the use of "will" is inappropriate. IMO, a term like "might/may" is more appropriate to match the "probability factor" to give it like => "science might find a solution".




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> I did not expect such a naive arguement...I know that Darwin doesnt explain the orrigin of life...thats why i stated:


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:
			
		

> 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.


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?
You have admitted your customership and greed and are using science to "screw" this earth and contributing to the global warming and various forms of pollution which causes various forms of diseases. And yet you say you are doing better than extremists? Extremists are only killing people under the banner of religion with random bombings, whereas we are abusing nature "everyday", which in turn has various "large scale" consequences and stakes our very survival in the long run! Do I really need to talk on pollution and compile a big list?


----------



## dips_view (May 22, 2009)

> originally posted by meditor:
> 
> 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?
> You have admitted your customership and greed and are using science to "screw" this earth and contributing to the global warming and various forms of pollution which causes various forms of diseases. And yet you say you are doing better than extremists? Extremists are only killing people under the banner of religion with random bombings, whereas we are abusing nature "everyday", which in turn has various "large scale" consequences and stakes our very survival in the long run! Do I really need to talk on pollution and compile a big list?



why are you blaming science  If one thing harm human society most that is RELIGION

RELIGION IS THE BLOODIEST THING OF HUMAN HISTORY.

GOD/RELIGION are the biggest tool of oppressors to exploit mass.

Religion is the opium of the masses


----------



## mediator (May 22, 2009)

Ok, your opinion was loud and clear!


----------



## amitash (May 22, 2009)

> 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?


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.



> 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".
> 
> May I know "where" ALL religion discourage free thinking and threaten you to damnation? Where it is "enforcing morality" on you Since you said religion does this, then please tell me about ALL religions and where they are forcing such stuff on you.
> 
> Further you hate religions because they tell you about God? What kind of logic is that? I'm a critic of evolution theory. Does that mean I should start hating all those people who believe in evolution?



Ok, i havent read all the holy books and come to this conclusion, but what i see is that majority of the people in the world who follow the so called major religions are being enforced by that religion to do something or the other and i admit i was wrong to generalise all theists into this category.

The logic here is that by telling you about god, these religions, as i have mentioned, are not telling you any evidence of that god, whatever they preach about god maybe good or bad or whatever but the point is that they are telling you about something without offering evidence, and that is why i despise them....You are a critic of the evolution theory, but evolution was a theory that came about with a foundation of facts and the evidence like the fossils they found...I cant argue evolution, i dont nearly know enough about it, but i do know that it tells you something or draws a conclusion from facts and evidences, whereas there is none supporting god and everything he is supposed to do....And i dont hate all religious people, most of my friends/family are theists, i merely dislike the religion.



> 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?



As you said yourself, science is not at fault, but the people who misuse it....and as far as i see, religion is providing a big difference betwwen people which is causing the fights...science is one, there is no different form of science that people use to fight each other with....It is being misused to resolve other differences, not scientific ones...science is not at fault, it is being misused, it does not provide a difference in people, thats why i dont despise science...my point: some people fight in the name of religion, territory, power etc...no one fights in the name of science...it does not provide a difference, it is the same for all.



> 1. You admit you are a customer.
> 2. You admit you have the greed.
> 
> So do ou still think you really "care" about the world. I hope you'll agree that "Greed", "customership" and "care" don't look good together.



Yes i still think i care...do you think that people who arent consumers are the only ones who care?...I use what i buy sensibly, and i also do many little things that help the world too...I might not have the passion of saving the world and nature a 100% but that doesnt mean i dont care at all...I do care to a large extent. and wat i meant was controlled greed if you will, not uncontrolled greed where you absolutely do anything to get everything.



> 2. The responsibility, morality and togetherness is preached by religions also.



Agreed, but in the same way, it creates a difference between every religion...an unnecassary one if you ask me.



> 3. Again, the use of "will" is nothing but "hope" as the future cannot be predicted accurately and the probability is not 100%.
> "Will" simply means that you expect "firmly". Even if you want to call it a probability factor, then it is not 100% and hence the use of "will" is inappropriate. IMO, a term like "might/may" is more appropriate to match the "probability factor" to give it like => "science might find a solution".



Ok, view it like this:
probability that: "science will find a sollution"

treat science will find a sollution as a statement....now look at: "how probable is it that science will find a sollution"...its not a 100%, it has some probability, which, as far as i understand makes it:

probability that science will find a solution = science may find a solution



> 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?
> You have admitted your customership and greed and are using science to "screw" this earth and contributing to the global warming and various forms of pollution which causes various forms of diseases. And yet you say you are doing better than extremists? Extremists are only killing people under the banner of religion with random bombings, whereas we are abusing nature "everyday", which in turn has various "large scale" consequences and stakes our very survival in the long run! Do I really need to talk on pollution and compile a big list?


they wouldnt terrorise in the name of science as science does not provide a difference between people like religion, race, borders, etc do.

I still think we are doing better than extremists....i did admit that we are abusing nature, it does have consequences but atleast we as scientists, are trying to find a solution instead of thinking: "my religion is better, i want to kill everyone who doesnt follow it" in the case of extremists.


----------



## amitash (May 22, 2009)

EDIT: the forums screwed again and it posted twice for some reason...and wth happened to our avatar pics?


----------



## Faun (May 23, 2009)

Any hardline doctrine based religion is POS IMO.

But an evolutionary one, which has undergone changes is acceptable. It should facilitate science and any other source of knowledge.

Opinions are like @ssholes, everyone has one.


----------



## mediator (May 23, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> Ok, i havent read all the holy books and come to this conclusion, *but what i see is that majority of the people in the world who follow the so called major religions are being enforced by that religion to do something or the other and i admit i was wrong to generalise all theists into this category.*


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:
			
		

> The logic here is that by telling you about god, these religions, as i have mentioned, are not telling you any evidence of that god, whatever they preach about god maybe good or bad or whatever but the point is that they are telling you about something without offering evidence, and that is why i despise them....You are a critic of the evolution theory, but evolution was a theory that came about with a foundation of facts and the evidence like the fossils they found...I cant argue evolution, i dont nearly know enough about it, but i do know that it tells you something or draws a conclusion from facts and evidences, whereas there is none supporting god and everything he is supposed to do....And i dont hate all religious people, most of my friends/family are theists, i merely dislike the religion.


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?

So basically ur "hate" towards religion is based on and narrowed to GOD now. Well this cannot be argued further. But your reason is utterly illogical as hating anything illogical and illogically is "not" a logic in itself. Science has not explained life/Universe, so should we start "hating" everything that talks of life/Universe? You are potraying yourself like a hate machine, that loves only when it is proven under the realm of science. Even then you are NOT loving the nature!!




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> As you said yourself, science is not at fault, but the people who misuse it....and as far as i see, religion is providing a big difference betwwen people which is causing the fights...science is one, there is no different form of science that people use to fight each other with....It is being misused to resolve other differences, not scientific ones...science is not at fault, it is being misused, it does not provide a difference in people, thats why i dont despise science...my point: some people fight in the name of religion, territory, power etc...no one fights in the name of science...it does not provide a difference, it is the same for all.


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.

*www.twnside.org.sg/title2/health.info/twninfohealth038.htm
*www.naturalnews.com/001372.html

People of science are fighting amongst themselves too, not physically though, but do cause damage to others. It is neither for "religion, territory or power" but "corporate greed". Whereas religion is nothing but a set of teachings on morality etc and yes GOD too. What about Buddhism. Is there a GOD in buddhism too? AFAIK, Buddha was a royal person who got enlightened after seeing the worldy sufferings. Not all religions are asking to fight in its name. The term "Hinduism" isn't even mentioned in GITA or Vedas. So how can you say religions are at fault?  




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Yes i still think i care...do you think that people who arent consumers are the only ones who care?...I use what i buy sensibly, and i also do many little things that help the world too...I might not have the passion of saving the world and nature a 100% but that doesnt mean i dont care at all...I do care to a large extent. and wat i meant was controlled greed if you will, not uncontrolled greed where you absolutely do anything to get everything.


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.

Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better and who does not? IMO, "caring" is based on one's conscience. That conscience is not given by science but developed through religion like a few I stated. One may also develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his upbringing, his parents also. But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.

Again you might care, but your actions do not. You are still being a customer and contributing to the global warming through the use of the computer you wrote this post, the AC/fan/heater you were sitting under, UPS that was used to back your PC, oven/toaster that you used to have the toast, the car you travel in, and buying plastic stuffs etc. And then you are "hoping" something from science that it doesn't gurantee. AGAIn you are being illogical.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Agreed, but in the same way, it creates a difference between every religion...an unnecassary one if you ask me.


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?
The "difference" is created by the human stupidity not religion. Its like saying science can be used to develop weapons, so we should stop advancement of science....an unnecessary one?



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Ok, view it like this:
> probability that: "science will find a sollution"
> 
> treat science will find a sollution as a statement....now look at: "how probable is it that science will find a sollution"...its not a 100%, it has some probability, which, as far as i understand makes it:
> ...


Isn't that what I stated?  That science "may" find a solution. Whereas you'd been stating that "science will find a solution", reflecting "hope" in ur statements.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> they wouldnt terrorise in the name of science as science does not provide a difference between people like religion, race, borders, etc do.
> 
> I still think we are doing better than extremists....i did admit that we are abusing nature, it does have consequences but atleast we as scientists, are trying to find a solution instead of thinking: "my religion is better, i want to kill everyone who doesnt follow it" in the case of extremists.


It does in terms of "corporate greed".

And what if religious souls are caring more than you, not giving a damn to the religious differences that are created by a few extremists and also going via scientific means like many famous scientists? I hope you understand that "my religion is better, killing etc" isn't normal or else you would have seen largescale riots in India herself every day or may be every hour.


Further, see for yourself in this very thread, how the so called atheists and "science followers" are abusing/generalising on theists etc just because they say "God is better" or voted for God? Is that any different from "my religion better than yours or my belief is better than yours or my thought better than yours"? The seed of hatred, i.e difference, is sprouted in the minds of science followers and athiests too. They are abusing theists because of how they percieve the actions of a few  "extremists"? Again illogical!


----------



## amitash (May 23, 2009)

> 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!


You seem to have misunderstood me...i didnt judge anyone....I admitted i was wrong:


> but what i see is that majority of the people in the world who follow the so called major religions are being enforced by that religion to do something or the other and i admit i was wrong to generalise all theists into this category.





> 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?
> 
> So basically ur "hate" towards religion is based on and narrowed to GOD now. Well this cannot be argued further. But your reason is utterly illogical as hating anything illogical and illogically is "not" a logic in itself. Science has not explained life/Universe, so should we start "hating" everything that talks of life/Universe? You are potraying yourself like a hate machine, that loves only when it is proven under the realm of science. Even then you are NOT loving the nature!!


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".



> Even then you are NOT loving the nature!!


What?



> 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.


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.



> People of science are fighting amongst themselves too, not physically though, but do cause damage to others. It is neither for "religion, territory or power" but "corporate greed". Whereas religion is nothing but a set of teachings on morality etc and yes GOD too. What about Buddhism. Is there a GOD in buddhism too? AFAIK, Buddha was a royal person who got enlightened after seeing the worldy sufferings. Not all religions are asking to fight in its name. The term "Hinduism" isn't even mentioned in GITA or Vedas. So how can you say religions are at fault?


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.



> 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.


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 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?
> The "difference" is created by the human stupidity not religion. Its like saying science can be used to develop weapons, so we should stop advancement of science....an unnecessary one?


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.



> Isn't that what I stated? That science "may" find a solution. Whereas you'd been stating that "science will find a solution", reflecting "hope" in ur statements.


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?



> It does in terms of "corporate greed".


corporate greed is a difference in companies wanting to make more money over the other, not in actual science



> And what if religious souls are caring more than you, not giving a damn to the religious differences that are created by a few extremists and also going via scientific means like many famous scientists? I hope you understand that "my religion is better, killing etc" isn't normal or else you would have seen largescale riots in India herself every day or may be every hour.


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.


> Further, see for yourself in this very thread, how the so called atheists and "science followers" are abusing/generalising on theists etc just because they say "God is better" or voted for God? Is that any different from "my religion better than yours or my belief is better than yours or my thought better than yours"? The seed of hatred, i.e difference, is sprouted in the minds of science followers and athiests too. They are abusing theists because of how they percieve the actions of a few "extremists"? Again illogical!


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?

EDIT: whenever i say "religion" i mean religions which teach you that there is a god, not things like budhism.


----------



## karnivore (May 23, 2009)

mediator said:


> But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.


What is the definition of "science".

*www.smileyvault.com/albums/forum/smileyvault-popcorn.gif


----------



## amitash (May 23, 2009)

> But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.



I seem to have missed this somehow....anyway, so ur saying religion (atleast the moral part) is the only way to attain a conscience? people who dont have religion dont have feelings or consciences and morality? Isnt it possible that you can be moral by sensibly judging what is right and what is wrong? religion isnt the only way....and since science tries to explain the unexpected, isnt it trying to explain morality too? cant there be a scientific explanation for morality too? psychology and neuroscience is trying to explain this, and arent we thought: "moral science" as a subject when we were kids?

*www.thinkatheist.com/group/science/forum/topics/morality-explained-by-science
*www.provenanceunknown.com/archive/2002/03-19_morality_of_.html

Kind of offtopic: This is an interesting read that i found and want to share:
*www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5367/1200


----------



## mediator (May 23, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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


Don't you think you are becoming "intolerant"? May be everyone is not as intelligent as you are?



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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?


My point was different this time. Why so serious? Read again...



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Further, see for yourself in this very thread, how the so called atheists and "science followers" are abusing/generalising on theists etc just because they say "God is better" or voted for God? Is that any different from "my religion better than yours or my belief is better than yours or my thought better than yours"? The seed of hatred, i.e difference, is sprouted in the minds of science followers and athiests too. They are abusing theists because of how they percieve the actions of a few "extremists"? Again illogical!


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.




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> EDIT: *whenever i say "religion" i mean religions which teach you that there is a god, not things like budhism.*





			
				amitash said:
			
		

> agreed, not all religions kill thousands of people...But another point that bugs me, is that *[SIZE=+1]any religion[/SIZE] 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.


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:
			
		

> I seem to have missed this somehow....anyway, so ur saying religion (atleast the moral part) is the *only way* to attain a conscience? people who dont have religion dont have feelings or consciences and morality? *Isnt it possible that you can be moral by sensibly judging what is right and what is wrong?* religion isnt the only way....and since science tries to explain the unexpected, isnt it trying to explain morality too? cant there be a scientific explanation for morality too? psychology and neuroscience is trying to explain this, and arent we thought: "moral science" as a subject when we were kids?


You missed a lot. I'll show you one by one, since you have shown some interest in my posts and quoted missed statements......
1. I didn't say that religion is the only way to attain conscience. Read...


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better and who does not? IMO, "caring" is based on one's conscience. That conscience is not given by science but developed through religion like a few I stated. *One may also develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his upbringing, his parents also.* But clearly science does not calls for that "conscience". It is simply apathetic and busy in "explaining the unexplained". I hope you understand "definition" of "science" does not have "conscience" in it.


2. Gut instinct is not science.
3. Did you think you were being 'moral", by judging on theists earlier. Yes I know you admitted that you were wrong. But now you are judging on religions just because they have "God". I only see hatred in your posts, just because they have "God" despite the fact that religions are not saying anything to be intolerant or promoting hatred. 
4. The links you posted show about morality of science and not "morality in life" by science. Do you understand the difference? Your links clearly tell about the discussion where science is used in a dangerous fashion. That dangerous fashion was something that I discussed before. I discussed it in the form of "plastics, nuclear wastes, global warming, pollution, CFCs etc" with you. It simply means how science is going without conscience and hence leading to global warming, nuclear wastes etc.
5. So what scientific explanation would you give for.... respect towards elders, a child waving her parents everytime she sees them while swinging around a merry go round, trust between friends, unconditional love, standing up when a lady or an elder comes before you in a dinner table, work that needs to be done unemotionally etc? AFAIK, neuroscience is "the scientific study of the nervous system " where does it teach morality? Psychology involves the study of human mental functions and behavior. It simply explores and tries to explain why,what etc is happening in human physche. It does not tell what experience is, how experience is gained. It does not give you wisdom. It does not "tells" you to give unconditional love. 

So again "moral science" is much different than morality in human life. I think that either you haven't studied "moral science" or forgot what you were told when you were a kid.





So there's more of what you missed....


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better bt the world and who does not?






			
				mediator said:
			
		

> amitash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Now if you are composed of lifeless chemicals which forms "living cells", which die and develop without your own active awareness, and which makes your whole body and a person to be recognised as a living entity, then don't you think universe which comprises of "living objects" like us and non living objects etc can be having "life" itself? Don't you think universe is living? Do you think an ant can understand quantum physics? May be we who consider ourselves as supreme intellectual beings are not able to undertsand something more intense?
> 
> Its just a question!




Please reply to these "missed parts".


----------



## karnivore (May 23, 2009)

mediator said:


> 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?


  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.)

  If religions were solely concerned with “preaching wisdom”, then half the problems of this world would have been solved, or probably, the problems wouldn’t have existed in the first place. It is because these religions preach that “my prophet is better”, or “my book is the best”, or “my wisdom is right”, that we have these conflicts, that we have a certain Klu-Klux-Klan or a certain Al Kaida or a certain Bajrang Dal. 

In addition to the inter/intra-religion conflicts, religions come in direct conflict with modern civilization. Thus, in the west, particularly in US, you have Christians protesting against, abortion or stem-cell research etc. simply because these are against their faith. In the middle east, modern thought process is virtually absent, because these conflict with Islamic teachings. Here, you see Hindutva brigade against secularism due to a misplaced sense of injustice or promoting a tribal culture because they can’t cope with the change in society or promoting mumbo-jumbo like “vedic science” from a sense of lost glory.


> 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.


  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. 

  But, all things said and done, how is science connected to capitalism. If drug companies are trying to form a monopolistic cartel to “control the pharma. sector”, then it is an economic, read marketing, strategy, to maximize profit. Except for producing their product, how is science even remotely influencing the decision on how to market that product.

  Unless, you are implying that science is behind capitalism, this argument doesn’t make any sense. But if are indeed implying that science is behind capitalism, then please elaborate on how it is so.


> The links you posted show about morality of science and not "morality in life" by science. Do you understand the difference?


  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.


> So again "moral science" is much different than morality in human life.


  Once again, what is “moral science” ? Do you mean “morality in science” or the “science of morality”.


----------



## mediator (May 23, 2009)

Each and every argument of urs is same as that of @amitash. REad the discussion from the start, as you have missed many things, asking the things that were actually my point and questioning what I already explained!


----------



## karnivore (May 23, 2009)

mediator said:


> Each and every argument of urs is same as that of @amitash. REad the discussion from the start, as you have missed many things, asking the things that were actually my point and questioning what I already explained


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.

But leave everything aside. Just explain the following.

1. What is science ?

2. How has science helped in shaping capitalism ?

3. What is the “difference” between “morality of science” and “morality in life by science” ?

4. Can a non-religious person be moral ?

5. Should Einstein be held guilty for Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

The last two can be answered in YES and/or NO.


----------



## mediator (May 24, 2009)

Scrutinize my posts and u will find that each and every single question of yours has been CLEARLY and absolutely CLEARLY answered. There's no use of repeating just because another person answered the same set of questions. I didn't discuss evolution and big-bang with amitash u know, coz they already been discussed! For example your 4th point has been clearly stated by me as ....


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> One may *also* develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his *upbringing, his parents also*



Although this was clarified in post #973 itself, but I put it in bolds for better and careful observation for amitash in post#977 (repeated twice for him) alone, i.e a mere 3 posts behind this post of urs. So please read it all. I'm not gonna entertain any further repetitions.


----------



## karnivore (May 24, 2009)

mediator said:


> For example your 4th point has been clearly stated by me as ....
> 
> 
> > One may *also* develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his *upbringing, his parents also*


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 ?

What about 1,2,3 and 5 ? 

You did not discuss Big Bang etc. with amitash, because, discussion didn't go there. Because, other than that, you have repeated pretty much everything.

Ah, well never mind.


----------



## mediator (May 24, 2009)

Circumstances might lead to repetitions more than fresh talks from some else. 

Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?

What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently. 

You may or may not believe in what your parents say. Similarly, one may or may not believe in what religions say. Religions aren't asking you to kill, hate, abuse etc anyone who doesn't adheres to this religion. Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not. He may follow illogic instead and supernatural phenomena even after being a science student. It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad".  Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.)


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". 

Being religious in Hindi basically  means "dharma". "Dharma" means ur duty also. I call my self religious coz basically Hinduism is percieved as a religion.  You may call it as a way of life and substitute the defintition. But in Hindi, it only means one word and that is "dharmic", i.e "dharmic" towards your work, your life etc. And Gita is a whole subject on that "duty" of what, how and where one should act diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently etc. You may agree with its verses and you may not. But science is not telling such verses where to act "diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently" and give us a "detailed thought" to ponder on.

Moral science means, how science and scientists are going. I told myself that just like religion, like a few I stated above, aren't asking to kill people of other religions or other faiths, similarly science is not asking to do global warming. Science is not leading to atomic warfare, but again the "human mind" coz of materialism i.e region, greed etc. But, if science and scientists are not goin to find a solution for plastics, global warming, nuclear wastes etc, then who will? If a poison is developed, then "morally" a cure should be developed as well before giving out to the market. People have accustomed to luxuries. Even if we reduce our electricity consumption, will it lead to reduction in global warming given the increasing use of computers,  poor nations urbanising and getting educated, large scale deforestation etc?

Moral science simple means the ways of science and scientists rather than the way of human being in dealing with his "entire" life like I already stated before. 

And please, it really exhausts when I'm made to repeat.  

Check yourself and realise that I repeated the explanation for you again.


----------



## amitash (May 25, 2009)

> 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?



My point was that there wouldnt be escalating quarels if they JUST thought morality, how to lead a sensible life....God creates a difference.



> Don't you think you are becoming "intolerant"? May be everyone is not as intelligent as you are?



I said i dislike only that part of them...That doesnt mean i will hate them for everything else.

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

My point was not how they abuse science....like people abuse religion too, but its the peoples fault, not religion like you said....I said they dont fight for science or in the name of science, they fight for money... whereas some do in the name of their religion/god (not all religions).

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

I was hasty in reading, i get your point.



> 2. Gut instinct is not science.



Agreed



> 3. Did you think you were being 'moral", by judging on theists earlier. Yes I know you admitted that you were wrong. But now you are judging on religions just because they have "God". I only see hatred in your posts, just because they have "God" despite the fact that religions are not saying anything to be intolerant or promoting hatred.



Yes religions arent telling people to be violent or anything, but the ones with god or a supreme thing in them are saying so without proof, that i do dislike and i do judge that part of religion as bad.



> 4. The links you posted show about morality of science and not "morality in life" by science. Do you understand the difference? Your links clearly tell about the discussion where science is used in a dangerous fashion. That dangerous fashion was something that I discussed before. I discussed it in the form of "plastics, nuclear wastes, global warming, pollution, CFCs etc" with you. It simply means how science is going without conscience and hence leading to global warming, nuclear wastes etc.



I dont think science is going "without a conscience"...I think the negative effects are just caused because those effects arent foreseen.... However when they are finally realised, attempts are being made to fix it.



> 5. So what scientific explanation would you give for.... respect towards elders, a child waving her parents everytime she sees them while swinging around a merry go round, trust between friends, unconditional love, standing up when a lady or an elder comes before you in a dinner table, work that needs to be done unemotionally etc? AFAIK, neuroscience is "the scientific study of the nervous system " where does it teach morality? Psychology involves the study of human mental functions and behavior. It simply explores and tries to explain why,what etc is happening in human physche. It does not tell what experience is, how experience is gained. It does not give you wisdom. It does not "tells" you to give unconditional love.



I cant give a scientific explanation because it hasnt been found yet...didnt i say science didnt know everything?




> Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better bt the world and who does not?



omg, didnt i just tell you i was wrong to judge...this is the 4th time i think.



> 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?



AFAIK agnostics are people who think there may/may not be a god, not all theories...fence sitters as someone said, but anyway i deny the existance of god entirely so no it doesnt make an agnostic....



> Now if you are composed of lifeless chemicals which forms "living cells", which die and develop without your own active awareness, and which makes your whole body and a person to be recognised as a living entity, then don't you think universe which comprises of "living objects" like us and non living objects etc can be having "life" itself? Don't you think universe is living? Do you think an ant can understand quantum physics? May be we who consider ourselves as supreme intellectual beings are not able to undertsand something more intense?



I did not get your point here.



> But, all things said and done, how is science connected to capitalism. If drug companies are trying to form a monopolistic cartel to “control the pharma. sector”, then it is an economic, read marketing, strategy, to maximize profit. Except for producing their product, how is science even remotely influencing the decision on how to market that product.
> 
> Unless, you are implying that science is behind capitalism, this argument doesn’t make any sense. But if are indeed implying that science is behind capitalism, then please elaborate on how it is so.



My point exactly



> 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.



I think the difference mediator means is that:
science/scientists may be moral (morality in science)
science/scientists do not teach morality(morality in life by science)

I think science is also a cause for morality as science values gatherng knowledge a lot and as we gather more and more knowledge and use logic on them (logic is also a part of science) we can also develop morality, we dont need different religion to teach us morality, and that too insensible morality in some cases and create differences between us...although i agree some religions teach us good morality, but i feel this morality is pretty much common in all religions....things like "respect your elders", "Dont lie", "help the less fortunate"...i dont think any religion denies that, but in some religions, there are some parts that dont agree with all others and hence creates a difference which some extremists can take too seriously....and then again theres the whole point of different gods....now wouldnt it be better if you just let go of that? If it were never taught and there would be no difference?


----------



## mediator (May 25, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> My point was that there wouldnt be escalating quarels if they JUST thought morality, how to lead a sensible life....God creates a difference.


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:
			
		

> I said i dislike only that part of them...That doesnt mean i will hate them for everything else.


"Disliking" is lower than "not caring". May be upper than hating.

Here's the question I would like to ask you ....



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?
> 
> What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently.
> 
> You may or may not believe in what your parents say. Similarly, one may or may not believe in what religions say. Religions aren't asking you to kill, hate, abuse etc anyone who doesn't adheres to this religion. Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not. He may follow illogic instead and supernatural phenomena even after being a science student. It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad". Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??


Please reply to above statements.




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> My point was not how they abuse science....*like people abuse religion too*, but its the peoples fault, not religion like you said....I said they dont fight for science or in the name of science, they fight for money... *whereas some do in the name of their religion/god (not all religions)*.


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:
			
		

> I was hasty in reading, i get your point.


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:
			
		

> I dont think science is going "without a conscience"...I think the negative effects are just caused because those effects arent foreseen.... However when they are finally realised, attempts are being made to fix it.


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? 

So again, science is simply "exploring and explaining" the ways, the tools etc. The tools might be "used" for the good and for the bad. That "good or bad" which is related to morality, is related to the human society which is "using it", and not science. If the society stops using heaters and ACs etc, then do u think the global warming would increase at the same rate?

Further, if you are willing to accept the "good things" that science has done, then why are you refusing to accept the "bad things" science has done? On one hand you say that its the humans who have "exploited" science and not the science which is telling to do that and on other, you celebrate science for doing good things and providing you luxuries? Do you understand the point? So science is not concerned whether the thing explored is bad or good for people. 

And hence moral science simply means to "foresee/predict" the possible consequences from each and every angle possible. Like I asked before, would it be possible to reduce global warming with increasing population, increasing use of computers which have become an evergreen part of human existence, urbanization of the world with a huge scope for plenty of poor nations to urbanize and large scale deforestation already in the process?

Remember trees give us oxygen. No trees = less oxygen and lowering of water tables. I hope you know that trees keep the water table and soil quality in check. More population = more CO2 (carbon dioxide). More C02 = more "green house effect"!
More population and less trees means "huge increase" in Co2. Add huge heat generation to it from computers and various electrical appliances. Add a huge number of vehicles to it and commercialization of the world...etc etc

Back to basics. With rapid urbanization, can trees exist in proportion to the population and all the above factors? We have already predicted that polar icecaps would be gone by 2050. What would science do to bring back the polar icecaps, i.e the natural habitat of polar bears and many penguins? Science might to do it and might not. But who forced the world to think upon it? Don't you think its the very survival of the humans that forced them to think about it? Remember conscience is not something that tells you to act when you are at  the brink of extinction. It is not something that comes up when you slap your girlfriend and ruining a relationship already and then grieving bt it, but "before" you slap. It is more related to "prediction of future and thinking bt present, prediction of right and wrong before doing an action" and "learning from the past" for a better tomorrow. Do you really think science and scientists have learnt from the past? It is simply "not their job" in the first place to "judge" let alone learning from the past, but to keep "exploring and explaining". And hence, Moral science simply means to induce "morality in the definition and the work of science".  




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> I cant give a scientific explanation because it hasnt been found yet...didnt i say science didnt know everything?


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:
			
		

> AFAIK agnostics are people who think there may/may not be a god, not all theories...fence sitters as someone said, but anyway i deny the existance of god entirely so no it doesnt make an agnostic....


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.

BTW, you didn't reply to Buddhism part. Can you start to "love Buddhism"?




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> I did not get your point here.


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. 

Similarly universe is composed of lifeless stuff and all life forms like animals, humans etc. So do you think universe is living? Do you think it is having life? Give it a thought for its just a question.


----------



## amitash (May 25, 2009)

> 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?


Presuming that god is true, no its not telling them, but it creates a difference between the people none the less.



> Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?
> 
> You may or may not believe in what your parents say. Similarly, one may or may not believe in what religions say. Religions aren't asking you to kill, hate, abuse etc anyone who doesn't adheres to this religion. Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not. He may follow illogic instead and supernatural phenomena even after being a science student. It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad". Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??


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".

And yes people have abused theists here and judged them, that was wrong...and did i say I hate people who follow religions? no just said i hate "that part of them"...and 



> What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently.


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.



> 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?


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.



> 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?


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?



> Further, if you are willing to accept the "good things" that science has done, then why are you refusing to accept the "bad things" science has done? On one hand you say that its the humans who have "exploited" science and not the science which is telling to do that and on other, you celebrate science for doing good things and providing you luxuries? Do you understand the point? *So science is not concerned whether the thing explored is bad or good for people.*


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?



> *And hence moral science simply means to "foresee/predict" the possible consequences from each and every angle possible.* Like I asked before, would it be possible to reduce global warming with increasing population, increasing use of computers which have become an evergreen part of human existence, urbanization of the world with a huge scope for plenty of poor nations to urbanize and large scale deforestation already in the process?


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?



> Back to basics. With rapid urbanization, can trees exist in proportion to the population and all the above factors? We have already predicted that polar icecaps would be gone by 2050. What would science do to bring back the polar icecaps, i.e the natural habitat of polar bears and many penguins? Science might to do it and might not.* But who forced the world to think upon it? Don't you think its the very survival of the humans that forced them to think about it?* Remember conscience is not something that tells you to act when you are at the brink of extinction. It is not something that comes up when you slap your girlfriend and ruining a relationship already and then grieving bt it, but "before" you slap. It is more related to "prediction of future and thinking bt present, prediction of right and wrong before doing an action" and "learning from the past" for a better tomorrow. Do you really think science and scientists have learnt from the past? It is simply "not their job" in the first place to "judge" let alone learning from the past, but to keep "exploring and explaining". And hence, Moral science simply means to induce "morality in the definition and the work of science".


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?
And i do think scientists have learned from the past and tried not to repeat their mistakes....they learnt for eg: that the car causes a lot of pollution so they made hydrogen powered cars which only give out water...now can you see a problem arising in those cars? *To the best of their knowledge* scientists have built this car and think there are no negative effects of it...now what if something bad does happen? is that the scientists fault? Isnt morality there too?



> 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?


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?



> BTW, you didn't reply to Buddhism part. Can you start to "love Buddhism"?


I may start to "love buddhism" or follow it if i learn everything it has to say and reason it as being correct...



> 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.
> 
> Similarly universe is composed of lifeless stuff and all life forms like animals, humans etc. So do you think universe is living? Do you think it is having life? Give it a thought for its just a question.


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?



> 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".



for god we dont have various religions...for various religions we have various gods

And we dont have different corporates for science...we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science..I have always said that people who exploit science are at fault, but the science itself....



> Like you yourself said, its not the science that is leading to corporate greed.





> then for science we have various corporates



contradiction?


----------



## karnivore (May 25, 2009)

I am not sure, to which question you have answered but I agree, that you have repeated yourself. When I asked those questions, I was hoping that I will be able to give a different direction to the debate. But, unfortunately, it is not to be.  





mediator said:


> But science is not telling such verses where to act "diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently" and give us a "detailed thought" to ponder on.
> 
> -snipped-
> 
> ...


  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.

  The reason why I asked you to define science, is because you are expecting science to be something, which is impossible for it to be. Science, as I understand it, is knowledge about the rules of nature, and the procedure of obtaining that knowledge. It is not possible for knowledge, or any procedure for that matter, to be moral, in the sense that it applies to a human, or as you are expecting, to tell “where to act "diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently" and give us a "detailed thought" to ponder on”. Science is moral-neutral. For example, we all know, from our individual experiences, that a body falls down to earth and doesn’t float away. Science will tell you, it is because of something called gravity. Science won’t tell you what to do with this knowledge i.e. the gravity. Science is simply indifferent to the use, that this knowledge is likely to be put in. Therefore, it is neutral in terms of morality, ethics, gender, culture, ethnicity, region and even religion. But the same can’t be said about a religion which, for example, teaches a person, that one who doesn’t believe in my holy texts is either a “pagan” or a “kaffir” or a “nastik”, or any other term that any other religion may use to mean the same thing.

  Science is not philosophy. You want to learn “HOW” this universe works, read science. You want to learn “WHY” this universe works, read philosophy. 



> Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?


  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.

  A person is indeed responsible for his/her actions, make no mistake about it, but the bigger question is, would s/he have acted the same way, if s/he was not prejudiced by his/her religion. In other words, are his/her actions directly or indirectly fuelled by his/her religious belief ? Even bigger question is, are personal actions, however heinous, justified, by his/her religious belief ? If answer to any or both the questions is “yes”, then in addition to the person, his/her religion gets the blame as well. In the same way, if actions can be traced back to bad parenting, his/her parents get the blame as well. 

  Criticizing religion is nowhere close to being same as criticizing one’s parents for what a person is (unless bad parenting is involved here.). A child needs parents, to be precise, a mother, for its survival. Requirement of religion in a person’s life is for entirely different reasons and can’t be equated with the requirement of a parent in a child’s life. Simply put, a child will not survive to be a man or a woman, without parental care, but a man or woman can spend his/her life without religion. 


> Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not.


  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.

  Every religion ensures adherence to it, by some rules, rituals and symbols. No matter how flimsy these rules may seem, if one doesn’t follow those, one ceases to be the proponent of that religion. For example, if you are a hindu and eat beef, to many schools of thought you cease to be a hindu or there is only a certain way that you can perform _yajna_. If you are a sikh and you do not maintain the 5 Ks – Karha, Kirpan, Kangha, Keski and Kacha – you cease to be a Sikh. These are all means of keeping the flock together.



> What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently.
> 
> -snipped-
> 
> It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad". Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??


  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.

  At the core of theism, is belief of a supreme being, being the facilitator of this universe. That is how theism is defined. However, definition of this supreme being, or the concept and philosophy of how it facilitates this universe, or how a devotee shall go about with his/her life may vary from one theistic religion to another. Atheists, find this, belief in supreme being and everything associated with it, irrational and it is disingenuous to expect an atheist to respect something which he finds irrational, and has already rejected. Also, criticism against theism is criticism against this belief of supreme being and not against any particular religion, or religion in general. Your accusation of “generalizing” theists, is therefore, unfounded, although I would agree that criticism against theism, sometimes overlaps with criticism against theistic religion.

  “Intolerance”, would be, if someone is forcibly suppressed to exercise his personal rights, for example, that of practicing his/her religion or expressing his/her opinion against such religion. I don’t see any member on this board, or for that matter any atheist anywhere, doing such, in the name of atheism. Nobody is under any obligation to anyone to entertain any opinion, that one doesn’t like. Just as you have a right to have an opinion and express it in your own way, I have the right to be critical of your opinion and express it. 

  Religion is not just a “viewpoint”, neither does it stop at expressing this “viewpoint”. It uses this “viewpoint” to define society, to define people, to define every aspect of our life. Anything, not falling in line with these narrow parameters, is unacceptable. This leads to religious intolerance. A few days back, Pope claimed that condom doesn’t prevent HIV virus to spread, in spite of researches, experiments and data, showing the opposite. This is also a “viewpoint”. But imagine the effect, the “viewpoint” may have. But in Pope’s religion, using condom is “sin”. Cut back to India. Here you have a bunch of people clamouring for a ban on cow slaughter, because their religion considers cows to be sacred. Therefore, cow slaughter, for them is “sin”. It is the “viewpoint” of one religion. But what about the “viewpoint” of another religion that requires cow sacrifice, in some of their rituals. Why not root for ban of animal slaughter, as a whole, in any religious or cultural ritual. But no. Because the one’s asking for a ban on cow slaughter, requires to slaughter some other animal for their rituals. Now what is this “viewpoint” doing other than creating fissure within a secular society. That my friend, is religious intolerance. When a painter is forced to live outside his country, for daring to paint some goddesses in a manner that a bunch of intellectually handicapped person found unacceptable, it is religious intolerance. When a writer has to live underground for the better part of his life, for writing something, that some fanatic thought, was derogatory to his religion, it is intolerance. When scientific data, tested and proven, is dismissed simply because, it doesn’t bode well with someone’s holy book, it is intolerance.

  Calling someone “stupid” for his ideas, is rudeness, but not intolerance. So, if my self developed conscience and philosophy of life, leads me to believe, green witches hanging upside down from a lamp post, then it is to be questioned, ridiculed and be called “stupid”.


> Being religious in Hindi basically means "dharma". "Dharma" means ur duty also. I call my self religious coz basically Hinduism is percieved as a religion. You may call it as a way of life and substitute the defintition. But in Hindi, it only means one word and that is "dharmic", i.e "dharmic" towards your work, your life etc. And Gita is a whole subject on that "duty" of what, how and where one should act diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently etc. You may agree with its verses and you may not.


  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. 

  Regarding Gita, I do believe, that it is a pre-medieval self-help book, something in the lines of, “You can win”, only a few orders of magnitude superior in its intellectual discourse. But then, thats just me speaking.


> 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".
> 
> -snipped-
> 
> I told myself that just like religion, like a few I stated above, aren't asking to kill people of other religions or other faiths, similarly science is not asking to do global warming. Science is not leading to atomic warfare, but again the "human mind" coz of materialism i.e region, greed etc.


  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. 

  This is also where, science differs from religion. Science is moral-neutral, as I have explained before. It neither judges nor does it provide justification for anything as religion does. It simply can’t. So a person ordering to drop a nuclear warhead is not science’s fault, but a person ransacking an art display, supposedly because it has insulted his religion, is indeed the religion’s fault, because it has provided this person with the intellectual base to do so. In his mind, he has defended his religion, done his own “dharmayudh”. 

  I would agree however, that Eastern/South-Eastern religions, are not as bellicose as the abrahamic religions are, partly because, these are more, philosophies of life, than religion and partly because, these came into being, long before society became multireligious, in the sense that it is today, and partly because, most don’t have a central authority like Christianity or Islam, e.g. Hinduism. Many are not even theistic in nature e.g. Buddhism and Jainism. However, criticisms against all theistic religions, applies unabated, to these as well.

  Also, you have used a wrong term here. “Materialism” is a distinct term in philosophy, which defines the universe in terms of matter alone, or it is the conviction that all processes, can be explained in terms of matter. Pursuing material comfort is not the same as the philosophical concept of “materialism”. Inadvertent mistake, I guess.


----------



## karnivore (May 25, 2009)

mediator said:


> 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?


  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.


> 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".


  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 science and scientist is too "explore" and "Explain" the science.


  The work of the scientist is to “explore” and “explain” the nature. The act of “exploring” and the “explanation” itself, is science.


> Like I asked before, would it be possible to reduce global warming…


  Maybe. Kyoto protocol has kick started the effort. It’s a long way from here, but not impossible.


----------



## rhitwick (May 26, 2009)

I'm pissed off reading these baseless comments on "Global Warming". B4 commenting get ur facts clear. 
We (theists and atheists) r blindly following what is being told to us. For theists its an acceptable behavior because they are like that, for the followers of science I would expect more. What happend to ur basic queries what, when, how, who told, proof, how true r those, verification and reproducing of them again and again.

I would first recommend a science fiction novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Yes its a "science fiction" and I know what I'm writing. If any one of u is laughing becuse of my referral being a science fiction, I would like to request him/her to verify the sources of info mentioned in the bibliography of the book.

Some excerpts from the book; author's message:-



> We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
> 
> Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
> 
> ...


and if u want the bibliography too, here are some,


> World temperature data has been taken from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, New York (GISS); the Jones, et al. data set from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (CRU); and the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) maintained by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC) of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
> 
> The GISS station page is not easy to find from their home page, but it is found at *www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station data/.
> 
> The Jones data set reference is P. D. Jones, D. E. Parker, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, 1999. Global and hemispheric temperature anomolies—land and marine instrument records. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.


and 



> What follows is a list of books and journal articles I found most useful in preparing this novel. I found the texts by Beckerman, Chase, Huber, Lomborg, and Wildavsky to be particularly revealing.
> Environmental science is a contentious and intensely politicized field. No reader should assume that any author listed below agrees with the views I express in this book. Quite the contrary: many of them disagree strongly. I am presenting these references to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions.
> 
> Aber, John D., and Jerry M. Melillo. Terrestrial Ecosystems. San Francisco: Harcourt Academic Press, 2001. A standard textbook.
> ...


A few sites, I've found interesting.


> Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.


*planetgore.nationalreview.com/

*info-pollution.com/warming.htm



> * Sea levels: In a March 13 article, "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype," New York Times science writer William J. Broad set up a false comparison, suggesting that the IPCC report, which "estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches," contradicted Gore's claim, "citing no particular time frame," that seas could rise "up to 20 feet." In the book An Inconvenient Truth (Rodale Books, May 2006), Gore wrote that if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet." He added that "the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually identical in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea."
> 
> But the IPCC projection to which Broad was referring involved rising sea levels as they are affected by "[c]ontinued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates" -- not the melting or breakup of the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome. A chart projecting the rise of sea levels in six different scenarios showed that the "the best estimate for the high scenario," which defined the "likely range" of temperature increases over the next century to be from "2.4°C to 6.4°C," resulting in an increase in sea levels between 0.26 meters and 0.59 meters, which converts to a range of 10.24 to 23.23 inches. The IPCC further claimed that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "_f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. The apple-to-oranges comparison Broad made on sea levels was noted by Bob Somerby on his weblog, The Daily Howler._


_*mediamatters.org/research/200703230007




			Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists) took part in the second annual International Conference on Climate Change—sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank—in March 2009. Keynote speaker and Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen told the gathering that "there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons."

Most skeptics attribute global warming—few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature—to natural cycles, not emissions from power plants, automobiles and other human activity. "The observational evidence…suggests that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," says atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, an outspoken global warming skeptic and founder of the advocacy-oriented Science and Environmental Policy Project.
		
Click to expand...

*www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth




			MYTH No. 3: There will be storms, flooded coasts and huge disruptions in climate!

TRUTH: There are always storms and floods. Will there be much bigger disruptions in climate? Probably not.

Schoolchildren I've interviewed were convinced that America is "dying" in a sea of pollution and that "cities will soon be under water!"

Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) warn that "sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often."

Wow.

But many scientists laugh at the panic.

Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."
		
Click to expand...

*abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1

Here is another interesting link, check it out too.
*web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Archive.html

If, u r still not satisfied (and u should not be), google on "global cooling".
One link for example, *www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141146.htm

Now, at least stop bringing Global Warming into God_


----------



## amitash (May 26, 2009)

^well i doubt its totally baseless...I could post a lot of links too which say they have proved global warming, but the point i get from all the links...whether for or against the "global warming theory" is that we just dont have enough data/proof to make it conclusive...We will just have to wait and see i guess.


----------



## mediator (May 26, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> Presuming that god is true, no its not telling them, but it creates a difference between the people none the less.


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:
			
		

> 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".
> 
> And yes people have abused theists here and judged them, that was wrong...and did i say I hate people who follow religions? no just said i hate "that part of them"...and


In the world's largest democracy...
1. I don't see people killing each other "on a large scale" everyday.
2. I see tolerance more than "hatred"
3. Just because media shows what is going in a "locality", doesn't mean it is happening in whole of India.

Further, like I stated, people of most religion enjoy the festivals of other religions. And "most" of the people do that instead of a "few". Just like you stated, its human nature to get angry when something he follows is "attacked" and "abused". See for yourself its "you" who are getting angry when some abuses your parents. Its you who will "rebuke", not that your parents are telling you to. They will rather tell you to "restraint" and not indulge in a fight. Don't you agree?

1. Religions are not telling to "attack", "abuse" or "kill" which you agree. Its only a few who "exploit" religion or kill in the name of religion. Read "few".
2. Religions give a "thought", "a philosophy" to enhance your morals and ethics. And these are provided to "many" people. Read "many".
3. Is getting insulted on parents any different? The point is its "you" who are getting insulted and thinking of a "reaction". The basic point of view is "reacting" to something that you "like,follow etc" when someone "attacks" it. The same thing is behind, parents, boundaries, countries etc i.e the very thought of what is "mine" or "attacking" someone as a part of reaction. 

Parents give you your needs, agreed! But this is not the point. Its the "respect" you have for your parents and the perception that is making you to react when someone attacks them. But religion do give you philophical knowledge, the points that people may or may not agree, but atleast are willing to think bt them. May be it is the knowledge you never thought of? May it is something that you "felt" but were confused about and religions giving a simple solution to your life problems??



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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?*


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"?

Btw, had you read my past replies u'd have known that I'm not against or favour of God. I simply don't care about God. I like to learn best of all the worlds and in the case of religion its "deep" thoughts in philosophy.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Science tries to solve the questions and problems of the people so it is looking for the good of the people


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" to 
1. To undo global warming?
2. Restore natural habitat of polar bears and penguins, i.e polar life?
3. To "undo" large scale deforestation and consequent soil erosion?

I hope you will answer these few things without the use of a phrase like "science will" which you agreed is not correct.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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?*
> .
> .
> .
> I dont see the consequences that have arisen from religion being fixed or amended do you?


1. Manusmriti which was being misunderstood as a part of Hinduism, is now being corrected and people getting aware of it.
2. cast system which is not even a part of Hinduism, is slowly being rejected and again people are getting aware of it.
3. Superstitions like "eggs on tuesday" are being debated. Again they are nuthing more than rumours.

Atleast a few religions are getting cleansed slowly and steadily! So I think something is being "fixed"!

You will only see the reality and the logic, if you shed your "bias", and "dislike" towards "part" of religion or God. LIke first you attacked religions, even when you knew nuthing bt the scriptures of even 1 religion appropriately.




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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*...


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:
			
		

> 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 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!
I think you r being ignorant again and confusing philosophy with science. National laws have been created for the betterment of human society.  "Nari aadar" (respect towards female), "athiti devo bhava" (guest is god) are nothing but an expression to show "respect towards female and guest". It is related to ethics and not science.

How you should dress in school is ethics not science! So don't be confused!



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> *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?
> And i do think scientists have learned from the past and tried not to repeat their mistakes....they learnt for eg: that the car causes a lot of pollution so they made hydrogen powered cars which only give out water...now can you see a problem arising in those cars? To the best of their knowledge scientists have built this car and think there are no negative effects of it...now what if something bad does happen? is that the scientists fault? Isnt morality there too?


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...



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Back to basics. With rapid urbanization, can trees exist in proportion to the population and all the above factors? We have already predicted that polar icecaps would be gone by 2050. What would science do to bring back the polar icecaps, i.e the natural habitat of polar bears and many penguins? Science might to do it and might not. But who forced the world to think upon it? Don't you think its the very survival of the humans that forced them to think about it? Remember conscience is not something that tells you to act when you are at the brink of extinction. It is not something that comes up when you slap your girlfriend and ruining a relationship already and then grieving bt it, but "before" you slap. It is more related to "prediction of future and thinking bt present, prediction of right and wrong before doing an action" and "learning from the past" for a better tomorrow. Do you really think science and scientists have learnt from the past? It is simply "not their job" in the first place to "judge" let alone learning from the past, but to keep "exploring and explaining". And hence, Moral science simply means to induce "morality in the definition and the work of science".






			
				amitash said:
			
		

> And i do think scientists have learned from the past and tried not to repeat their mistakes....they learnt for eg: that the car causes a lot of pollution so they made hydrogen powered cars which only give out water...now can you see a problem arising in those cars? To the best of their knowledge scientists have built this car and think there are no negative effects of it...now what if something bad does happen? is that the scientists fault? Isnt morality there too?


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. 

But again scientists have not created a perfect car that
1. Cannot do heat generation.
2. Cause accidents

If humans drive it, there is bound to be heat generation and accidents. And hence again it is humans who are at fault and not science. I already stated global warming, dangers of nukes etc are not because of science, but humans and exploitation of science by humans. I think even after getting my point, you are not able to comprehend it crystal clear. I guess you understand it only vaguely or remain confused.

Conscience simply means that all the major dangers do not arise in the first place! You would not "hurt" a child if you have conscience would you? Or would you hurt him and then find ways to make him laugh?

So moral, conscience is really not a part of science. Moral is basically a standalone "addon" to the definition of science, just like nokia phones have various addons to improve its functionality.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> I may start to "love buddhism" or follow it if i learn everything it has to say and reason it as being correct...


Good! 





			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 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?


Leave it. The question is deep actually.



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> contradiction?
> .
> .
> we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science


confusion?

By stating diff. corporates for science I essentially mean the same thing that I started with and that is "corporate greed" or "we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science".






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> But the same can’t be said about a religion which, for example, teaches a person, that one *who doesn’t believe in my holy texts* is either a “pagan” or a “kaffir” or a “nastik”, or any other term that any other religion may use to mean the same thing.


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?

"nastik" is not an offensive term, but simply means an atheist. So are these religions self-glorifying?

quote=karnivore]
Science is not philosophy. You want to learn “HOW” this universe works, read science. You want to learn “WHY” this universe works, read philosophy.
[/quote]
Exactly



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> A person is indeed responsible for his/her actions, make no mistake about it, but the bigger question is, would s/he have acted the same way, if s/he was not prejudiced by his/her religion. In other words, are his/her actions directly or indirectly fuelled by his/her religious belief ? Even bigger question is, are personal actions, however heinous, justified, by his/her religious belief ? If answer to any or both the questions is “yes”, then in addition to the person, his/her religion gets the blame as well. In the same way, if actions can be traced back to bad parenting, his/her parents get the blame as well.


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.

Veda which means "knowledge" is not a name, but a sanskrit term which means "knowledge" and has been stressed on in the scriptures. It simply means we should adher more to knowledge of all kinds, be it scientific, spiritual, duty towards work, respect for the betterment of society. A person who understands this cannot ever do "blind believing" in the first place.

Is it the fault of Hindu scriptures, that christian missionaries distorted it, mistranslated Vedas, glorified manusmriti even when the Vedic authorities talked differently? Don't you think it is again human nature that is sowing the seed of hatred and "intolerance"?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> Every religion ensures adherence to it, by some rules, rituals and symbols. No matter how flimsy these rules may seem, if one doesn’t follow those, one ceases to be the proponent of that religion. For example, if you are a hindu and eat beef, to many schools of thought you cease to be a hindu or there is only a certain way that you can perform yajna. If you are a sikh and you do not maintain the 5 Ks – Karha, Kirpan, Kangha, Keski and Kacha – you cease to be a Sikh. These are all means of keeping the flock together.


You are only saying that becoz you are not religious yourself! You don't have the unbias when it comes to religions.

I don't follow any rules (again manusmriti is not a part of Hinduism). I don't adhere to any rituals, or goto temples or wear some symbols. I question a brahmin who calls himself a brahmin only to surprise him. I discuss logic with those who refrain themselves from eating eggs on tuesday. I ask them to define the start of time and define "tuesday" on the basis of that. I ask why is he following "tuesday" for tuesday is not a part of "hindu calendar" to redo his egg logic. BUT, I call myself Hindu like everyone else does and till date "all" the hindus I have debated on hinduism have only agreed to my discussions regarding Hinduism!

So do I cease to be a "proponent" of Hinduism? AFAIK, I'm the only bad guy who talks Hinduism the most in this forum. 

Think again, u'll find plenty of people like me and thats the beauty of Hinduism which talks God and science, philosophy, morals, ethics, duties, and at the same time stresses "against" blind believing from its defining term only......all in one. 

Regarding sikhism, many sikhs don't follow the 5 Ks and yet are proud to be sikhs.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> “Intolerance”, would be, if someone is forcibly suppressed to exercise his personal rights, for example, that of practicing his/her religion or expressing his/her opinion against such religion. I don’t see any member on this board, or for that matter any atheist anywhere, doing such, in the name of atheism. Nobody is under any obligation to anyone to entertain any opinion, that one doesn’t like. Just as you have a right to have an opinion and express it in your own way, I have the right to be critical of your opinion and express it.


"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:
			
		

> Religion is not just a “viewpoint”, neither does it stop at expressing this “viewpoint”. It uses this “viewpoint” to define society, to define people, to define every aspect of our life. Anything, not falling in line with these narrow parameters, is unacceptable. This leads to religious intolerance. A few days back, Pope claimed that condom doesn’t prevent HIV virus to spread, in spite of researches, experiments and data, showing the opposite. This is also a “viewpoint”. But imagine the effect, the “viewpoint” may have. But in Pope’s religion, using condom is “sin”. Cut back to India. Here you have a bunch of people clamouring for a ban on cow slaughter, because their religion considers cows to be sacred. Therefore, cow slaughter, for them is “sin”. It is the “viewpoint” of one religion. But what about the “viewpoint” of another religion that requires cow sacrifice, in some of their rituals. Why not root for ban of animal slaughter, as a whole, in any religious or cultural ritual. But no. Because the one’s asking for a ban on cow slaughter, requires to slaughter some other animal for their rituals. Now what is this “viewpoint” doing other than creating fissure within a secular society. That my friend, is religious intolerance. When a painter is forced to live outside his country, for daring to paint some goddesses in a manner that a bunch of intellectually handicapped person found unacceptable, it is religious intolerance. When a writer has to live underground for the better part of his life, for writing something, that some fanatic thought, was derogatory to his religion, it is intolerance. When scientific data, tested and proven, is dismissed simply because, it doesn’t bode well with someone’s holy book, it is intolerance.


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"!

And again saying religions do this and that involves...
1. You know all the religions of the world
2. You treat all religions as same.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> Also, you have used a wrong term here. “Materialism” is a distinct term in philosophy, which defines the universe in terms of matter alone, or it is the conviction that all processes, can be explained in terms of matter. Pursuing material comfort is not the same as the philosophical concept of “materialism”. Inadvertent mistake, I guess.


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!


Here's a joke... 


> *Let's face it - English is a crazy language.* There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
> 
> And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
> 
> ...



Rest discussed! Well plenty of this one was tooo. 
I think @amitash is one step ahead of you in arguments. So please read my replies to him too, as I feel I'm only repeating much for u.


----------



## rhitwick (May 26, 2009)

Once again, "GOD" was invented, not discovered.


----------



## karnivore (May 26, 2009)

mediator 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?


  What you didn’t realize, is that, I have interspersed, with examples of abrahamic religions, the glories of eastern religions as well, particularly Hinudism. 

  Anyway, as I have mentioned earlier, Hinduism is representative of a number of school of thoughts, sort of a collective noun. It is not a religion. But if one goes down to the level of these schools of thought, one can deal with these on individual basis (but sheer number of these schools will again, make it impossible to deal with all). One can then realize, how one sect sometimes contradicts the other, even though they both are “hindu” or how, one text is considered holy for them and the remaining not worth the salt. For example, for a Vaishnav, Krishna is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Gita “my text”. They deny everything that is not mentioned or supported by Gita. So a huge chunk of Vedas and Puranas are practically rejected. In fact, their god, is not even mentioned in the Vedas. For a Lingayat, on the other hand, Shiva is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Siva Purana “my text”. They also reject a huge part of Vedas and other associated texts. To them, Gita is just another text. Their god was a minor god in the Vedas, and went by the name Rudra. Brahma Samaj for example, completely rejects the ritualistic cannons of the Vedas. For a Shakaite (followers of Shaktism), Durga/Kali are everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Vedanta “my text”. Strangely again, neither Durga nor Kali was mentioned in the Vedas. (The major gods in the Vedas, are Indra, Varuna, Soma and Agni – none of which are considered as major gods today)

  Shikhism is monotheism, with prophets at the central of its philosophies. It is modeled on Islam, with philosophical inspiration drawn from, what we call “sanatana dharma”. Being a monotheistic religion, it has all its vices. I would humbly request you to read a bit of history of Nihangs.

  All these religions do glorify their respective religion. Just join a Vaishnab congregation and just hear their narcissistic chants. Read some of the writings of Swami Dayananda Saraswati or Shankaracharya and see how they justify their position, by quoting Vedas. After all “Vedas” were revealed to the seers. And since it was revealed long before other religion, it has preponderance over all other. 

  See where I am going with this.


> "nastik" is not an offensive term, but simply means an atheist. So are these religions self-glorifying?


  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. 

  The point that you missed is that, these religions, including the glorious Hinduism, use means to create “us and them”. The word “nastik” doesn’t mean atheism, in the same sense that we understand it in 21st Century. It actually means someone, who doesn’t believe in the glorious Vedas. I have deliberately used the word “nastik”, a relatively decent word and not “mleccha”, which is actually used in derogatory sense.


> 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.


First you equated religion with science, then with corporations, then with parenting and now with philosophy. Where does it end ?

  Anyway, religion has (not “is”) philosophy, but philosophy is not religion. It is very much possible to be an atheist or an agnostic and still pursue philosophy. Ask, Dennett, if you will. The problem is, you just can’t come to terms with the fact that a perfect philosophical, moral life can be lead, without having to resort to any religion, at all.

  By the way, this Sri Sri Ravisankar (he keeps on adding salutations to his name) is actually preaching Hinduism in the guise of philosophy. Go figure.


> Is it the fault of Hindu scriptures, that christian missionaries distorted it, mistranslated Vedas, glorified manusmriti even when the Vedic authorities talked differently? Don't you think it is again human nature that is sowing the seed of hatred and "intolerance"?


  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.

  However, I do owe you one on Manusmriti.


> 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?


  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.

  So basically science provides you with a paradigm to verify before believing, while religion just requires you to believe. Now, if you are calling it “blind following”, because we don’t actually go ahead and verify every single thing science has yielded, then you are doing it at the risk of dismissing the practical impossibility of doing so (if I set out to prove e=mc^2, all by myself, then even my entire lifetime wouldn’t be enough). So we accept those who have used this paradigm of science to explore nature and who have been vetted by their peers, for their findings. But when we follow a religion we just follow some mythology, some rituals and some words, all of which emerge from a belief of a god, theistic, deistic, pantheistic or otherwise.

  Science is indeed provisional. This is not an insult to science, which you think, but is a complement. It means, science is not rigid, bigoted, intolerant but is very much flexible, is open to criticism and is willing to change in the face of new evidence. Compare that to religion.


> I don't follow any rules (again manusmriti is not a part of Hinduism). I don't adhere to any rituals, or goto temples or wear some symbols. I question a brahmin who calls himself a brahmin only to surprise him. I discuss logic with those who refrain themselves from eating eggs on tuesday. I ask them to define the start of time and define "tuesday" on the basis of that. I ask why is he following "tuesday" for tuesday is not a part of "hindu calendar" to redo his egg logic. BUT, I call myself Hindu like everyone else does and till date "all" the hindus I have debated on hinduism have only agreed to my discussions regarding Hinduism!
> 
> So do I cease to be a "proponent" of Hinduism? AFAIK, I'm the only bad guy who talks Hinduism the most in this forum.


  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. 


> Regarding sikhism, many sikhs don't follow the 5 Ks and yet are proud to be sikhs.


  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 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".


  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.


> "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".


  “Abusing” is certainly not the correct manner of criticizing. But criticism itself is “attacking” one’s opinion. 


> I hope I was clear about difference bet. an organization and religion.


  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”.


> And again saying religions do this and that involves...
> 1. You know all the religions of the world
> 2. You treat all religions as same.


  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.
  2. Correct. All theistic religions are indeed same, in their core belief. Where they differ, is how they go about their business.

And yes, you are right. We are just going round and round in circles, saying the same old stuffs.


----------



## ionicsachin (May 26, 2009)

Dudes, you've got lots of time


----------



## karnivore (May 26, 2009)

mediator said:


> Is it darwin's fault that there is a verbal battle raging between evolutionists and creationists?


  No. It is religion’s fault. Because evolution flies straight into the face of a certain religious belief, they just deny it.


> 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.


  Mr Hussain, doesn’t, read can’t, live in India. You want to call that tolerance ?


> "Nari aadar" (respect towards female), "athiti devo bhava" (guest is god) are nothing but an expression to show "respect towards female and guest". It is related to ethics and not science.


  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. 



> How you should dress in school is ethics not science!


  It is about convenience, and where there is a dress code, then it is due to that dress code.

  One quick question:

  What will be considered as part of a religion ? Its mention in holy scripts or its practice ?


----------



## mediator (May 26, 2009)

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.
> 
> Anyway, as I have mentioned earlier, Hinduism is representative of a number of school of thoughts, sort of a collective noun. It is not a religion. But if one goes down to the level of these schools of thought, one can deal with these on individual basis (but sheer number of these schools will again, make it impossible to deal with all). One can then realize, how one sect sometimes contradicts the other, even though they both are “hindu” or how, one text is considered holy for them and the remaining not worth the salt. For example, for a Vaishnav, Krishna is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Gita “my text”. They deny everything that is not mentioned or supported by Gita. So a huge chunk of Vedas and Puranas are practically rejected. *In fact, their god, is not even mentioned in the Vedas.* For a Lingayat, on the other hand, Shiva is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Siva Purana “my text”. They also reject a huge part of Vedas and other associated texts. To them, Gita is just another text. Their god was a minor god in the Vedas, and went by the name Rudra. Brahma Samaj for example, completely rejects the ritualistic cannons of the Vedas. For a Shakaite (followers of Shaktism), Durga/Kali are everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Vedanta “my text”. Strangely again, neither Durga nor Kali was mentioned in the Vedas. (The major gods in the Vedas, are Indra, Varuna, Soma and Agni – none of which are considered as major gods today)
> 
> ...


Like I said earlier, you have not read Gita. 

1. In Gita, Krishna shows his ten avatars of Vishnu.
2. Krishna is considered the 8th avatar.
3. It is obvious that Krishna's name be missing from Vedas, as Krishna took birth much much afterwards the orgin of Vedas which is yet to be known.
4. Vishnu is clearly mentioned in Vedas.


Here's a verse from Gita ....

"I am the indwelling monitor in the heart of all beings, from Me arises consciousness, wisdom, and forgetfulness; verily I am to be known by the Vedas, I am the compiler of the Vedas and knower of the meaning of Vedas" (15.15)

Now read your line in the bold! So how can you say on "what is rejected and what not", when you yourself are not clear?

Remember, Vedas are the base of Hinduism. And Vedas like I said is not a name, but a sanskrit term that means knowledge! Further, what you stated is essentially a difference in the "viewpoint". But the fans of Shiva or Vishnu are not vowing to kill each other or be intolerant.

Like you stated, bt arya samaj, I too don't do many things, but yet I consider myself as Hindu! Diff. people might be connected to diff. branches of Hinduism, the base of all which is Veda and gita.

Further do I need to remind you which are considered the supreme scriptures of Hinduism? I think I gave you the link to read when talking bt cast system too. I think you are only confused what all is a part of hinduism and what is not, what is mentioned and what is not.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> The point that you missed is that, these religions, including the glorious Hinduism, use means to create “us and them”. *The word “nastik” doesn’t mean atheism, in the same sense that we understand it in 21st Century.* It actually means someone, who doesn’t believe in the glorious Vedas. I have deliberately used the word “nastik”, a relatively decent word and not “mleccha”, which is actually used in derogatory sense.


1. I did not come in the defense of the term, but only explained its meaning to you.
2. You stated the terms and yet you did not understand them. Someone "who is not a christian" is much different from "someone who doesn't believe in God" or nastik.
3. You are confused about Hinduism. 

The term christian/muslim doesn't mean God.

Nastik doesn't mean someone "who is not a Hindu". It is a sanskrit term that is taught in 8th class NCERT books. It simply means an atheist. Atheists can be a part of Hinduism too. Like I already debated much earlier in this thread. Atheists could be buddhists or jainists too. Being religious doesn't necessarily translates to being a theist. A religious person may or may not be a theist. 

And hence, the inclusion and comparison of the word "nastik" in line of "pagan" and "kafir" is itself erroneous! I would only suggest not to go by the definition of wikipedia. 

"Mleccha" has been debated, dunno why you still bring it up. 
1. It only means someone who is non-adherent to Vedas. 
2. It doesn't mean you have to be "completely" adherent of Vedas to get rid of that tag. 
3. "mleccha" doesn't have anything to do with religions for Vedas means knowledge.
4. "Mleccha" AFAIk was really used for someone who was really corrupt without morals and conscience, without any knowledge and almost zero of human intellect.

Now people of this world irrespective of their faiths are having conscience, morals and much of the Vedic knowledge themselves. Many follow science which is stressed by Vedas and seek path of knowledge both spiritual and scientific. So, Did they read Vedas? 

Read it like this, that Vedas say to be  good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions mleccha. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Vedas to be a good human? Is he a mleccha?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> First you equated religion with science, then with corporations, then with parenting and now with philosophy. Where does it end ?
> 
> Anyway, religion has (not “is”) philosophy, but philosophy is not religion. It is very much possible to be an atheist or an agnostic and still pursue philosophy. Ask, Dennett, if you will. The problem is, you just can’t come to terms with the fact that a perfect philosophical, moral life can be lead, without having to resort to any religion, at all.
> 
> By the way, this Sri Sri Ravisankar (he keeps on adding salutations to his name) is actually preaching Hinduism in the guise of philosophy. Go figure.


You did not get my point bt ravisankar. go figure? Again these are your viewpoints.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> So basically science provides you with a paradigm to verify before believing, while religion just requires you to believe. Now, if you are calling it “blind following”, because we don’t actually go ahead and verify every single thing science has yielded, then you are doing it at the risk of dismissing the practical impossibility of doing so (if I set out to prove e=mc^2, all by myself, then even my entire lifetime wouldn’t be enough). So we accept those who have used this paradigm of science to explore nature and who have been vetted by their peers, for their findings. But when we follow a religion we just follow some mythology, some rituals and some words, all of which emerge from a belief of a god, theistic, deistic, pantheistic or otherwise.
> 
> Science is indeed provisional. This is not an insult to science, which you think, but is a complement. It means, science is not rigid, bigoted, intolerant but is very much flexible, is open to criticism and is willing to change in the face of new evidence. Compare that to religion


here's a recent article on newscientist.
*www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

Aren't we merely "following" many of the "senseless" things? Gravitation is also not completely understood. I hope you remember we discussed homeopathy and I haven't moved on from that too. But neways here a statement from someone who was considered ths scourge of homeopathy....

"If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry."

Its the same things that I said that time also.

Again, astrology involves fine knowledge of astronomy. And Indians knew how earth revolves around Sun. Do I need to remind you of Indian astronomy?

And yes, you got it right that you are following because you are not verifying it yourself either experimentally or logically. We are not verifying the elementary physics or chemistry, but taking it for granted that scientists are doing correct. Who knows if we put our head into it, we might find a flaw? Forget about experimentations, many of us don't even question the scientific theories "logically".

Comparing that to religion, I see religion like Hinduism consists of science too. Do you think vedic science would not have compiled further, if India didn't witness various invasions? Do you think Vedic school of thought wouldn't have continued? It is not religion which is rigid, it is the people themselves. It is like saying an autobiography is rigid. How is it rigid? Further religions like a few I stated are not intolerant or bigoted.

This is the second time I wud be repeating for you and I guess, third time in this thread since you did not read my reply to amitash....


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 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?*


Please reply to the above....


Some will still believe in God until science finds the answer to "everything". And those who say science "will" find answer to everything aren't doing any better than theists either, which is again "hoping" from something that doesn't gurantee anything.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> Opinion about self doesn’t matter. Perception to the outsider matters. The same Sikh will cover his hair while visiting his Gurudwara. Guess why ?


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:
			
		

> “Abusing” is certainly not the correct manner of criticizing. But criticism itself is “attacking” one’s opinion.


I disagree. There's a difference between "attacking, insulting etc" and "criticising" for criticism can be constructive too.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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”.


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 yes, you are right. We are just going round and round in circles, saying the same old stuffs.


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:
			
		

> No. It is religion’s fault. Because evolution flies straight into the face of a certain religious belief, they just deny it.


Again, not religion's fault. That would mean all. But yep, may be "certain" religous beliefs not all religious beliefs.  




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Mr Hussain, doesn’t, read can’t, live in India. You want to call that tolerance ?


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...

Baba ramdev's accused of "bone content" in his medicines. Leftists accused him only to get embarrased later. Did Hindus create violence?
Major Hindu leaders get imprisoned or false accusations. Do Hindus say anything. Remember by Hindus, I mean "majority of Hindus".
Are hindus involved in bomb blasts all over the world? 

So again its only your viewpoint and bias that is picking a few examples, and conditions where a "few" are involved and not the majority. 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


I'm only debating, just like you are accusing religion even when it is not at fault.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> It is about convenience, and where there is a dress code, then it is due to that dress code.
> 
> 
> > And behind the dress code is the work of ethics of how one should comb the hair, skirts be lower than knee, tie to "properly" done etc. Dress code doesn't mean you "just" wear the school dress. Then it would also mean to wear the dress in any fashion. Girls be wearing skirts above the knee length making it like minis, top buttons open etc and tie wore like a drunk.
> ...


----------



## amitash (May 26, 2009)

> 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.



I said the god in the religion creates the difference...and anyway, i realised that the only reason i dislike religion is that god is offered as an explanation without proof....just as a number of other things.



> In the world's largest democracy...
> 1. I don't see people killing each other "on a large scale" everyday.
> 2. I see tolerance more than "hatred"
> 3. Just because media shows what is going in a "locality", doesn't mean it is happening in whole of India.
> ...



1.I said abusing and creating differences too and thaat i do see on a large scale
2.I dont see tolerance, i see inward hate that is caused and might one day blow out...just because people dont openly show that they hate other people doesnt mean its tollerance.

agreed parents/some religions dont tell you to fight and as i have already said, the main reason i hate some of these religions is because they offer god as an explanation.



> 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!
> I think you r being ignorant again and confusing philosophy with science. National laws have been created for the betterment of human society. "Nari aadar" (respect towards female), "athiti devo bhava" (guest is god) are nothing but an expression to show "respect towards female and guest". It is related to ethics and not science.
> 
> How you should dress in school is ethics not science! So don't be confused!



Can you explain how these "philosophical" explanations arise? We do say things today like: "racism is wrong" while it wasnt so a few decades ago...Science might not tell you directly not to this and that, but how did these "ethics" originate? I think We gathered knowledge about people and things that happened in the past and came up with these "ethics"...and gathering knowledge is science...so why cant it be "science of ethics"? If we came about our current set of moral rules and ethics, its because we gathered knowledge and came to logical conclusions about what is wrong and what is right and that i think ,is the morality you are looking for in science.



> 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...



Dont you think that the scientists who made the car and used fossil fuels didnt simply know or couldnt predict "global warming"? If they predicted it and did it anyway, then i agree science doesnt have a conscience, but they couldnt predict it...no one can predict everything....science tries its best to but it can also miss things.



> 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.



Mistake is not equal to bad...Is it the scientists fault that they did this "mistake" because they didnt know enough to predict what happened after?



> But again scientists have not created a perfect car that
> 1. Cannot do heat generation.
> 2. Cause accidents
> 
> ...



1.Agreed, but thats because they dont know how to yet.....I said that science doesnt know everything so how can it be perfect? Atleast it tries to overcome that problem and atleast the cars they have made are better than the cars we have today...So if we dont release these cars just because the heat problem hasnt been fixed, then we wont be better than what we are now...they should be released while in the meantime they are trying to fix the heat problem....If you keep waiting for perfection, then it will take forever.
2.There is some progress on that regard...I think i saw a top gear episode (its a car show) some time back where BMW made a car that can drive itself.



> Conscience simply means that all the major dangers do not arise in the first place! You would not "hurt" a child if you have conscience would you? Or would you hurt him and then find ways to make him laugh?
> 
> So moral, conscience is really not a part of science. Moral is basically a standalone "addon" to the definition of science, just like nokia phones have various addons to



Your child analogy would be true only if science knew it was going to hurt the child and did it anyway...what if you did not know that the child would get hurt if you did something you thought was perfectlly safe? Isnt there morality there?

I think it is a part of science as i have said earlier, morality arises due to knowledge we gather and the logical conclusions that we make out of them...which is science.



> confusion?
> 
> By stating diff. corporates for science I essentially mean the same thing that I started with and that is "corporate greed" or "we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science".



you said: "for science we have different corporates"....science did not ask anyone to make these corporates, in your statement it seemed like you were implying that corporates were formed because of science...while i said corporates were formed because of money.



> 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" to
> 1. To undo global warming?
> 2. Restore natural habitat of polar bears and penguins, i.e polar life?
> 3. To "undo" large scale deforestation and consequent soil erosion?
> ...



I said science is not perfect for it would have to know everything to be perfect...I never said there will be flawless solutions...I think i mentioned the whole "solution may create another problem" cycle...and i also said it is TRYING....the solutions might not be ebtirely flawless but atleast they are better than what they were before...as i said, its not perfect.


----------



## mediator (May 26, 2009)

amitash said:
			
		

> 2.I dont see tolerance, i see inward hate that is caused and might one day blow out...just because people dont openly show that they hate other people doesnt mean its tollerance.


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:
			
		

> Can you explain how these "philosophical" explanations arise? We do say things today like: "racism is wrong" while it wasnt so a few decades ago...Science might not tell you directly not to this and that, but how did these "ethics" originate? I think We gathered knowledge about people and things that happened in the past and came up with these "ethics"...and gathering knowledge is science...so why cant it be "science of ethics"? If we came about our current set of moral rules and ethics, its because we gathered knowledge and came to logical conclusions about what is wrong and what is right and that i think ,is the morality you are looking for in science.


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.

Even today you will find discrmination against women in corporates. You will find rascists in other countries too. Indians are no less. "Farang", "chinki" etc are all the terms that we use to denote some of the people. "Bihari" is almost used as an abuse now. And it it irrelevant of religion. People i.e theists, atheists, agnostics etc all njoy in name calling as such.

Also, how can you say it wasn't wrong a few days ago? It was as wrong yesterday also as it is as wrong today. And think, its again a part of human stupidity and has nothing to do with religion or science. And so the question of "how these philosophical explanations arise" is irrelevant, if the human nature is bound to ignore the conscience in the first place!

"Gathering knowledge" is not always science. Understand what "exploring and explaining" means. A person might gather "the knowledge or details of mountains by seeing it" and compile it in the form of a painting. Would you call it science or rather as art? Gathering knowledge is part of spirituality also and spirituality and science are different. One can gather mathematical knowledge too to find an answer and again mathematics is not science. Further mathematics is used to deal with science.

I think you are "confused" on the very definition of science itself.





			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Dont you think that the scientists who made the car and used fossil fuels didnt simply know or couldnt predict "global warming"? If they predicted it and did it anyway, then i agree science doesnt have a conscience, but they couldnt predict it...no one can predict everything....science tries its best to but it can also miss things.


I think you should first understand the definition of science and then read the entire discussion from the start.




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Mistake is not equal to bad...Is it the scientists fault that they did this "mistake" because they didnt know enough to predict what happened after?


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:
			
		

> 1.Agreed, but thats because they dont know how to yet.....I said that science doesnt know everything so how can it be perfect? Atleast it tries to overcome that problem and atleast the cars they have made are better than the cars we have today...So if we dont release these cars just because the heat problem hasnt been fixed, then we wont be better than what we are now...they should be released while in the meantime they are trying to fix the heat problem....If you keep waiting for perfection, then it will take forever.


And so we should screw the nature...everyday? Our conscience is telling us not to, but what can we do?



			
				amitash said:
			
		

> 2.There is some progress on that regard...I think i saw a top gear episode (its a car show) some time back where BMW made a car that can drive itself.


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.

And like I said conscience comes before acting. It involves the present and the future and learning from the past. Are scientists really learning? Even after their repeated attempts to "improve" the cars, what I only see is the "rising" number of accidents. In the past the no. of accidents were less than the present scenario. You seem to have divorced yourself completely from the "reality" while "defending" science ardently.

So ponder and ponder well, judging what is right and wrong is not the work of scientists!




			
				amitash said:
			
		

> you said: "for science we have different corporates"....science did not ask anyone to make these corporates, in your statement it seemed like you were implying that corporates were formed because of science...while i said corporates were formed because of money.


Similarly buddha did not ask to create "buddhism", nor did Rama/krishna etc said to created Hinduism.







			
				amitash said:
			
		

> Science tries to solve the questions and problems of the people *so it is looking for the good of the people*





			
				amitash said:
			
		

> mediator 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.


And so again, ponder and ponder well, judging what is right and wrong is not the work of scientists!!


----------



## karnivore (May 26, 2009)

Some interesting points you have raised. Lets see if I can make it equally interesting.  





mediator said:


> Like I said earlier, you have not read Gita.
> 
> 1. In Gita, Krishna shows his ten avatars of Vishnu.
> 2. Krishna is considered the 8th avatar.
> ...


  1. & 2. Indeed so.

  3. I am not sure, how it is obvious. I would agree, though, that the writers of these verses, are unknown, except for a passing mention of Vysadev as its compiler. There is evidence to suggest that these were written over a really long period of times, with numerous, redactions and interpolations. But that is a minor point, and is close to being irrelevant. The major point is the inconsistency. Fortunately for me, you have cited the verse, that I would have cited, anyway. The verse BG 15.15 implies, that the Vedas were compiled by Krishna, in the incarnation of Vysadev (Ref: Pravupada’s interpretation). Which of course means, Krishna preceded the compilation of Vedas, albeit in another incarnation, just opposite of what you are trying to imply. Yet, he, forgot to mention anything about himself or any of his Avataras. In fact the concept of “avatara” is not only missing, but the word itself is absent. Interesting, isn’t it ?

  4. The major gods in Rg Veda were, Indra, Soma, Varuna and Agni. Vishnu, in Rg Veda, is a minor god, who requires the help of other gods, for example, Indra, to defeat his enemies, not something that a supreme being would need. The supreme nature of Vishnu, e.g. the episode of “trivrikrama” (3 steps, one in Heaven, one on Earth and one in Hell), appears much later in the vedic cannons and is found in interpolated verses of Rg Veda. 

  Also absent are Ganesha, Durga, Kali, Shiva (although the character Rudra is considered to have evolved into what we today know as Shiva), Hanuman, Ram. Interesting, what say you ?


> But the fans of Shiva or Vishnu are not vowing to kill each other or be intolerant.


  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.



> Like you stated, bt arya samaj, I too don't do many things, but yet I consider myself as Hindu! Diff. people might be connected to diff. branches of Hinduism, the base of all which is Veda and gita.


  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.


> Further do I need to remind you which are considered the supreme scriptures of Hinduism? I think I gave you the link to read when talking bt cast system too. I think you are only confused what all is a part of hinduism and what is not, what is mentioned and what is not.


  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. 


> 1. I did not come in the defense of the term, but only explained its meaning to you.
> 2. You stated the terms and yet you did not understand them. Someone "who is not a christian" is much different from "someone who doesn't believe in God" or nastik.
> 3. You are confused about Hinduism.
> 
> ...


  And you keep on proving my point. Now you are defending the word “mleccha”. 

  Firstly, what does it matter what Veda means textually. Bible means “collection of writings”, and Koran means “to call out to”. What difference does it make to what these actually imply.

  Secondly, a quick question: Who is a Hindu ? Answer that and you will know half the things that you have asked.

Thirdly, I didn't use Wiki.


> Read it like this, that Vedas say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions mleccha. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Vedas to be a good human? Is he a mleccha?


  Lets see…

  Read it like this, that *Bible/Koran* say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions *pagan/kaffir*. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read *Bible/Koran* to be a good human? Is he a *pagan/kaffir *?

  Sounds right, doesn’t it ?


> here's a recent article on newscientist.
> *www.newscientist.com/article/...ake-sense.html
> 
> Aren't we merely "following" many of the "senseless" things? Gravitation is also not completely understood. I hope you remember we discussed homeopathy and I haven't moved on from that too. But neways here a statement from someone who was considered ths scourge of homeopathy....
> ...


  O no. Not again.


> This is the second time I wud be repeating for you and I guess, third time in this thread since you did not read my reply to amitash....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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)

   “*There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string*” – BG 7.7
  COMMENTS: So a Christian’s God, or a Muslim’s Allah, or a Jews Yewah are pretty much inferior. In fact, a certain Shiva, or Durga or a Ganesha are inferior too. 

  “*The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me; they whose knowledge is destroyed by illusion follow the ways of demons*.” – BG 7.15
  “*Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.*” – BG 9.11
  COMMENTS: So basically, one who is not worshipping Krishna, is a “evil doer”, “deluded”, a “fool”, and of course they are demon followers. 

   “*To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other, of those ever united, I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess.*” – BG 9.22
  COMMENTS: Means, “surrender to me, or you are doomed”.

  Will these verses count as self-glorification. Of course not, if you are a Hindu or more specifically a Vaishnab. 

  As with Sikhism, I haven’t read Granthasahib to make quotes like above. As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion.


> 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...
> 
> Baba ramdev's accused of "bone content" in his medicines. Leftists accused him only to get embarrased later. Did Hindus create violence?
> Major Hindu leaders get imprisoned or false accusations. Do Hindus say anything. Remember by Hindus, I mean "majority of Hindus".
> ...


  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. 

  Second, I am sure, Koran didn’t tell Khomeni to issue a fatwa on Mr Rushdie for writing a novel. But it did happen, just as death threats on Mr Hussain. You can’t dilute the issue by referring to these. Some of these “few” hindus are actually hindu intellectuals and includes pretty heavy names. I am sure they know it better than you and I do.

  Third, through out human history, it is always a “few” who do.

  Fourth, even Muslims say that there are only few who do what they do. Is that stopping you from generalizing. This argument of “majority” is a fallacy, because, you can never know, how many support something morally, without being actively involved.

  Fifth, what Babji did was illegal. Having bones in medicine was not the issue. But not printing it on the label, was. In any case, there were number of demonstrations against Ms Brinda Karat, where her effigies were burnt. CPI(M) party office at Delhi was ransacked, by “few” of his followers.


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## karnivore (May 27, 2009)

mediator said:


> I think you should first understand the definition of science and then read the entire discussion from the start.


  Please tell us what you think, science is. 


> amitash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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. 

  Lets see if I can fit it with science vis-à-vis corporation. One who follows science is called a corporation ? 

  Nahhh…doesn’t fit. Does it ?

  But, what if I say, one who follows science, is scientific minded. Hmm…makes some sense. Doesn’t it ?


----------



## rhitwick (May 27, 2009)

@Mediator,
First u bring "Global Warming" in discussion of God. I though u would stop doing that. The found u didn't. I provided a ton of links and quotes yesterday that "Global Warming" is still a hypothesis, its more a warning than a real "warming".

Then u comment on Hinduism ans just tell that Vaishnaba and Shaiva never clashed. C I liked u for ur aruments which had logics and menaing. But U should stop reciting these baseless comments.
FYI...Vaishnaba and Shaivas used to fought and as per this link 18,000 people were killed in that battle. The link has date and place.
For ur convenience I'm quoting its content here too.


> 1760: Saiva sannyasis fight Vaishnava vairagis in tragic battle at Hardwar Kumbha Mela; 18,000 monks are killed



and another link about Tikkana who proposed the unity of God. Quote from that site.


> During the reign of Emperor Ganapatideva, Shaivites, Vaishnvites, Jains and Buddhists were fighting among themselves. The emperor arranged for religious meetings to control this religious intolerance. Tikkana participated in those religious meetings and defeated the Budhist and Jain participants and established Hinduism. During this time he proposed the unity of God. He preached that Lord Shiva (Hara) and Lord Vishnu (Hari) were one and that the apparent differences in names were made up and were untrue.



Again, let me help u remember who u r. U r a theist who voted here in the option "who cares...i dont have time for these things" and contributes more and devotes his full attention here. U r confused.

And, u r an ideologist. Every sentence/para of u posted in this thread and "reservation" thread starts/ends with "whould be", "could be". This is not how the world works. Those are IDEAL situations or should I say those are "best case scenario". There is a long gap between "Ideal" and "Practical" situation.

U demand something to be done which is proved and verified. The laws of gravity, energy conservation and law of transformation from one form to another. All are mathematically proved. I think u'll at least believe the truthfullness of Math or will u question of being true of basic equations like 2+2=4. No u may ask. Who told u? How do u know its 4? R u sure it won't ever be 5 or 3? Have u proved it on urself? If I then point u to some books/authors who have already proved it, will u ask if I myself verified it?? Won't u?

Now u r repeating my words, which I long back posted as an my version of explanation of ur metaphor.


> And I got ur point in "that" portion I quoted. U wanted to express that all of who just refer to some "book" are hollow in knowledge or just "believe" in science.


on its reply u posted this


> Wrong again! *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.*


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.
All those proofs are pure mathematical equations.
Were u ever a science student, I wonder. Else u would have never commented that way.
e=mc^2 has a Biiiiiiiig mathematical explanation.
Gravity has. All three laws of Newton has mathematic explanation.
Heat, mechanics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, quasntam mechamics all have mathematical explanations.

Come to chemistry, Properties of Gas, chemical equations, why water symbol is H2O not HO2? every fcuking thing in checmistry in checmistry is derived by laws mathematics.

Biology or bioscience; cell division, nature of chromosome, DNA structure, RNA structure, gene and why/how it creates BOY/GIRL. Mendel's table etc.

Now, ur task is to challange Math and prove every fcuking rule, formula, theory are false, wrong. (NO, don't u say NO, its u who is opposing already established truth with hard evidense, evidense which measureable, verifiable and comparable, so its ur task to prove them wrong)

GO publish ur papers in some journal, get some nobels (u'll get a truck load of as u'll be proving wrong numerous number of laws, proofs, theorems of math). Then come back to us (me). I'll be ur best devotee. U'll be my GOD (GOD, because till then u've already proved Math as false and science is standing on MATH, so science is fake and existense of GOD will automatically be established. As u'll be doing this "HOLY" task which even vatican popes couldn't do, u'll be my GOD).
So, go ahead. Best of luck. C ya soon.


----------



## mediator (May 27, 2009)

^Vairagis and Sanyasis fighting??  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:
			
		

> For example, for a Vaishnav, Krishna is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Gita “my text”. They deny everything that is not mentioned or supported by Gita. *So a huge chunk of Vedas and Puranas are practically rejected. In fact, their god, is not even mentioned in the Vedas.*





			
				kanrivore said:
			
		

> The verse BG 15.15 implies, that the Vedas were compiled by Krishna, in the incarnation of Vysadev (Ref: Pravupada’s interpretation). Which of course means, Krishna preceded the compilation of Vedas, albeit in another incarnation, just opposite of what you are trying to imply. Yet, he, forgot to mention anything about himself or any of his Avataras. In fact the concept of “avatara” is not only missing, but the word itself is absent. Interesting, isn’t it ?


You got it wrong! I couldn't get "pravupada's interpretation. Can you give me the source?
1. The point was about "rejection" and "viewpoint" again. If Krishna himself told about the authority of Vedas, then how could a "huge chunk of vedas be rejected"?
2. Is it important that he should mention about his 10 avatars from the start or in Vedas?
3. If you read the stories of all the 10 avatars, then you will realize how people ( the rishis/sages ) foresee them as avatar of Vishnu themselves and AFAIK, each avatar introduced himself as an avatar revealing his true self either in the end or in the beginning.
4. Krishna predicted about his next two avatars, i.e Buddha and Kalki. Buddha has already played his part and the one who is yet to come is Kalki.
5. Krishna even predicted the signs of Kaliyug. I would advise you to read Kalki puran even if you hate such things. Read it without any bias.

So it is not "opposite" to what I'm stating, but in "line" with what I'm stating.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 4. The major gods in Rg Veda were, Indra, Soma, Varuna and Agni. Vishnu, in Rg Veda, is a minor god, who requires the help of other gods, for example, Indra, to defeat his enemies, not something that a supreme being would need. The supreme nature of Vishnu, e.g. *the episode of “trivrikrama” (3 steps, one in Heaven, one on Earth and one in Hell)*, appears much later in the vedic cannons and is found in interpolated verses of Rg Veda.


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. 
*www.vedah.com/org2/audio_vis/selected_rv/vishnu.asp




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Also absent are Ganesha, Durga, Kali, Shiva (although the character Rudra is considered to have evolved into what we today know as Shiva), Hanuman, Ram. Interesting, what say you ?


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:
			
		

> 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.


AFAIK, Manusmriti was practised much intensely in the past. So again, we need to clear out what was the real thing.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> Firstly, what does it matter what Veda means textually. Bible means “collection of writings”, and Koran means “to call out to”. What difference does it make to what these actually imply.


May be the stress on the "meaning" of the name that you quoted yourself?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Read it like this, that Bible/Koran say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions pagan/kaffir. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Bible/Koran to be a good human? Is he a pagan/kaffir ?
> 
> Sounds right, doesn’t it ?


Like I said, keep abrahamic religion out of the debate. I'm not willing to even read on them. 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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)
> 
> “There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string” – BG 7.7
> COMMENTS: So a Christian’s God, or a Muslim’s Allah, or a Jews Yewah are pretty much inferior. In fact, a certain Shiva, or Durga or a Ganesha are inferior too.
> ...


Like I said you don't have the unbias when it comes to religion. Let me show you your flaws...

1. Krishna is not saying that the gods of "other religions" are inferior, the point which is center of the debate. I don't see it in the verse "you" quoted, but its only your imagination.
2. "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.
3. You seem to have quoted GITA COMPLETELY out of context.

4. Beneath your verse 9.22, is the verse 9.23 ...
"9.23 *Those who worship other gods with faith, worship ME alone*, although improper method."  

Comment : Again improper method doesn't mean any superiority among different religion's Gods. Read the commentaries.
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-09-22.html

So here, the God himself is the source of "tolerance".

5.The verse 7.15 clearly talks of knowledge. Do I need to remind what 15.15 says? Further there are verses from karma yoga you would like to read. And so it becomes an example that I gave while explaining "mleccha" i.e....


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Now people of this world irrespective of their faiths are having conscience, morals and much of the Vedic knowledge themselves. Many follow science which is stressed by Vedas and seek path of knowledge both spiritual and scientific. So, Did they read Vedas?



And so, If you want to quote it like this, then I believe you would only be showing your ignorance on the matter. I would only suggest you to read the GITA "completely" and not quote a certain statements. You only wasted your time in proving your bias, the time which could have been utilized to read the Gita completely.

So please do me a favour and don't tell me the meaning of a book which you yourself have not read. You are only quoting it out of context as to promote your biased arguments. 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Second, I am sure, Koran didn’t tell Khomeni to issue a fatwa on Mr Rushdie for writing a novel. But it did happen, just as death threats on Mr Hussain. You can’t dilute the issue by referring to these. Some of these “few” hindus are actually hindu intellectuals and includes pretty heavy names. I am sure they know it better than you and I do.
> 
> ...


1) My point was not about divinity. Go figure?
2) Ignored coz of abrahmic connection!
3) Korrect!
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. 
5) The point is about accusing a system, which is doing good to thousands of people, without even verifying and AFAIK, there were no bones in the first place, but yes only a problem of labelling. It again goes in line with the "parent" example and next, it has nothing to do with scriptures.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Please tell us what you think, science is.


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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Lets see if I can fit it with science vis-à-vis corporation. One who follows science is called a corporation ?
> 
> ...


Again reading a reply to someone else requires......do I need to tell again? or go figure?


You simply have not shown even after asking repeatedly "where" these religions, that I stated, are calling for their own superiority. If you don't know about Sikhism, jainism, then perhaps its time to learn a little about it too. Instead you translate something like "surrender to me" as "you are doomed" which is absolutely incorrect. You talked bt Hinduism (Gita), but even that was flawed. And hence, read without bias and read the complete thing.


----------



## rhitwick (May 27, 2009)

mediator said:


> ^Vairagis and Sanyasis fighting??  Thats new! I hope you know what vairagi and sanyasi is.


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 ?
And, did u "believe" that there were fights b/w Shaivites and Vaishnavas or not? If not please go back to ur history class. The link I've provided has even the Year and place of the fight, u'll surely get a confirmation on that.
Oh hell, I've even given another link on the same topic. Get familiar with ur "that" south indian neighbor and ask about it. U'll come to know.



> 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.


I didn't discuss?!!!

I tried to ask u a question, and u replied back I should only speak if I'm asked...!!!
And I made u a promise that I won't reply until Amitash posts. I kept it and now u'll hear from me too.

And what about proving math wrong, have u started working on them?? 
And there's no emotional statements (well apart from accepting u as my GOD), so stop blabbering.





> You got it wrong! I couldn't get "pravupada's interpretation. Can you give me the source?


U want "prabhupada", let me give u enough links with his audio interview which will make ur day.
Here it is: *krishna.org/category/prabhupada/mp3-audio/page/4/



> 2. Is it important that he should mention about his 10 avatars from the start or in Vedas?


Yes, its important. If he can do it for 9 of his, then he should have mentioned about that too.

U know, he did tell Arjuna about his being Avatar. At the end of Mahavarata u'll come to know that he got killed by Arjuna's arrow. Before dying he told the truth to Arjuna. I guess Gita was already in press, so that part was not mentioned.



> 3. If you read the stories of all the 10 avatars, then you will realize how people ( the rishis/sages ) foresee them as avatar of Vishnu themselves and AFAIK, each avatar introduced himself as an avatar revealing his true self either in the end or in the beginning.


as I just wrote above.



> 4. Krishna predicted about his next two avatars, i.e Buddha and Kalki. Buddha has already played his part and the one who is yet to come is Kalki.


First, krishna did never told about "Buddha" avatar, he can never tell as "Buddha" was not his avatar.

The ten avatar by him are as follows:-
1. Matsya (the fish)
2. Koorma (the tortoise)
3. Varaha (the boar)
4. Narasimha (the human-lion)
5. Vamana (the dwarf)
6. Parasurama (the angry man, Rama with an axe)
7. Lord Rama (the perfect man, king of Ayodha)
8. Lord Krishna (the divine statesman)
9. Balarama (elder brother of Krishna)
10. Kalki (the mighty worrior)
source:-
*hinduism.about.com/od/godsgoddesses/a/10avatars.htm
and
*www.srivaishnavam.com/stotras/dasavatharam_meaning.htm

If u want, read Puran. 
In Bhagabata Puran Buddha is mentioned as his avatar, but in that Vishnu has 22 avatars not 10.
If you don't know, Shree Chaitanya is also considered to be his avatar by some. 
"Pabhupada" even mentioned in some of his lectures about krishna that "Jesus Christ" was also his avatar (source, the link on prabhupada already given above)

So, where does it put u on "AVATAR" system???
In our state, jokingly we call someone a avatar who poses as humbug, if u want u can be called one avatar too.

Oh yeah, I've read somewhere "Sathya Saibaba" is also considered to be his(vishnu) avatar. (May be he only thinks so)




> 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!


I guess u'll agree "prabhupada" being more knowledgeble than u in this topic.
Go through that link I provided.
To be more specific I'm posting some links which I think u should read,
1> *krishna.org/science-defined-mp3-audio-morning-walk-with-srila-prabhupada/

2> *krishna.org/sunday-feast-lecture-the-higher-science/

3> *krishna.org/krishna-he-has-all-opulences-in-full/




> 1. Krishna is not saying that the gods of "other religions" are inferior, the point which is center of the debate. I don't see it in the verse "you" quoted, but its only your imagination.


Read the translations of veda. Krishna is also an avatar of Vishnu. so he can't claim none is greater than him.
But Vishnu says that everything that we see and we can't see, is him. 
as "Prabhupada" told:


> He gives his decision: "The greatest personality is Krsna." Just like we are sitting, so many ladies and gentlemen here. We can analyze who is the greatest here. So, say, for arguing, you can accept that "You are the greatest." But I am not the greatest. I have got my spiritual master. He has got his spiritual master. He has got a spiritual master. In this way, we go up to Brahma. Brahma is the original spiritual master within this universe, who gave us the Vedic knowledge. He's therefore called forefather, er, grandfather, pitamaha. But he's also not independent. In the Vedanta-sutra or Bhagavata it is said that Brahma… He's the first creature. There was no other any other living entity when he was created first. So if I say that he also got knowledge from others, then the argument may be, "Who is the next person to give him knowledge?" So therefore Bhagavata says, "No. He received knowledge from Krsna." How? "From the heart." Tene brahma hrda. Hrda. Because God, Krsna, is sitting in everyone's heart–your heart, my heart, everyone. And He can give you instruction. His name is therefore Caitya-guru. Caitya-guru means who give conscience and knowledge from within. In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says, sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto: "In everyone's heart I am sitting." Hrdi, "within the heart"; sannivisto, "I am sitting there." Sarvasya. Not only you and me, even animals insects, birds, beasts, Brahma, everyone. Sarvasya. All living entities. So sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto mattah: "from Me";


*krishna.org/sunday-feast-lecture-the-higher-science/



> 2. *"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.


for this I want to quote Prabhupada again


> Pusta Krsna: So if everyone accepts that there is no happiness at all to be found in this world…
> 
> Prabhupada: Then they are intelligent.
> 
> ...


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.
Did u get it. "Doomed" would be very harsh word but "difficult" is what politically correct.




> So please do me a favour and don't tell me the meaning of a book which you yourself have not read. You are only quoting it out of context as to promote your biased arguments.


And u go read the proofs on Newtons law, relativity, quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, DNA structure, RNA structure etc.



> 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.


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.


> 5) The point is about accusing a system, which is doing good to thousands of people, without even verifying and AFAIK, there were no bones in the first place, but yes only a problem of labelling. It again goes in line with the "parent" example and next, it has nothing to do with scriptures.


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.

The thing is that, such protests from hindu community are there. only its not organized. Diff. parties would call these, today "Bajrang Dal" found something agaainst Hindu dharma, they protest, destroy national property (burn bus, train, break shops etc), next day some other party would stand up with some other issues.
How many times have u heard a NDTV news station being ransacked, Ajtak reporters being beaten, star news reporter's camera taken away, office destroyed. Were u sleeping then or u r occasionally blind/deaf?

The thing with the "other" is they have a dedicated post/office for such "fatwas", so it seemed to be only them. Being a minority every step of them are observed, measured and compared. And media gets what it needs. and thus u too.


----------



## karnivore (May 27, 2009)

What you don’t realize is that, every time you try to make a distinction between THEIR religion and YOUR religion, you just keep on proving the point that lesser mortals like *amitash*, *rhitwick* and, even lesser mortal, actually the worse of the lot, i.e. yours truly, are making.


mediator said:


> You got it wrong! I couldn't get "pravupada's interpretation. Can you give me the source?
> 1. The point was about "rejection" and "viewpoint" again. If Krishna himself told about the authority of Vedas, then how could a "huge chunk of vedas be rejected"?
> 2. Is it important that he should mention about his 10 avatars from the start or in Vedas?
> 3. If you read the stories of all the 10 avatars, then you will realize how people ( the rishis/sages ) foresee them as avatar of Vishnu themselves and AFAIK, each avatar introduced himself as an avatar revealing his true self either in the end or in the beginning.
> ...


  First, the link to Prabhupada’s translation.
  *prabhupadabooks.com/?g=4958

  Now.

  1. The point was about not mentioning of Krishna in the Vedas, specifically Rg Veda. Not about rejection. Please don’t conflate one argument into another. 

  2. This is a tangential argument. The concept of avatara, is a central construct to Krishna’s character. In fact, if this concept is rejected, the whole Gita falls apart, because, then Krishna simply ceases to exist. Such is the importance of this concept, and yet, this concept is grossly absent in Rg Veda, in spite of it been written by one incarnation of Krishna. Even in the interpolated texts, these are missing. Implying that the concept came much later.

  3. Irrelevant. All these Upanishads and Puranas, came much later to Rg Veda.

  4. Incorrect. Buddha, in spite of being anti-veda, was inducted in the pantheon, as an interpolation, in response to the threat of Buddhism on Hinduism. Gautama Buddha is indeed mentioned in many Hindu texts, but these are all post Buddha texts. Some pre-Buddha text like Mahabharata and Ramayana do mention of a Buddha, in the passing, but certainly not of Gautama Buddha. Buddha means “enlightened” ones. Remember one thing. The word “Buddhist” was absent, till about 1500 yrs. Any ancient text that uses this word, gets automatically dated as having been written within the last 1500 yrs.

  5. Kalki Purana is again, much later text. It is easy to retrofit predictions. Besides, interestingly, “Buddhists” are seen as enemies in Kalki Purana. 

  If I recall correctly, you said, that since Krishna was not born before the compilation of the Vedas, it is only obvious, that he was not mentioned. I have argued, that, as per BG, he is himself the compiler of the Vedas, thereby dismissing your argument of veda being pre-Krishna text. Further, in spite of being the compiler of the Vedas, he doesn’t mention himself, or the most important aspect of his existence – avatara, and makes Vishnu, whose supposed avatara he is, a minor god. Which part of your argument seems to be “in-line” with mine.



> 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.
> *www.vedah.com/org2/audio_vis/..._rv/vishnu.asp


  Look around more.


> Like I said, keep abrahamic religion out of the debate.


  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:
			
		

> Read it like this, that Vedas say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions mleccha. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Vedas to be a good human? Is he a mleccha?





			
				me said:
			
		

> Read it like this, that *Bible/Koran* say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions *pagan/kaffir*. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read *Bible/Koran* to be a good human? Is he a *pagan/kaffir *?





> I'm not willing to even read on them.[/


  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.


> Like I said you don't have the unbias when it comes to religion. Let me show you your flaws...
> 
> 1. Krishna is not saying that the gods of "other religions" are inferior, the point which is center of the debate. I don't see it in the verse "you" quoted, but its only your imagination.
> 2. "Surrender to me" does not mean "you are doomed". I certainly wasn't expecting this kind of view from you.
> ...


  First you have already proved my point:

  “*Will* *these verses count as self-glorification. Of course not, if you are a Hindu or more specifically a Vaishnab*_._”

  Now.

  1. What does “_There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me…_” mean ? I would imagine, it means, everything else, is inferior to Me (Krishna), because I (Krishna) am the highest. Or is their anything higher than highest ?

  2. What does “…_I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess” _mean ? That would mean, that whatever one already has (i.e. present), and whatever one may posses (i.e. future), will be preserved, only if one surrenders (i.e. have faith) to Me (Krishna). The flip side: If one doesn’t surrender, then one’s present and future will not be preserved. How wrong was it to call it being doomed ?

  3. Well, everybody says that when his religion is questioned. But then, they will do the same, that they accuse us of, to prove their point.

  4.  BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna).

  5. “_The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me…_” means, that those who do not follow Me (Krishna), i.e. belong to other faith, are evil-doers, deluded and of course are low-lifes. The knowledge part comes later. But then is, “knowledge” without Krishna ? 

  But one thing is for sure. You have finally understood the meaning of mleccha. 

EDIT: Damn you *rhitwick* for comming up with better replies.


> > _ Please tell us what you think, science is. _
> 
> 
> I won't!!


  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.


> Again reading a reply to someone else requires......do I need to tell again? or go figure?


  Asked some uncomfortable questions, didn’t I ?


----------



## mediator (May 27, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> What you don’t realize is that, every time you try to make a distinction between THEIR religion and YOUR religion, you just keep on proving the point that lesser mortals like amitash, rhitwick and, even lesser mortal, actually the worse of the lot, i.e. yours truly, is making.


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:
			
		

> 1. The point was about not mentioning of Krishna in the Vedas, specifically Rg Veda. Not about rejection. Please don’t conflate one argument into another.
> 
> 2. This is a tangential argument. The concept of avatara, is a central construct to Krishna’s character. In fact, if this concept is rejected, the whole Gita falls apart, because, then Krishna simply ceases to exist. Such is the importance of this concept, and yet, this concept is grossly absent in Rg Veda, in spite of it been written by one incarnation of Krishna. Even in the interpolated texts, these are missing. Implying that the concept came much later.
> 
> ...


3) Yes, but AFAIK, Vishnu purana is the oldest purana and it has prophesized the avatars in it.
4) Incorrect, Buddha was not anti-veda, but simply rejected that Vedas were God utterances, but simply a work of sages. Read ...
*www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/buddhism_hinduism.shtml

Further, you are again making illogical statement like "buddism was absent". Did Krishna say, something like for his earlier avatars like rama, there would be a religion called "ramism", kurma => kurmism? So how can you even expect or think of something like "buddhism" be stated by an earlier avatar? He simply stated Buddha and kalki will be the next in line and not "Buddhism" or perhaps your next statement might include "Kalkism"?

5. Yes I was expecting that statement from u. And if you go to a buddhist forum, you will find how angrily buddhist attack Hinduism, quoting B.R ambedkar, rejecting Buddhism as a part of hinduism etc. It is almost as if you can feel the punch on your face. Go, see for yourself. And, just like a hindu doesn't necessarily means a person who is "aware" of his scriptures, similarly buddhist doesn't automatically imply someone who has read and understood the buddhist scriptures. Kalki Purana simply show you the signs of Kaliyug and how kalki will come and destroy injustice emanating out of people "irrespective" of faith. Further, the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given. It tells us about a war with China more specifically.

ANd FYI, the Kalki has been mentioned in Buddhist works too as the 25th matreya buddha arising from "shambhala".


Here's an excerpt from kalkipurana...


			
				kalkipurana said:
			
		

> On hearing the words of Kalki, mighty Jin said "The fate can never be seen. *I am a materialist, Buddhist. Nothing but the perceptible are accepted by us. The unseen and the imperceptible are banished by us.*


Do you understand how the words of the self proclaimed buddhist are simpy not conforming to buddhism?

So buddhist doesn't necessarily means one who is "aware" of buddhist scriptures. It is similar to someone calling himself a brahamin by birth even when his karma might be that of "a mleccha".




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly, you said, that since Krishna was not born before the compilation of the Vedas, it is only obvious, that he was not mentioned. I have argued, that, as per BG, he is himself the compiler of the Vedas, thereby dismissing your argument of veda being pre-Krishna text. Further, in spite of being the compiler of the Vedas, he doesn’t mention himself, or the most important aspect of his existence – avatara, and makes Vishnu, whose supposed avatara he is, a minor god. Which part of your argument seems to be “in-line” with mine.


What you are quoting is only getting absurd.

Krishna identified himself as Rama in tretayuga. Does it mean Ramayan should have stated Krishna? Further the roles of all the avatars have been different. So expecting the prophecies in Vedas and Krishna's name, is simply illogical.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> First you have already proved my point:
> 
> “Will these verses count as self-glorification. Of course not, if you are a Hindu or more specifically a Vaishnab.”
> 
> ...


Yes, you can "assume" from "your" side that your point has been proven!

REad again, *"where" and in which context I talked about "self glorification"*. Neither you read what I said properly, nor you understand my replies to someone else. And then you make me repeat.

1,2) It seems you are getting emotional about the definition of God. You simply have not replied *where* the religions or supreme Gods are *preaching intolerance for other faiths?*. Your earlier point was already refuted.

3) Even scientists will accuse someone if they attack science without reading the sceintific work in the first place. They will simply call you ignorant, do you honestly expect a scientist to enlighten you of quantum physics, or mathematician be teaching you calculus when you don't understand the basics in the first place?

Neither you know the basics, nor you understand the ethics of reading the book completely before questioning it. 

Now the part in bold again exposes your ignorance. 
1. Krishna is just a name and hence he does not say whoever prays goes to someone called krishna. Remember he is supposed to be a supreme god! Every theistic religion has a supreme god.    
2. He identifies himself with "other names" as being Rama, kalki, buddha etc....again doesn't say buddha is the best or rama is the best. He simply says "know me, understand me" i.e the supreme reality. It doesn't have anything to do with the "name" Krishna that you have put in brackets illogically.
4. It is not bt about the procedure or has to do anything with the style in which he is doing prayer, but "true devotion". I guess you really did not read the commentaries even after my suggestion.
here's one commentary from that source...


			
				commentary said:
			
		

> The word ananyas meaning exclusive denotes that such devotees have no other goal than the Supreme Lord, thinking only of service to Him day and night with full heart and soul. But because they are so fully devoted to Him they sometimes fail to take care of the realities of the body, senses and mind and so in this case the Supreme Lord arranges for their maintenance Himself supplying the necessities they need to exist. He also protects them in all respects from any situation that may obstruct their attainment of Him before the end of their life.


Here's another verse...
"O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."

It means "He is all pervading, he is the nature".
Try to connect it with the former commentary. May be it means "*to respect nature*"????

If he is the everything, he is the karma, he the righteousness, the ability etc, and and if someone does "true devotion" to him, then doesnt that implies to do the work "religiously, follow righteousness and respect nature" since everything is him??



5. You are repeating and I talked of knowledge also. Again shows how for your biased arguments you are quoting it out of context.

Evil-doers and lowest of men in complete Gita are identified as those who fulfill the following qualities....
1. Those who do not understand the supreme reality.
2. Those who are without conscience and morals
3. Who do not posses knowledge
4. Those who are without spiritual knowledge
5. etc read complete Gita.

Krishna is simply trying to enlighten Arjuna in a conversation. He has not put a power point presentation and put under one heading telling who all are "lowest" of men and identified them with asteriks like I did here for u. So it seems you neither know what Gita is, "how" the explanation was done, nor anything about its verses in true comprehension.

Again, I'm not attacking you, but simply saying its a bad habit of people to quote from critic sites or just to prove their point quote the statements individually and then try to comprehend it. What I am saying is that such comprehension cannot be made if you have not read till the last word of Gita.

First you didn't know of 9.23 and now when you kow of it, you do not understand it. 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> EDIT: Damn you *rhitwick* for comming up with better replies.


Nope, IMO, *only amitash* has put the most logical and genuine arguments so far if a comparison is made.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Asked some uncomfortable questions, didn’t I ?


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. 

And hence, I might stop at some point when I'll see your post as totally useless.


----------



## karnivore (May 27, 2009)

Here goes nothing...


mediator said:


> 3) Yes, but AFAIK, Vishnu purana is the oldest purana and it has prophesized the avatars in it.
> 4) Incorrect, Buddha was not anti-veda, but simply rejected that Vedas were God utterances, but simply a work of sages. Read ...
> *www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/a...hinduism.shtml
> 
> Further, you are again making illogical statement like "buddism was absent". Did Krishna say, something like for his earlier avatars like rama, there would be a religion called "ramism", kurma => kurmism? So how can you even expect or think of something like "buddhism" be stated by an earlier avatar? He simply stated Buddha and kalki will be the next in line and not "Buddhism" or perhaps your next statement might include "Kalkism"?


  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.

  4. I meant that only. That Buddha rejected Vedas and hence, even, philosophically speaking, a “nastik”. A “nastik” Vishnu ? That’s rich. If you, for once, get off that high horse of "your" religion, you will realize, the contradiction, and the mental gymnastics that the then Brahmins went through to rationalize this inclusion of Buddha into their pantheon. Actually it makes for a pretty interesting read.

  I didn’t say, "buddism was absent". I said, “_The *word* “Buddhist” was absent, till about 1500 yrs._”  This is a method used by linguist to date ancient texts. If that word is found in a text, it means, that it was written after Buddhism had started to spread and had assumed its own identity. That will make it a text, “_written within the last 1500 yrs._” Rocket science ?

  What Zarathushtra taught came to be known as Zoroastrianism. What Buddha taught, came to be known as Buddhism. What Mahavira taught, came to be known as Jainism. What Jesus taught, came to be known as Christianity. What Muhammad taught, came to be know as Islam. What Guru Nanak taught, came to be known as Sikhism. Bet you still don’t see where I am going with this.



> 5. Yes I was expecting that statement from u. And if you go to a buddhist forum, you will find how angrily buddhist attack Hinduism, quoting B.R ambedkar, rejecting Buddhism as a part of hinduism etc. It is almost as if you can feel the punch on your face. Go, see for yourself. And, just like a hindu doesn't necessarily means a person who is "aware" of his scriptures, similarly buddhist doesn't automatically imply someone who has read and understood the buddhist scriptures. Kalki Purana simply show you the signs of Kaliyug and how kalki will come and destroy injustice emanating out of people "irrespective" of faith. Further, the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given. It tells us about a war with China more specifically


  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. 

  Secondly, you are therefore aware that not everything is hunky-dory with your religion and how it is viewed by a person from without. I wonder if you visit a Pak forum, what will you do, when Buddhist criticism makes you “feel the punch on your face”.

  Thirdly, that now you are seeing signs of communism in Kalki Purana’s narration of Buddhism, makes you a special person in your own right. I have been hanging around different religious forums, for long enough to know, that it is not something that you have come up with. But still.

  But one lesson that you have learnt from this debate, is the correct usage of the word “mleccha”. Congrats.


> 1,2) It seems you are getting emotional about the definition of God. You simply have not replied *where* the religions or supreme Gods are *preaching intolerance for other faiths?*. Your earlier point was already refuted.


  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.



> 3) Even scientists will accuse someone if they attack science without reading the sceintific work in the first place. They will simply call you ignorant, do you honestly expect a scientist to enlighten you of quantum physics, or mathematician be teaching you calculus when you don't understand the basics in the first place?
> 
> Neither you know the basics, nor you understand the ethics of reading the book completely before questioning it.


  Says the one, who didn’t even know, till today, who Prabhupada was. Hilarious.



> Now the part in bold again exposes your ignorance.
> 1. Krishna is just a name and hence he does not say whoever prays goes to someone called krishna. Remember he is supposed to be a supreme god! Every theistic religion has a supreme god.
> 2. He identifies himself with "other names" as being Rama, kalki, buddha etc....again doesn't say buddha is the best or rama is the best. He simply says "know me, understand me" i.e the supreme reality. It doesn't have anything to do with the "name" Krishna that you have put in brackets illogically.


  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. 



> 4. It is not bt about the procedure or has to do anything with the style in which he is doing prayer, but "true devotion". I guess you really did not read the commentaries even after my suggestion.
> here's one commentary from that source...
> 
> 
> ...


  You are fighting a loosing battle and you don’t even realize that.
*Swami Prabhupada’s* commentary:““Persons who are engaged in the worship of demigods are not very intelligent, although such worship is offered to Me indirectly,” Krishna says. For example, when a man pours water on the leaves and branches of a tree without pouring water on the root, he does so without sufficient knowledge or without observing regulative principles. Similarly, the process of rendering service to different parts of the body is to supply food to the stomach. *The demigods are, so to speak, different officers and directors in the government of the Supreme Lord. One has to follow the laws made by the government, not by the officers or directors. Similarly, everyone is to offer his worship to the Supreme Lord only. That will automatically satisfy the different officers and directors of the Lord.* The officers and directors are engaged as representatives of the government, and to offer some bribe to the officers and directors is illegal. This is stated here as avidhi-purvakam. *In other words, Krishna does not approve the unnecessary worship of the demigods.*”​COMMENTS: Regarding the parts in bold, it means, that demigods (i.e. all other gods) don’t “*have separate existence without Krishna*_”_
  Source


> 5. You are repeating and I talked of knowledge also. Again shows how for your biased arguments you are quoting it out of context.
> 
> Evil-doers and lowest of men in complete Gita are identified as those who fulfill the following qualities....
> 1. Those who do not understand the supreme reality.
> ...


  Pruabhupada, translates the same verse (BG 7.15) as:

  “*Those* *miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me*.”

  He then goes on to make commentary, where he elucidates the “miscreants” or “duskriti”: (Edited for brevity)“(1) The mudhas are those who are grossly foolish, like hardworking beasts of burden. They want to enjoy the fruits of their labor by themselves, and so do not want to part with them for the Supreme.
……

  (2) Another class of duskriti, or miscreant, is called the naradhama, or the lowest of mankind. Nara means human being, and adhama means the lowest. Out of the 8,400,000 different species of living beings, there are 400,000 human species. Out of these there are numerous lower forms of human life that are mostly uncivilized.
……

  Nor is religion without God religion, because the purpose of following religious principles is to know the Supreme Truth and man’s relation with Him. In the Gita the Personality of Godhead clearly states that there is no authority above Him and that He is the Supreme Truth. The civilized form of human life is meant for man’s reviving the lost consciousness of his eternal relation with the Supreme Truth, the Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna, who is all-powerful. Whoever loses this chance is classified as a naradhama.
……

  (3) The next class of duskriti is called mayayapahrta-jnanah, or those persons whose erudite knowledge has been nullified by the influence of illusory material energy. They are mostly very learned fellows—great philosophers, poets, literati, scientists, etc.—but the illusory energy misguides them, and therefore they disobey the Supreme Lord. 
……

(4) The last class of duskriti is called asuram bhavam asritah, or those of demonic principles. This class is openly atheistic. Some of them argue that the Supreme Lord can never descend upon this material world, but they are unable to give any tangible reasons as to why not. There are others who make Him subordinate to the impersonal feature, although the opposite is declared in the Gita.”​Source

  Guess who needs to read Gita. Knowing you, I get the feeling that you are going to come back, by attacking Prabhupada's credibility.

BTW, you havn't told us: *Who is a Hindu ?*


----------



## rhitwick (May 28, 2009)

mediator said:


> 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.


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)

"Same" means the theme, the purpose it was created for. Its the ultimate GOAL which unites all these different religions.
As Ramkrishna Paramhansa Deb quoted "jato mat tato path (As many religions as many ways to the same God)" (SOURCE).
Did u get it? Or I need to say more. 



> 3) Yes, but AFAIK, Vishnu purana is the oldest purana and it has prophesized the avatars in it.


First the internet source of Vishnu Purana
1>*www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/index.htm
and the actual book scanned (wait for the link to load and enable java script in ur browser)
2>*www.scribd.com/doc/14456786/Vishnu-Purana-Complete-English-Translation-byManmathaNathDutt

Then let me tell u who was "the Buddha" described in Vishnu Purana.


> Of heretics, or those who reject the authority of the Vedas: their origin, as described by Vaśisht́ha to Bhíshma: the gods, defeated by the Daityas, praise Vishńu: *an illusory being, or Buddha, produced from his body*.


Book III, chapter XVII, Vishnupurana

Does it resemblems with your Buddha (Gautam Buddha, who was son of King Suddhodana, the chief of the Shakya nation)? Does it. And if u r still clueless or confused who was responsible for Buddhism, let me tell u, the person was this Gautam Buddha not that who is described in Vishnupurana.

More from "ur" Vishnupurana,


> Buddha goes to the earth, and teaches the Daityas to contemn the Vedas: his sceptical doctrines: his prohibition of animal sacrifices. Meaning of the term Bauddha. Jainas and Bauddhas; their tenets. The Daityas lose their power, and are overcome by the gods.


BOOKIII, Chapter XVIII, Vishnupurana.

If u r interested to read more, u'll find that the story of Rama comes a lot after "Buddha", but according to our history, Gautam Buddha was born loooooong after Ram dynasty.

I hope I've cleared ur confusion about Buddha



> 4) Incorrect, Buddha was not anti-veda, *but simply rejected that Vedas were God utterances,* but simply a work of sages. Read ...


(already proved how those two buddhas are diff. but couldn't resist to reply this post)
Buddha rejects the source of Vedas and he is still a god to ur eyes (see, to u he's a avatar of Vishnu, so obviously he's a God) and when we reject the source of Veda being God, we are fool etc.
Why such treatment with ur friends, at least give us stature of some demigods



> Further, you are again making illogical statement like "buddism was absent". Did Krishna say, something like for his earlier avatars like rama, there would be a religion called "ramism", kurma => kurmism? So how can you even expect or think of something like "buddhism" be stated by an earlier avatar? He simply stated Buddha and kalki will be the next in line and not "Buddhism" or perhaps your next statement might include "Kalkism"?


Already told about Buddha, so no point discussing again.



> ANd FYI, the Kalki has been mentioned in Buddhist works too as the 25th matreya buddha arising from "shambhala".


So, what? Just because it was mentioned in their works it does not mean this Buddha is that Buddha. 
We are also mentioning Matsa, Kurma, Varaha (I even mentioned 10 avatars of Vishnu) so 1000yrs from now, where do my works stand? OR I'll be considered an avatara then?



> Krishna identified himself as Rama in tretayuga. Does it mean Ramayan should have stated Krishna? Further the roles of all the avatars have been different. So expecting the prophecies in Vedas and Krishna's name, is simply illogical.


FYI, Krishna avatara was in Dwapar yuga. The order of Yugas are like this: Satya, Treta, Dwapar and Kali. 
Obviously Krishna avatar has not come into existence then. How could Ramayana mention about Krishna then
Ramayana mentions about Vishnu; I guess u know at least this. Or u require one more link.



> 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.


I've already described how all religions are same and just because we are differing with your opinion, does not mean we are trolling.



> 3) Even scientists will accuse someone if they attack science without reading the sceintific work in the first place. They will simply call you ignorant, do you honestly expect a scientist to enlighten you of quantum physics, or *mathematician be teaching you calculus when you don't understand the basics* in the first place?


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. 



> Neither you know the basics, nor you understand the ethics of reading the book completely before questioning it.


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.
We have our basics clear, do u? 

And there is nothing to prove in Ramayana, Mahabharata (or are there) 




> 1. Krishna is just a name and hence he does not say whoever prays goes to someone called krishna. Remember he is supposed to be a supreme god! *Every theistic religion has a supreme god.*


To be correct it would be "Every theistic religion has *their* supreme god."
If its supreme, then it has to be one, or if u divide supreme by theism then it would their particular supreme totally ignorant of others. 
And, Krishna being supreme of all gods, read Prabhupada's commentary (or u can listen too, my previous links have the audios too)



> Here's another verse...
> "O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."
> 
> It means "He is all pervading, he is the nature".
> Try to connect it with the former commentary. *May be it means *_"*to respect nature*"????_


That’s ur interpretation.
How about, 
Water=Varunadev
Sun=Suryadev
Moon=Chandradev

Now, don't say I'm misinterpreting, as the way u r right, I must be. None of us has taken any ref.



> If he is the everything, he is the karma, he the righteousness, the ability etc, and and if *someone does "true devotion" to him*, then doesnt that implies to do the work "religiously, follow righteousness and respect nature" since everything is him??


LOL!!!
This is hilarious.
As doing everything is serving God. U serve directly to God and stop doing things.

Now let me come to things which includes serving God. I can't name all jobs/acts but naming some.
Helping disabled person
Donating to poor.
Do ur daily duties. (There is a story about how Narada, who chants Narayana every second is less devotee than a grocer who chants only 4 times his name; guess u don't know)
Save the endangered. 
etc.

Now, u stop doing all these (know what! to do all these u don't even need to know any religion, any god, get confused about 10/22 avatars, verses and its inner meaning etc) and truly devote urself to the supreme and expect God's grace.
So does this "truly devotion" qualifies to get his grace?
(the vice-versa isn't always true)




> Krishna is simply trying to enlighten Arjuna in a conversation. He has not put a power point presentation and put under one heading telling who all are "lowest" of men and identified them with asteriks like I did here for u. So it seems you neither know what Gita is, "how" the explanation was done, nor anything about its verses in true comprehension.


SO u tell how was it told?
Was Krishna in seating position and Arjuna in standing? or the reverse? Which way they were facing. Did Krishna drank water in between the long lecture or Arjuna went for a bathroom break? U r nitpicking, so u must know these info.



> Nope, IMO, *only amitash* has put the most logical and genuine arguments so far if a comparison is made.


Lol! Divide and rule, eh? 
So r u accepting Amitash's points??



> 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.


Ur metaphors are not understood by most of us (lesser human beings) including Amitash
So, from next time help us understand by describing a bit more.


----------



## send2sidz (May 28, 2009)

In my opinion the real debate is not science or god.. but science or religion...

I feel that religion is for the weak hearted or for those who need guidance to do good(PURELY MY OPINION)...If at all there is a god.. i m sure the "path to heaven" is not based on how you worship or how committed you are to him\her.. if "god" decides your fate after death on the basis of religion then "god" is corrupt... 

its time we realize that we are our own gods and that prayers and idol worship are a form of hope.. nothing more... whatever god made us gave us technology... technology is everything from a pen to a car to a computer.. it is simply an extension of human performance.....

True religion would not require specific places of worship... true religion would not discriminate any god made entity .. like a pig or alcohol or any sex or even marijuana.... everything we see around is made by some "god".. so it s all part of the same system.. its part of you....


----------



## mediator (May 28, 2009)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> I accept my dumbness but *I still could not get that part*.


@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. 







			
				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.
> 
> 4. I meant that only. *That Buddha rejected Vedas* and hence, even, philosophically speaking, a “nastik”. A “nastik” Vishnu ? That’s rich. If you, for once, get off that high horse of "your" religion, you will realize, the contradiction, and the mental gymnastics that the then Brahmins went through to rationalize this inclusion of Buddha into their pantheon. Actually it makes for a pretty interesting read.
> 
> I didn’t say, "buddism was absent". I said, “The word “Buddhist” was absent, till about 1500 yrs.” This is a method used by linguist to date ancient texts. If that word is found in a text, it means, that it was written after Buddhism had started to spread and had assumed its own identity. That will make it a text, “written within the last 1500 yrs.” Rocket science ?


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!!

I don't know how many times you will say buddha was "anti-veda" or "rejected Vedas" and keep glorifying your ignorance just as you did on cast system? I told you to read. Dunno why I have to quote it everytime for you. Now read....



*www.indiaoz.com.au/hinduism/articles/buddhism_hinduism.shtml


			
				article said:
			
		

> Ways in which Buddhism and Hinduism are similar:
> 
> 1) Both believe in reincarnation.
> 
> ...



Did you understand anything? If you look closer, then Buddhism was against much of the "distorted" Hinduism, just like I am trying to showcase in some threads.


I think you are getting annoyed just because your little "googles" on Gita are getting nulled and your bias against religion exposed every single time.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Secondly, you are therefore aware that not everything is hunky-dory with your religion and how it is viewed by a person from without. I wonder if you visit a Pak forum, what will you do, when Buddhist criticism makes you “feel the punch on your face”.
> 
> ...


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.

The "feel the punch on your face", is a phrase that means I tried to logic with them "unbiasedly" and yet they were "emotional" doing namecalling/abusing etc. So you jump to conclusion again just like you did on Gita verses illogically. And yes, it is the same thing I'm feeling from atheists in this thread who are namecalling,abusing,generalising etc on theists. It is as if a battle is going on with sides ready to nuke each other. You are simply one step ahead of them by continuing you train of illogic on every single Gita verse like a true religion hater. You are not attacking actively/directly but more like "passively"/indirectly which I fear is more dangerous, not for me, but for u only. 

Your third point pretty much says that you again "googled", read the between the lines and not the complete things. 

IMO, it accurately describes the symptoms of kaliyug. The Kalki purana as I said, shows the symptoms of the age and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China and people as comminists and buddhists. The terms have been used interchangeably since it is only a prediction, based on the signs/symptoms of the people, place and the size of the army that kalki will fight with. *It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists.* But buddhists and communists have been used as they are the ones in large numbers in China. And further, it certainly doesn't mean that Kalki will be at war with the "foundation of Buddhism". So get your facts straight first!

I shall enlighten you further depending on your level of hate in your next speech.


And I know the usage of word "mleccha". I only hope you understand its meaning fast for you are the only one who come up with this term and shoot it repeatedly whenever Hinduism is debated.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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. 

So, I think I decide my own place, and not someone else (some person). Further, understand the part in "bold". Someone who showcases his true form which is not visible to the naked eyes, shows the path to someone in grief, discusses and show cases his all pervasiveness and supreme nature whose true form is formless, I guess is not a "person" in the first place. I think we were discussing about theistic religion or did you forget that?

Krishna is just a name and an avatar. The true definition of him that he explains is "not of a person". So please tell me where the "person" is in the verse I quoted before. i.e,
"O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."

Is the person a "taste" or the "light". Or is a person defined as an "ability"?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Says the one, who didn’t even know, till today, who Prabhupada was. Hilarious.


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. 

Perhaps you can continue to laugh in your own ignorance.  




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


And that "me" is not a person, but the supreme nature, the supreme reality. And don't forget the verse 9.23. 

You seem to be just repeating your age old rants.






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> You are fighting a loosing battle and you don’t even realize that.
> Swami Prabhupada’s commentary:
> 
> ““Persons who are engaged in the worship of demigods are not very intelligent, although such worship is offered to Me indirectly,” Krishna says. For example, when a man pours water on the leaves and branches of a tree without pouring water on the root, he does so without sufficient knowledge or without observing regulative principles. Similarly, the process of rendering service to different parts of the body is to supply food to the stomach. The demigods are, so to speak, different officers and directors in the government of the Supreme Lord. One has to follow the laws made by the government, not by the officers or directors. Similarly, everyone is to offer his worship to the Supreme Lord only. That will automatically satisfy the different officers and directors of the Lord. The officers and directors are engaged as representatives of the government, and to offer some bribe to the officers and directors is illegal. This is stated here as avidhi-purvakam. In other words, Krishna does not approve the unnecessary worship of the demigods.”
> ...


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? 

Like I said, you only put verses and commentaries you find, proving you biased point that you agree with. You state them without even understanding the meaning of it and behave like "Hey, explain this!". So which part may I ask, "proves" your point? Again I give you a clue : You have not read the complete GITA.  




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Pruabhupada, translates the same verse (BG 7.15) as:
> 
> “Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.”


Thats again quoting without understanding. Like I said, the defintion of him has been clearly mentioned by "him" 

One such definition of "him" is the supreme "nature". There is nature outside us within which we are all situated and happening without our control and then, there is nature within us. Perhaps God is nature within which we are all situated? I do believe in nature, don't you? 

Don't you believe if we respect nature, it will respect us indeed? Now read my debate with @amitash on "nature" before you are all set to repeat me again.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> BTW, you havn't told us: Who is a Hindu ?


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:
			
		

> Guess who needs to read Gita. Knowing you, I get the feeling that you are going to come back, by attacking Prabhupada's credibility.


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. 

Remember, from one verse you may or may not understand anything and certainly not everything. But with complete GITA in mind, you will understand everything.


----------



## Faun (May 28, 2009)

mediator 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.



AFAIK Hindu was defined by Persians, it was just a distorted form of those living around Sindhu river.


----------



## rhitwick (May 28, 2009)

mediator said:


> @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.



Why?
Why not...? Meri kaya galti hai?

And, u don't need to reply me. I'll be happy enough to know that u've read my post and accepted the "facts" (which I've provided with proper sources).

It would be enough for me to read ur posts and finding that u r presenting arguments based upon already revealed "facts".

Regards


----------



## karnivore (May 28, 2009)

mediator said:


> @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.


> So all this time I believe you've done nuthing bt googling instead of genuinely reading GITA.


  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.


> _ 1) Both believe in reincarnation._


  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.


> _ 2) Both believe there are many different paths to enlightenment._


  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. 


> _ 3) Both believe that our suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world._


  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.



> _ 4) Both believe in an ultimate spiritual reality beyond the illusions of the physical world._


  Physical world is illusory in Hinduism, but in Buddhism it is a reality.



> _ 5) Both practice meditation and other forms of yoga._


  So ?



> _ 6) Both believe that eventually all living spirits will achieve enlightenment and liberation, even if it takes many incarnations. Remember that in Mahayana Buddhism, the original teachings of the Buddha are assimilated to Hindu practices, including prayers, gods (even the Buddha as god in all his many incarnations). Mahayana Buddhism also introduces the idea of (temporary) heavens and hells._


  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”. 

  Problem is, you are viewing Buddhism, through your Hindu eyes. You are just scratching the surface and seeing, what you want to see. But beneath the surface, there is a whole host of difference. Actually you still don’t know what (il)logic went into the disingenuous act of including Buddha into your pantheon. Anyway, read Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective.


> Now where did I "justify" another religion as "enemy" *which is considered a "part of Hinduism" itself by many*?


  “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.


> …I tried to logic with them "*unbiasedly*"…


  By that you mean, from your Hindu perspective.


> You are not attacking actively/directly but more like "passively"/indirectly which I fear is more dangerous, not for me, but for u only.


  I am touched by your concern.


> Your third point pretty much says that you again "googled", read the between the lines and not the complete things.
> 
> IMO, it accurately describes the symptoms of kaliyug. The Kalki purana as I said, shows the symptoms of the age and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China and people as comminists and buddhists. The terms have been used interchangeably since it is only a prediction, based on the signs/symptoms of the people, place and the size of the army that kalki will fight with. *It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists.* But buddhists and communists have been used as they are the ones in large numbers in China. And further, it certainly doesn't mean that Kalki will be at war with the "foundation of Buddhism". So get your facts straight first!


  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.

  The rest of that quote is, GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out. But it’s a good thing that you have sort of come away from the so called “prophecy” claims.


> And I know the usage of word "mleccha". I only hope you understand its meaning fast for you are the only one who come up with this term and shoot it repeatedly whenever Hinduism is debated.


  And by using it, you are yourself telling us, what it is supposed to mean.


> My nature doesn't contain filters of hatred to *accept or reject* something.


  Regarding abrahamic religion:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I'm not willing to even read on them.





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Ignored coz of abrahmic connection!


  And if one searches this forum, many such gems would be found.


> I simply wont care if someone says he is a dumbass or intelligent.
> …
> 
> So, I think I decide my own place, and not someone else (some person).


  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.

  The rest part of that quote is conflation. Irrelevant.


> 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.


  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.


> And that "me" is not a person, but the supreme nature, the supreme reality.


  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 ?


> 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?
> 
> Like I said, you only put verses and commentaries you find, proving you biased point that you agree with. *You state them without even understanding the meaning of it* and behave like "Hey, explain this!". So which part may I ask, "proves" your point? Again I give you a clue : *You have not read the complete GITA*.


  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.

  And yes, I rest my case.


> One such definition of "him" is the supreme "nature". There is nature outside us within which we are all situated and happening without our control and then, there is nature within us. Perhaps God is nature within which we are all situated? I do believe in nature, don't you?


  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”. 


> > _Who is a Hindu ?_
> 
> 
> 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.


  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.

  Anyway, I did ask you the right question and I did get my answer. Ask a similar question to people of other religion and they will come up with a readymade answer. Belief in their gods, belief in their prophets and finally faith in their holy books. But ask this question to a average person, who claims to be a “hindu”, and watch him grope for an answer for 10 minutes. Look at you. You have given me a lecture on the origin of word, that too an incorrect one.


> The only random factor remains where I expect intelligence from you and you do the opposite.


  If it makes you feel good, I am cool with it.


----------



## mediator (May 28, 2009)

@ichi : Yes, u r right!
@rhitwick : No I haven't "accepted" most of your points. But your understanding of my points is simply very childish to even debate on. Further, much of your post is filled with "generalizations, lols, hahas, hilarious terms" than any connection with the topic. So the topic originally started with @amitash, where you popped up and questioned the evolution & orgin of life example, where you confessed to being "dumbass" before @amitash's reply. I know your nature and thats why asked you to refrain. Further it was "pink unicorns" days which I was referring to where you did not discuss science. Well, see yourself, You couldn't even grasp that.

I did not agree with @amitash and hence discussed with him. Just saying that he put the most sensible, logical and genuine arguments doesn't mean I accepted his statements. Why would I have discussed with him then? The genuine nature of his talks simply means that he was not quoting any other critics, but simply putting forward his own views. Neither he is arrogant nor reluctant to understand any of the views so far.

Whereas even after quoting some of the commentaries to you guys and telling about the verses myself and then suggesting to read a book before commenting on it, you are simply googling here and there finding commentaries to suit yourself and your agenda. It is like to fulfill your illogical hatred towards religion, you are willing to do anything illogical.

Remember, a wise man doesn't opine on a book until he reads the last word and here I am connecting you, enlightening you with other verses. The book might sound boring in the beginning, but might have twist and turns in the end. May be the start is connected with the end?

Even after all these rants you guys still have not told me where these religions, I asked for, or God are preaching "intolerance" about the gods of other religions. I gave a verse and sourced the page having lot of commentaries bt it where Krishna himself preaches tolerance. 

Where is Krishna saying that "Krishna is the best"? Where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best"? Where is Guru Nanak Dev saying "Guru Nanak is the best"? etc?


----------



## rhitwick (May 28, 2009)

mediator said:


> @ichi : Yes, u r right!


That means u don't even know who were Hindu...



> @rhitwick : No I haven't "accepted" most of your points. But your understanding of my points is simply very childish to even debate on. Further, much of your post is filled with "generalizations, lols, hahas, hilarious terms" than any connection with the topic.


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.



> So the topic originally started with @amitash, where you popped up and questioned the evolution & orgin of life example, where you confessed to being "dumbass" before @amitash's reply. I know your nature and thats why asked you to refrain. *Further it was "pink unicorns" days which I was referring to where you did not discuss science*.


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.
And, about "pink unicorn days"; my first post here was, post no. 651 (I just checked ) 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.
Now, u r ignoring me only because I'm not as experienced as u "in this particular thread". Hmmm, freshers are welcome nowhere




> The genuine nature of his talks simply means that *he was not quoting any other critics, but simply putting forward his own views.* Neither he is arrogant nor reluctant to understand any of the views so far.


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".

Purdon me @Amitash, but I think u should always put verifiable comments with proper source of information, else one day these theists would point to u, how did u get to that conclusion. Its always with them, they can't produce proof but will always ask for one.



> Whereas even after quoting some of the commentaries to you guys and telling about the verses myself and then suggesting to read a book before commenting on it, you are simply googling here and there finding commentaries to suit yourself and your agenda. It is like to fulfill your illogical hatred towards religion, you are willing to do *anything illogical.*


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.
About me doing illogical , point a comment (without lol and hilarious "words") which talk illogically, I'm off this thread.

Its u who talks illogical, comments without even doing a research.
Just in past few days u came combined Global Warming with God and I provided u tons of links which tells how false u r on claiming.

U commented on Buddha (The source of still practiced Baudhya dharma) being a avatar of Vishnu, u referenced Vishnupuran. I then brought Vishnupurana (one link even had the original book scanned) and proved that There are two "Buddha" and u've messed up the right one here.

U commented that not all religions are equal and asked us to prove our points, I again proved it.

U claimed Vaishnava and Shaiva never fought, I provide u time and venue of the clash.

U asked more knowledgeble person from u who knows of lord Krishna more than u. I brought up commentarys of "Prabhupada" and again showed u how he claims that Krishna is supreme of all (gods)



> Remember, a wise man doesn't opine on a book until he reads the last word and here I am connecting you, enlightening you with other verses. The book might sound boring in the beginning, but might have twist and turns in the end. May be the start is connected with the end?


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. 
Then, who has read the book?

Most of the comment u make to prove ur arguments are later proved wrong and ur arguments are found to baseless and imaginary (obviously, GOD is imaginary, so every argument to prove his/her being has to be imaginary)



> Even after all these rants you guys still have not told me where these religions, I asked for, or God are preaching "intolerance" about the gods of other religions. I gave a verse and sourced the page having lot of commentaries bt it where Krishna himself preaches tolerance.


Intolerence is not mentioned in any book or verse.
But all verses surounding a particular god (Krishna, Shiva, Shakti etc) tells that only he/she is supreme and thou shal devote to him/her only.
Its we, who interpreted wrong. 

Take an example of two communities who are unknown to each other. Both of them has one supreme god A and B and provide offerrings to only A/B.
Now, one day if they come together both of them would notice that the other community is not accepting their god and not claiming A/B being the only one (supreme). 
This is how an unrest starts or in ur words "intolerance".


----------



## mediator (May 28, 2009)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> I then ask to make me understand, enlighten the poor soul. Guess what, those knowledgeable persons *totally ignore this request*.


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.

Buddha is not going to come in every era and repeat the same statements just for you. Wisdom lies in reading what is already stated.......completely!!






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.


Deviation from the point has become something of your interest isn't it?

1. The point was not about reincarnation, but being "anti-veda" that I highlighted
2. Why are you only talking of rigveda? Or just like selecting random verses to prove ur biased point, you have decided to select random works of Hinduism? Hinduism also consists of Gita, the other 3 vedas also.
3. I think you are wrong about transmigration, as the buddhist definition of rebirth is much more intense.
*www.buddhanet.net/funbud10.htm

Further, buddhs is said to have "remembered" his past lives. And also we have the mention of kalki from "shambhala" in buddhism.
*www.buddhist-temples.com/nirvana-buddhism.html 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


Like I repeatedly state now, you say something without even understanding it. Understand if you can...
*www.boloji.com/culture/020.htm




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


Why digress again? In simple terms it means materialistc attachement. 

What is "by birth" has to anything here? The point still remains that their is "suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world".

Maya is not just the worldy "suffering" you know. If you want to use a term, then  atleast try to understand its meaning first.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> article 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.

Illusions of physical world also means the "materialist attachments, desires etc". Again read GITA, you are only googling.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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”.
> 
> Problem is, *you are viewing Buddhism, through your Hindu eyes.* You are just scratching the surface and seeing, what you want to see. But beneath the surface, there is a whole host of difference. Actually you still don’t know what (il)logic went into the disingenuous act of including Buddha into your pantheon. Anyway, read Buddhism from a Buddhist perspective.


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.

But even if we go by your logic, you haven't done well even after so much repeatition, on the verses of GITA. REad the complete GITA will you?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> “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.


For their belief they should conform to
1. Scriptures
2. "Origin" of the scriptures and the teachings

Your logic clearly fails on both. And again you deviate. Where did I "justify" another religion as an "enemy"? Care to explain in detail?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> By that you mean, from your Hindu perspective.


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:
			
		

> Regarding abrahamic religion:


Like I said you jump to conclusion very soon.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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 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:
			
		

> 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 ?


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.

Which part of my statements did you not understand?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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”.


Like I said read GITA urself, for explaining this now will lead to massive repeatitions.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> You have given me a lecture on the origin of word, that too an incorrect one.


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. 


You did not answer to my question, Do you believe in nature or not? Don't u believe nature works without human control? Do you think Sun has anything to do with "human control"? Please answer these!


You did not comment to the point of "anti-veda" and you have yet not shown how "religion, Gods" (the few I stated) preach "intolerance" over other faiths. I hope you agree to it that all religions are not the same and the few I stated don't "preach" intolerance. So lets stop this stupid squabbles and "googling". 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> If you are saying it, then it must be right.


I'm honoured! So please take my friendly advise and read Gita completely.


----------



## Faun (May 28, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> Intolerence is not mentioned in any book or verse.
> But all verses surounding a particular god (Krishna, Shiva, Shakti etc) tells that only he/she is supreme and thou shal devote to him/her only.
> Its we, who interpreted wrong.
> 
> ...



First of all the existence of different gods is in itself a proof of tolerance in Hinduism. The birth of Indian religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc is another proof.

Your reasoning is flawed in that term. It's when a religion specifically says that there is only one path to reach God and there is only one God, all others must accept it or they will suffer in hell. All Abrahamic religions fall on this fear and force tactic.

Monotheism was a great gift from Gods 

Different path taken by many rivers but ultimately each path leads to the ocean. The same philosophy applies for Hinduism.


----------



## awww (May 28, 2009)

ichi said:


> First of all the existence of different gods is in itself a proof of tolerance in Hinduism. The birth of Indian religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc is another proof.


i think it goes the other way before the invasion of the British there were no clear idea about Hinduism 
they just put all Indian religion into one category as Hinduism


----------



## karnivore (May 28, 2009)

mediator said:


> Explaining to you is like "*bhains* ke saamne been bajana".


  Calm down. Loosing a debate is not the end of the world.


> You should be concerned bt yourself rather than your "friend" in a debate.


  You are my friend too, I suppose.


> You are neither giving your "own" views on the different verses of Gita but only "googling".


  If that thought makes your day, I have no problem.


> 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.


  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.

  Regarding, 9.23, I have already put up the commentary of Prabhupada, who is considered to be an authority on Gita. The thing is 9.23 complements 9.22. Not the other way round.


> Deviation from the point has become something of your interest isn't it?
> 
> 1. The point was not about reincarnation, but being "anti-veda" that I highlighted
> 2. Why are you only talking of rigveda? Or just like selecting random verses to prove ur biased point, you have decided to select random works of Hinduism? Hinduism also consists of Gita, the other 3 vedas also.
> ...


  1. If Buddha preached something, that is not attested by veda, does that make him pro-veda.

  2. Just so you know that half the things that you consider as part of your religion, isn’t even mentioned in the most sacred of the sacred text.

  3. You didn’t notice the contradictions in those two links, did you ? The first link talks of “rebirth”, the second “reincarnation”. The first is talking of lack of “continuity”, disingenuously so, while the second about “continuity”. In fact the second link is even talking of “soul” when, Buddha discarded the concept of “soul”. A case of blindly googling, without knowing what to look for. See, googling is not that easy.

  The reason why I buy the transmigration argument is because of the belief that Buddha remembered his past lives (of course metaphors). Now in Hinduism, there is a concept of soul and death is when the soul leaves this current body, and birth is when it enters a new one. The soul doesn’t die. It simply changes abode. Vivekanada, explained it with a metaphor of reading a book. When we read a book, we turn the pages, but until the last page is turned, we are not done reading. Soul is that book, while the pages are the different forms it takes to reach to the last page. That last page, of course is the moksha. The point is of continuity. In Buddhism, the problem is that there is no concept of soul. Therefore, clearly, the rebirth is not the transmission of soul from one form into another (man in one birth, cat in another, depending on karma). Yet then, one is supposed to remember his past. Which means, memory is indeed expected to be transmitted between the births, without, of course, transmission of soul. Therefore the continuity is indeed there (that’s why I called, the first link’s claim, that there is no continuity as disingenuous) but not in the sense that Hindus understand. The concept of transmigration, solves the problem of continuity, at least for me.


> Like I repeatedly state now, you say something without even understanding it. Understand if you can...
> *www.boloji.com/culture/020.htm


  The reply lies in this question: How do you suppose, a sudra will attain moksha ?


> Why digress again? In simple terms it means materialistc attachement.
> 
> What is "by birth" has to anything here? The point still remains that their is "suffering is caused by excessive attachment to things and people in the physical world".
> 
> Maya is not just the worldy "suffering" you know. If you want to use a term, then atleast try to understand its meaning first.


  “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.


> 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.
> 
> Illusions of physical world also means the "materialist attachments, desires etc". Again read GITA, you are only googling.


  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.


> 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.


  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.


> For their belief they should conform to
> 1. Scriptures
> 2. "Origin" of the scriptures and the teachings


  They actually quote verses to support their theory. 


> Your logic clearly fails on both. And again you deviate. Where did I "justify" another religion as an "enemy"? Care to explain in detail?


  First:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …the terms buddhist and communists have been used interchangeably in the translations with their symptoms given. It tells us about a war with China more specifically


  And then later:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> The Kalki purana as I said, shows the symptoms of the age and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China and people as comminists and buddhists. The terms have been used interchangeably since it is only a prediction, based on the signs/symptoms of the people, place and the size of the army that kalki will fight with. It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists. But buddhists and communists have been used as they are the ones in large numbers in China.


  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.


> Quoting the scriptures and facts is not called "Hindu perspective". Like I said Buddha was more like "removing" "distortions in Hinduism" though not entirely.


  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.


> Like I said you jump to conclusion very soon.


  And more often than not, they turn out to be right.


> *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.


   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” ?


> 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.
> 
> Which part of my statements did you not understand?





			
				me said:
			
		

> 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.*


  Guess who is repeating and clutching at straws.


> karnivore 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. 

  Why specifically “taste of water” ? Why not just stop at “taste” ? Why not “taste of food” ? What is so special about water and its taste ? More importantly, what “taste” does water have ? Sweet, sour, something else ?

  Why “light of sun and moon”? Why not just “light” ? Or Why not “light” of fire ? Why not “light” of stars ?

  Common, it will be a walk in the park for you.


> You did not answer to my question, Do you believe in nature or not? Don't u believe nature works without human control? Do you think Sun has anything to do with "human control"? Please answer these!


  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. 



> You did not comment to the point of "anti-veda" and you have yet not shown how "religion, Gods" (the few I stated) preach "intolerance" over other faiths. I hope you agree to it that all religions are not the same and the few I stated don't "preach" intolerance. So lets stop this stupid squabbles and "googling".


  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.


----------



## karnivore (May 28, 2009)

Finally a new line of argument.


ichi said:


> First of all the existence of different gods is in itself a proof of tolerance in Hinduism. The birth of Indian religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc is another proof.


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.



> Your reasoning is flawed in that term. It's when a religion specifically says that there is only one path to reach God and there is only one God, all others must accept it or they will suffer in hell. All Abrahamic religions fall on this fear and force tactic.


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. 



> Monotheism was a great gift from Gods


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".



> Different path taken by many rivers but ultimately each path leads to the ocean. The same philosophy applies for Hinduism.


Only if it were that simple.


----------



## rhitwick (May 28, 2009)

karnivore said:


> Only if it were that simple.


Well, u've efficiently replied to ichi, I've nothing to add more.

But, I think, if they just concentrate on their business and stop poking on neighbor's kitchen they would be happy.
And the main purpose of every religion is stay happy and don't fight.


----------



## Faun (May 28, 2009)

karnivore said:


> Finally a new line of argument.






karnivore said:


> 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.


Yeah, wrangle do happen in a family. But all of them are Hindus only. 

My mother is a Shaivite but she also do aarti of Vishnu. So infact the fault lies with people who are too bigot to realize.

Buddhism went down due to a lot of reasons. Mainly it was due to Islamic invasion and destruction of Nalanda University by Khilji. However there were other reasons too. I look forward to its reconstruction which is pending now.



karnivore said:


> 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.


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.

Hindus were partly responsible for the evils that crep in it. But its now evolving, and thats what actually matters now. 



karnivore said:


> 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".


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.

In a short deifinition Hinduism is an evolutionary concept which is flexible to change, there are no stedfast rules. I consider it as a way of life more than a religion. 

Science has been a mainstay in India during old times because of Indian religions tolerance only. Majority of sanskrit texts are athestic.

Ayurveda, Sulabhsutra, Charak Samhita, Yoga, Kamasutra etc.



karnivore said:


> Only if it were that simple.


Oh, I am an atheist  I believe in materialism.


----------



## Faun (May 28, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> Well, u've efficiently replied to ichi, I've nothing to add more.
> 
> But, I think, if they just concentrate on their business and stop poking on neighbor's kitchen they would be happy.
> And the main purpose of every religion is stay happy and don't fight.



As long as humans are here we can safely rule out the possibility of eternal peace.

Science has been used as a scapegoat too, all those experiments on humans and animals etc. But science is essential IMO, it has always been in our civilization.

Morality, IMO, comes from within. Though surroundings and circumstances play an important in tilting the weight to evil or good side. 

You should be thankful that our civilization has some of the most awesome books written.


----------



## karnivore (May 29, 2009)

ichi said:


> Yeah, wrangle do happen in a family. But all of them are Hindus only.
> 
> My mother is a Shaivite but she also do aarti of Vishnu. So infact the fault lies with people who are too bigot to realize.


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.



> Buddhism went down due to a lot of reasons. Mainly it was due to Islamic invasion and destruction of Nalanda University by Khilji. However there were other reasons too. I look forward to its reconstruction which is pending now.


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.

The reason, apart from the internal conflict withing Buddhism itself, among the various schools, was the rise of Brahminism.



> 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.


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.



> But its now evolving, and thats what actually matters now.


Agreed. But the rise of fanatics like RSS is also a matter of concern. 



> 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.
> 
> In a short deifinition Hinduism is an evolutionary concept which is flexible to change, there are no stedfast rules.


I would say, that it is more or less a fair assessment.


> I consider it as a way of life more than a religion.


And that makes you a rational person.



> Science has been a mainstay in India during old times because of Indian religions tolerance only. Majority of sanskrit texts are athestic.
> 
> Ayurveda, Sulabhsutra, Charak Samhita, Yoga, Kamasutra etc.


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.



> Oh, I am an atheist  I believe in materialism.


Welcome to the club.


----------



## Nin13 (May 29, 2009)

Yes science.... but God has made science too................


----------



## mediator (May 29, 2009)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> And the main purpose of every religion is stay happy and don't fight.








			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Calm down. Loosing a debate is not the end of the world.


"bhains ke saamne been bajana" is a proverb. Dunno why you highlighted the "bhains"  I hope you understand what a proverb is. 

Here's a proverb for you "bandar kya jaane adrak ka swaad". Just kiddin...
*www.indif.com/kids/hindi_proverbs/hindi_proverbs.aspx




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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. If Buddha preached something, that is not attested by veda, does that make him pro-veda.
> 
> 2. Just so you know that half the things that you consider as part of your religion, isn’t even mentioned in the most sacred of the sacred text.
> 
> ...


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".

There are people in this world who chant "gayatri mantra" without knowing that it is from Vedas. That neither makes them anti-veda or pro-veda. But Buddha knew it is from Vedas, didn't he?

2. Tells the one who quoted manusmriti and cast system "by birth" repeatedly, till yesterday? Please don't tell me what is a part and what is not. You need bigger things to concentrate first, like being "unbiased".

3. Don't get over excited. Thats why I already said, Buddhist view of rebirth is much more intense, but also "Buddha seemed to have remembered his past lives". Here's a quote from the first one itself, if you read between the lines last time .... 


			
				firstlink said:
			
		

> Specifically, within the Buddhist tradition, we have the testimony of the Buddha on the matter of rebirth. On the night of His enlightenment, the Buddha acquired three varieties of knowledge and the first of these was the detailed knowledge of His past lives. He was able to recollect the conditions in which He had been born in His past lives. He was able to remember what His names had been, what His occupations had been and so on. Besides the Buddha’s testimony, His prominent disciples were also able to recollect their past lives. Ananda, for instance, acquired the ability to recollect his past life soon after his ordination. Similarly, throughout the history of Buddhism, saints, scholars and meditators have been able to recollect their past lives.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


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".

I wonder why you never quoted the part that highlighted about "Buddha not being anti-veda"!!??
First you repeatedly argued he was "anti veda" or "rejected Veda" and now you bring up a new and illogical argument of "pro veda"?? May be you already forgot the highlighted part. Nuthing new...neway...here..



			
				article said:
			
		

> Buddha was not anti- Vedas
> 
> Buddha does not accept Vedas as God's utterances. They are the achievements of sages through meditation. He has been anti Vedas he would not have *arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words- Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind. Study of Vedas is very dear to him. He believes in 32 embellishments of a lofty soul as propounded in Vedas. Similarly he is not anti- Brahaman. He praises the old brahmans but wants his contemporary brahmans to shun and cast off their short comings. He wants them to purify themselves through reforms. They should be as they were.*



So use your only tool i.e "google" and confirm about the "gayatri mantra" in Buddhism. Further do note the meaning of Gayatri mantra. FYI, gayatri mantra is the foremost mantra in Hinduism. You will find it being chanted in almost all of the "yagya" and "havans". AFAIK, It is also considered sometimes the supreme mantra. And lastly here's the meaning of gayatri mantra for you...


Gayatri mantra....
*www.eaglespace.com/media/pics/gayatriP.gif


"Oh God! Thou art the Giver of Life,
Remover of pain and sorrow,
The Bestower of happiness,
Oh! Creator of the Universe,
May we receive thy supreme sin-destroying light,
May Thou guide our intellect in the right direction."




Try not to run away from this point again.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> The reply lies in this question: *How do you suppose, a sudra will attain moksha* ?


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:
			
		

> “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.


It doesn't mean it is "animated" or we are "animated characters"  Please ponder...
*www.experiencefestival.com/a/Hinduism_and_Maya/id/54124




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> They actually quote verses to support their theory.


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:
			
		

> 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.


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? 

Specifying the number of years wasn't really necessary, but it only helped me bring up another point : What is the guarantee that there won't arise another "atheistic religion" in the next 427000 years? There can be "dozens of religions" sprouting up in the next 427000 years. See for yourself how many sprouted up in the last 5000 years alone.

So why buddhism, why not all the other atheistic religions? So, like I said read the Kalki purana. It shows the signs of the Kaliyug accurately and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China which is having communists and buddhists. Further, kalki will be at war with unrighteousness. Kalki Puran has given the details of that "unrighteousness" too. Buddhism doesn't denote unrighteousness and a buddhist doesn't necessarily mean an "enlightened one", "righteous", just like today a brahmin doesn't necessarily mean a "scholar or a teacher". It is his actions that describe whether he is morally inclined or morally devoid. 


I don't understand what is so hard to understand such a simple logic? So I guess, your "typical assumption" that I justified "another religion" as enemy is clearly flawed.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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” ?


Like I said, care to read GITA urself? I have started feeling more like a preacher, correcting you on every single step. 




			
				karnivore 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.*
> 
> *Why specifically “taste of water” ? Why not just stop at “taste” ? Why not “taste of food” ? What is so special about water and its taste ? More importantly, what “taste” does water have ? Sweet, sour, something else ?*
> 
> ...


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"?

Taste, light, "Om" simply means he is the energy, the elements, the very essence that is bounding you, that you need to survive. Here's another verse....


"All of the universes are pervaded by Me, in an imperceptibly subtle manifestation and all living entities find their support in Me; but I am *not supported* in them". (BG, 9.04)


The second line and below only describes your childishness. Remember, He is explaining Arjun via "giving examples" also of what he is. Like I said, you really are clueless on GITA. 



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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 (May 29, 2009)

mediator said:


> "bhains ke saamne been bajana" is a proverb. Dunno why you highlighted the "bhains" I hope you understand what a proverb is.
> 
> Here's a proverb for you "bandar kya jaane adrak ka swaad". Just kiddin...
> *www.indif.com/kids/hindi_prov..._proverbs.aspx


  Here’s a Bengali proverd for you:

  “Jutor bhut, mukher kotha maney na”

  Translation: One who understands the language of boots, doesn’t listen to spoken words.

  Just kiddin…


> 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".
> 
> There are people in this world who chant "gayatri mantra" without knowing that it is from Vedas. That neither makes them anti-veda or pro-veda. But Buddha knew it is from Vedas, didn't he?
> 
> 2. Tells the one who quoted manusmriti and cast system "by birth" repeatedly, till yesterday? Please don't tell me what is a part and what is not. You need bigger things to concentrate first, like being "unbiased".


  As usual, peripheral arguments. This time around, it is the word “anti”. Anyway.

  1.  What makes a person “anti” something or “pro” something ? Does rejection of the very core of Hinduism, as per Vedas, count as being “anit” vedic.

  2. I haven’t yet said my last word on manusmriti and caste system. So don’t pop that champagne, just yet.


> 3. Don't get over excited. Thats why I already said, Buddhist view of rebirth is much more intense, but also "Buddha seemed to have remembered his past lives". Here's a quote from the first one itself, if you read between the lines last time ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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. 

  My question is, if nothing migrates, from one birth to another, then how is one expected to remember his past birth, because, memory will die with death of self. Rebirth will be like starting afresh. So how does the remembrance of past birth, by Buddha, fit in the whole scheme of rebirth not being transmigration. 


> 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".


  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.

  Topic didn’t start like that. I had clearly mentioned, that Buddhism is not a theistic religion. You started referring to Buddha as one avatar of Vishnu. I merely pointed out, by calling him “ani-veda”, that he can’t possibly so, because he rejected the very core of vedic Hinduism. And because of this, including him into the pantheon needed much philosophical twisting, by the then Brahmins. Please don’t conflate one line of argument into another.


> I wonder why you never quoted the part that highlighted about "Buddha not being anti-veda"!!??
> First you repeatedly argued he was "anti veda" or "rejected Veda" and now you bring up a new and illogical argument of "pro veda"?? May be you already forgot the highlighted part. Nuthing new...neway...here..
> 
> 
> ...


  1. Please show me where, Buddha claimed that “Gayatri Mantra” is the premier mantra.

  2. Actually Buddha rejected Vedas only after studying them. Not before studying them. So please, show me again, where he says that “_Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind”_ 

  3. The author of the site, doesn’t know the difference between “Brahman” and “BrahmanA”. Why am I not surprised. Anyway, if Buddha did reject the “Brahman”.

  4. Now about the clincher – arranging gayetri mantra on his father’s death. Please give me an authentic source that this actually happened. 


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.

  And since you have read so much about Hinduism, here’s a correction. Dronacharya didn’t become a kshatriya by setting “foot on the battle gorund”, but became so on his own will long time before the Kurukshetra war. He was the kaurava’s and pandava’s teacher, teaching them weaponry and the art of war. As with other acharyas, becoming kshatriyas by taking part in the battle (again not your realization for I have see it before as well), makes an assumption that  caste identity can be changed by simply doing what another caste does. It is not so. If a Brahmin picks up a stick to ward off/fight a danger, it won’t make him a Kshatriya.

  On second thought, what do I know. If you have said it, it has to be true.


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  “Animation” as in “Suspended Animation”, not hand drawn, computer generated cartoon characters.


> Like I said do they conform to the various conditions? Further do they have much sanskrit connection? Remember, buddhism has profound sanskrit connection.


  Yes, with some mental gymnastics, like you often do. And Sanskrit is a language. What has language got to do with religion ?


> 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?


  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:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …the terms *buddhist and communists* have been *used interchangeably* in the translations *with their symptoms given*


  Then later clarified:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> * It doesn't mean the symptoms of buddhists*


  Confused ?


> Specifying the number of years wasn't really necessary, but it only helped me bring up another point : What is the guarantee that there won't arise another "atheistic religion" in the next 427000 years? There can be "dozens of religions" sprouting up in the next 427000 years. See for yourself how many sprouted up in the last 5000 years alone.


  First, I quoted those figures, using the phrase “not withstanding”, meaning ignore it.

  Second, the point still stands. There is no way of knowing, that 427,000 later China will exist, let alone Buddism or communism, not to mention the human race. Here, in 2009, you have already come to the conclusion that it is about China, about “Buddhism and communism” being “used interchangeably”. Thats talent (not yours thought). 

Asking you, which part of the puranic description of geography, sounds similar to China would be futile, so never mind.


> *So why buddhism*, why not all the other atheistic religions? So, like I said read the Kalki purana. It shows the signs of the Kaliyug accurately and symptoms of the people who Kalki will be at war with. The place translates to China which is having communists and buddhists. Further, kalki will be at war with unrighteousness. Kalki Puran has given the details of that "unrighteousness" too. Buddhism doesn't denote unrighteousness and a buddhist doesn't necessarily mean an "enlightened one", "righteous", just like today a brahmin doesn't necessarily mean a "scholar or a teacher". It is his actions that describe whether he is morally inclined or morally devoid.


  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.

  Here’s another Bengali proverb for you:

  “machi mara kerani”


> And why didn't you knew 9.23?





> The point still remains "where is the intolerance"?


  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.


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.

  You didn’t tell us “*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*_.”_


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.

  Yup, you got me there.


----------



## mediator (May 29, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> As usual, peripheral arguments. This time around, it is the word “anti”. Anyway.
> 
> 1. What makes a person “anti” something or “pro” something ? Does rejection of the very core of Hinduism, as per Vedas, count as being “anit” vedic.
> 
> 2. I haven’t yet said my last word on manusmriti and caste system. So don’t pop that champagne, just yet.


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.

2. Congrats!





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> My question is, if nothing migrates, from one birth to another, then how is one expected to remember his past birth, because, memory will die with death of self. Rebirth will be like starting afresh. So how does the remembrance of past birth, by Buddha, fit in the whole scheme of rebirth not being transmigration.


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. Please show me where, Buddha claimed that “Gayatri Mantra” is the premier mantra.
> 
> 2. Actually Buddha rejected Vedas only after studying them. Not before studying them. So please, show me again, where he says that “Not to read Vedas is to collect scum one one's mind”
> 
> ...


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.
2,3) Buddhist origins. Like I said Buddhism, was more about removing the "ills" in Hinduism.

Further, I was expecting you would say this line. "Not to read Vedas is to collect scum..." is more of an author's view which has been succeeded by a line "Study of Vedas is very dear to him". "Those words" refer to the "Gayatri mantra" and not the terms "these words" which should have been put if he had referred the "scum" part. 

Its a part of correcting the passage which is filled with typos and the train of logic. 



			
				article said:
			
		

> They are the achievements of sages through meditation. *He has* been anti Vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations after the death of his father. He considers 'Gayatri Mantra' the premier mantra. Had he been anti-Vedas he would not have uttered those words*-*


He simply puts a premise and then reasons i.e presmise => reason!
1. They (Vedas) were achievements of sages through meditation. => "Has he been anti-vedas he would not have arranged recitation of Vedic incantations"
2. He considers gayatri mantra as premier mantra. => "Had he been anti-vedas he would not have uttered those words". 

Now find the typos. Further, Buddha "knew" Vedas. One cannot be anti-veda or pro-veda without even knowing what the vedas are. He was not against Vedas, but the supremacy of brahmins "by birth" like I said already and it was common in ancient era to chant "Vedic recitations" after one's death.

So clearly you don't even understand the passage now. 


4) The source doesn't say he "arranged gayatri mantra on his father's death". 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> And since you have read so much about Hinduism, here’s a correction. Dronacharya didn’t become a kshatriya by setting “foot on the battle gorund”, but became so on his own will long time before the Kurukshetra war. He was the kaurava’s and pandava’s teacher, teaching them weaponry and the art of war. As with other acharyas, becoming kshatriyas by taking part in the battle (again not your realization for I have see it before as well), makes an assumption that caste identity can be changed by simply doing what another caste does. It is not so. If a Brahmin picks up a stick to ward off/fight a danger, it won’t make him a Kshatriya.


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. 

And hence your question "who will teach them" is absurd and speaks bt your ignorance on Hinduism which preaches equality to all.


Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing. His mind was simply focussing on the actions of a kshatriya and not a guru on the field or before the start. You simply don't understand such a simple point even after so many years? 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> On second thought, what do I know. If you have said it, it has to be true.


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 repeatitions
1. "Mleccha"
2. "Cast system by birth"




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Then later clarified:


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. 

Again, what is so hard to understand such simple points?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Here’s another Bengali proverb for you:
> 
> “machi mara kerani”


Ok I think we can play proverb game in chit chat 

So where is the "intolerance preached by Buddha or saying Buddha is the best"?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


O'reilly? 
And why didn't you reason on the commentaries I sourced in the first place, why even go to "pravupada's one"?? Don't tell me those commentaries are boastful too. And further, you treat a verse as "boastful"? How absurd! 

Like I said, its the whole GITA and not one verse that we should be after. Every verse is connected. It has chapters with examples. With one verse you may or may not understand anything. But with complete GITA read and understood you will understand everything. And you talk bt "boastful"? 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> You didn’t tell us “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.”


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"


And he is not preaching a religion hater who cannot grasp the straight and simpler meanings in the first place, for I'm sure he (Krishna) would have done his best in that case then and tried to put the entire Sanskrit dictionary in front of him. 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> You didn’t tell us “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.”


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.

We simply cannot fight the nature, we need the nature of our survival and nature doesn't need us to support itself.



And so, the question that keeps on arising, for which you trolled, is yet to be answered by you i.e where is religion/GOD, i.e a "person" from your posts, is preaching "intolerance"? Where is krishna saying "Kishna is the best"? Where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best", Gururnanak saying "Gurunanak is the best"? Answer it for I believe its a walk in the park for u?


----------



## karnivore (May 29, 2009)

mediator said:


> 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.
> 
> 2. Congrats!


  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.

  Btw, the modern Hinduism is part Upanishadic, part Puranic, and not so much vedic. If you want, I can elaborate on that (provided further I get time), but be careful, what you wish for. You might look silly for not knowing your own religion.

  2. Thank you. Just not sure if you are congratulating me for not saying my last word on a subject or for something else.


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> *As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion*.





> 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.
> 2,3) Buddhist origins. Like I said Buddhism, was more about removing the "ills" in Hinduism.


  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. 

  2,3. Read 1. above.


> Further, I was expecting you would say this line. "Not to read Vedas is to collect scum..." is more of an author's view which has been succeeded by a line "Study of Vedas is very dear to him". "Those words" refer to the "Gayatri mantra" and not the terms "these words" which should have been put if he had referred the "scum" part.
> 
> Its a part of correcting the passage which is filled with typos and the train of logic.
> 
> ...


  First, I see, now you have edited out the Brahman part. Good. You are learning fast.

  Second, who gives a flying fukc, what a Tom, Dick or Harry - who can’t even make a distinction between the two most important terminologies of Hinduism - think. And btw, aren't you doing what you accuse us of doing - following something without verifying.

  Third, you still haven’t proved that Buddha actually “arranged recitation of Vedic incantations” on his father’s death, or that he considered “Gayatri mantra as premier mantra”. Prove it, will talk then. Till then, it stands rejected.


> 4) The source doesn't say he "arranged gayatri mantra on his father's death".


  Oversight. Apologies. 


> 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.
> 
> And hence your question "who will teach them" is absurd and speaks bt your ignorance on Hinduism which preaches equality to all.


  Since we are in Mahabharata, lets see what Krishna says about the duty of a Sudra: (Udyoga Parva, Chapter XXIX)
“The following are the duties declared for a Sudra from the olden times. He should *serve the Brahmanas* and *submit to them*; *should not study*; sacrifices are forbidden to him; he should be diligent and be constantly enterprising in doing all that is for his good.” (K.M.Ganguli)​   Here’s what Gita says: 18.44
“Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities of work for the vaisyas, and *for the sudras there is labor and service to others*.” (Pravupada)​“Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and *action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class), born of (their own) nature*.” (Sivananda)​  But I can be wrong. After all what do I know ? (Prediction: You are going to come back asking, where is Gita saying that sudras can’t study, completely be silent on Krishna's comments in Mahabharata, question the authors interpretation, question the authors authority. Thats pretty much all you got.)

  Equality ? Yes, of course. Only Orwail ishtile. 


> Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya *either* when he stepped his foot on the battle ground *or* before the start of the battle is the same thing. *His mind was simply focussing on the actions of a kshatriya and not a guru on the field or before the start*. You simply don't understand such a simple point even after so many years?


  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. 

  First there is no “either, or” with Dronacharya. But then again, you have to read the epic to know how, why and under what circumstances Dronacharya became a Kshatriya.

  Second, basically what you are saying is that by simply concentrating on something else, one changes his caste. That means, when I am cleaning by house, I become a sudra. Then when I am trading in the stock market, I am a vaisya. Then again, when I am fighting with my boss, I am kshatriya. And finally when I am reading Gita, I am a Brahmin. I am speechless. Didn’t know caste was a chameleon. 


> 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.
> 
> Again, what is so hard to understand such simple points?


  Then, what about this:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …the terms *buddhist and communists* have been *used interchangeably* in the translations *with their symptoms given*





> So where is the "intolerance preached by Buddha or saying Buddha is the best"?


  Again conflating.


> O'reilly?
> And why didn't you reason on the commentaries I sourced in the first place, why even go to "pravupada's one"?? Don't tell me those commentaries are boastful too. And further, you treat a verse as "boastful"? How absurd!
> 
> Like I said, its the whole GITA and not one verse that we should be after. Every verse is connected. It has chapters with examples. With one verse you may or may not understand anything. But with complete GITA read and understood you will understand everything. And you talk bt "boastful"?
> ...


  Never mind. Beyond you.


> And he is not preaching a religion hater who cannot grasp the straight and simpler meanings in the first place, for I'm sure he (Krishna) would have done his best in that case then and tried to put the entire Sanskrit dictionary in front of him.


  You prove two points then.

  1. That everything falls in place once you are viewing it from within. Viewed from without, things appear disjoint. So a faithful will swallow everything and find justification in everything. Precisely our point.

  2. Religious books are not enlightening enough to make a faithless change his opinion.


> *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.


  Lets see. Nature is the “cause” and nature is the “effect”. Something which is the cause, is also the effect ? You are talented.

  Second bold is a sign of frustration. I understand. You just now got to know that Santa Clause isn’t real.


> And so, the question that keeps on arising, for which you trolled, is yet to be answered by you i.e where is religion/GOD, i.e a "person" from your posts, is preaching "intolerance"? Where is krishna saying "Kishna is the best"? Where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best", Gururnanak saying "Gurunanak is the best"? Answer it for I believe its a walk in the park for u?


  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. 

  On the other hand…


----------



## mediator (May 30, 2009)

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.
> 
> Btw, the modern Hinduism is part Upanishadic, part Puranic, and not so much vedic. If you want, I can elaborate on that (provided further I get time), but be careful, what you wish for. You might look silly for not knowing your own religion.
> 
> 2. Thank you. Just not sure if you are congratulating me for not saying my last word on a subject or for something else.


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. 

Also, I think ur little googles didn't tell you that Buddha rejected "Brahman" to save the animals because of the animal killings that were going on. He wanted to dismantle the degenerate approach of brahmanas "of that time." Atleast you could have read what "Prabhupada" says on the matter, the name you respect and brought in this debate. Like I already said, cast by birth was being practiced and other bad practices were on the rise. 

You simply don't have a clue now or getting confused what Buddha didn't agree with. 

So, The line in the bold again tells about your ignorance. "Om" is also the core of Hinduism.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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:


Again the topic was about "intolerance" and the point because of which you hate religion. So where is the religion preaching about intolerance?

The point was where you started ranting about buddha being "anti-veda", then illogically reasoned that "it doesn't mean he was pro veda" and now this. I think you are getting confused and I have to remind you at every step what the topic was about and still I get no answers.




			
				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.
> 
> 2,3. Read 1. above.


Here's a list of Buddhist mantras.
*www.ramalila.org/BuddhistQuestions/Om.html
*buddhistlinks.org/Mantras.htm#g 

May ask why do "enlightened Buddhists" chant gayatri mantra?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> First, I see, now you have edited out the Brahman part. Good. You are learning fast.
> 
> Second, who gives a flying fukc, what a Tom, Dick or Harry - who can’t even make a distinction between the two most important terminologies of Hinduism - think. And btw, aren't you doing what you accuse us of doing - following something without verifying.
> 
> Third, you still haven’t proved that Buddha actually “arranged recitation of Vedic incantations” on his father’s death, or that he considered “Gayatri mantra as premier mantra”. Prove it, will talk then. Till then, it stands rejected.


1. Edited? 
2. Rants ignored!
3. Thats like saying prove that Buddha didn't chant "Om", spoke sanskrit etc.

One doesn't have to be genius to understand that recitation of vedic incantations was a norm in the past and even today they are chanted. Chantng "Om" is itself an  incantation. So, asking for such proof is simply childish! 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Since we are in Mahabharata, lets see what Krishna says about the duty of a Sudra: (Udyoga Parva, Chapter XXIX)
> “The following are the duties declared for a Sudra from the olden times. He should serve the Brahmanas and submit to them; should not study; sacrifices are forbidden to him; he should be diligent and be constantly enterprising in doing all that is for his good.” (K.M.Ganguli)


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.
*www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05029.htm

Look carefully for the 24th one. This is the 24th sentence of the chater XXIX. Do even find "shudra" in it? If you don't know sanskrit then, ask any sanskrit student and he will tell you that "shuthra" is not "shudra".

Look how shudra is written first....
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-42.html

Here are some verses...


			
				verses said:
			
		

> yudhisthira uvaca
> satyam danam ksama-silam anrsamsyam damo ghrna
> drsyante yatra nagendra sa brahmana iti smrtah
> 
> ...


Try to find these in K.M ganguli's work...

But its nice to know such verses that you quoted and add it to my list of distortions. Besides K.M Ganguli's is the only "complete translation" I believe and so there is not "complete" way to verify it.

So like I said in the past . . .
1. You neither know even the "basic sanskrit".
2. You like to quote from critic site.
3. Google is you only tool. You simply do not possess the genuine knowledge in terms of "language" or the genuine complete reads".


Aren't you ashmamed of being so biased against something that you don't even know the basics about?





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Here’s what Gita says: 18.44
> “Farming, cattle raising and business are the qualities of work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there is labor and service to others.” (Pravupada)
> “Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class), born *of (their own) nature*.” (Sivananda)


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".
For a better understanding ...
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-42.html




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> But I can be wrong. After all what do I know ? (Prediction: You are going to come back asking, where is Gita saying that sudras can’t study, completely be silent on Krishna's comments in Mahabharata, question the authors interpretation, question the authors authority. Thats pretty much all you got.)
> 
> Equality ? Yes, of course. Only Orwail ishtile.


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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> First there is no “either, or” with Dronacharya. But then again, you have to read the epic to know how, why and under what circumstances Dronacharya became a Kshatriya.
> 
> Second, basically what you are saying is that by simply concentrating on something else, one changes his caste. That means, when I am cleaning by house, I become a sudra. Then when I am trading in the stock market, I am a vaisya. Then again, when I am fighting with my boss, I am kshatriya. And finally when I am reading Gita, I am a Brahmin. I am speechless. Didn’t know caste was a chameleon.


1) Hmmmm! 
2) Nope, in previous 2 replies I talked about his actions and thoughts both depending on your reply. If you can't understand it and make me repeat like word-by-word word meanings, then "Dronacharya became Kshatriya the moment he "decided" to fight for kauravas leaving his "brahmin" work and fulfilled those actions by fighting in the war".

It doesn't have anything to do with "thought"... "alone".   


But I can bet that you still won't understand.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Then, what about this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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? 

First you quoted Gita's single verse and now single statement excerpts of my posts which are incomplete without the rest, even when I told you that?? 

But am done, can't repeat and explain more than that. 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> You prove two points then.
> 
> 1. That everything falls in place once you are viewing it from within. Viewed from without, things appear disjoint. So a faithful will swallow everything and find justification in everything. Precisely our point.
> 
> 2. Religious books are not enlightening enough to make a faithless change his opinion.


And you prove one thing => thats you hatred towards religion that is "assuming" such things! 


And so, where is the "intolerance" among the eastern religions?


----------



## Faun (May 30, 2009)

karnivore said:


> 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.


Yeah rigid ideologies will always bring out more fundamentalists. Nazism and communism is quite similar.



karnivore said:


> 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.
> 
> The reason, apart from the internal conflict withing Buddhism itself, among the various schools, was the rise of Brahminism.


During vedic age women enjoyed a major authority over rituals. Indus civilization head were women deities.

But later the concept of caste system came in, where Brahims were given the ultimate authority (just like what happend later in Europe). 

This led to various school of thoughts including Buddhism and Jainism. Most people resorted to Buddhism. Mauryan Empire was the main proponent of Buddhism.

Later during Gupta period (said to be the Golden age) Hinduism came back in line, mostly because it assimilated concepts from Buddhism. You can see why most Hindus are vegetarian now. Buddha was treated as another incarnation of Vishnu. However Buddhism still flourished in east, particularly Patliputra.

Hinduism survived because it would have been foolish to kill all Hindus (same goes for Britishers), it was not practically possible. They paid jiziya in return, later abolished by Akbar but then again continued. Some Rajputs, to enjoy royal luxuries, went in alliance with Islamic rules by giving their daughters as brides. Lots of Hindus converted to Muslims to enjoy the equal status and benefits (booties of war etc).

Sikhism came in to existence a lot later and Sikh gurus resorted to defensive battles to save fellow Hindus and Sikhs. They adopted guerrilla warfare. Its existence is quite similar to Buddhism when Hindu caste system again became rigid under Islamic rule. 



karnivore said:


> 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.


Well there is a richa in Rig Veda where the sage says:
'I am a poet , my father was a physician and my mother a _pissan_ ' Rg _Veda_ in( X-102)

And throughout the Indian history we have seen people from low caste ruling kingdoms. Shivaji is one of the recent example.



karnivore said:


> Agreed. But the rise of fanatics like RSS is also a matter of concern.


Well neo-liberals consider them as Hindu Taliban  Thanks to our media too. IMO they can be defeated by one sure weapon - vote.



karnivore said:


> 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.


Spelling mistake  

The good thing is that Hinduism is not contrary to science, instead it has lived together with science. Indus valley civilization was one of the most sophisticated one (drainage and sewer system). Iron Pillar, invention of zero and number system. Decimal system, Jantar Mantar, rhinoplasty etc. 

Carl Sagan seems to agree that only Hinduism's concept on cosmology is quite similar to what is discovered by scientific studies.

Here is what vedas say, quite interesting IMO:


> Who knows the truth? Who can tell how and from where this universe came into existence? If the gods themselves came after its creation, then who can know from where it all began? Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not. The highest god who looks down from the highest heaven, only he knows, or perhaps he does not know.


Oh, btw I saw some unicorns on Harappa seals:
*www.harappa.com/indus4/gif/326a.jpg




sacred-texts.com has many mistranslations and at some points they are funny too. In one richa the translator has regarded Sindhu as male, everyone know that its female.


----------



## karnivore (May 30, 2009)

I remember telling you that classical Sanskrit, i.e. the Sanskrit that we speak today, is slightly different from the Sanskrit in which Mahabharata was written. (I can only imagine what you will do if you come across the actual Sanskrit in which Rg Veda was written. And no I am not talking of Panini’s translation, that is so ubiquitous today). True to your nature, you didn’t pay heed then. After all, what do I know. But thankfully you got a taste of it today. Btw, I am no expert in Sanskrit. I have only, what you would say, a handyman’s knowledge of it. 

  Lets get down to business then. Shall we ?

  Since translations are irrelevant here, I am not providing the translations. However, do take note that, K.M.Ganguli had arranged the chapters almost arbitrarily. Hence the chapters do not tally with the Sanskrit version. For example, Udyog Parva has 199 chapters in English translation, while in Sanskrit, there are 197. Anusasana Parva has 168 chapters in English translation, while the Sanskrit version has, 154. So on and so forth. It can be a bit tedious, if you ask me.

  Verse 24 of Udyaga Parva, Chapter 29, (in Devangiri script):
  *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/24-UdyogParva529.jpg
  (in English script - accentuations may not appear):

  paricaryā vandana[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]ānā[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]; nādhīyīta prati[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]iddho 'sya yajña[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
nityotthito bhūtaye 'tandrita[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] syād; e[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]a sm[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] *śūdra* dharma[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] purā[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]a[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]

  Notice how the word comes with a “th” and not “d”. 

  Now notice how the same word is used, in Verse 20 and 21 of Vana Parva, Chapter 177, (in Devangiri script). This is the verse that you have quoted:
  *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/20-21-VanaParva3177.jpg
  (in English script - accentuations may not appear):

   20 [y]
*śūdre* caitad bhavel lak[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]ya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] dvije tac ca na vidyate
     na vai *śūdro* bhavec chūdro brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]o na ca brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]a[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]

21 yatraital lak[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]yate sarpav[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]tta[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] sa brāhma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]a[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] sm[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
     yatraitan na bhavet sarpata[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] *śūdram* iti nirdiśet

  Here are verses 56 to 58, Anusasana Parva, Chapter 128 (in Devangiri script)
  *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/56-58-AnusasanaParva13128.jpg
  (in English script - accentuations may not appear):

  56 sarvātithya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] trivargasya yathāśakti yathārhata[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
*śūdra* dharma[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] paro nitya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] śuśrū[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]ā ca dvijāti[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]u

 57 sa *śūdra**[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]* sa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]śitatapā[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] satyasa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]dho jitendriya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
     śuśrū[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]ann atithi[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] prāpta[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] tapa[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] sa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]cinute mahat

 58 tyaktahi[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]sa[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] śubhācāro devatā dvija pūjaka[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT]
*śūdro* dharmaphalair i[FONT=&quot]ṣṭ[/FONT]ai[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] sa[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT]prayujyeta buddhimān

  The word comes with “th” and not “d”. This word started to be written with “d” much later. Gita, doesn’t use “th” but uses “d”. The reason why Gita is dated as younger than Mahabharata, is because, of its sophistication in words, which were absent in most of Mahabharata. (Mahabharata once consisted of only 24,000 verses, now it has burgeoned into a mammoth of 100,000 verses.) 

  OK, pumpkin ?

  PS: Since you have this wonderful habit of conflating one argument into another, let me clarify beforehand. I have quoted these verses not as justification or counter-justification of casteism. The only bone I intend to pick, in this post, is with the word “sudra” and how it was written in the epic.

  Now about the rest of your post:


mediator said:


> 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.


  If I recall correctly, what I have said is:


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.*





> Also, I think ur little googles didn't tell you that Buddha rejected "Brahman" to save the animals because of the animal killings that were going on. He wanted to dismantle the degenerate approach of brahmanas "of that time." Atleast you could have read what "Prabhupada" says on the matter, the name you respect and brought in this debate. Like I already said, cast by birth was being practiced and other bad practices were on the rise.


  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:


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> In fact, influence of Buddhism in Hinduism has been profound. *The most notable influence has been the concept of “Ahimsa”*.


  “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.


> Again the topic was about "intolerance" and the point because of which you hate religion. So where is the religion preaching about intolerance?
> 
> The point was where you started ranting about buddha being "anti-veda", then illogically reasoned that "it doesn't mean he was pro veda" and now this. I think you are getting confused and I have to remind you at every step what the topic was about and still I get no answers.


  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 ? 


> *buddhistlinks.org/Mantras.htm#g
> 
> May ask why do "enlightened Buddhists" chant gayatri mantra?


  So a site, which is advertising CDs is an authentic source. Hari Om.
  *www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mantra_-_Mantra_in_Buddhism/id/595476
  *www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mantra_-_Mantra_in_Indo-Tibetan_Buddhism/id/595477





> 1. Edited?
> 2. Rants ignored!
> 3. Thats like saying prove that Buddha didn't chant "Om", spoke sanskrit etc.
> 
> One doesn't have to be genius to understand that recitation of vedic incantations was a norm in the past and even today they are chanted. Chantng "Om" is itself an incantation. So, asking for such proof is simply childish!


  1. Never mind
  2. Of course.
  3. Nope. One is an event, and the others are practice.

  In other words, “I have googled, and googled and googled some more, but alas, couldn’t find any source”. 



> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.

  When, rather if, I start posting, with regard to caste, and how it is from birth, then you can cite these verses. 


> 1) Hmmmm!
> 2) Nope, in previous 2 replies I talked about his actions and thoughts both depending on your reply. If you can't understand it and make me repeat like word-by-word word meanings, then "Dronacharya became Kshatriya the moment he "*decided*" to fight for kauravas *leaving his "brahmin" work* and *fulfilled those actions by fighting* in the war".
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with "thought"... "alone".
> ...


  Correct, I still don’t understand. Lets see now:

  If a brahmin is attacked by a thief, and the Brahmin, instead of complying, “*decides” to fight*, “*leaving his brahmin work*” and *picks up a stick to fight*, and *eventually does fight off the thief*, does he become a kshatriya ?

  It doesn’t have to do with “thought” alone, you say. But didn’t you say earlier:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" *the moment they set foot on the battle ground* in Mahabharata.





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya *either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing*.


  Give it a rest, now. Will ya.


> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Your wish is my command. Doesn’t make too much of a difference. Does it ?


> Aren't you ashmamed of being so biased against something that you don't even know the basics about?


  Hari Om.


----------



## karnivore (May 30, 2009)

I am extremely sorry that I am rushing through your reply, because, you do deserve a more sincere reply.


ichi said:


> During vedic age women enjoyed a major authority over rituals. Indus civilization head were women deities.
> 
> But later the concept of caste system came in, where Brahims were given the ultimate authority (just like what happend later in Europe).
> 
> ...


  Indus Civilization was not hindu. 

  I would agree, however, Rg Veda doesn’t talk of caste (Purusha Shukta, where the only mention of caste is found, is an interpolated text, added much later).

  I would agree with the first emphasis, only partly. Including Buddha in the Hindu pantheon of gods, was a master stroke.

  As with the second emphasis, I disagree. Buddhism didn’t become preponderant, through killing, but by spontaneous conversion from vedic Hinduism to Buddhism. Hinduism again gained ground through reverse conversion. Killing is not always necessary. 

  In any case the above narrative, doesn’t really reply why Buddhism waned. But lets leave it at that.


> Well there is a richa in Rig Veda where the sage says:
> 'I am a poet , my father was a physician and my mother a _pissan_ ' Rg _Veda_ in( X-102)
> 
> And throughout the Indian history we have seen people from low caste ruling kingdoms. Shivaji is one of the recent example.


  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.


> Well neo-liberals consider them as Hindu Taliban Thanks to our media too. IMO they can be defeated by one sure weapon - vote.


  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.


> The good thing is that Hinduism is not contrary to science, instead it has lived together with science. Indus valley civilization was one of the most sophisticated one (drainage and sewer system). Iron Pillar, invention of zero and number system. Decimal system, Jantar Mantar, rhinoplasty etc.
> 
> Carl Sagan seems to agree that only Hinduism's concept on cosmology is quite similar to what is discovered by scientific studies.


  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.

  Carl Sagan was enamored with almost every ancient civilization, e.g. Incas. And it is a little ingenious to throw in his name, like that when he was on record, saying, Hindu idea of age of Universe was accidental. (Ref. Cosmos)


> Oh, btw I saw some unicorns on Harappa seals:


  Naughty you. It is still not pink or invisible. Is it.


----------



## rhitwick (May 30, 2009)

Sorry, I was busy in some other jobs hence could not reply ur "rants".



mediator said:


> And thats your problem. Explaining to you is like "bhains ke saamne been bajana".


Oh, then those baseless comments were ur explainations and I refused to be agree with it and I got this comment. Hmmm....


> Your troll tells that you r ignorant on the enlightenment I gave long ago. i.e *Read the complete GITA.*


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.??
Any progress?
I'm going to skip rest conversation as karni is more efficient in that case. I would just point to a part of it.


> You did not answer to my question, Do you believe in nature or not? Don't u believe nature works without human control? Do you think Sun has anything to do with "human control"? Please answer these!





mediator 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.





mediator 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.
> 
> * We simply cannot fight the nature, we need the nature of our survival and nature doesn't need us to support itself.*



This is how u "evolved" (or "matured" as a theist u may resist using the word evolve).
And a few days ago, ur posts were filled with caution about global warming, how human race is responsible for it and how we should go back to caves to save nature.

Do you remember the era of "kesavashiva" in this thread, at about 1year ago. In you every recent post u r reminding me of him. U used to provide logic, good arguments but now u've come down to basic questions like the above.
Know what, he did better than u in asking those n00b questions like "who controls nature"? etc. (well, if u've forgot, his posts starts from #670 in this thread, go through them if u wish)



mediator said:


> You know, having been a sanskrit student has its own perks.


Now, I got it why you take time to understand some logics provided by us. 
Remember, once I posted "I wonder if you were ever a science student?"

No, I'm not humiliating you, or underestimating you in providing arguments. Its just that we have to more careful while talking to u in the language of science. It will help in not confusing you in certain topics. We may have to explain a bit more but we are ready to do that.

Well, things apart, I had asked some questions at that time which are still unanswered. Let me repeat them in hope that you have some answers now.




> *Who created us?*
> God.
> 
> *How?*
> ...




ORIGINAL POST IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VISIT

This is a imaginary conversation between a theist and a atheist. Here the atheist is asking and the theist is answering.


----------



## mediator (May 31, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> I remember telling you that classical Sanskrit, i.e. the Sanskrit that we speak today, is slightly different from the Sanskrit in which Mahabharata was written in. (I can only imagine what you will do if you come across the actual Sanskrit in which Rg Veda was written. And no I am not talking of Panini’s translation, that is so ubiquitous today). True to your nature, you didn’t pay heed then. After all, what do I know. But thankfully you got a taste of it today. Btw, I am no expert in Sanskrit. I have only, what you would say, a handyman’s knowledge of it.
> 
> Lets get down to business then. Shall we ?
> 
> Since translations are irrelevant here, I am not providing the translations. However, do take note that, K.M.Ganguli had arranged the chapters almost arbitrarily. Hence the chapters do not tally with the Sanskrit version. For example, Udyog Parva has 199 chapters in English translation, while in Sanskrit, there are 197. Anusasana Parva has 168 chapters in English translation, while the Sanskrit version has, 154. So on and so forth. It can be a bit tedious, if you ask me.


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....

"There is no superior caste. The
Universe is the work of the Immense
Being. The beings created by him
were only divided into castes
according to their aptitude."
Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, 188


There's more to quote. Besides, I asked to do your homework on these verses too...


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> yudhisthira uvaca
> satyam danam ksama-silam anrsamsyam damo ghrna
> drsyante yatra nagendra sa brahmana iti smrtah
> 
> ...


Oversight again? I know you can do it.



Neways, I appreciate how you sincerely have to pointed to each "shudra". Windows Paint is a useful application. Well Done! 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> “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.


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:
			
		

> 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 ?


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:
			
		

> In other words, “I have googled, and googled and googled some more, but alas, couldn’t find any source”.


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:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> When, rather if, I start posting, with regard to caste, and how it is from birth, then you can cite these verses.


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:
			
		

> Correct, I still don’t understand. Lets see now:
> 
> If a brahmin is attacked by a thief, and the Brahmin, instead of complying, “decides” to fight, “leaving his brahmin work” and picks up a stick to fight, and eventually does fight off the thief, does he become a kshatriya ?
> 
> It doesn’t have to do with “thought” alone, you say. But didn’t you say earlier:


Do you even understand the defintition of kshatriya? 

Classes were basically defined in context to how they "served the society". And I bet again you won't understand this simple defintition either.



So I already said in the start yoy may agree with its teachings and you may not. Calling it "signs of frustrations, loosing battle" etc only shows how did not adhere to the debate in the first place. And with @amitash, I asked for four religions to be specific "hinduism, sikhism, busshism, jainism". These 4 leads to a combination of 6. Where is the "intolerance" between all the 6? This is the question I asked in the start. Repeating stuff etc without adhering to my question is yet again shows perfectly how you are only trolling. So where is "Budda saying I'm the best" etc etc etc?


----------



## karnivore (May 31, 2009)

mediator said:


> 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.


  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. 

  Krishna’s lecture, in Udyog Parva, Chapter 29, was regarding the duty of the sudra. Gita, too, in verse 18.44 speaks of the duty, in no ambiguous terms as, “*action consisting of service* is the duty of the Sudra.” The two verses do not contradict each other. They simply say the same thing, one, in MBH, in more details, while the other, in G, merely touches upon it.

  If you want to argue your point, by saying something was mistranslated, you have to do more than that.


> And since you quoted mahabharat here's more from it....
> 
> "There is no superior caste. The
> Universe is the work of the Immense
> ...


  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.


> I asked to do your homework on these verses too...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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)“Yudhishthira said, 'O foremost of serpents, he, it is asserted by the wise, in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the rites of his order and mercy is a _Brahmana_.”​And,“"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a _Sudra_, do not exist in a _Brahmana_; nor do those that are in a _Brahmana_ exist in a _Sudra_. And a _Sudra_ is not a _Sudra_ by birth alone--nor a _Brahmana_ is _Brahmana_ by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are seen those virtues is a _Brahmana_. And people term him a Sudra in whom those qualities do not exist, even though he be a _Brahmana_ by birth.”​<I can see the sparkle in your eyes>


> Neways, I appreciate how you sincerely have to pointed to each "shudra". Windows Paint is a useful application. Well Done!


  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.)


> Still repeating?


  You are making me.


> 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".


  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. 

  “OM” in Hinduism, represents the Brahman. While “OM” in Buddhism, represents bliss. The word is same, the symbolism differs. 

  The concept of “karma” is not vedic. Period. Shocking, isn’t it ?

  You were certainly not paying attention when I told you that modern Hinduism is not exactly vedic.


> 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!


  Keep on deflecting arguments. See if that gets you anywhere close to “moksha”. 


> 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!


  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.


> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.

  I know, if horses had wings, they could fly. But how do you grow wings on horses ? Just by wishing, I guess.


> Do you even understand the defintition of kshatriya?
> 
> Classes were basically *defined in context to how they "served the society"*. And I bet again you won't understand this simple defintition either.


  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.

  One more verse from Gita, this time around, 18.41“Brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras are *distinguished by their qualities of work*, O chastiser of the enemy, *in accordance with the modes of nature*.” (Prabhupada)​“Of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed *according to the qualities born of their own nature*!” (Sivananda)​<Prediction: “Hence you prove that caste is not from birth”, or something to that effect>
  Verse 18.41 appears to say, that it is the individual nature, that will decide what job one should do. You seem to imply division of labour defines caste. But Gita seems to imply it is the caste that defines the division of labour. 

  Besides, the acharyas at the battlefield weren’t exactly serving the society, but were participating in an one off incidence – the battle, just like that Brahmin in my example. So this time around, answer this question, in straight “yes” or “no”.

  “_If a brahmin is attacked by a thief, and the Brahmin, instead of complying, “decides” to fight, “leaving his brahmin work” and picks up a stick to fight, and eventually does fight off the thief, does he become a kshatriya ?_”

  Come on, dazzle me with your super intelligence. So far, you have baffled me with it.


----------



## mediator (May 31, 2009)

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.
> 
> Krishna’s lecture, in Udyog Parva, Chapter 29, was regarding the duty of the sudra. Gita, too, in verse 18.44 speaks of the duty, in no ambiguous terms as, “action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra.” The two verses do not contradict each other. They simply say the same thing, one, in MBH, in more details, while the other, in G, merely touches upon it.
> 
> If you want to argue your point, by saying something was mistranslated, you have to do more than that.


Yep, I must apologise to KM Ganguli for acting like you and generalising on one verse without even knowing the true nature of shudras.

So here's some true nature Shudras that I found by "googling" and from various sources  my friend.

Shudra was defined on the basis of 
* aptitude
* impure in behaviour
* whose conduct is unclean
* inability to enlighten others
* inability to understand and comprehend vedas correctly.
* whose soul is not clean
* who could not take criticism
* those who ignored the knowledge (vedas) and people with less intellect and conscience.

...and remember, these are "not" by birth. It is "similar" to how a student mocks a teacher in a class and hence teacher files a bad report card of him. The reasons are given "why they should not study or hear Vedas". Read ...

*www.hinduism.co.za/newpage8.htm




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> “OM” in Hinduism, represents the Brahman. While “OM” in Buddhism, represents bliss. The word is same, the symbolism differs.


Now thats what I call "Ignorance can be bliss!". Neways OM in hinduism represents energy, knowlege, trinity etc and remember knowledge is bliss.

Further, brahman also represents the source of all knowledge. So I guess it is the "typical God form" that you were discussing about. Buddha simply cannot reject knowledge, can he?


Like I said, you need an "unbiased" mind to understand these things.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *The concept of “karma” is not vedic*. Period. Shocking, isn’t it ?
> 
> You were certainly not paying attention when I told you that modern Hinduism is not exactly vedic.


YajurVeda is also known as Karma Veda. Shocking isn't it?  

Thats funny. A guy who is debating on vedas, doesn't even know the basics of vedas.

And we are not talking about "modern hinduism". Learn from where you started your troll. 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> One more verse from Gita, this time around, 18.41
> 
> ...


You really had me in splits. 


It was the "nature" of a student that if he 

* continued to show conscience, deep interest in knowledge, wisdom, respect for the teacher, he could have become a brahmin. Remember the "nature" still reflects. 

Remember a student doesn't contribute much to society, but does so only after he becomes a professional

* continued to show respect to towards his teacher, and deep in interest in art of fighting and protecting people etc, could have become a kshatriya. Professionally, he engaged in the profession of battle etc.

So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society is it?


Tell me something, treating verse by verse, coming to conclusions fast, not reading a books genuinely etc, are these your only traits?


The rest of your post is just plain old rant marked with the symptoms of the old "karnivore" who used to taunt more and debate less genuinely. And here comes the golden line....



"Where where where is the "intolerance among these religion I stated, where is God telling that the "person" behind him is the best, where is Krishna saying Krishna is the best? Even after two three pages of debate, you are only ranting and trolling an and not telling where is the "intolerance" among all these religions!



So is karnivore going to tell about the "intolerance" which he assumes is because of "God" or "religion"? Send us your SMS to 100 and win plenty of gift vouchers!  Nuff said, I think I'm already bored.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 1, 2009)

Quit running like a headless chicken.


mediator said:


> So here's some true nature Shudras that I found by "googling" and from various sources my friend.
> 
> Shudra was defined on the basis of
> * aptitude
> ...


  A quick question though, why was Karna called sudra ? Which of the above criteria did he fulfill ?


> Now thats what I call "Ignorance can be bliss!". Neways OM in hinduism represents energy, knowlege, trinity etc and remember knowledge is bliss.
> 
> Further, brahman also represents the source of all knowledge. So I guess it is the "typical God form" that you were discussing about. Buddha simply cannot reject knowledge, can he?
> 
> ...


  Coming from someone, who is on record, claiming that he was better off not knowing his own society’s evils. Bravo.

  Gita 8.13“Uttering the monosyllable *Om—the Brahman*—remembering Me always, he who departs thus, leaving the body, attains to the supreme goal.” (Sivananda)​  Prabhupada’s commentary:

  “It is clearly stated here that *om, Brahman, and Lord Krishna are not different*. The impersonal sound of Krishna is om, but the sound Hare Krishna contains om…”

  Gita 10.25“Among the great sages I am Bhrigu; among words *I am the monosyllable Om*; among sacrifices I am the sacrifice of silent repetition; among immovable things the Himalayas I am.” (Sivananda)​  Prabhupada’s commentary:

  “Brahma, the first living creature within the universe, created several sons for the propagation of various kinds of species. The most powerful of his sons is Bhrigu, who is also the greatest sage. *Of all the transcendental vibrations, the “om” (omkara) represents the Supreme*….”

  Now wriggle into OM, the definition of Brahman, and then Krishna and while at it, select and choose definitions that suit you. Now since Brahman is the one and only – the universe itself, therefore OM means everything. Nevermind, Buddha rejects this very concept of god, the apparent source of knowledge.


> YajurVeda is also known as Karma Veda. Shocking isn't it?
> 
> Thats funny. A guy who is debating on vedas, doesn't even know the basics of vedas.
> 
> And we are not talking about "modern hinduism". Learn from where you started your troll


  Feeling the heat, aren’t we ? Here are two quick questions for you:

  In which ancient hindu text, is Yajur veda, referred to as Karma Veda ? What does Yajur veda say about “karma” that is even remotely similar to the “karma” that we understand today ?

  Anyway here is a Hindu website, for you:
  *www.hinduwebsite.com/conceptofkarma.asp

  You do realize that, pointing at the moon and screaming that, it is actually a lump of swiss cheese, won’t really make it a lump of swiss cheese, don’t you ?


> So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc *isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society* is it?


  Voila, what took you so long:


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> …the acharyas at the battlefield *weren’t exactly serving the society*, but were *participating in an one off incidence* – the battle, just like that Brahmin in my example.


  Here’s what you had said earlier:


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> …dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" *the moment they set foot on the battle ground* in Mahabharata.


  No profession here…


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Like I said the varna system is based on karma, his actions, and hence Dronacharya becoming ksatriya *either when he stepped his foot on the battle ground or before the start of the battle is the same thing*.


  No profession here, either…


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> "Dronacharya became Kshatriya the moment he "*decided*" to fight for kauravas *leaving his "brahmin" work* and *fulfilled those actions by fighting* in the war".
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with "thought"... "alone".


  OOPSIE DAISY, still no profession…


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Classes were basically defined *in context to how they "served the society".*


  Bingo. Some hint of profession.

  So are you going to admit now, that you made a teeny tiny mistake earlier.


> …where is Krishna saying Krishna is the best?


  And I was thinking that we are here, because I showed you something to that effect. Anyway, here it is again:


			
				karnivore;post#999 said:
			
		

> “*There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! *All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string” – BG 7.7
> 
> 
> “*The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me; *they whose knowledge is destroyed by illusion follow the ways of demons.” – BG 7.15
> ...


  …and so begins the infinite loop


> So is karnivore going to tell about the "intolerance" which he assumes is because of "God" or "religion"? Send us your SMS to 100 and win plenty of gift vouchers!


  Where do I collect my gift vouchers ?


----------



## mediator (Jun 1, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> A quick question though, why was Karna called sudra ? Which of the above criteria did he fulfill ?


Just to remind you, Mahabharat is an Indian story which tells "how low" the Indian society became at some time in dvaparyuga where

* cousins did not respect their own in-laws, wives of their cousins ( example Dushahsan humiliating draupadi )
* Karna calling draupadi a Vaishya
* How for some land, brothers can fight each other
* How "varna system" got distorted and was being practiced by "birth".

Mahabharat teaches us all sorts of valuable lessons. And you are bringing examples from it? And hence, Karna being called Sudra is just another part of that lowliness. So please don't bring up the examples from these stories, to undo which, an avatar took place.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Coming from someone, who is on record, claiming that he was better off not knowing his own society’s evils. Bravo.
> 
> Gita 8.13
> 
> ...


Since you brought up Gita so here it is ....
"I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. *I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable om. I am also the Rig, the Sama and the Yajur Vedas.*" [9.17]

It is about the supreme reality the defintion of "ME" that we discussed, which contains "all pervasiveness", the "knowledge", "the nature" etc.


I advise you not to bring GITA, for I don't even have to google on it. It seems you are hell bound to potray OM as/represents GOD i.e brahma/Krishna "in the most typical sense". The definition of "ME" is not going to change because of your frustration rising out of your illogical hatred towards religion. Bringing GITA is only strengthening and highlighting my point every where. 

So,

OM represents
* knowledge
* sound energy, energy that is pervading this universe
* trinity
* creation, preservation, destruction
* etc

Likewise
Brahma represents
* Knowledge (the 4 faces of brahma represent the 4 vedas)
* Universe
* His typical God form
* The four directions i.e North,south, east and west

And krishna...never mind! Read Gita!

Its sad that your google searches doesn't reveal you this simple "representations". There is no way anybody can reject Vedas without even reading it for it teaches us many things in addition to God and rejecting it means rejecting "knowledge". 


So like I said, Buddha only rejected the "typical God definition".




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *The concept of “karma” is not vedic.*





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Feeling the heat, aren’t we ? Here are two quick questions for you:
> 
> In which ancient hindu text, is Yajur veda, referred to as Karma Veda ? What does Yajur veda say about “karma” that is even remotely similar to the “karma” that we understand today ?
> 
> ...


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 => 

FYI, the nature of the actions is itself called karma. Varna system is itself based on "karma". Vedas has this system. And I'm telling this to you like a teacher talls his student. 

Deeds are actions, good deeds are good actions. Do you understand? 

Ok, forget who called it karmaveda or where. So, Which part of this link did you not understand?
*www.aryabhatt.com/vedas/yajurveda1.htm

Shoud I give more verses citing karma in Vedas? Your point was "the concept of karma is not vedic" and now you are reduced to ranting "about a nickname for yajurveda"? 






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> ere’s what you had said earlier:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by mediator
> …dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" the moment they set foot on the battle ground in Mahabharata.
> ...


Yeah again a situation similar to "verse by "verse"? 

Get a hold of what "all" I said in your mind. You r so predictable!

* Setting a foot in battle field in Mahabharat => by karma become kshatriya, contributing to the society.
* The intent in the mind is not a single statement. It proceeds with the action of "setting a foot in battle ground". Do you understand the difference between "OR" & "AND" ? I am not stating about "OR".
* I also said my statements were connected with your posts. It also means that "I thought that I was debating to someone knowledgable who could connect and who could infer what my statement means". I But Alas! Imagine, "Arjuna not being able to connect the last sentence that Krishna said, and then making him repeat, that you said this and that". 
* I gave you a full fledged example as a last resort here it is, read it again and try to connect this time.....


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> It was the "nature" of a student that if he
> 
> * continued to show conscience, deep interest in knowledge, wisdom, respect for the teacher, he could have become a brahmin. Remember the "nature" still reflects.
> 
> ...







			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by karnivore;post#999
> “There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string” – BG 7.7
> 
> 
> ...


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! 

Over sight again? And so finally you resort to the infinte loop as a last resort to cloud your mistakes? Well, you can have it! I wont reply if your next post happens to be a complete repeat and yet again failing to reveal the answer to the topic of discussion " => "Where is the intolerance that God is preaching for the rest of religions", "Where is Gurunanak saying I'm the best? Buddha saying Buddha is the best"?

You do remember the discussion with amitash don't u? Or "oversight" on that also?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Where do I collect my gift vouchers ?


Have mercy on me, stop your repetitions and trolls! And you can have it. 


Like I said, what you are doing is not direct but indirect/passive which is more dangerous, not for me, but for you. Remember? So, this is only a discussion. You are the one who is taunting most of times, and treating it as battle and assuming and stating like "feeling heat, losing battle etc". So please keep your mind at rest and stop this show of "hatred".


----------



## Faun (Jun 1, 2009)

karnivore said:


> I am extremely sorry that I am rushing through your reply, because, you do deserve a more sincere reply.


ok.



karnivore said:


> Indus Civilization was not hindu.


We cannot categorically deny it and here is some evidence:

1. 
*www.tantraworks.com/img/shivaseal.JPG

*www.saivaneri.org/images/harappan-pashupati-siva.gif
Lotus Position

2. 
*upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Triseal.jpg
Swastika

3.
*fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/%7Ejcarpent/images/Indus%20and%20Buddhist%20Art/Dancing_girl.jpg
Lost Wax culture of producing metal statues which still exists in India.





karnivore said:


> 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.


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.



karnivore said:


> 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.


Ok. So it proves that science can co-exist with Indian religions. 

And yeah science is not always right, what worked earlier can be scrapped off for something other. Similarly there may be some very stupid logics in Indian texts too. 

Brahamagupta tried to make Perpetual Motion Machine, of course it was the worst idea. Obviously It didn't work.

*www.hp-gramatke.net/pictures/perpet/brahma_gu.gif



karnivore said:


> Carl Sagan was enamored with almost every ancient civilization, e.g. Incas. And it is a little ingenious to throw in his name, like that when he was on record, saying, Hindu idea of age of Universe was accidental. (Ref. Cosmos)


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.

Well...accidents do occur. 

*farm3.static.flickr.com/2220/1849106971_c7bf3ebbf2.jpg?v=0



karnivore said:


> Naughty you. It is still not pink or invisible. Is it.


I wish there was color photography then. And may be a video camera too 

Atleast we may agree that unicorns did exist


----------



## karnivore (Jun 1, 2009)

Ok this has started going down the gutter. 


mediator said:


> Just to remind you, *Mahabharat is an Indian story which tells "how low" the Indian society became at some time in dvaparyuga* where
> 
> * cousins did not respect their own in-laws, wives of their cousins ( example Dushahsan humiliating draupadi )
> * Karna calling draupadi a Vaishya
> ...


   …and the award for the best contortion goes to <drumroll>……

Because MBH “teaches us all sorts of valuable lessons”, I am “bringing examples from it”. I didn’t know that something which teaches us something is out of bounds for quotations. But seriously, is that how you are going to argue now, that MBH tells us “how low” the Indian society was and therefore, example of Karna is not be considered ? 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. I hope, you also realize, being a Hindu, how, MBH along with Ramayana, is considered as “holy” Hindu texts and the events narrated are considered as “true” events. Or that, how Gita is itself a part of MBH, and explanations in MBH are still used today, in hindu theological debates. Or that it is considered as a snap shot of the then society, however it was.

Yes, you are not the first hindu to go into such seizure, on mention of Karna’s name. Those who argue that caste is not by birth and that it is a “distortion”, find it hard to fit Karna, among others, in their scheme of things. But you are certainly the first one to actually reject Karna’s example, as an example of “lowliness”, instead of fighting it out.

   I guess this where I get to say, once again, EPIC FAIL.

All said and done, you still haven’t explained by what criteria, was Karna declared Sudra. Being born of a kshatriya woman (Kunti) and devine, his nature should be that of kshatriyas only.


> So like I said, Buddha only rejected the "typical God definition".


 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:
   * knowledge
* sound energy, energy that is pervading this universe
* trinity
* creation, preservation, destruction
* Universe


HINT: Since your super intelligence prevents you from understanding the primary point of an argument, and keeps you busy with peripherals, here’s the point that I am making: In Hinduism, i.e. for a Hindu, is it possible to make references (as in “explanations”) to the above list of things, without having to resort to a “typical God definition”, the same way as it is possible in Buddhism. Do quote from Vedas or whatever text you feel like, to support your claim.

And, last but not the least, Vedas are not collection of just stories or mythologies. Almost the entire corpus of the Vedas, is all prayers (_mantras_) and rituals, to be offered to guess who ? So do explain, if “typical God definition” is rejected, how these, prayers and rituals, would fit in the greater scheme of things.


> 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 =>


   What, you become maroon ? Deep breathing is the need of the day. Hari Om.


> FYI, the nature of the actions is itself called karma. Varna system is itself based on "karma". Vedas has this system. And I'm telling this to you like a teacher talls his student.
> 
> Deeds are actions, good deeds are good actions. Do you understand?


 So “karma” is reaping what one sows. Ok. Then how does it relate to past lives, O teacher. 



> Ok, forget who called it karmaveda or where. So, Which part of this link did you not understand?
> *www.aryabhatt.com/vedas/yajurveda1.htm
> 
> Shoud I give more verses citing karma in Vedas? Your point was "the concept of karma is not vedic" and now you are reduced to ranting "about a nickname for yajurveda"?


 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.

I had asked a question in my previous post, regarding that link only (last of the two): “What does Yajur veda say about “karma” that is even remotely similar to the “karma” that we understand today ?” Karma, in Buddhism, as well as in modern Hinduism, is not exactly, reap-as-you-sow type simple.

Yes, O teacher, please give us some more verses from Vedas, citing “karma”. And one correction. It was you, O teacher, who thought, a nickname of one Vedas makes for a good argument.

Remember what you had said about that example of Brahmin fighting off a thief. Just to refresh the memory of yours, O teacher. 


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> So brahmin defending himself from some theives with stick etc isn't much of a profession or contribution to the society is it?


   Now read on…


> * Setting a foot in battle field in Mahabharat => by karma become kshatriya, contributing to the society.


 *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 "setting a foot in battle ground".


 “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*"”

So why is this Brahmin not becoming a kshatriya by fighting off a thief, but the acharyas at Kurukshetra became so, doing more or less the same.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> _ It was the "nature" of a student that if he
> 
> * continued to show conscience, deep interest in knowledge, wisdom, respect for the teacher, he could have become a brahmin. Remember the "nature" still reflects.
> 
> ...


   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)

Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness and also uprightness, knowledge, realisation and belief in God are the *duties of the Brahmanas*, born of (their own) nature. (18.42)

   Prowess, splendour, firmness, dexterity and also not fleeing from battle, generosity and lordliness are the *duties of Kshatriyas*, born of (their own) nature. (18.43)

   But,

*Better is one’s own duty (though) destitute of merits, than the duty of another well performed*. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin. (18.47)

*One should not abandon, O Arjuna, the duty to which one is born*, though faulty; for, all undertakings are enveloped by evil, as fire by smoke! (18.48 )

   Now that you have confused deeds or duties with “Karma”, what gives ?


> …you resort to the infinte loop as a last resort to cloud *your mistakes*?


   Nice projection but. Lets see now.
I was the one who thought “Buddha” was prophecised in VP, until it was shown that VP is post-Buddhist text and hence, it is at best a retrofit not prophecy.

I was the one who thought Kalki puran talks of Buddhism and communism, based on their symptoms, not realizing that this is 2009 and Kalki is all set to appear at least 427,000 years from now.

   I was the one who thought the word “suthra” (as spelled in Sanskrit) is not “sudra” and started beating my chest.

   I am the one who thought that Buddha arranged for vedic incantation after his father’s death, simply based on “common sense”.

I am the one who thought that Buddha thought gayetri mantra as something of a premier mantra, not realizing, that the most important mantra in Buddhism is “Om Mani Padme Hum”.

   I am the one who couldn’t make a distinction between rebirth, reincarnation of soul and transmigration.

   I am the one who still can’t figure out the difference in symbolism of OM, in Hinduism and Buddhism.

   I am the one who still thinks that karma is just about deeds.

   Just a few of my mistakes, right off the top of my head.



> "Where is the intolerance that God is preaching for the rest of religions"


 Exactly how do you suppose the god will say something.


> "Where is Gurunanak saying I'm the best? Buddha saying Buddha is the best"?


   Something I had said before:


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> As with Sikhism, I haven’t read Granthasahib to make quotes like above. As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion.



Hari Om


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 1, 2009)

@mediator, dude, how many times do you want to be proved wrong?
I thought you may be having a open-mind, u may accept things if given enough "verifiable" proofs, but u are acting like those theists who have their eyes covered with blind faith, to who howerver type or amount of "facts" u provide they will repeat the same chants.
Why do u do that. Learn to accept things, that way u "learn", u don't lose anything in this process. Its a gain for everyone.

But, if u want to continue argument, lets put you to ur comfort zone i.e. fields which science had/couldn't yet come out with answers.
Are u willing to start over??*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/78.png


----------



## mediator (Jun 1, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> …and the award for the best contortion goes to <drumroll>……
> 
> Because MBH “teaches us all sorts of valuable lessons”, I am “bringing examples from it”. I didn’t know that something which teaches us something is out of bounds for quotations. But seriously, is that how you are going to argue now, *that MBH tells us “how low” the Indian society was and therefore, example of Karna is not be considered* ? *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.* I hope, you also realize, being a Hindu, how, MBH along with Ramayana, is considered as “holy” Hindu texts and the events narrated are considered as “true” events. Or that, how Gita is itself a part of MBH, and explanations in MBH are still used today, in hindu theological debates. Or that it is considered as a snap shot of the then society, however it was.
> 
> ...


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."
Second, Understand what mahabharat is. It contains bad people as well as good people.
Third, Even I'm preaching you what "varna system" is, an era, in a place etc, where Varna system has been distorted and telling you about the correct definition. So?


See yourself, how your hatred has now reduced your understanding which is unable to understand a meaning as simple as what mahabharat is. Mahabharat is an Indian epic. Not everyone was correct. A few did not wanted war, but were compelled to fight. Does that mean Vedic knowledge became extinct? Does that mean that the true meaning of Shudra was extinct? It is again an example of how you are jumping to conclusions without any "genuine", "unbiased", "properly comprehended" knowledge in the first place.


So I disagree with line in bold, this is what I call as "Intellect Fail".





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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:*
> * knowledge
> * sound energy, energy that is pervading this universe
> * trinity
> ...


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:
			
		

> As with Sikhism, I haven’t read Granthasahib to make quotes like above. As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion.


Both are considered religions. So is Hinduism. Read my friend, and comprehend what happened bet. me and amitash.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> I was the one who .....


You r the ONE!


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 1, 2009)

mediator said:


> what mahabharat is. Mahabharat is an Indian epic. *Not everyone was correct.*


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

So, it stands like this:-
You can quote anything from anywhere but need not to provide a proof with it.
Things you like are true and things you don't like are false, wrong etc.

And, why is that so?

A few days ago, u started talking about "Sudra". Karni provided u links and translations from Gita to open your eyes. Then, on your defense u went to Mahabharata and claimed that in Mahabharata its written like so and Gita might not be appropriate. Now karni again showed you how Mahabharata also proves his point, u claim on the authenticity of Mahabharata. 

Remember your words today and don't your ever dare to go back. Because in future debates, we will thrash Mahabharata, Ramayana by saying that they are in no way linked to God, so nothing directly or indirectly related (based upon it) to it can be true




> A few did not wanted war, but were compelled to fight. (Problem statement)
> *1>*Does that mean Vedic knowledge became extinct?
> *2>*Does that mean that the true meaning of Shudra was extinct?


Again, how are these two questions related to the "problem statement"?



> It is again an example of how you are jumping to conclusions without any *"genuine", "unbiased", "properly comprehended"* knowledge in the first place.


I'm compelled to do this, "LOL".
Please don't use those three words in ur future arguments.



> The same way I defined the "ME" in GITA.


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. 
Plz, plz tell me why "HE" can't be considered be telling "incorrect"? Why not?
Only because you like this portion? 
Any other reasons plz. I (we all) would love to hear.



> Both are considered religions. So is Hinduism. Read my friend, and comprehend what happened bet. me and amitash.


Well, let me post another part of ur evolution or, this time its more of a chameleon act. here it goes,


mediator said:


> 1.Treating all religions as same is the most idiotic thing.


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.



mediator said:


> 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?


Then u go against it the next post.




mediator 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?


And u support ur previous ideology (r u suffering from Alzheimer's? )




mediator said:


> 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.


And u continue defending it.



mediator said:


> Wrong! The point from the start was that all religions are not the same.


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)

And till now u r stuck to this.
It only shows how, *only for the sake of proving your arguments* u distort, twist, disagree, deny  YOUR OWN COMMENTS. You r always right.

When u need, Mahabharata is the one and only correct source and Gita may not be that correct.

When u need, everything in Gita is correct and we should die if we don't believe it.

You can include anything, comment anything under the sun just for the sake of proving ur points but irrespective of its source, authenticity, if we refuse to believe them we are not even upto the mark of a debate.

Tell me , who do you think you are? R u the 11th avatar??


----------



## karnivore (Jun 1, 2009)

ichi said:


> We cannot categorically deny it and here is some evidence:


 You are walking backwards, *ichi*

 The first image, I believe, is considered proto-Shiva. Pashupati, meaning lord of animals, I believe, is another name for Shiva. It is speculated, by many scholars, while opposed by some, that this concept, went into the making of the later day Rudra, in the Vedas, which again went on to become the current day Shiva. This however doesn’t prove that IVC was Hindu. It may, however mean, that one character found its way into Hindu pantheon. 

 Regarding its seating posture, few, like J.M.Konoyer, believe that it is yogic. But majority, like Possel, Witzel, Farmer etc. believe that it is some ritualistic pose, at the best, a precursor to yoga. Shiva, if you recall, is not associated with yoga.

 Second image: the seal belongs to Dholavira (if I recall correctly) automatically placing it at a point in time in History, when the Aryan influence has started to show its evidence. Swastika symbolism was present among the Hitties and Persians. Note that such seals were not found, in the earlier periods, the periods, which are generally called the height of IVC.

 The last image is the famous dancing girl. It is one cultural trait, which is still seen among Rajasthani women. Bangles covering the upper arm of the ladies. Not sure, why you are relating it to Hinduism.

 So, where are the temples, where are the fire alters, where are the gods, where are the priests.

 I will end this, by asking a simple question, and I am sure you will know what I am hinting at. Is Judaism, same as Christianity and/or Islam ? Will you call Christianity same as Islam ? You do know, how these religions overlap.

 If you have genuine interest in IVC seals, I suggest, you check out Possel, Witzel, Parpola, Farmer, Mahadevan etc. Asko Parpola and Mahadevan claim the IVC language is Dravidian, and that IVC is proto-Dravidian. They provide beautiful arguments. Witzel and Farmer claim, that IVC never had a written script. 

 


> Ok. So it proves that science can co-exist with Indian religions.


 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.

 


> And yeah science is not always right, what worked earlier can be scrapped off for something other. Similarly there may be some very stupid logics in Indian texts too.


 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.

 


> Brahamagupta tried to make Perpetual Motion Machine, of course it was the worst idea. Obviously It didn't work.


 A source will be much appreciated. Preferably an academic site and not a hindu site, please. Thank you.

 


> 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.
> 
> Well...accidents do occur.


 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.

 


> I wish there was color photography then. And may be a video camera too
> 
> Atleast we may agree that unicorns did exist


 You seriously don’t think there were Unicorns. Do you.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 1, 2009)

mediator 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."


  Not sure I got that part. “Itself” is certainly not a pronoun for a “person”. So where exactly is the absurdity ? 



> Second, Understand what mahabharat is. It contains bad people as well as good people.


  Yeah, the age old, GOOD v/s EVIL. Or was the concept lost on you.



> Third, Even I'm preaching you what "varna system" is, an era, in a place etc, where Varna system has been distorted and telling you about the correct definition. So?


  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.

I am really scared of your common sense, for most of the time, it makes no sense at all.


> See yourself, how your hatred has now reduced your understanding which is unable to understand a meaning as simple as what mahabharat is. Mahabharat is an Indian epic. Not everyone was correct. A few did not wanted war, but were compelled to fight. Does that mean Vedic knowledge became extinct? Does that mean that the true meaning of Shudra was extinct? It is again an example of how you are jumping to conclusions without any "genuine", "unbiased", "properly comprehended" knowledge in the first place.


  Who gave the “true” meaning of Sudra ? Which book contains the “true” meaning of Sudra ? Where can I find it ? 



> So I disagree with line in bold, this is what I call as "Intellect Fail".


  Nice sense of humour.


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  “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.



> You r the ONE!


Damn, I missed the memo.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 1, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> Tell me , who do you think you are? R u the 11th avatar??


*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image20.gif


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jun 6, 2009)

somewhere in the middle of this thread ..we had a discussion on hoimepathy and why it cures...

now i got a article to back it ...


*IT DOESNT WORK ..........*



> [Note: This post may upset some people. It damn sure upset me. If you are easily upset by pediatric medical stories that do not end well, then you might want to skip reading this. The title alone may be all you need to know.]
> 
> Homeopathy is the antiscientific belief that infinitely diluted medicine in water can cure various ailments. It’s perhaps the most ridiculous of all "alternative" medicines, since it clearly cannot work, does not work, and has been tested repeatedly and shown to be useless.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aspire (Jun 18, 2009)

^^
Really touching

BUT Homopathy works!


----------



## amitash (Jun 18, 2009)

Well im back from a long trip to mumbai and actually from the trip i found out alot more about hinduism esp and as far as i can see, i finally understand what mediator was trying to tell me....from all my visits to temples i found out that yes there are a million wrong things going wrong but from the actual teachings of hinduism i gathered mainly teachings of peace and tollerence rather than those of holy worship...I even learned that there is room in the vedas even for atheists....I might be wrong but from what i mostly saw, vedas are extremelly tollerant and admit the possibility for "no god existence" and you are free to chose whatever you want....Thats fair enough for me!..and yes the now wrong parts are changing...quite slowly but changing none the less.

As for earlier arguements of conscience in science, i still see that unforeseen problems are the things that cause problems and all the seen problems are solved, so there is a conscience....


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 18, 2009)

^welcome back with new thoughts. We were missing you. You have been a lot of times*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/5.png


----------



## karnivore (Jun 18, 2009)

amitash said:


> Well im back from a long trip to mumbai and actually from the trip i found out alot more about hinduism esp and as far as i can see, i finally understand what mediator was trying to tell me....from all my visits to temples i found out that yes there are a million wrong things going wrong but from *the actual teachings of hinduism* i gathered mainly *teachings of peace and tollerence* *rather than those of holy worship*...I even learned that *there is room in the vedas even for atheists*....I might be wrong but from what i mostly saw, *vedas are extremelly tollerant* and *admit the possibility for "no god existence*" and you are free to chose whatever you want....Thats fair enough for me!..and yes *the now wrong parts are changing*...quite slowly but changing none the less.


I will take the bolds, one by one:

"*the actual teachings of hinduism*": What exactly is the actual teachings of hinduism. "Teaching" as per which book ? But before that, please explain what is hinduism, according to the ancient "hindu" texts.

"*teachings of peace and tollerence*": Christians say the same. Muslims say the same. Jews say the same. How is "hinduism" different ?

"*rather than those of holy worship*": The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals. 

"*there is room in the vedas even for atheists*": In a sense yes. But atheism in hinduism isn't exactly what Europeans understand. Atheism in hinduism is not necessarily the lack of belief in god, but is all about accepting the vedas or rejecting those. Thus, Buddhists and Jains are also atheists (nastik) to the hindus. Just as Carvaka was.

"*vedas are extremelly tollerant*": Vedic hinduism prospered at a time when it didn't have to fight for space like the the abrahamic religions had to. The only other religion that existed, and was known to the vedic people, was the Zoroastrianism. But it never came in conflict with vedic hinduism. The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.

"*admit the possibility for "no god existence*"": A specific quote would be much appreciated.

"*the now wrong parts are changing*": Some examples of "wrong parts" and their changing would appreciated as well.


----------



## mediator (Jun 19, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> "the actual teachings of hinduism": What exactly is the actual teachings of hinduism. "Teaching" as per which book ? But before that, please explain what is hinduism, according to the ancient "hindu" texts.


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:
			
		

> "teachings of peace and tollerence": Christians say the same. Muslims say the same. Jews say the same. How is "hinduism" different ?


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.
Neither you have read, Bible completely, neither Quran, VEdas or Gita, GuruGranth Sahib etc etc. Why not read them yourself?



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> "there is room in the vedas even for atheists": In a sense yes. *But atheism in hinduism isn't exactly what Europeans understand.* Atheism in hinduism is not necessarily the lack of belief in god, but is *all about accepting the vedas* or rejecting those. *Thus, Buddhists and Jains are also atheists (nastik) to the hindus.* Just as Carvaka was.


Why are you so concerned about what Europeans think? You think they are better than you intellectually?
Hinduism talks about morality, science, mathematics etc. Much of it is in agreement with modern science. Much of its "morality" and principles are stated by Buddhism and jainism too. 

So, even if you had thought a little, you'd have realised that logically, in definition of nastik that you imagined, Buddhists and Jains are not nastik to Hindus.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> "vedas are extremelly tollerant": Vedic hinduism prospered at a time when it didn't have to fight for space like the the abrahamic religions had to. The only other religion that existed, and was known to the vedic people, was the Zoroastrianism. But it never came in conflict with vedic hinduism. The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. *Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts.* Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.


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.

And, what has "tribal conflict" to do with "Vedic tolerance"? Like I already said, it is the humans not the scriptures! Humans have plethora of reasons to fight over. Even if there exists no sane reason, then also some will find a reason to fight.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> "rather than those of holy worship": The *entire vedic* corpus is about, prayers and rituals.


Thats a naive way of putting it.

Firstly, we all know that what we have is not the "entire vedic corpus". Much of it is destroyed and what we have is very less, a percentage of the complete Vedas that at some point of time existed in ancient ages as a whole.

Secondly, Vedas are texted in terms of metaphors. Only biased person will think that by "athiti devo bhava" or "suryaya namah", we are treating them GODS in the "most typical form that exists" today. Much of the elements like Sunlight are shown reverence. WE all know we cannot live without sunlight. Treating guests as God also means showing respect to guests and not make idol of them.

The depiction of SunGod riding his chariot on seven horses is again a metaphor.  Scientifically we all know how the seven colors appears in the rainbow, i.e the VIBGYOR.

The rigvedic "hymn of creation".....

There was neither existence nor non-existence.
There was not then what is not.
There was neither sky nor any heaven beyond the sky.
What power was there? Where?
Who was that power?
Was there an abyss of fathomless water?

There was neither death nor immortality then
No signs were there of night or day.
The One was breathing with its own power,
in deep space.
Only the One was:
And there was nothing beyond.

The darkness was hidden in darkness.
And all was fluid and formless.
Therein, in the void,
By the fire of fervor arose One.
And in the One arose love.
Love the first seed of the soul.

The truth of this the sages found in their hearts:
Seeking in their hearts with wisdom,
The sages found that bond of union
Between being and non-being
Between the manifest and the unmanifest

Who knows this truth?
Who can tell, when and how arose this universe?
The gods came after its creation.
Whether this universe was created or uncreated
Only the God who sees in the highest heaven:
He only knows, when came this universe
And, whether it was created or uncreated
He only knows or perhaps He knows not?



So where is the ritual or prayer?



Lets look again from this post only, let alone the past ones ...



> The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals.


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.


----------



## amitash (Jun 19, 2009)

> "the actual teachings of hinduism": What exactly is the actual teachings of hinduism. "Teaching" as per which book ? But before that, please explain what is hinduism, according to the ancient "hindu" texts.


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.



> "teachings of peace and tollerence": Christians say the same. Muslims say the same. Jews say the same. How is "hinduism" different ?


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.



> "rather than those of holy worship": The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals.


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.


> "there is room in the vedas even for atheists": In a sense yes. But atheism in hinduism isn't exactly what Europeans understand. Atheism in hinduism is not necessarily the lack of belief in god, but is all about accepting the vedas or rejecting those. Thus, Buddhists and Jains are also atheists (nastik) to the hindus. Just as Carvaka was.


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?



> "vedas are extremelly tollerant": Vedic hinduism prospered at a time when it didn't have to fight for space like the the abrahamic religions had to. The only other religion that existed, and was known to the vedic people, was the Zoroastrianism. But it never came in conflict with vedic hinduism. The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.


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.



> "admit the possibility for "no god existence"": A specific quote would be much appreciated.


isnt it that when the vedas say that there is room for atheists, then they are admitting that there might be no god? 



> "the now wrong parts are changing": Some examples of "wrong parts" and their changing would appreciated as well.


*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.

As for me, before, like you, i was arrogant towards all religions but now im on a neutral towards all, even wen it comes to the vedas, i will not judge it as right or wrong, i dont have any right to do so with any religion.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 19, 2009)

mediator said:


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.

  2nd bold: Every religion talks about “morality”. All proponents of religion claim that their religion is scientific. Am sure you have heard of “Christian science” and “Islamic science”. Still don’t see the difference between you and “them”.

  Regarding the last sentence, well, what can I say, if you choose to live in denial. Not my problem. But, do us a favour and stay away from using the word “logic” in your sentences. You just gave it a bad name.


> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  1st bold: No. It is not possible for me to state ALL the verses that talk of conflicts.

  2nd bold: We were at hinduism, were we not. “Post-Buddha texts” meant post-Buddha hindu texts.

  3rd bold: LoL

  4th bold: Read it, to know it. Don’t throw stones in the dark. Someone can’t be intolerant of something that one doesn’t know of. On the matter of “conflict”, tribal conflicts existed at that time and these find mention there. Simple point, yet so hard to understand.

  5th bold: You know my stand. There is no point in repeating it.

  6th bold: Correct. Scriptures provide them with plenty. That’s the point that we have been making. Late realization, but realized it all the same. Thank you.


> > "rather than those of holy worship": The *entire vedic* corpus is about, prayers and rituals
> 
> 
> Thats a naive way of putting it.
> ...


  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. 

  2nd bold: Tell me something new.

  3rd bold: If that is directed at me, then you are pissing at the wrong tree. Find some other tree. I have mention before, that hindus have a tendency of imposing divinity on anything they revere. Pay attention to my posts, instead of throwing tantrums. You might just learn something worthwhile.

  4th bold: I hope that you are not suggesting that hindus “invented” rainbow. But hey, I have heard enough from you, not be surprised, if you are.


> The rigvedic "hymn of creation".....
> 
> There was neither existence nor non-existence.
> There was not then what is not.
> ...


  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. 

  BTW, care to explain, what are Samhitas.


> Lets look again from this post only, let alone the past ones ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  1st bold: LoL, really LoL

  2nd bold: LoL again. But this time its more out of pity.

  3rd bold: Yep, holding a mirror to your face is “intolerance”. But hey, whatever keeps your balls hanging.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 19, 2009)

amitash said:


> 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.


  Fair enough. But if I were you, I would be careful enough to comment on something, that I can’t actually back up.


> 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.


  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? 


> 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*.


  OK. So if you do not know something then stay away from commenting. 
  1st bold: Some rituals off the top of my head.  Upanayan (Initiation), Marriage, Shradh (Last rites), Yajnas etc.

  2nd bold: So now you two are going to do some mental gymnastics to squeeze a cube in a tube. Go ahead. Be my guest. Please tell me what mantra is recited during marriage and where is it found. Same with Upanayana and Shradh. What you are basically saying is that, the entire edifice of Hinduism stands on quick sand. I wonder if any Sankarachrya knows of this.


> *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?*


  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 ?

  2nd bold: Every religion has lot of “logic and science”, to the proponents only. Nothing new.

  3rd bold: Not really.


> 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.


  In a sense yes. But “space” didn’t mean land, but spiritual space, influence among other people. 

  However I find it strange, one hand you say “I wont judge those other religions, i dont know anything much about them” and that “you cant really judge without understanding them” but on the other you are certain that these abrahamic religions have “all sorts of nonsense”.


> isnt it that when the vedas say that there is room for atheists, then they are admitting that there might be no god?


  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...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.


  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. 

  Nice try. But try again.



> As for me, before, like you, i was arrogant towards all religions but now im on a neutral towards all, even wen it comes to the vedas, i will not judge it as right or wrong, *i dont have any right to do so with any religion*.


  I know your type of atheists. Your atheism stops where your religion begins. Boring.

  “*i dont have any right to do so with any religion*”: And it was you who said, in the same post, “all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions”. Tell me dear, is “Hypocrisy” your middle name ?


----------



## himanshu_game (Jun 19, 2009)

long long replies...

what u think,what u ask  is mind...
without the mind there is no question and no answer..
or in short u r creating questions..no question exist..


----------



## amitash (Jun 19, 2009)

> 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?



The concept of Hell or narak is not what you have gathered from other religions...some scholars even say that hell and heaven are states of mind...if you commit a sin, your bad consciesness is hell and you spend some time feeling bad...why cant this be a possibility?



> OK. So if you do not know something then stay away from commenting.
> 1st bold: Some rituals off the top of my head. Upanayan (Initiation), Marriage, Shradh (Last rites), Yajnas etc.



Ok let me rephrase to: "i dont see many illogical rituals and prayers"...upanayana was done just to signify a childs adulthood and education, like maybe a graduation done today ...The threads signify your status, in those days, when dhoti was custom, everyone could see the threads and learn of others positions...now its obsolete but back then i dont think it was....Dont you think that all these rituals might have had some perfectly sound reasoning which doesnt hold good today?



> 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 ?



As far as i have seen, you can accept it without spirituality...Please show examples where you cant accept the phillosophy without spirituality.



> 2nd bold: Every religion has lot of “logic and science”, to the proponents only. Nothing new.



SO your saying only the proponents of religion see logic and science in them? If so i suggest you read the part of vedas about maths, astronomy, physics etc.



> In a sense yes. But “space” didn’t mean land, but spiritual space, influence among other people.



Now this disgusts me...your saying that when anything is challenged, it will start spreading all sorts of crappy stuff to get ppl to blieve in it? How do you know?



> 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.



I guess i was confusing the 2 words...Still though, if you can reject the possibility of god and accept all the proved math, science etc, there is no problem.



> 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.
> 
> Nice try. But try again.



whatever it might be, isnt there still change? there is a lot of change in old practices...even upnayana for eg....a lot of ppl are doing it because they think its bad luck or something if you dont...more ppl, esp the younger gen who question it, are not doing it...so it is changing but it will take time...



> I know your type of atheists. Your atheism stops where your religion begins. Boring.



Ah...so your the type who judges a person by one post?....And  im not a hindu or any religious person.



> “i dont have any right to do so with any religion”: And it was you who said, in the same post, “all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions”. Tell me dear, is “Hypocrisy” your middle name ?



SO you assumed that by saying “all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions” i was being a hypocrite? If you read carefully, i have written: "all sorts of" im not saying that the religion itself is totally nonsense...there are plenty of nonsensical things in every religion, before i used to judge them based on only those...im not judging any religion...just pointing out there is a lot of nonsense...is arrogance your middle name? All i see is intollerance in your posts...what gives you the right to slam or uplift any religion that you have not totally studied? or judge people that dont see things the way you do?


----------



## himanshu_game (Jun 19, 2009)

long thread.....

so mind is trying to get d answer created by mind..

when u r present enough ,...mind cant overpower u.. and create questions..
every question is answered in the presence itself ....

when ur present ...questions r over as well as the answers....as well as d happiness and sadness also...etc.. the duality is over.. and U R OUT OF mind.... 

this is the beauty of It.


----------



## mediator (Jun 19, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 2nd bold: Every religion talks about “morality”. All proponents of religion claim that their religion is scientific. Am sure you have heard of “Christian science” and “Islamic science”. Still don’t see the difference between you and “them”.
> 
> Regarding the last sentence, well, what can I say, if you choose to live in denial. Not my problem. But, do us a favour and stay away from using the word “logic” in your sentences. You just gave it a bad name.


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. 

So what if all religions claim that they are scientific? Does that raises ur sertonins too high? Neither I'm trying to discuss whats the difference between them and me nor trying to show any superiority of Vedas. It is only your time pass I guess or perhaps like a hobby that sits on google 24*7 trying to "compare" religions, differentiating them (people of other faiths) from me, reading critics site instead of the scriptures themselves. You even dared to term a GITA verse as "boastful" earlier. Only an illiterate who never studied the preceding verses or the successive verses of 9.22 verse of GITA, can say that the verse is "boastful".




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 1st bold: No. It is *not possible for me to state ALL the verses that talk of conflicts.*
> 
> 2nd bold: We were at hinduism, were we not. “Post-Buddha texts” meant post-Buddha hindu texts.
> 
> ...


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.

2nd, its the call you made that buddhist texts conflicts with Hinduism. If you want to  play a proponent of it, its your choice. If you want to continue on it then do tell where Buddha told his disciples that he "disagreed on various science, mathematics, morality, karmic principles etc", do tell from authentic buddhist sites stating buddhist scriptures itself.

4th, then I guess your case must be unique, since you proved quite well how ignorant you were on GITA verses to call one its verses as "boastful" and vedas to state that complete vedic compilation" was ritualistic and in form of prayers.

6th, still arguing on a point that you could not prove in any way in the past? Where's Veda saying that all other religions are inferior or God saying gods of other religion are inferior? Thats termed as childish arrogance n it is devouring you at the moment.

The point was about vedic tolerance. What has tribal conflict to do with vedic tolerance? A casual point coming from ur mouth and then hard to explain?

It only adds another point to religious haters, that they are quite casual in their speeches and lies.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 2nd bold: Tell me something new.
> 
> ...


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.

I thought you said that "The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals. " It means that firstly, you have read the "entire vedic corpus" which existed only in ancient ages and now we only have fraction of it and secondly, realised only after reading it that "all of it"  consisted of "prayers and rituals". You clearly fail in both in terms of verses from Veda and facts about Vedas.

2nd, that it contradicts your point about prayers and rituals?

3rd, calm down. Why do I feel that your blood pressure is unusually high at all times? "Imposing divinity" is nothing but an expression of respect. May be that respect meant to treat nature respectfully and not cut trees and all like they are cut today? May be it meant to promote fraternity among people?  Obviously, from your posts it seems such logic and such points never occured to you. And why is it that religion haters fail to understand even such a simple point?

4th, who is saying hindus "invented" rainbow? How can you even argue like this? I will only take this as a joke.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> BTW, care to explain, what are Samhitas.


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 ...

_Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light,
Illuming all the radiant realm._ (RV 1.50)

Some more => *www.scribd.com/doc/12887392/The-Hymns-of-Dirghatamas-in-the-Rig-Veda-By-David-Frawley-

More shall come if this continues. So where is the ritual or the prayer?

Even the remaining Vedas consists of science and maths and hence it would be sane to conclude what the "complete vedic corpus" might have contained at some time. 

So call me whateva you like for you are only proving my point of how illiterates on scriptures are the ones who name call, generalise, spread lies and intolerance more than those who  have read even a little on scriptures "unbiasedly".




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 1st bold: LoL, really *LoL*
> 
> 2nd bold: LoL again. But this time its more out of pity.
> 
> 3rd bold: *Yep, holding a mirror to your face is “intolerance”. But hey, whatever keeps your balls hanging.*


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.

Like I said, read from "critics site" for thats best for you and seems to be your only hobby narowed down to "only ativity on google".


----------



## cyborg47 (Jun 19, 2009)




----------



## naveen_reloaded (Jun 19, 2009)

Aspire said:


> ^^
> Really touching
> 
> BUT Homopathy works!




when i give a real scientific observation in front of u and u disagree... thats the height of being adament and ignorant


----------



## karnivore (Jun 20, 2009)

amitash said:


> The concept of Hell or narak is not what you have gathered from other religions...some scholars even say that hell and heaven are states of mind...if you commit a sin, your bad consciesness is hell and you spend some time feeling bad...why cant this be a possibility?


 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.



> Ok let me rephrase to: "i dont see many illogical rituals and prayers"...upanayana was done just to signify a childs adulthood and education, like maybe a graduation done today ...The threads signify your status, in those days, when dhoti was custom, everyone could see the threads and learn of others positions...now its obsolete but back then i dont think it was....Dont you think that all these rituals might have had some perfectly sound reasoning which doesnt hold good today?


 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.

Now I have to look up the word “logic” in a dictionary. Clearly, I thought it meant something else.

And no, it is not obsolete. If you see a Brahmin with his sacred thread, then it means that he has had his upanayana. Now, find me some Brahmin, who is not an atheist, without that bloody thread.



> As far as i have seen, you can accept it without spirituality...Please show examples where you cant accept the phillosophy without spirituality.


 What about “karma” or "dharma" or “reincarnation” or….



> SO your saying only the proponents of religion see logic and science in them? If so i suggest you read the part of vedas about maths, astronomy, physics etc.


 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.

Capiche ?



> Now this disgusts me...your saying that when anything is challenged, it will start spreading all sorts of crappy stuff to get ppl to blieve in it? How do you know?


 “Fight for existence” sound familiar ?



> I guess i was confusing the 2 words...Still though, if you can reject the possibility of god and accept all the proved math, science etc, there is no problem.


 “Proved math, science” ? In Vedas ? Are you high ?



> whatever it might be, isnt there still change? there is a lot of change in old practices...even upnayana for eg....a lot of ppl are doing it because they think its bad luck or something if you dont...more ppl, esp the younger gen who question it, are not doing it...so it is changing but it will take time...


 Nope, that’s not change. 



> Ah...so your the type who judges a person by one post?....And im not a hindu or any religious person.


 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.



> SO you assumed that by saying “all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions” i was being a hypocrite? If you read carefully, i have written: "all sorts of" im not saying that the religion itself is totally nonsense...there are plenty of nonsensical things in every religion, before i used to judge them based on only those...im not judging any religion...just pointing out there is a lot of nonsense...is arrogance your middle name? All i see is intollerance in your posts...what gives you the right to slam or uplift any religion that you have not totally studied? or judge people that dont see things the way you do?


 Mental gymnastics. Unfortunately you are not too good at it.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 20, 2009)

mediator said:


> Study some 8th class NCERT Sanskrit books to understand this basic fact instead of googling ur way all the time.


 Is that how you have learned Sanskrit. That explains your suicidal faux pas.“Ancient Indian philosophy was built upon the strong base of Vedas...Later Buddha, Carvaka and Mahavir expressed their disbelief in the testimony of the Vedas. So their system of philosophy is called "Nastik". The word "Nastik" means one who do not believe in God and rebirth. But in *the Indian context the expression "Nastik School of Philosophy" means the system of philosophy which do not believe in the testimony of the Vedas*.”
- "Brahmananda Swami Sivayogi and his selected works" by P.V.Gopalakrishnan. Pg 25​"The equivalent of the word atheist is Nastik in Sanskrit. But *the word Nastik has been defined in the Hindu scriptures as a person who does not belive the Ved*."
- "Buddha, the Trimurti, and modern Hinduism" by Anant Ramchandra Kulkarni, pg 71​"The materialism (lokayata, carvaka), for example, rejected the idea of reincarnation and spiritual insight, while the Ajivikas rejected free will. While the Buddhists emphasized a middle way between extremes of austerity and indulgence, the Jains emphasized extreme mortification in order to become detached from action. Yet, while there are divergences within Sramanism, all sramana groups shared a common value system and framework of discourse, and all rejected the Veda as revelation and so radically turned against orthodox, brahmanical teaching or reinterpreted those teachings. *These schools are understandably regarded as heterodox (nastika) by orthodox (astika) Brahmanism*. Their mutual hostility has been pointed out by Romila Thapar who notes that the grammarian Patanjali refers to their altitude towards each other as being like that between a snake and a mongoose."
- "An Introduction to Hinduism" by Gavin Flood, Pg 82​


> *So what if all religions claim that they are scientific?* Does that raises ur sertonins too high? *Neither I'm trying to discuss whats the difference between them and me nor trying to show any superiority of Vedas*. It is only your time pass I guess or *perhaps like a hobby* that sits on google 24*7 trying to "compare" religions, *differentiating them (people of other faiths) from me*, reading critics site instead of the scriptures themselves. You even *dared to term a GITA verse as "boastful"* earlier. Only an illiterate who never studied the preceding verses or the successive verses of 9.22 verse of GITA, can say that the verse is "boastful".


 1st bold: Nothing really. It only shows that you and your “religion” are no different from those religions.

2nd bold: Actually you are. That’s the only reason why I am posting. You are constantly trying to imply that Hinduism is somehow holier than the holiest.

3rd bold: It is. Learning about religion, particularly Hinduism, is indeed my hobby.

4th bold: Incorrect. I am not differentiating. You are. I am saying just the opposite. That you are no different from the adherents of other faiths. This is a typical, whose-dady-is-Sita argument.

5th bold: Touched a raw nerve there. You are reacting just like the people of other faiths react when their holy book is attacked – not that I give a donkey’s dick to how these theists react. I guess, I have proved one more point here. Thank you.



> 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.
> 
> 2nd, its the call you made that buddhist texts conflicts with Hinduism. If you want to play a proponent of it, its your choice. If you want to continue on it then do tell where Buddha told his disciples that he "disagreed on various science, mathematics, morality, karmic principles etc", do tell from authentic buddhist sites stating buddhist scriptures itself.
> 
> ...


 1st, no need to get that serotonin, or what remains of it, soar so high. You missed the stress word *“ALL”*.

2nd, Nope. I never said Buddh_*ist*_ texts. What I said was:
“The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. *Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts*. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.”

Back to your old game of distorting quotes. Tch Tch.

4th, Exactly how does that answer to what I had said. For the uninitiated, what I said was “*Someone can’t be intolerant of something that one doesn’t know of.”*

6th, You are kidding me. I gave you specific verses from your Gita, that assert supremacy of Krishna over all and sundry, practically undermining other faiths and you go on like a scratched LP. Keep sticking your head in the sand. Am sure that way you can protect your ego from reality. 

Now you want verses from Vedas. You keep on proving how big an IDIOT you are. I have specifically reasoned, why Vedic texts can’t be all that supremacist, so far as other religions are concerned. Because there was no other religion to lord over. 



> The point was about vedic tolerance. What has tribal conflict to do with vedic tolerance? A casual point coming from ur mouth and then hard to explain?


 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, 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.
> 
> I thought you said that "The entire vedic corpus is about, prayers and rituals. " It means that firstly, *you have read the "entire vedic corpus"* *which existed only in ancient ages* and now we only have fraction of it and secondly, realised only after reading it that *"all of it" consisted of "prayers and rituals"*. You clearly fail in both in terms of verses from Veda and facts about 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.

2nd bold: Yes it is.



> 2nd, that it contradicts your point about prayers and rituals?


 How ?



> 3rd, calm down. Why do I feel that your blood pressure is unusually high at all times? "Imposing divinity" is nothing but an expression of respect. May be that respect meant to treat nature respectfully and not cut trees and all like they are cut today? May be it meant to promote fraternity among people? Obviously, from your posts it seems such logic and such points never occured to you. And why is it that religion haters fail to understand even such a simple point?


 My blood pressure is fine, thank you very much. Which part of the following sentence is devoid of understanding and logic?

“…*hindus have a tendency of imposing divinity on anything they revere*”

Don’t argue for argument’s sake.



> 4th, who is saying hindus "invented" rainbow? How can you even argue like this? I will only take this as a joke.


 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. 



> 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.


 You posted from Rg Veda. So I mentioned of Rg Veda.



> _Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light,
> Illuming all the radiant realm._ (RV 1.50)


 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.1 HIS bright rays bear him up aloft, the God who knoweth all that lives,
 Sūrya, that all may look on him.
 2 The constellations pass away, like thieves, together with their beams,
 Before the all-beholding Sun.
 3 His herald rays are seen afar refulgent o’er the world of men,
 Like flames of fire that burn and blaze.
 4 Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light,
 Illuming all the radiant realm.
 5 Thou goest to the hosts of Gods, thou comest hither to mankind,
 Hither all light to be beheld.
 6 With that same eye of thine wherewith thou lookest brilliant Varu[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]a,
 Upon the busy race of men,
 7 Traversing sky and wide mid-air, thou metest with thy beams our days,
 Sun, seeing all things that have birth.
 8 Seven Bay Steeds harnessed to thy car bear thee, O thou farseeing One,
 God, Sūrya, with the radiant hair.
 9 Sūrya hath yoked the pure bright Seven, the daughters of the car; with these,
 His own dear team, he goeth forth.
 10 Looking upon the loftier light above the darkness we have come
 To Sūrya, God among the Gods, the light that is most excellent.
 11 Rising this day, O rich in friends, ascending to the loftier heaven,
 *Sūrya remove my heart's disease, take from me this my yellow hue*.
 12 *To parrots and to starlings let us give away my yellowness,*
* Or this my yellowness let us transfer to Haritāla trees*.
 13 With all his conquering vigour this Āditya hath gone up on high,
 *Giving my foe into mine hand: let me not be my foeman's prey*.​ RgV 1.50 is an oblation to the sun god. EPIC FAIL.



> Some more => *www.scribd.com/doc/12887392/T...David-Frawley-


 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.



> More shall come if this continues. So where is the ritual or the prayer?


 Here is a pop quiz for you: What is so significant about hymn, RV 10.85.

Btw, you forgot to “educate” me on Samhitas. What are these, o teacher ?



> Even the remaining Vedas consists of science and maths and hence it would be sane to conclude what the "complete vedic corpus" might have contained at some time.


 Can we have the verses please ?



> 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.


 A big LoL. You talking of civility. That’s rich.

Anyway, decorating your posts with smilies is all right, but writing “LoL” isn’t. Errr…how old are you really. Please don’t tell me that you are still in school. That would be huge let down.


----------



## amitash (Jun 20, 2009)

> 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.



as far as i can see, the MBH is not hindu scripture, its just an epic



> 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.



So its logical for parents to show their kids marks card and say they have passed some exam? or illogical to show an admission certificate to some school or the other or just tell other ppl that he is studying here and there? Or maybe celebrating a birthday party saying: "hey my kid is adoloscent"?



> What about “karma” or "dharma" or “reincarnation” or….



Karma is just our deeds or work...if we do good, we get good, if we do bad, we get bad...wats the spirituality there?

dharma is just righteousness or duty or path of duty...i still dont see spirituallity there.

as for reincarnation, if you remember what i said:



> As far as i have seen, you can accept it without spirituality...Please show examples where you cant accept the *phillosophy without spirituality. *



as for reincarnation, i dont see any phillospphy in it...just reject it, simple as that.



> “Fight for existence” sound familiar ?



you are just raving, you cannot predict what might/might not have happened.



> 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.
> 
> Capiche ?





> “Proved math, science” ? In Vedas ? Are you high ?



read ayurveda for one, and i trust you have read about vedic mathematics, then theres yoga too, different planets and stars and constellations named by the vedas, etc etc

as for proofs, many parts of ayurveda are proved and also many parts are disproved...google vedic mathematics yourself and i dont think i need to discuss the benefits of yoga.



> Nope, that’s not change.



what is change acc to you?



> *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.



So i guess your always right and everyone else is wrong and you have experienced everything..



> Mental gymnastics. Unfortunately you are not too good at it.



Is that the best you could come up with? Tsk tsk.


----------



## mediator (Jun 20, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> Is that how you have learned Sanskrit. That explains your suicidal faux pas.
> 
> “Ancient Indian philosophy was built upon the strong base of Vedas...Later Buddha, Carvaka and Mahavir expressed their disbelief in the testimony of the Vedas. So their system of philosophy is called "Nastik". The word "Nastik" means one who do not believe in God and rebirth. But in the Indian context the expression "Nastik School of Philosophy" means the system of philosophy which do not believe in the testimony of the Vedas.”
> 
> ...


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 of 

a) Authentic buddhist sites?
b) scriptures?
c) excerpts from those scriptures?
d) Buddha's own words?

Wasn't Gautama Siddhartha born in India only? So what does the phrase "in Indian context" means? Nastik, like I said, usually means "not believing" and it is "usually" used in context of Gods. Do you understand the meaning of simple english term called "usually"?  

You didn't answer to my question. How will jains and buddhists be termed if they reject or "not believe" in all the science and maths, the karmic principle, morality and wisdom in vedas?

REad it all again, you have made enough mockery of yourself by trolling in a discussion that happened between me and amitash, without reading what he has stated and asking the same set of questions that he stated and then making me repeat  all over and then generalising on him and anyone who disagrees with you.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 1st bold: Nothing really. It only shows that you and your “religion” *are no different* from those religions.
> 
> 2nd bold: Actually you are. That’s the only reason why I am posting. You are constantly trying to imply that Hinduism is somehow holier than the holiest.
> 
> ...


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!

2) Please do enlighten this forum now, where I might have tried to potray my religion as "holier than the holiest". I know halucination is a bad habit of yours, but do give it your best.

Google on this forum, take help of your critic friends, but do tell where I'm potraying it as holiest. I wouldn't have have asked @amitash to look into buddhism earlier if that would have been the case. And so religious hater lies again. Lies lead to intolerance and you set examples in spreading intolerance now. 


3) O'reilly? ANd thats why you stated verse 9.22 is "boastful" and "complete Vedic corpus" has rituals and prayers in it? Thats some education about Hinduism you did!

4) If you are not differentiating, then why are u lying about Buddhism and Hinduism? Why do you shy so much from "quoting" from "authentic buddhist sits" if "Buddha ever said those words or rejected the science, mathematics, karmic principles, ayurveda etc etc"?

Your confusion is obscuring your own words!

5) What "reacting"? If it is the word "dared" that I stated which was in context to  your childish comprehension of verse 9.22, then every person of any faith will react like this only. Even the science teacher will react like this if a student foolishly generalises on one statement that the teacher said without listening his entire converstion or from the complete science book, or thinks he will know the whole story by reading one statement from the complete story book!

You are just like that foolish student who is generalising on 9.22 and remarking it as "boastful" without even reading what the whole of GITA says and generalised on @amitash on one statement alone.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 2nd, Nope. *I never said Buddhist texts*. What I said was:
> “The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. *Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions.* Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.”
> 
> Back to your old game of distorting quotes. Tch Tch.
> ...


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.

And, I asked you 2 times already => what tribal conflict has to do with Vedic tolerance? 

4) Then how come 9.22 was boastful according to you? Anyone who has read GITA completely would never even assume such a thing like "boastful".

The mountain of lies you created is just becoming bigger and bigger. And hence my point again that religioun haters like you compete on top for creating intolerance. They assume, they lie, they spread rumours and thus begins the game of intolerance and hate speeches where they don't listen and keep mumbling all the time.

6) Hence my point proved. Just show me where you might have accidently put 9.23 to show that Krishna talks of tolerance himself or the true definition of "himself" that he tells Arjuna.

Lastly, the part in bold again shows how pathetic ur troll is. 

The debate was about => "where religion talks of intolerance over other religions or GOd saying that god of other religion is inferior or to kill people of other religions". And now you say you can't even put verses from Vedas. You have been refuted on GITA already with 9.23 and other verses and commentaries put by me.


Not able to give verses from Vedas that talk of killing people of other religions or buddhist texts talking of conflict like I asked, is strengthening my point again and again and exposing your little childish lies.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


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:
			
		

> 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.*
> 
> 2nd bold: Yes it is.



1). If you are trying to ask for some sympathy so that I should neglect on what you said, then I'd only advise you to stop your childish troll for you are only making me repeat and everyone else without any concern for the topic.



WE all know what "complete Vedic corpus" means. What you didn't know was that .. 

* Vedas are compiled in poetic and metaphorical form. So for even an religion hater, an illiterate who generalises on single statements, a statement like "sungod riding on chariot with 7 horses" will be comprehended like " a god, that sun rides his chariot, on horses which are seven" without even knowing how the personification has been done. 

* You cannot comprehend "complete" vedas, since only a fraction of it is available.

* You cannot even generalise on Vedas, since the complete compilation is not there.

* And thus you cannot really compare Vedas with anything else.



Like I said earlier what you are doing is passive/indirect and dangerous for you only. You are not even genuine in you little speeches, but plaguirizing from some critic's site.


2) I feel like laying my arms down and surrendering now! 


And look at you, remarking that "complete vedic corpus" contains "rituals and prayers"!




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.


Oh they knew more than that! Google my dear, use the only tool that resuscitates your life.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *You posted from Rg Veda.* So I mentioned of Rg Veda.


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. 

*No, I posted from "Vedas".* 

Funny, one guy posts a sentence from page 70 of chapter 15 of book 20 of some topic of "knowledge". Another guy says you posted from book 20. Another says you posted from chapter 15 and another fool says you posted from page 70 without even looking of where all of it is subjected under.

And so, I'm talking of Vedas i.e all of it which is compiled under.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 1 *HIS bright rays bear him up aloft, the God who knoweth all that lives,
> Sūrya, that all may look on him.*
> ...


Like I said plenty of times. YOU ARE PREDICTABLE. Seems you didn't understand the metaphor even in griffiths translations. INTELLECT FAIL, yet again!

Again, not all the sentences have "prayers or rituals" even in RV 1.50 and many are personfied. An unbiased mind can comprehend easily what much of it says.





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.*


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?

You just keep proving my point again and again! Now you even "dared" to call a person as "scum" like that?  




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Here is a pop quiz for you: What is so significant about hymn, RV 10.85.
> 
> Btw, you forgot to “educate” me on Samhitas. What are these, o teacher ?


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:
			
		

> Can we have the verses please ?


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!

Imagine a person holding a story book and generalising on a single statement from somewhere in between and then saying I'm trying to "understand" it. 


And so, you have demoralised me way beyond my expectations by your repeated trolls, repetitions, illogic, generalisations, failing to fulfill what is asked, being apathetic to the topic itself etc etc. Again, I may not reply if you continue showering stupidity, like till now, in ur next post. []


----------



## karnivore (Jun 21, 2009)

amitash said:


> as far as i can see, the MBH is not hindu scripture, its just an epic


 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.



> So its logical for parents to show their kids marks card and say they have passed some exam? or illogical to show an admission certificate to some school or the other or just tell other ppl that he is studying here and there? Or maybe celebrating a birthday party saying: "hey my kid is adoloscent"?


 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”.



> Karma is just our deeds or work...if we do good, we get good, if we do bad, we get bad...wats the spirituality there?
> 
> dharma is just righteousness or duty or path of duty...i still dont see spirituallity there.
> 
> as for reincarnation, if you remember what i said:





> > As far as i have seen, you can accept it without spirituality...Please show examples where you cant accept the *phillosophy without spirituality. *
> 
> 
> as for reincarnation, i dont see any phillospphy in it...just reject it, simple as that.


 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.

“…if we do good, we get good, if we do bad, we get bad.”

Had you been a genuine atheist, you would have asked a simple question: How does good deed ensure that the do-gooder gets good in return? And only then, you would have seen spiritually written all over it.

Regarding “dharma” too, you made a slip. “Dharma” is not just righteousness. It actually means, something like attribute [e.g. water’s _dharma_ is to be wet – this is my favourite example]. That something is created, or someone is born, with specific “dharma” again smacks of spirituality.



> you are just raving, you cannot predict what might/might not have happened.


 I am not predicting. Bible and Koran are freely available texts. Read those texts to get an idea of what I meant.



> read ayurveda for one, and i trust you have read about vedic mathematics, then theres yoga too, different planets and stars and constellations named by the vedas, etc etc
> 
> as for proofs, many parts of ayurveda are proved and also many parts are disproved...google vedic mathematics yourself and i dont think i need to discuss the benefits of yoga.


 “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.

“Vedic Mathematics” is neither “vedic” nor is it any specific branch of mathematics.

“Yoga” is a work out routine. So is “Tai Chi”.

The stars, planets and constellations named in vedas are not unique in any sense. Mayans did the same, Egyptians did the same.



> what is change acc to you?


 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. 

Btw, as an atheist, I would want abolishing of all religion. But that’s not going to happen anytime soon.



> So i guess your always right and everyone else is wrong and you have experienced everything..


 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. 



> Is that the best you could come up with? Tsk tsk.


 Unfortunately, dear, that is quite enough for you.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 21, 2009)

mediator said:


> *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 of





mediator said:


> a) Authentic buddhist sites?
> b) scriptures?
> c) excerpts from those scriptures?
> d) Buddha's own words?
> ...


 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.

2nd bold: Let me give you an example of your cognitive dissonance. Here’s something you had said earlier:



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> *Nastik doesn't mean someone "who is not a Hindu"*. It is a sanskrit term that is taught in 8th class NCERT books. *It simply means an atheist. *


 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? 

3rd bold: I see. The same old tactics. Lie low for sometime. Wait for the pages to flip. Wait for people to forget. Then bam. Start, as if nothing has happened. I have answered all your questions. Not going to repeat it. 

4th bold: LoL. Actually you trying to make me do it.



> 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!
> 
> 2) Please do enlighten this forum now, where I might have tried to potray my religion as "holier than the holiest". I know halucination is a bad habit of yours, but do give it your best.
> 
> ...


 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. 

1) If that gives a nice sleep at work, go ahead, fool yourself into thinking whatever you feel.

2) The fact that you trying to detach your religion from their religion is proof enough. As with your quotes, well, you are not that important that I will go looking into the muck that you call your post.

3) What would be considered as boastful ? O teacher educate me ? 

4) What can I say to an idiot. If one accepts that there is a sun and an earth and a moon and some stars, or that 2 + 2 = 4, he has accepted Vedas. You are clutching at straws. Keep clutching. And yes Buddha rejected the “Karmic principles of hinduism”. Since Karma is not a vedic principle, the question doesn’t arise w.r.t the Vedas. 

Anyway, Adi Sankaracharya thought that Buddha rejected Vedas. But I guess, he was one of those fake Brahmins.

Btw, what is an “authentic” Buddhist site ? Who certifies “authenticity” ?

5) Hari Om.



> 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.
> 
> And, I asked you 2 times already => what tribal conflict has to do with Vedic tolerance?
> 
> ...


 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:“When Brahminical orthodoxy was disputed in ancient India by members of other groups (including merchants and craftsmen), the fact that the protesters were often quite affluent should not distract attention from the fact that, in the context of Brahmin dominated orthodoxy, they were indeed distinctly underprivileged. This may be particularly significant in understanding the class basis of the rapid spread of Buddhism, in particular, in India. *The undermining of the superiority of the priestly caste played quite a big part in these initially rebellious religious movements, which include Jainism as well as Buddhism*. It included a “leveling” feature that is not only reflected in the message of human equality for which these movements stood, but is also captured in the nature of the arguments used to undermine the claim to superiority of those occupying exalted positions. *Substantial parts of early Buddhist and Jain literatures contain expositions of protest and resistance.”*
-“The Argumentative Indian” by Amartya Sen, pg. 10​What has tribal conflict got to do with vedic tolerance ? Everything. That whatever conflict that these poets were aware of got mentioned in the Vedas. Those that they were not aware of wasn’t mentioned. Google the words “dasa” and “dasyu” and try to figure out how these words fit in the larger scheme of vedic hymns. This is the 2nd time I am explaining. I am sure that it is not the last time though.

4) Actually all the verses that I have quoted are boastful, not just 9.22. Through all those verses, attempt has been made to stamp the supremacy of Krishna over all other religion/faith. That’s why. And, btw. Ask a person of different religion, preferably the Semitic ones, to see if they consider this as boastful. On second thought, you don’t have to go that far. Go ahead and ask a typical Shaivite, and get ready to be surprised. Please tell me that you do know how to recognize a Saihivite.

6) You are getting desperate in every post. I understand, that it is not a nice feeling to be corrected in almost very post, that too, by an atheist. Cool down. No need to get hyper. As with 9.23, Krishna doesn’t talk of tolerance (see below for a complete conversation between you an me regarding this) and there are many definitions of “Himself”.

Rest is your wishful daydream. Not my problem.



> karnivore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 How does that even come close to being a reply to that quote of mine ? Still smoking ? Naughty you.



> 1). If you are trying to ask for some sympathy so that I should neglect on what you said, then I'd only advise you to stop your childish troll for you are only making me repeat and everyone else without any concern for the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 1) Sympathy ? Yes I do need some. I am getting tired of correcting your faux pas. Can I have some. Please. O teacher.

* Again pissing at the wrong tree. Man I am getting drenched in all this stinking piss of yours. YUK.

* Adi Sankaracharya could. Vivekananda could. Arobindo could. Tom can. Dick can. Harry can. I can. But you can’t. Pity.

* Aha, I see. You haven’t heard of Avesta. 

Ahh, that plagiarizing accusation once again. Pity pity pity. Prove it.
2) What? You mean the curse will be lifted from us?



> 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.
> 
> *No, I posted from "Vedas".*
> 
> ...


 You are the worst kind of a fukcing liar that I have ever come across.. What you said was:



> The *rigvedic* "hymn of creation".....


 The hymn is actually from Rg veda, Book 10, Hymn 129

You are now conquering new heights of stupidity. Congrats.



> Like I said plenty of times. YOU ARE PREDICTABLE. Seems you didn't understand the metaphor even in griffiths translations. INTELLECT FAIL, yet again!
> 
> Again, not all the sentences have "prayers or rituals" even in RV 1.50 and many are personfied. An unbiased mind can comprehend easily what much of it says.


 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. 

The portions that you have emphasized are praises to the Sun god. In every ritual, the particular god to whom sacrifice is being offered, has to be praised first in order to please him. Only if he is pleased with the praise, will he oblige the offerer. Better the diction, purer the call, better are the chances of pleasing the god. The amount of sacrifice also determines if the god will be pleased or not. I can go on describing the specifics of such rituals. But whats the use. I will be preaching a certifiable idiot. But here’s a pointer. Read sautasutras and grihyasutras to learn how the vedic rituals are to be performed.

You have quoted RV 1.50. What about the other hymns, dedicated to Agni, Indra, Soma, Varuna and Maruts. What do you make of YajurVeda, Kanda VII, verses 1.13 – 20 or 2.11 – 20 or 3.13 – 20 or 4.13 – 22 or 5.11/12 [did a meenie minie mo to pick it]

Just a small sample: VII.1.13

To the going hail!
To the advancing hail!
To the running hail!
To him after be hath run hail!
To the crying of 'shoo' hail!
To him over whom is cried 'shoo' hail!
To him who hath moved hail!
To him who hath moved forward hail!
To him springing forward hail!
To him jumping away hail!
To him who advanceth hail!
To him who advanceth forward hail!
To all hail!

Let me reiterate once again. The entire vedic corpus is about prayers and rituals. Almost all the Hymns are actually mantras to be recited at one ritual or other. 



> 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.


 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.

Once again, what are “samhitas”, “Brahmanas” (not the plural of brahmana) and “Aranyakas”.



> 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?
> 
> You just keep proving my point again and again! Now you even "dared" to call a person as "scum" like that?


 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).



> 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!
> 
> Imagine a person holding a story book and generalising on a single statement from somewhere in between and then saying I'm trying to "understand" it.
> 
> ...


 The basis of “Ayurveda” is bs. “Vedic Maths” is bs.

And you think that your explanation of 9.22 holds any value to me, or for that matter, anybody with sense. One of those wet dreams. Isn’t it.

Re bold: You just won’t stop projecting yourself. Will ya now ?

One interesting thing is that you have repeated verse 9.22 , 5 times. Not once have you mentioned the other verses that I have quoted. If for argument’s sake, I assume, that 9.22 shouldn’t have been mentioned, the other verses still stand and still make their points. This is typical of idiots – forgetting the bigger picture and making tangential arguments. 

But lets see what have you “explained” to me about 9.23.
=============================
*me #999*
“To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other, of those ever united, I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess.” – BG 9.22
COMMENTS: Means, “surrender to me, or you are doomed”.

*you #1002 *
2."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

4. Beneath your verse 9.22, is the verse 9.23 ...
"9.23 Those who worship other gods with faith, worship ME alone, although improper method."

Comment : Again improper method doesn't mean any superiority among different religion's Gods. Read the commentaries.
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-09-22.html

*me #1004 *
2.What does “…I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess” mean ? That would mean, that whatever one already has (i.e. present), and whatever one may posses (i.e. future), will be preserved, only if one surrenders (i.e. have faith) to Me (Krishna). The flip side: If one doesn’t surrender, then one’s present and future will not be preserved. How wrong was it to call it being doomed ?

4. BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna).

*you #1005 *
1,2) It seems you are getting emotional about the definition of God. You simply have not replied where the religions or supreme Gods are preaching intolerance for other faiths?. Your earlier point was already refuted. <You completely dodged the argument >

4. It is not bt about the procedure or has to do anything with the style in which he is doing prayer, but "true devotion". I guess you really did not read the commentaries even after my suggestion.
here's one commentary from that source...



			
				commentary said:
			
		

> The word ananyas meaning exclusive denotes that such devotees have no other goal than the Supreme Lord, thinking only of service to Him day and night with full heart and soul. But because they are so fully devoted to Him they sometimes fail to take care of the realities of the body, senses and mind and so in this case the Supreme Lord arranges for their maintenance Himself supplying the necessities they need to exist. He also protects them in all respects from any situation that may obstruct their attainment of Him before the end of their life.


 
*me #1006 *
Swami Prabhupada’s commentary:““Persons who are engaged in the worship of demigods are not very intelligent, although such worship is offered to Me indirectly,” Krishna says. For example, when a man pours water on the leaves and branches of a tree without pouring water on the root, he does so without sufficient knowledge or without observing regulative principles. Similarly, the process of rendering service to different parts of the body is to supply food to the stomach. *The demigods are, so to speak, different officers and directors in the government of the Supreme Lord. One has to follow the laws made by the government, not by the officers or directors. Similarly, everyone is to offer his worship to the Supreme Lord only*. That will automatically satisfy the different officers and directors of the Lord. The officers and directors are engaged as representatives of the government, and to offer some bribe to the officers and directors is illegal. This is stated here as avidhi-purvakam. *In other words, Krishna does not approve the unnecessary worship of the demigods.*”​COMMENTS: Regarding the parts in bold, it means, that demigods (i.e. all other gods) don’t “*have separate existence without Krishna*_”_

*you #1009* 
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?

Like I said, you only put verses and commentaries you find, proving you biased point that you agree with. You state them without even understanding the meaning of it and behave like "Hey, explain this!". So which part may I ask, "proves" your point? Again I give you a clue : You have not read the complete GITA.

*me #1012*
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.

And yes, I rest my case.

============================

So where have you proved me wrong or any way proved yourself correct. You first ran away from debating 9.22 and then simply fizzled out on 9.23.


----------



## amitash (Jun 21, 2009)

> 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”.



i know its not...just asking you how its logical for parents to tell ppl their childs marks, celebrate birthdays ets and not logical to celebrate the starting of education.



> 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.



You are again veering offtopic, it was accepting the phillosophical part without the spiritual part...you can just reject all the human to cat rebirth thing and take karma just as deed.



> “…if we do good, we get good, if we do bad, we get bad.”
> 
> Had you been a genuine atheist, you would have asked a simple question: How does good deed ensure that the do-gooder gets good in return? And only then, you would have seen spiritually written all over it.



good and bad are all relative FYI...even happiness is good, its very simple actually, you do something that you feel is good, you will feel happy so you have got good there in return....in a war if you kill an enemy soldier, you think you are doing good by protecting your countries citizens and thus you get a sense of accomplishment and happiness which is good in return, its very simple, anything you do which you consider as good, will give you some good in return.



> Regarding “dharma” too, you made a slip. “Dharma” is not just righteousness. It actually means, something like attribute [e.g. water’s dharma is to be wet – this is my favourite example]. That something is created, or someone is born, with specific “dharma” again smacks of spirituality.



Again you are veering off and strengthening my point, accept the righteous path part and reject all the creation part...thus phillosophy without spirituality.



> I am not predicting. Bible and Koran are freely available texts. Read those texts to get an idea of what I meant.



again you are raving...just because something happened to some other scripture in some other part of the world doesnt mean it would have, under the same conditions.



> *“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.
> 
> *“Vedic Mathematics” is neither “vedic” nor is it any specific branch of mathematics.*
> 
> ...



aurveda starts with the atharva veda FYI...and can you please state the basis of ayurveda?

read more about vedic maths, you will understand

last bold: you stregthen my point once again, you asked me to show you the science in vedas, i did, now you are telling me that other civilizations have done it too, yes they did, so what? now your comparing other civilisations with ancient indians just because you cant prove your point which was:



> This time around, I want specific reference to those specific parts in Vedas that deal with “maths, astronomy, physics etc.”



and:



> “Proved math, science” ? In Vedas ? Are you high ?





> *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.
> 
> Btw, as an atheist, I would want abolishing of all religion. But *that’s not going to happen anytime soon.*



lol again you strengthen my point...do you think sati was abolished overnight? it took generations to do so! same thing for everything else you have stated...your original point was that nothing was changing whereas i said change is happening but slowly...which you have agreed to right now.



> 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.



If you stuck to your own rules we wouldnt have been having this arguement right now.



> Unfortunately, dear, that is quite enough for you.



OK


----------



## mediator (Jun 21, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 2nd bold: Let me give you an example of your cognitive dissonance. Here’s something you had said earlier:


And now the troll whines! Here's my question for the 3rd time that u miss deliberately.

How will jains and buddhists be termed if they reject or "not believe" in all the science and maths, the karmic principle, morality and wisdom in vedas?




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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?
> 
> 3rd bold: I see. The same old tactics. Lie low for sometime. Wait for the pages to flip. Wait for people to forget. Then bam. Start, as if nothing has happened. I have answered all your questions. Not going to repeat it.
> 
> 4th bold: LoL. Actually you trying to make me do it.


"Usually" fit in the cases like you. 

And hence my question again : How will jains and buddhists be termed if they reject or "not believe" in all the science and maths, the karmic principle, morality and wisdom in vedas?

3rd,4th : Troll whines again!




			
				karnivore 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.
> 
> 1) If that gives a nice sleep at work, go ahead, fool yourself into thinking whatever you feel.
> 
> ...


1) Whinings ignored!
2) Had you read korrectly I actually told that Hinduism is a way of life also, but can also be called religion. One faith can be disassociated from another. One science lesson from another, one teacher from another etc. A wise teacher never tells he is superior to others or tells to kill those who doesn't follow him.

Such simple logic yet failed on you.

3) Your little speeches, the acts of chauvinism, generalisation on many people who disagree can quite be considered as "boastful". Such "boast" is not visible in GITA. An illiterate critic who has hardly read GITA and mumbling over it, is called ignorance + arrogance ! Understand lil apprentice?


4) AFAIK, buddha was against the brahminism, "by birth", the supremacy of Vedas that the brahmins were preaching *to establish their own control*, that was arising at that time giving rise to a lot of bad cult. So once again, where did Buddha said to his disciples that "he is against Vedas".

I guess you have completely chickened out from giving excerpts from buddhists texts. Keep ignoring, run away from my questions and the core of the debate for thats the only thing left for you.

Also do tell "where" Shankaracharya "thought" of whateva you imagined.


Even a child would know what authentic site means. It means which gives buddhist scriptures in proper comprehension and order, just like bhagvada Gita site I referred ! Understand my dumb apprentice?





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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:
> 
> “When Brahminical orthodoxy was disputed in ancient India by members of other groups (including merchants and craftsmen), the fact that the protesters were often quite affluent should not distract attention from the fact that, in the context of Brahmin dominated orthodoxy, they were indeed distinctly underprivileged. This may be particularly significant in understanding the class basis of the rapid spread of Buddhism, in particular, in India. The undermining of the superiority of the priestly caste played quite a big part in these initially rebellious religious movements, which include Jainism as well as Buddhism. It included a “leveling” feature that is not only reflected in the message of human equality for which these movements stood, but is also captured in the nature of the arguments used to undermine the claim to superiority of those occupying exalted positions. Substantial parts of early Buddhist and Jain literatures contain expositions of protest and resistance.”
> -“The Argumentative Indian” by Amartya Sen, pg. 10
> ...


Wat a waste of time and intellect. This must the umpteenth time you have brought manusmriti to support your hatred towards Hinduism.

And I repeat, manusmiriti was never considered a part of Hinduism. Not every ancient Indian work can be considered a part of Hinduism. All these drivels marked with hatred must be affecting ur eyesight to read the lines I put repeatedly.


4)  Did you forget already the definition of "him" that Krishna puts?



Chapter 9.17-19

_"I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable om. I am also the Rig, the Sama and the Yajur Vedas."

"I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the abode, the refuge, and the most dear friend. I am the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place and the eternal seed."

"O Arjuna, I give heat, and I withhold and send forth the rain. I am immortality, and I am also death personified. Both spirit and matter are in Me."_



Chapter 7, 8-10
_
I am the taste in water,
the light in the moon and sun,
the sacred syllable Om
in the Vedas, the sound in air.

I am the fragrance in the earth,
the manliness in men, the brilliance
in fire, the life in the living,
and the abstinence in ascetics.

I am the primal seed .
within all beings, Arjuna:
the wisdom of those who know,
the splendor of the high and mighty._

Chapter 9 , 22-23
_"But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have."

"Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way."_


This "wrong way" was clearly identified in commentaries. 

Like I said, the name Krishna is irrelevant. All the way in GITA he defines the dharma, karma and supreme consciousness. His true form is nature itself. He defines himself as the energy of the sun, OM the knowledge of Vedas etc.

Krishna is not telling to worship some guy called Krishna, but after having explained his true form, he tells that worshipping that form is the truth.

This can be easily verified from nature. If we don't gather knowledge, we tend to remain in dark. If we hurt nature and cut trees, then it will only hurt us in terms of soil erosion, global warming, less oxygen etc. We all know how we need Sunlight for our existence. Maybe nature is GOD, knowledge is GOD, wisdom is GOD !!!

Chapter 3, Verse 42-43.
The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence.




So stop your little whinings will you? I repeated once again for u. 



NOW KINDLY EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHERE IS THE "boastful" nature of the verses? 

I wonder why you ignored the commentaries I gave and refrained after post #1009

And here you are posting ur trademark, i.e the childish "you said this and I said this" debate.


6) The complete conversation was stopped when I asked ...



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> "So which part may I ask, "proves" your point?



And here I am completing the sequence of logic (above part of the post).






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Learn how vedic rituals are performed.


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". 

"reverence" is the first part. Reverance does not mean either prayer or ritual. And so logic failed once more on you. This reverance is done in the 1.50 RV by stating how SUngod's nature is. 

Marking it all with prayer and ritual is again stupidity. Thats the height of illiteracy!







Once again for an umpteenth time: *Where are the religions I stated i.e Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism etc, are telling to kill people of other religions? Where is Buddha saying I'm the best?* 


Your throat must have dried real bad "googling" on this, begging the critics to back you up for one last time to support your hatred against religion, all this month, isn't it? The symptoms of your weak eyesight are already visible clearly.










			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Let me reiterate once again. The entire vedic corpus is about prayers and rituals. Almost all the Hymns are actually mantras to be recited at one ritual or other.





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> WE all know what "complete Vedic corpus" means. What you didn't know was that ..
> 
> * Vedas are compiled in poetic and metaphorical form. So for even an religion hater, an illiterate who generalises on single statements, a statement like "sungod riding on chariot with 7 horses" will be comprehended like " a god, that sun rides his chariot, on horses which are seven" without even knowing how the personification has been done.
> 
> ...







			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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).*





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> [SIZE=+1]*The basis of “Ayurveda” is bs. “Vedic Maths” is bs.*[/SIZE]


  


I rest my case for I have had enough phun with you already. Mocking a helpless illiterate is not my cup of tea!


----------



## thul (Jun 21, 2009)

mediator said:


> Once again for an umpteenth time: *Where are the religions I stated i.e Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism etc, are telling to kill people of other religions? Where is Buddha saying I'm the best?*



Buddhism and Sikhism must have some verses about killing infidels. Let me us google advanced search.


----------



## geek_rocker (Jun 21, 2009)

thul said:


> Buddhism and Sikhism must have some verses about killing infidels. Let me us google advanced search.


GTFO, Buddhism doesn't have the concept of "infidels". Buddhism is a somewhat of atheistic/agnostic religion. I'm Buddhist and also an agnostic.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

Enough said.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 25, 2009)

“*What Manu says is medicine*” – Taittiriya Samhita (II.2.10.2) & Tanda Maha Brhamana (XXII.16.17)

  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. The reason for this denial is understandable. Manusmriti, is one of the most racist, casteist and sexist text ever written in the name of Hinduism. This sticks out like sore thumb. But the problem is that the reality of casteism, or the place of women in Hindu society, can’t be swept under the carpet. Hinduism has drawn much criticism, and rightly so, for such inhuman practices. Thus, if it can be proved that the source of such practices was a result of some distortion, then it will absolve their religion of the accusation, that it supports this practice. Thus their religion will remain chaste, while the blame can then be shifted to something else, e.g. human error, intentional or otherwise. There is no doubt, that Brahminism resulted in most of the evils, that we see today in a Hindu society, but the fact remains that, these Brahmins, had texts like Manusmriti to defend their acts. What is even more amusing is that Manusmriti, alone is not the reason of the Brahmanical preponderance over Hindu society. There are numerous other texts, that support many of these absurd practices. Stragely, no denial of such texts are made. Anyway, those are outside the scope of this write up.

  There are three different arguments to deny Manusmriti’s veracity. a) Manusmriti is actually “Smriti”, and therefore, not important and should be ignored. b) Manusmriti was never authoritative, or had less influence among Hindus. c) Manusmriti was never a part of Hinduism. I will take on these three arguments, one by one, although b) and c) can be conflated into one argument only.

  Well, there is actually a fourth argument, which was echoed by people like Adi Shankaracharya and Dayananda Swaraswati. They had no doubt, that Manusmriti was one of the most important texts of Hinduism. But they also believed that the despicable parts of Manusmriti were not written by Manu himself, but by others, at a much later date. In other words, those disparaging remarks about caste, women etc. were interpolation. As usual, they forgot to give logical reasons, as to why those portions should be considered as interpolation. In any case, interpolation can’t be completely overruled, but there is very little to prove such interpolations. Instead, the structure of the entire treatise, the arrangements of the slokas, the consistency of Sanskrit grammar, and more importantly, the logic of his laws, almost invariably rule out later additions or redactions in any form. In the words of Sir James George Frazer, “Crude and false as that  philosophy may seem to us, it would be unjust to deny it the merit of logical consistency. The flaw of the system lies not in it’s reasoning but in it’s premises in it’s conception of the nature of life, not in any irrelevancy of the conclusions which it draws from that conclusions.” (_The Golden Bough_, pg 263). However, in this post, I will stay away from the interpolation debate.

  Before we get down to business, a few relevant words about Manu himself and his magnum opus, Manusmriti. There are 14 Manus in Hindu mythology. MBH mentions 7, 6 named and 1 unnamed. Upanishads extend this number to 14. The first Manu is called Svayambhu (Self born) Manu. In Hindu mythology, he is the first man, an equivalent of Bible’s Adam. In fact the base word for “manusya”, meaning man, comes from the word “manu” or “manus”.  Manu mythology, is spread all over the Hindu texts in one form or the other, the most notable one is of the Manu in “Matsya Purana”, where Vishnu, in his fish incarnation, saves Manu from a terrible flood (something similar to Noah’s flood). The law giver Manu is the one who succeeds the Manu in “Matsya Purana”.

  Manusmriti was written not earlier than 200 BC and not later than 200 AD. Most scholars take the circa 200 BC as the most probable date, but then, some apologist would claim it to have been written as early as 900 BC. It is actually a compilation of rules for rituals, already mentioned in the Vedas, the sutras, the brahmanas etc. and also the rules of social order, with, of course, Manu’s unique touch. It is probably the first Hindu text that attempts to provide such social rules, which go to the extent of prescribing rules for statecraft, for inheritance and also punishments for criminal acts. 

  A school of thought, believes that Manusmriti was not written by Manu at all. It was written by a nameless person, and ascribed it to Manu, for its acceptance. For example, Patrick Olivile notes in his, “_Law Code of Manu_”, that, “The eponym 'Manu', of course, is not the name of the historical author of this text. The name, however, was an astute choice. The ancient vedic text Taittiriya Samhita (2.2.10.2) records what appears to have been a proverbial saying: ‘Whatever Manu has said is medicine.’ Numerous legal maxims were ascribed to Manu, who must have been viewed by later generations as an ancient law giver.” (pg xxi) Another school believes that, Manu or whoever actually wrote Manusmriti, wasn’t really giving any rules to be followed, but was actually recording the social rules, that had already begun to exist in the society. In that sense, it comes close to being somewhat of a historical record. But then again, that is a different debate altogether.

  Let us now examine the arguments, mentioned earlier.

  a) Hindu texts actually fall under two categories. “Sruti” (what is heard of) and “Smriti” (what is remembered). “Sruti” refers to the texts that were revealed to the sages, while “Smriti” refers to the ones, that were written by the sages on their own understanding of the religion and society at large. Since, “Smriti” is the result of human endeavor, it is therefore subject to error while “Sruti”, being of divine source, is not. “Sruti” therefore has preponderance over “Smriti”. “Sruti” includes all the four Vedas, including their respective “samhitas”, “brahmanas”, “aranyakas” and “upanishads". “Smriti” includes everthing else. All the puranas, the rest of upanishads, sutras etc. A sub-category of “Smriti” is called “Itihasas” (history), which includes the epics, Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Gita.

  The argument, that Manusmriti is to be rejected because it is a “Smriti”, is inherently, a flawed argument. Because, in that case, it stops no one from rejecting all the puranas, all the Upanishads, the Gita, the MBH and Ramayana. In fact every single text, connected with, or written about Hinduism, that doesn’t suite one’s fancy or point of view, can be rejected on this ground. But that is certainly not the case. Current Hinduism, as I have argued before, is more Upanishadic and Puranic than it is vedic. Several important Hindu sects, like, Shaivism (worshippers of Lord Shiva) or Vaishnavism (worshippers of Lord Krishna, e.g. ISCKON) or Shakaism (worshippers of Shakti) do not even have vedic origin. Shaivism, for example, consider Shiva Purana more authoritative than Gita while, for a Vaishnav, Gita is the more authoritative. 

  The question then arises, can we pick and choose a text, or rather a “Smriti”, and reject it ? Adi Sankaracharya, while criticizing Kapila-smriti, comments, in his Vedanta Sutras, that, “*There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti*, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and a_s_ramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(_The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya_, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.) 

  Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and *the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda*, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)

  Lets move on to the next argument, that, Manusmriti was never authoritative or that it was never a part of Hinduism.

  b) & c) The argument of Manusrmiti, not being authoritative or influential, in a sense, do not exactly deny that Manusmriti, was a part of Hinduism, or that it was accepted, at least, by certain section of Hindus. On the question of authority, it can however be proved, that Manusmriti was indeed influential. In his, “_Brief History of Dharmasastra_”, S.C.Bannerji notes, “*The Manusmriti is the most authoritative work among Dharmasastras*. In the traditional list of writers on dharma, contained in the Yajnavalkya Smriti (i.4-5), Manu is mentioned first of all.” (Pg 32-33). 

  With the exception of Gita, no other “Smriti” can boast as many commentaries, as Manusmriti can. S.C.Bannerji observes, in the same book, that, “Manusmriti has been commented upon by a number of scholars. *Perhaps, no single smriti has got so many commentators*.” There are commentaries by Medhatithi (the oldest of all commentaries on Manusmriti), Kullukabhatta, Govidaraja, Narayana, Raghavananda,  Nandana and Ramachandra. Although, only Medhatithi and Kulluka’s commentaries are most of the time referred to. Had it been an unimportant text, there certainly wouldn’t have been so many commentaries. There are references of Manusmriti, in literary works of Sudraka (Mrcchakatika), Vatsayan (Kamasutra) etc. We have echo of some of the laws of Manu, in MBH and Gita and independent treatise like Kautilya’s Arthasastra. We have Adi Shankaracharya, Dawananda Swaraswati, Vivekananda, profusely quoting Manu in their lectures and other works. 

  S.N.Sen notes in “_History of the Freedom Movement in India_”, that, “IfRammohan appealed to the Upanishads, Bankim to the Gita and Vivekananda to the Advaita (of Shankara), Dayananda appealed to the Vedas (Hindu religious books). In 1875 Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-83) founded the Arya Samaj. Dayananda denounced idolatry, polygamy and caste and harked back to the Vedas as the fountain of all truth and the sheet anchor of Hinduism. *Manu Smriti **(one of the ancient Law-books of India) formed the basis of Dayananda's ethics for daily conduct*.” (pg 77) Dayanada went to include over a quarter of the total law codes of Manusmriti, in his magnum opus, “Satyarth Prakash”. Vivekanda, in his famous lecture, “The Work Before Us”, notes “Says our great law-giver, Manu: "Receive some good knowledge even from the low-born, and even from the man of lowest birth learn by service the road to heaven." *We*, therefore, *as true children of Manu, must obey his commands* and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (_The Complete Works of Vivekanda_, Vol. 3)

  I have already quoted Shankaracharya, a little earlier.

  Manu’s fame even went beyond the borders of India. Law books of Burma and Thailand ascribe to Manusmriti. The early Burmese law book, Wagaru Dhamma, contains 18 titles of law, which are dealt with in Manusmriti. The other ancient Burmese texts, that borrow heavily from Manusmriti, are Dhammavilasa, Dhammasatta, Manuyin etc. In Cylon a work in Pali, makes direct references to Manusmriti as well. Tests in Bali, Indonesia, Cambodia etc. all show, some influence of Manusmriti, in one form or the other.

  Attempting to mention all such references and influences in all the texts, is futile. I hope I have been able to give the idea, that Manusmriti has never been, just another Hindu text, neither in its influence, nor in its fame.

  Below are some of the references in some of the holy texts of Hindus. These references are ,by no means, exhaustive.

  ===============

  w.r.t Rg Veda

  But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused *the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet*. (M 1.31)

  Purusha Sukta, RV 10.90.12
  The *brahmana (priest) was his mouth*, If his *two arms were made the rajanya* (*kshatriya* - warrior), 
  His *two thighs the vaishya* (merchant and agriculturist), From *his feet the shudra* (laborer class) was born.

  Comment: The verse from Rg Veda, is considered by most scholars as later additions. Most of book 1 and 10 are. In any case, Manu’s mentioning of creation of caste was simply, a reference to the Rg Veda, and was not of his own articulation. This again, goes on to prove, that Manu’s position was never contrary to the Vedas.

  ===========

  w.r.t Gita

  Manusmriti
  The *Vaisya* to *tend cattle*, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), *to trade*, to lend money, and *to cultivate land*. (M 1.90)

  Among the several occupations the most commendable are, teaching the Veda for a Brahmana, protecting (the people) for a Kshatriya, and *trade for a Vaisya*. (M 10.80)

  If it be asked, ’How shall it be, if he cannot maintain himself by either (of these occupations?’  the answer is), he may adopt a *Vaisya’ s mode of life, employing himself in agriculture and rearing cattle*. (M 10.82)

  One occupation only the lord prescribed to the *Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes*. (M 1.92)

  Gita

*Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade* are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of *service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class)*, born of (their own) nature. (G 18.44)

  ========

  Manusmriti
  It is *better (to discharge) one’ s own (appointed) duty incompletely than to perform completely that of another*; for he who lives according to the law of another (caste) is instantly excluded from his own. (M 10.97)

  Gita
*Better is one’s own duty (though) destitute of merits, than the duty of another well performed*. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin. (G 18.44)

  ========

  w.r.t Mahabharata

  But *in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas*, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Sudras; (M 10.43)
  (Viz.) the Paundrakas, the Kodas, the *Dravidas*, the *Kambogas*, the *Yavanas*, the *Sakas*, the Paradas, the *Pahlavas*, the Kinas, the Kiratas, and the Daradas. (M 10.43)

  “It is *in consequence of the absence of Brahmanas* from among them that the *Sakas*, the *Yavanas*, the *Kamvojas* and other Kshatriya tribes have become fallen and degraded into the status of Sudras. The *Dravidas*, the Kalingas, the *Pulandas*, the Usinaras, the Kolisarpas, the Mahishakas and other Kshatriyas, have, in consequence of the absence of Brahmanas from among their midst, become degraded into Sudras.” [MBH, Anusasana Parva (13.35)]

  Comments: The “Pahlavas” refer to Persians, while, “Yavanas” to Greeks, “Shakas” to Scythians.

  ==============

  These races, *(which originate) in a confusion (of the castes and)* have been described according to their fathers and mothers, *may be known by their occupations*, whether they conceal or openly show themselves. (10.40)

  "Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent serpent, *it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of promiscuous intercourse among the four orders*. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as--_of what caste so ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice_. *Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the chief essential requisite*. [Aranya Parva, (3.179)]

  Comment: The predicament, that gripped Manu, seemed to have gripped Yudhishthira as well. How to determine caste of a person born of parents, belonging to different castes. Both Manu and Yudhishthira, appear to consider that in such cases of intermingling, birth shouldn’t be the basis of caste. 

  ================

  In modern Hindu society, the biggest bane is its caste system. Not surprisingly, the same caste system gets sanctioned in Manusmriti pretty unambiguously. The disparaging attitude towards the female sex, is also pretty common in Hindu society. Rampant female feticide is one fall out of that perversion.

  Let us further examine, if Manu’s laws, other than caste, had/have any bearing on contemporary/modern Hindu society. I have selected some of the laws, that are pretty much visible, even today. The following, needless to say, is not exhaustive.

  Keep in mind this law, for the phrase “twice born” will be mentioned quite a number of times:

  10.4. *Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya castes (varna) are the twice-born* ones, but the fourth, *the Sudra, has one birth only*; there is no fifth (caste). 

  1st birth is the natural birth, while the 2nd birth refers to upanayana or if you want to be more liberal, education.

  General Practices:

Non-violence and vegetarianism: 

  5.15. He who eats the flesh of any (animal) is called the eater of the flesh of that (particular creature), he who eats fish is an eater of every (kind of) flesh; *let him therefore avoid fish*. 

  5.43. A twice-born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in (his own) house, with a teacher, or in the forest, *must never, even in times of distress, cause an injury (to any creature)* which is not sanctioned by the Veda. 

  5.48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; *let him therefore shun (the use of) meat*. 

  5.49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, *let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.* 

  Comments: To this day, a huge community of Hindus are vegetarians and do not eat fish (except for Eastern India, e.g. Bengal, Orissa). Manu, however, makes exception for two specific fishes, Pathina and Rohita. He also sanctions eating meat, only when in distress and is a matter of survival, or for sacrificial purpose, only to the extent and in the manner permitted by the Vedas.

  ==============

Prohibition of garlic/onion eating:

  5.5. *Garlic, leeks and onions*, mushrooms and (all plants), springing from impure (substances), are *unfit to be eaten by twice-born men.* 

  Comment: This is typical of Hindu vegetarianism. No onion. Again, sanctioned by Manu. Followed even today.

  ==============

Rules for OM:

  2.74. Let him always *pronounce the syllable Om at the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in) the Veda*; (for) unless the syllable Om precede (the lesson) will slip away (from him), and unless it follow it will fade away. 

  Comment: A religious Hindu almost always pronounces “OM”, at least before the beginning of anything, that s/he considers to be important. Sanctioned by Manu.

  ==============

Rules of Charansparsh (prostrating before the revered):

  2.71. At the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in the) Veda he must always *clasp both the feet of his teacher*, (and) he must study, *joining his hands; that is called the Brahmangali* (joining the palms for the sake of the Veda). 

  2.72. *With crossed hands he must clasp (the feet) of the teacher, and touch the left (foot) with his left (hand), the right (foot) with his right (hand). *

  Comment: Average Hindu does a shorter version of it, using one hand, preferably the right hand. But in classical rituals, and traditional festivities, most of the Hindus follow this rule of charansparsh.

Inheritance:

  9.104. After the death of the father and of the mother, *the brothers*, being assembled, *may divide among themselves in equal shares* the paternal (and the maternal) estate; for, they have no power (over it) while the parents live.

  9.130. A son is even (as) oneself, (such) *a daughter is equal to a son*; how can another (heir) take the estate, while such (an appointed daughter who is even) oneself, lives? 

  Comments: The two rules, combined, imply, that parental property is to be divided equally between the sons and daughters. Something, which is enshrined in our current Hindu law, with very little modification.

  ==============

  Cow Urine:

  5.121. A man who knows (the law) *must purify *conch-shells, horn, bone and ivory, like linen cloth, or *with a mixture of cow’s urine and water. *

  11.90. A twice-born man who has (intentionally) drunk, through delusion of mind, (the spirituous liquor called) Sura shall drink that liquor boiling-hot; when his body has been completely scalded by that, he is freed from his guilt; 

  11.91. Or *he may drink cow’ s urine*, water, milk, clarified butter or (liquid) cow dung boiling-hot, until he dies; 

  Comment: Regardless of its supposed therapeutic value as per Ayurveda, cow urine is still considered as holy and a purifying agent. 

  ===============

  Panchagavya (Five products of cow):

  11.165. (*To swallow*)* the five products of the cow *(*pankagavya*)* is the atonement* for stealing eatables of various kinds, a vehicle, a bed, a seat, flowers, roots, or fruit. 

  Comment: The five products are, milk, curd, butter, urine and dung. Swallowing of these five products, is a form of prayaschitta (penance) for certain sins. This belief is still prevalent among the hardcore Hindus.

  ==============

  Ritual Practices (sanctioned by Manu):

5 daily performances:

  3.70. Teaching (and studying) is the sacrifice (offered) to Brahman, *the (offerings of water and food called) Tarpana the sacrifice to the manes*, the burnt oblation the sacrifice offered to the gods, the Bali offering that offered to the Bhutas, and the hospitable reception of guests the offering to men. 

  Comment: These are collectively called “mahayajnas”. Individually these are called “brahmayajna”, “pitryajna”, “devayajna”, “bhutayajna” and “manusyayajna” respectively. The most famous of these performances is the “pitryajna”. This is described in detail in Srautasutra, but it is Manu, who calls it “tarpana”, by which it is more popularly known as.

  =============

5 sacrifices:

  3.74. *Ahuta* (not offered in the fire) is the muttering (of Vedic texts), *Huta* the burnt oblation (offered to the gods), *Prahuta* (offered by scattering it on the ground) the *Bali* offering given to the Bhutas, Brahmya-huta (offered in the digestive fire of Brahmanas), the *respectful reception* of Brahmana (guests), and Prasita (eaten) the (daily oblation to the manes, called) Tarpana. 

  Comment: These are followed, in almost all religious ritual.

  =============

Feeding at least on Brahmin, during Sraddh:

  3.83. Let him *feed even one Brahmana in honour of the manes* at (the Sraddha), which belongs to the five great sacrifices; but let him not feed on that (occasion) any Brahmana on account of the Vaisvadeva offering.

  Comment: Needless to say, how this is adhered to, still today.

  ================

Sanctioning inaudible and mental recitation of prayers:

  2.85. An offering, consisting of *muttered prayers, is ten times more efficacious* than a sacrifice performed according to the rules (of the Veda); a *(prayer) which is inaudible (to others) surpasses it a hundred times*, and the *mental (recitation of sacred texts) a thousand times*. 

  =================

Prayascittas (Penance): 

  11.46. A *sin unintentionally committed is expiated by the recitation of Vedic texts*, but that *which (men) in their folly commit intentionally, by various (special) penances*. 

  Comments: He prescribes five types of penances, Pahchagavya, mentioned earlier, being one of those.
  ================

Upanayana: 

  2.42. The girdle of a Brahmana shall consist of a of *a triple cord* of Munga grass, smooth and soft; (that) of a Kshatriya, of a bowstring, made of Murva fibres; (that) of a Vaisya, of hempen threads. 

  2.43. If Munga grass (and so forth) be not procurable, (the girdles) may be made of Kusa, Asmantaka, and Balbaga (fibres), with *a single threefold knot, or with three or five (knots according to the custom of the family).* 

  2.44. The sacrificial string of a Brahmana shall be made of cotton, (shall be) *twisted to the right*, (and consist) of *three threads*, that of a Kshatriya of hempen threads, (and) that of a Vaisya of woollen threads. 

  2.48. Having taken a staff according to his choice, having worshipped the sun and walked round the fire, turning his right hand towards it, *(the student) should beg alms* according to the prescribed rule. 

  2.49. An initiated Brahmana should beg, *beginning (his request with the word) lady (bhavati)*; a Kshatriya, placing (the word) lady in the middle, but a Vaisya, placing it at the end (of the formula). 

  2.50. Let him *first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt*, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal). 

  2.51. Having collected as much food as is required (from several persons), and having announced it without guile to his teacher, let him *eat, turning his face towards the east*, and having purified himself by sipping water. 

  2.53. Let a twice-born man always *eat his food* with concentrated mind, after *performing an ablution*; and after he has eaten, let him duly cleanse himself with water and sprinkle the cavities (of his head). 

  =============

References:
_Manusmriti_
_Mahabharata_ (English translation by K.M. Ganguli
_Gita_ (Translations and commentaries by Prabhupada & Sivananda)
_Encyclopaedia of Hinduism_ by N.K. Singh.
_History of Dharmasastra_ by P.V. Kane 
_A Brief_ _History of Dharmasastra_ by S.C. Bannerji
_Law Code of Manu_ by Patrick Olivile
_The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya_, translated by George Thibout
_The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanda_
_History of the Freedom Movement in India_ by S.N. Sen
_Satyarth Prakash_ by Dawanada Saraswati

====================
ERRATA: Patrick "Olivile" shall read Patrick "Olivelle"


----------



## karnivore (Jun 25, 2009)

OK, I am briefly back from my brief hiatus. Now where were we.



mediator said:


> me said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.



> How will jains and buddhists be termed *if they reject or "not believe" in all the science and maths, the karmic principle, morality and wisdom in vedas*?


  Nastik. 
  Besides, I did reply to your idiocy.


			
				me said:
			
		

> _If one accepts that there is a sun and an earth and a moon and some stars, or that 2 + 2 = 4, he has accepted Vedas. You are clutching at straws. Keep clutching. And yes Buddha rejected the “Karmic principles of hinduism”. Since *Karma is not a vedic principle, the question doesn’t arise w.r.t the Vedas*._





> "Usually" fit in the cases like you.


  Theorem: Prove that mediator is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
  Status: Proved, lock, stock and barrel.


> 2) Had you read korrectly *I actually told that Hinduism is a way of life also, but can also be called religion*. *One faith can be disassociated from another*. One science lesson from another, one teacher from another etc. A wise teacher never tells he is superior to others or tells to kill those who doesn't follow him.
> 
> Such simple logic yet failed on you.


  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.

  2nd bold sentence: Another lie. You are disassociating your religion not because of what you are trying to say here. If you had, then we wouldn’t have been debating for this long. You would have then agreed to the following comments.

*rhitwick #1009*

  “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)


*"Same" means the theme, the purpose it was created for*. Its the ultimate GOAL which unites all these different religions[FONT=&quot].”[/FONT]

  Earlier, I had said, in post *#996*

  “All theistic religions are indeed *same, in their core belief*. Where *they differ, is how they go about their business*.”

  You were, obviously trying to prove something else. You started by judging other religions by saying:

  “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".”

  Then you go on to assert:

  “And Gita is a whole subject on that "duty" of what, how and where one should act diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently etc.”

  That was a lame way of saying, my Gita is better than their holy books. 



> 3) Your little speeches, the acts of *chauvinism*, *generalisation* on many people who disagree can quite be considered as "boastful". Such "boast" is not visible in GITA. An illiterate critic who has hardly read GITA and mumbling over it, is called ignorance + arrogance ! Understand lil apprentice?


  You just called Krishna boastful. Besides, like the word “plagiarism”, you should also look up the meaning of the word “chauvinism”. 


> 4) *AFAIK*, *buddha was against the brahminism*, "by birth", the supremacy of Vedas that the brahmins were preaching to establish their own control, that was arising at that time giving rise to a lot of bad cult. So once again, *where did Buddha said to his disciples that "he is against Vedas".
> *
> I guess you have *completely chickened out from giving excerpts from buddhists texts*. Keep ignoring, run away from my questions and the core of the debate for thats the only thing left for you.
> 
> ...


  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.

  2nd bold: Isn’t the fact that Buddhism is a *non-theistic* “religion”, enough of a proof of his rejection Hindu theism and henotheism (not the pantheistic part though), which is enshrined in the vedas? 

  3rd bold: What excerpts ?

  4th bold: Please tell me that you know of Adi Shankaracharya and his antics relating to Buddhism. Anyway, for the time being make do with Dayananda Saraswati. 
“If the worship of the senses and the mind (i.e., becoming a slave to them) is held to be the means of attaining, what difference is there, then, between the Buddhists and the sensualists? When the Buddhists did not escape being slaves to the senses, how could they ever attain salvation? People who are slaves to their senses can never have an idea of what salvation really is. *What a wonderful progress have hey (i.e., the Buddhists) made in ignorance*? They have really no equal in this respect. *It is certain that this is the result of their opposing the Veda and God*. First they imagined that in the whole world there was nothing but sorrow and suffering and then they formulated this doctrine of Dwadashayatanapuja consist in worshipping objects which are outside the world? If this mode of worship could lead to salvation, we should think a man, with closed eyes, could as well find diamonds.  

*These people have come to believe in such stupid things by rejecting the Veda and God*. Even now if they seek happiness, they should lean on the Veda and God and thereby realize the true aim of human life. ”
  -Satyarth Prakash (pg. 517-518 )
​5th bold: Really. But you have rejected Praphupada’s commentary. He, last time I checked, is still considered as the authority on Gita. So basically, if a site “gives scriptures in proper comprehension and order”, there is still a chance you may reject it on the plea that it doesn’t suite your fancy. 


> Wat a waste of time and intellect. This must the umpteenth time you have brought manusmriti to support your hatred towards Hinduism.
> 
> And I repeat, *manusmiriti was never considered a part of Hinduism*. Not every ancient Indian work can be considered a part of Hinduism. All these drivels marked with hatred must be affecting ur eyesight to read the lines I put repeatedly.


  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. 

  Anyway, read post #1072. For a brief rebuttal. Any other person with reason, and I would expect to see the last of this nonsense, after that. But with you…


> Chapter 9 , 22-23
> _"But *those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form*—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have."
> 
> "Those *who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me*, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way."_
> ...


  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 ?

  The “wrong way” relates to verse 9.23, not 9.22, the commentary of which you had given. Now, what do the commentaries on verse 9.23, on that site say. I quote one by one, only editing for brevity.

*Even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods, worship Me only, O Arjuna, but by the wrong method!* (9.23)

  Sridhara Swami

  “As the* reality is that there is only one Supreme Lord and that is Lord Krishna *and that the* worship of any of the demigods who manage universal creation are all His devotees as well; *then needless to say* the worship of any other lesser god unconnected to Him is superfluous.* ”

  Madhvacarya

  “*Lord Krishna speaks this verse to alleviate any doubt that He is the sole recipient and ultimate goal of all Vedic yagnas or offering and propitiation as enjoined in the Vedas*. 

  -snipped-

*The worship of Brahma or Shiva or the demigods is also worship of the Supreme Lord as it is He who they are worshipping but it is indirect*.”

  Ramanuja

  “*Lord Krishna confirms that everyone who worships the demigods like Brahma or Shiva as prescribed in traividya or the karma kanda or fruitive reward sections of the Vedas; as well as worship of lesser divinities such as Indra and Surya and also worship of impersonal conceptions of god are all in reality propitiation to the Supreme Lord but offered in an unconscious, indirect way*. ”

  Kesava Kasmiri

  “*The astute can perceive that if all the demigods comprise the Supreme Lord Krishna's transcendental body and that He resides within each and every one of them as paramatma the Supreme Soul as He does in all sentient beings; then worship of them is indirect worship of Him and also that all the demigods devotees are indirectly the Supreme Lords devotees.* ”

  Verse 9.23 is therefore a supremacist one, ingeniously declaring all other gods and every other faiths to be inferior to the megalomaniac Mr Kishen Kanaihya. I guess now you know why I asked you to ask a Shaivite priest, if he would agree with you or me. 

  These interpretations are in complete sync with what I had said in post *#1004*. In any case, I was using Praphupada’s commentaries as reference.

  “BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: *one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna)*.”

  But I should have quoted this one as well.



> 4) Did you forget already the definition of "him" that Krishna puts?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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”.

  “*I am the father of this universe, the mother*_…_” (9.17)

  “Know that these two (My higher and lower Natures) are the womb of all beings. So, *I am the source and dissolution of the whole universe.*” (7.6)

  “*I am the source of all; from Me everything evolves*; understanding thus, the wise, endowed with meditation, worship Me.” (10.8 )

  “Whatever forms are produced, O Arjuna, in any womb whatsoever, the great Brahma is their womb and *I am the seed-giving father*” (14.4)

  In Gita, Krishna claims to be the creator, the creation (pantheism), the protector, the provider and the destroyer (theism). You have selected only the part where he claims to be the creation and quietly sidestepped the other parts. That’s called “intellectual treason”, to borrow the term from Professor Dawkins.

  Regarding Krishna not being an individual.

  “*For the protection of the good*, *for the destruction of the wicked*, and *for the establishment of righteousness*, *I am born in every age*.” (6.8 )

  This famous verse talks of incarnation of Krishna (Vishnu). If Krishna is not an individual (divine in human form), what does his incarnation, and particularly this verse, mean ? It was you who claimed that Buddha is Vishnu’s incarnation, perhaps continue to do so. Now, Buddha is a historical figure, someone who actually existed in flesh and blood. So, what do you make of it. Please explain to us, how Krishna’s (Vishnu’s) incarnation fits in the selective definitions that you have provided. 

  Besides, if Krishna is not an individual, then what metaphor did he assume in the entire epic of MBH ?

  All these pieces are tied in single string, much like dominos. One falls, and it takes all the other with it. If you define Krishna ONLY as “nature” or “knowledge” or “wisdom”, the other dominos will come tumbling down. If he is not considered as a divine in HUMAN form, an individual in his own rights, then the whole story of incarnation goes bust, the whole epic of MBH falls apart.

  And come to think of it, you accuse me of not looking at Gita holistically. Some kidder you are.


> So stop your little whinings will you? I repeated once again for u.
> 
> 
> 
> NOW KINDLY EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHERE IS THE "boastful" nature of the verses?


  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.


> And here you are posting ur trademark, i.e the childish "you said this and I said this" debate.
> 
> 
> 6) The complete conversation was stopped when I asked ...
> ...


  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.


> *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".
> 
> *"reverence" is the first part. Reverance does not mean either prayer or ritual*. And so logic failed once more on you. This reverance is done in the 1.50 RV by stating how SUngod's nature is.
> 
> Marking it all with prayer and ritual is again stupidity. Thats the height of illiteracy!


  1st bold: Shocking, isn’t it. Don’t see any rule where it says that atheists can’t learn about the religion.

  2nd bold: “*Always glorifying Me*, striving, firm in vows, prostrating before Me, *they worship Me with devotion*, ever steadfast.” (Gita:9.14). 

  I guess this verse in Gita should be expunged. So much for, “*Reverance does not mean either prayer or ritual*”. The “glorification” or “reverence”, is very much an integral part of a mantra. It is, to put it lightly, divine azz licking.



> Once again for an umpteenth time: *Where are the religions I stated i.e Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism etc, are telling to kill people of other religions? Where is Buddha saying I'm the best?*


  I have replied to that at least twice.


> *Your throat must have dried real bad* "googling" on this, begging the critics to back you up for one last time to support your hatred against religion, all this month, isn't it? The symptoms of your weak eyesight are already visible clearly.


  Actually my fingers hurt. My brain hurts too. 



> WE all know what "complete Vedic corpus" means. What you didn't know was that ..
> 
> * Vedas are compiled in poetic and metaphorical form. So for even an religion hater, an illiterate who generalises on single statements, a statement like "sungod riding on chariot with 7 horses" will be comprehended like " a god, that sun rides his chariot, on horses which are seven" without even knowing how the personification has been done.
> 
> ...





			
				me said:
			
		

> * Again pissing at the wrong tree. Man I am getting drenched in all this stinking piss of yours. YUK.
> _ADDED_: What about the other mythical figures, e.g. Indra, Aswins, Soma, Marut, Mitra, Prajapati, Rudra etc. If they didn’t consider sun as demigod, why are there oblation to sun? Why pray to sun ? Why in the freaking hell, would these vedic people believe that Sun would be able to fulfill one’s prayer ?
> 
> * Adi Sankaracharya could. Vivekananda could. Arobindo could. Tom can. Dick can. Harry can. I can. But you can’t. Pity.
> ...





> I rest my case for I have had enough phun with you already


  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. 


> Mocking a helpless illiterate is not my cup of tea!


  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. 

  It never was.


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 25, 2009)

*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/13.png


----------



## karnivore (Jun 26, 2009)

I completely forgot about your post, amitash.


amitash said:


> i know its not...just asking you how its logical for parents to tell ppl their childs marks, celebrate birthdays ets and not logical to celebrate the starting of education.


  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.


> You are again veering offtopic, it was accepting the phillosophical part without the spiritual part...you can just *reject all the human to cat rebirth thing and take karma just as deed*.


  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.


> good and bad are all relative FYI...even happiness is good, its very simple actually, you do something that you feel is good, you will feel happy so you have got good there in return....in a war if you kill an enemy soldier, you think you are doing good by protecting your countries citizens and thus you get a sense of accomplishment and happiness which is good in return, its very simple, anything you do which you consider as good, will give you some good in return.


  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.


> Again you are veering off and strengthening my point, accept the righteous path part and reject all the creation part...thus phillosophy without spirituality.


  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”. 

  Perhaps, I understand what you are trying to say. However, if you use the word “dharma” to determine your righteousness, you actually bring in some excess baggage with it, and it is inevitable. If you are an atheist, you should know, that to be righteous, you don’t need to refer to a bloody holy book.


> again you are raving...just because something happened to some other scripture in some other part of the world doesnt mean it would have, under the same conditions.


  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. 

  Remember what I had said, earlier: “Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts.”


> *aurveda starts with the atharva veda* FYI...and can you please state the basis of ayurveda?
> 
> *read more about vedic maths*, you will understand
> 
> ...


  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.

  The aryurvedic principle is based on the hindu belief, that the entire universe is made up of 5 elements. Earth, Air, Space (also called Aether), Fire, Water. (Some say, that it was actually copied from the Greeks with 1 element added. Incidentally, the Greeks believed the there were 4 elements, Earth, Wind, Water and Fire.) Ayurveda further believes that the biological form of the 5 elements is Vata, Pitta and Kapha (together they are known as Tridosha). None of which is supported by science.

  2nd Bold: I actually had the book that started this mumbo jumbo. But for your eyes, here is a pamphlet issued by certain luminaries, refuting the so called Vedic mathematics. If you want, I can give you more detailed refutation. On second thought, no, I guess I won’t. This pamphlet is enough to raise doubts in your mind. If you want to learn, you will have to find it.

  3rd bold: No you didn’t. A mere mention of a sun or a moon or a planet or a constellation, that can be observed through naked eye is not “proved science”.  

  4th bold: The reason, I mentioned of other civilizations, is to give you a perspective, that every ancient civilization had its own methods, and knowledge base. As I have said just now, a mere mention of something doesn’t make it unique in any sense. If it did, then marvel comics series also a contain lot of science. Harry Potter also contains science. Heck, every book contains science. And since I mentioned of moon and sun and earth, in this very post, I guess it also contains science. Is that how you are going to argue? 

  You still haven’t provided me any specific verse/hymn/prose from any of the Vedas to support your claim, that Vedas spoke of science. 


> lol again you strengthen my point...do you think *sati was abolished overnight? it took generations* to do so! same thing for everything else you have stated...your original point was that nothing was changing whereas i said change is happening but slowly...which you have agreed to right now.


  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. 

  When I asked you to cite one change, all you could do is come up with an absurd example. 


> If you stuck to your own rules we wouldnt have been having this arguement right now.


  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.

  I know, I never made any claim that I couldn’t support. This an open forum. Search and find me something that I have said and couldn’t support.


----------



## mediator (Jun 26, 2009)

Equality 

The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular 
(RV Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8  )

Manusmiriti : "Veda is the foundation of entire Dharma."

It reconfirms that the supreme authority of law is the shruti i.e. Vedas.


I wonder why you forget what the link says...



			
				article said:
			
		

> The very concepts of castes by birth, upper/lower castes, superior/inferior castes, outcastes, untouchables, dalits, etc. are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, by Ramayana and by Shrimad Bhagwat Gita.
> 
> *Protagonists of castes by birth cite in particular Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Shrimad Bhagwat Gita. This claim is totally knocked down if one keeps in mind other richas of Rigveda and other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord Rama. There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from a simple fact that names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present day caste titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh, Rao Gupta, Namboodari, etc. etc.*
> 
> ...


*www.hinduwisdom.info/articles_hinduism/283.htm





I feel like yawning reading your posts now. But neways, lets toy with you a lil more..... 







			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> “What Manu says is medicine” – Taittiriya Samhita (II.2.10.2) & Tanda Maha Brhamana (XXII.16.17)


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:
			
		

> 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. The reason for this denial is understandable. Manusmriti, is one of the most racist, casteist and sexist text ever written in the name of Hinduism. _This sticks out like sore thumb. But the problem is that the reality of casteism, or the place of women in Hindu society, can’t be swept under the carpet._ Hinduism has drawn much criticism, and rightly so, for such inhuman practices. Thus, if it can be proved that the source of such practices was a result of some distortion, then it will absolve their religion of the accusation, that it supports this practice. _Thus their religion will remain chaste, while the blame can then be shifted to something else,_ e.g. human error, intentional or otherwise. There is no doubt, that Brahminism resulted in most of the evils, that we see today in a Hindu society, but the fact remains that, these Brahmins, had texts like Manusmriti to defend their acts. What is even more amusing is that Manusmriti, alone is not the reason of the Brahmanical preponderance over Hindu society. There are numerous other texts, that support many of these absurd practices. Stragely, no denial of such texts are made. Anyway, those are outside the scope of this write up.
> 
> There are three different arguments to deny Manusmriti’s veracity. a) Manusmriti is actually “Smriti”, and therefore, not important and should be ignored. *b) Manusmriti was never authoritative, or had less influence among Hindus. c) Manusmriti was never a part of Hinduism.* I will take on these three arguments, one by one, although b) and c) can be conflated into one argument only.
> 
> Well, there is actually a fourth argument, which was echoed by people like Adi Shankaracharya and Dayananda Swaraswati. They had no doubt, that Manusmriti was one of the most important texts of Hinduism. *But they also believed that the despicable parts of Manusmriti were not written by Manu himself, but by others, at a much later date. In other words, those disparaging remarks about caste, women etc. were interpolation. As usual, they forgot to give logical reasons, as to why those portions should be considered as interpolation. In any case, interpolation can’t be completely overruled, but there is very little to prove such interpolations.* Instead, the structure of the entire treatise, the arrangements of the slokas, the consistency of Sanskrit grammar, and more importantly, the logic of his laws, almost invariably rule out later additions or redactions in any form. In the words of Sir James George Frazer, “Crude and false as that philosophy may seem to us, it would be unjust to deny it the merit of logical consistency. The flaw of the system lies not in it’s reasoning but in it’s premises in it’s conception of the nature of life, not in any irrelevancy of the conclusions which it draws from that conclusions.” (The Golden Bough, pg 263). However, in this post, I will stay away from the interpolation debate.


Italics => more like generalization from a critic's site. If its your comprehension, then you continuing with your own mockery!
Bold => Yes, and the logic reasons have been given in the previous article I linked, that I have given to you to read word by word infinte number of times and yet ignored by you.

Since its your old habit that when unable to accept the truth, you start ignoring it and then later post your trollic, childish trademark i.e "you said this and I said this debate, so here it is in case you missed.....again!



			
				article said:
			
		

> But, British Indian Courts neglected this advice of Macdonnel. Further, the original text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who arbitrarily elevated it as the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts. Bertrand Russel in his book, Power, has traced from prehistoric times that priestly class used religious beliefs and practices to accumulate power and wealth. In medieval times, kings used to rule in many European countries at pleasure of Catholic Pope. Papal approval was a must for ascending thrones in Europe. So, priestly class acquiring power in name of religion was there in other societies also.









			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> A school of thought, *believes that Manusmriti was not written by Manu at all. It was written by a nameless person, and ascribed it to Manu,* for its acceptance. For example, Patrick Olivile notes in his, “Law Code of Manu”, that, “The eponym 'Manu', of course, is not the name of the historical author of this text. The name, however, was an astute choice. The ancient vedic text Taittiriya Samhita (2.2.10.2) records what appears to have been a proverbial saying: ‘Whatever Manu has said is medicine.’ Numerous legal maxims were ascribed to Manu, who must have been viewed by later generations as an ancient law giver.” (pg xxi) Another school believes that, Manu or whoever actually wrote Manusmriti, wasn’t really giving any rules to be followed, but was actually recording the social rules, that had already begun to exist in the society. In that sense, it comes close to being somewhat of a historical record. But then again, that is a different debate altogether.


May be!






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)


You first call the texts of manusmriti as most racist, casteist and sexist and then say it is not contradicting Vedas? 









			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> w.r.t Rg Veda
> 
> But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. (M 1.31)
> 
> ...


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.....




			
				article said:
			
		

> Translation of (X.90.12) by HH Wilson '*His mouth became the Brahmana*, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.' Translation of (X.90.12) by Griffith '*The Brahman was his mouth*, of both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.'


*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*. 

While the translation of griffith is different. It says "Brahman was his mouth". How can Brahman become the mouth? In this context, the meaning assumes "by birth" definition. 

And so while first translation defines "by karma", griffith mistranslation defines "by birth".





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> w.r.t Gita
> 
> Manusmriti
> The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land. (M 1.90)
> ...


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.

Coming to Gita, like I said "born of their own nature" is defining karma only. I dunno why ur serotonins continue to jitter on this one.

Every person has a nature. That nature defines his karma and that karma (actions) defines the class of the person. And so the verse clearly tells the duties of a Vaishya. It *does not* say a person born of Vaishya father, is a Vaishya!

And so I explained this before as I do now. All you do is repeat this verse without opening your eyes to my explanations........Yawn!





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Manusmriti
> It is better (to discharge) one’ s own (appointed) duty incompletely than to perform completely that of another; for he who lives according to the law of another (caste) is instantly excluded from his own. (M 10.97)
> 
> Gita
> Better is one’s own duty (though) destitute of merits, than the duty of another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin. *(G 18.44)*


Are u trying to find comparisons to escape from ur sorry state?

I know u r desperate and frustrated but ateast point to the correct verse. The verse you stated is not 18.44 but 18.47! 






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not giving an answer was a better option for you coz u just proved ur idiocy.

Much of the science in Vedas is in agreement with modern science. Much of the principles of Vedas are similar to Buddhism and Jainism. A person who does not believe in "good deeds", science, mathematics and moral principles can naturally be termed as foolish. Are you tring to imply that Jains and Buddhists are "foolish"?

It is for this very reason I asked the statement in the bold. Like I said nastik means not believing and it is usually used in context of God. And hence it is not all Hindus who are saying anything to Jains or Buddhists neither are the hindu scriptures saying that they have anything against Jains and Buddhists and nor the Buddhist scriptures saying that they have anything against "Hinduism" of Jainism. Buddha is not sayng I'm the best. It is only the religion haters and scripture illiterates like u who are acting "foolishly"!




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 2nd bold sentence: Another lie. You are disassociating your religion not because of what you are trying to say here. If you had, then we wouldn’t have been debating for this long. You would have then agreed to the following comments.
> 
> ...


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!!

Like I said you are very bad at logic. It seems you need straight replies and statements for your spoon feeding. Oh well, here I state in straight forward fashion for my lil dumb apprentice => "Hinduism is a philosophy of life"!! Happy now? 


2) lol, trying to take help of ur comrade? Guess u have been reduced to taking help of other people now.






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Earlier, I had said, in post #996
> 
> “All theistic religions are indeed same, in their core belief. Where they differ, is how they go about their business.”
> 
> ...


U actually comprehend my statement in the bold as "a lame way of saying, my Gita is better than their holy books"?????  

Never knew u wud be mocking urself that badly!


I have given my understanding of what a religion is. I rever Buddhism, I rever Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. I further stated from the very start that you may or may not agree with any verse of any scripture. Further, I asked, where are these scriptures talking to "kill" people of other religions or stating they are the best? I don't see GITA saying that Gita is the best or krishna saying krishna is the best or buddha saying buddha is the best or gurunanak saying the same etc etc.


Ur imagination followed by ur compilation of ur childish comprehension in terms of written form here is only mocking u further and further.






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 2nd bold: Isn’t the fact that Buddhism is a non-theistic “religion”, enough of a proof of his rejection Hindu theism and henotheism (not the pantheistic part though), which is enshrined in the vedas?
> 
> 3rd bold: What excerpts ?


1) I stated the wrong before too. Seems like u were in the state of constipation unable to understand it all.
2) Ur imagination mocks you one more time. Like I said before, I remain an atheist. It doesn't mean I have to take any side with either a theist or an atheist or blindly believe anyone. You may or may not accept any part of Vedas you don't understand or find it hard to understand. It doesn't mean you have to hate Vedas.




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 4th bold: Please tell me that you know of Adi Shankaracharya and his antics relating to Buddhism. Anyway, for the time being make do with Dayananda Saraswati.
> “If the worship of the senses and the mind (i.e., becoming a slave to them) is held to be the means of attaining, what difference is there, then, between the Buddhists and the sensualists? When the Buddhists did not escape being slaves to the senses, how could they ever attain salvation? People who are slaves to their senses can never have an idea of what salvation really is. What a wonderful progress have hey (i.e., the Buddhists) made in ignorance? They have really no equal in this respect. It is certain that this is the result of their opposing the Veda and God. First they imagined that in the whole world there was nothing but sorrow and suffering and then they formulated this doctrine of Dwadashayatanapuja consist in worshipping objects which are outside the world? If this mode of worship could lead to salvation, we should think a man, with closed eyes, could as well find diamonds.
> 
> These people have come to believe in such stupid things by rejecting the Veda and God. Even now if they seek happiness, they should lean on the Veda and God and thereby realize the true aim of human life. ”
> -Satyarth Prakash (pg. 517-518 )


1) Please address the source the quote! 
2) Second I already stated it is humans who generalise and talk of other religions and not the scriptures of the religion I stated.

And with this, it only proves how desperately you are chickening out from my question => "here are these scriptures talking to "kill" people of other religions or stating they are the best? I don't see GITA saying that Gita is the best or krishna saying krishna is the best or buddha saying buddha is the best or gurunanak saying the same etc etc."

Further, stating what other people think of other religions is only adding to ur mockery. It once again proves my point in all glory on how you avoid the scriptures itself and only state what others think of it. Perhaps u shud start using dig.com articles.

The gita verse 18.47 reflects on u loud and clear..

_""It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.""_


You are only quoting what "others" think, ignoring the verses themselves & the entire conversation i.e GITA. You are not engaged in ur own occupation. 




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 5th bold: Really. *But you have rejected Praphupada’s commentary.* He, last time I checked, is still considered as the authority on Gita. So basically, if a site “gives scriptures in proper comprehension and order”, there is still a chance you may reject it on the plea that it doesn’t suite your fancy


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!

Second, I don't care who is an authority on Gita. If I can understand it myself, then it is even better. I guess I'm in direct agreement with 18.47 both in "karma" and "comprehension", whereas u r in direct disagreement in "karma"!!!





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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 thought wisdom might have blessed u. But since u continue with ur illiteracy, then do tell

1) Who all called him shudra.
2) Give the exact verses where he was called shudra.


This question u asked is quite typical of critics and hence ur plagiarization proved again. Its not the plagiarization of exact statements I was talking of but the questions also and their little retarted speeches containing the same old designs of ignorance. Seems u show "herd instinct" in criticism toooo.  





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> The “wrong way” relates to verse 9.23, not 9.22, the commentary of which you had given. Now, what do the commentaries on verse 9.23, on that site say. I quote one by one, only editing for brevity.
> 
> Even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods, worship Me only, O Arjuna, but by the wrong method! (9.23)
> 
> ...


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. 

Wrong manner is when a person is worshipping or revering Sun God "only" and not caring about the nature and trees. The wrong manner reflects when a person exploits mankind and the nature, uses knowledge for his own greedy means to exercise control and brutality and still worships the god of wealth faithfuly. Many of the gods are only the personfication of elements. All the elemets are a subset of this universe and everything that exists in this universe. One cannot be apathetic to any of the factors that supports human life. And hence the verse clearly says "in a wrong manner" that  if you are worshipping any of the demi-gods then you are worshipping "him" only but not in "entirety" or in simple terms worshipping incorrectly/ unauthorised manner/indirectly/improperly .

The quote does not say anything about Brahma. But Brahma is a representation of all the material world in Hinduism, he sole abode of consciousness in this otherwise unconscious Universe. That Brahma was created from a lotus is confirmed in the Brahma Samhita, chapter 5, verse 22:


evam sarvatma-sambandham nabhyam padmam harer abhut

tatra brahmabhavad bhuyas catur-vedi catur-mukhah

Translation : The divine lotus which sprung from the navel of Vishnu is in every way related to the spiritual communion of all souls in existence and is the origin of the four-faced Brahma versed in the four Vedas.



The Vedic scriptures confirm that creation is cyclic and lasts for a lifetime of Brahma. These calculations are measured by a system known as kalaganana which is determined by the astronomical calibrations and movements of celestial stars and planetary bodies in interlocking galaxies and universes. One day and one night of Brahma is 8 billion 640 million Earth years. One year of Brahma is 360 days of Brahma equaling 3 trillion, 110 billion and 400 million Earth years. One lifetime of Brahma is 100 of these years of Brahma equating to 311 trillion and 40 billion years.

*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/vyasa.html

From all the commentaries, I find myself agreeing with that of "Madhavcarya" , "Kesava Kasmiri" and "Ramanuja" commentaries. The only part that I don't find agreeable with "sridhar's commentaries" is again the inclusion of the name "Krishna". The name "Krishna" is simply meaningless!


Similarly, Brahma is called by many names.
Rig Veda 1.164.46
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly- winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan."



Like I said, you may or may not accept or believe it. Its ur choice. But where is the intolerance or the demand to kill people of other faiths?





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> “I am the father of this universe, the mother…” (9.17)
> 
> “Know that these two (My higher and lower Natures) are the womb of all beings. So, I am the source and dissolution of the whole universe.” (7.6)
> 
> ...


Actually, I asked u to read complete GITA and you are talking of a few verses? 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Regarding Krishna not being an individual.
> 
> *“For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age.” (6.8 )*
> 
> ...


Again the signs of ur desperation and frustration are getting visible clearly.

The verse you put in bold is not "6.8", but "4.7". It again shows how you are only plaguirizing the critic's site and then lying that you have read Gita. This is the second time you put the verse no. incorrect! I wonder where u source ur illiteracy from.

The second bold amplifies ur illiteracy. I don't think a religion hater or a biased atheist can ever understand the meaning of an "avatar". I hope you know that Krishna showed his "divine form" "viraat roop" to Arjun where Sanjay could also see it. The avatar was indeed a human form, but what he defines in GIta is his true form.

I don't think my lil dum apprentice can ever graduate on this one. The third bold confirms it!! 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> mediator 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:
			
		

> Example, for a sudra it is “righteous” to clean toilet, because, serving is sudra’s dharma. For Brhamin, it is a “sin”.


And where exactly are these words copied from? 

It reminds me ur childish example of "brahmin becoming kshatriya by defending himself against thieves". 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> The aryurvedic principle is based on the hindu belief, that the entire universe is made up of 5 elements. Earth, Air, Space (also called Aether), Fire, Water. (*Some say*, that it was actually copied from the Greeks with 1 element added. Incidentally, the Greeks believed the there were 4 elements, Earth, Wind, Water and Fire.) Ayurveda further believes that the biological form of the 5 elements is Vata, Pitta and Kapha (together they are known as Tridosha). None of which is supported by science.


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?

Further do tell who said what and where!










			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> There are some writers, who are like plague to the human sanity. *[SIZE=+1]Mr Frawley, a.k.a Vamadeva Sastry (yes converted to Hinduism) is one such scum.[/SIZE]*





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> You can paint a scum with whatever colour you want, a scum continues to be scum. *[SIZE=+1]I have read plenty of David Frawley, Stephen Knapp, N.S.Rajaram, Koenraad Elst etc. to know, that these are insult for human beings.[/SIZE]* 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).





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> I know your type of atheists. Your atheism stops where your religion begins. Boring.


Generalizations galore!



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *[SIZE=+1]The basis of “Ayurveda” is bs. “Vedic Maths” is bs.[/SIZE]*







			
				karnivore_to_amitash said:
			
		

> I know, I never made any claim that I couldn’t support. This an open forum. Search and find me something that I have said and couldn’t support.


And lol! 




Lets see now you are *not able to give* 

1) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
2) 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!


You can't even quote the correct verse numbers properly and are impotent to read the truth about Manusmriti. Your troll is meaningless, for the topic bet. me and amitash has been ignored by you from the start with repetitions galore! Lets see how further you can mock urself continuing ur baseless hatred against religion. People tend to follow religious scriptures and our religion hater, helpless illiterate follows critic sites.  


Forgive me if I completely get bored by ur mindless belabor and stop posting at anytime now.


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 26, 2009)

@karni, why do u even try? I guess u've better things to do in life than this. U know doctors can treat someone who is accidentally blind but can't who is inborn.

I've already told u about his fickle-mind. He's suffering from STML (Ghajini *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/5.png disease).
From next time look for resources titled "Mediator Puran", u may get his agreement on verses then


----------



## mediator (Jun 26, 2009)

^ Now thats called some moral support! But lol,  "Mediator Puran"! That was nice.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 27, 2009)

*mediator*
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gif

I am at total loss for words here. Frankly I do not know where to begin. Disappointed and amused all at the same time. Disappointed, because, all you have done is refer to a single web page by a single writer, and have taken him to be axiomatic. Even that site is not a direct criticism of Manusmriti, but a critique on caste from birth, where, rejecting Manusmriti has come as a necessary corollary – because of the line of reasoning adopted by the author. You have conveniently disregarded Adi Sankaracharya and Vivekanda’s quote. You have disregarded, other historians and sanskritists, who are worth a tad more than an ex-ambassador of India to Finland, particularly, with respect to the subject we are debating. You have disregarded the references of Manusmriti in other Indian texts. You have disregarded direct quotes from Manusmriti as well. That’s intellectual laziness. In spite of that, you feel, that “YOU” have somehow “annihilated” my arguments. Amused because of this chest beating. Amused, because, a person who accuses others to follow “critique sites”, himself doesn’t bat an eyelid while copy/pasting an entire website, as counter argument. Amused, also, because, the site, that has been be criticized in my post, without naming, has again been posted as counter-argument. How ridiculously bizarre can it get. Not much I guess.

  Here is Adi Sankaracharya’s quote once again:

  “*There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti*, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and a_s_ramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(_The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya_, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.) 

  Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and *the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda*, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)

  Here’s Vivekanada’s quote:

  “*We*, therefore, *as true children of Manu, must obey his commands* and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (_The Complete Works of Vivekanda_, Vol. 3)

  Now, either Adi Sankaracharya, or Vivekanda, is wrong in his assessment, or the author of that site is. Choose your ground.


> > _“What Manu says is medicine” – Taittiriya Samhita (II.2.10.2) & Tanda Maha Brhamana (XXII.16.17)_
> 
> 
> 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.


  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.


> > _There are three different arguments to deny Manusmriti’s veracity. a) Manusmriti is actually “Smriti”, and therefore, not important and should be ignored. *b) Manusmriti was never authoritative, or had less influence among Hindus. c) Manusmriti was never a part of Hinduism.* I will take on these three arguments, one by one, although b) and c) can be conflated into one argument only.
> >
> > Well, there is actually a fourth argument, which was echoed by people like Adi Shankaracharya and Dayananda Swaraswati. They had no doubt, that Manusmriti was one of the most important texts of Hinduism. *But they also believed that the despicable parts of Manusmriti were not written by Manu himself, but by others, at a much later date. In other words, those disparaging remarks about caste, women etc. were interpolation. As usual, they forgot to give logical reasons, as to why those portions should be considered as interpolation. In any case, interpolation can’t be completely overruled, but there is very little to prove such interpolations.* _
> 
> ...


  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.

  The article, the only source for your criticism, doesn’t say much about how the author has arrived at such conclusion of interpolation, except for saying “_Further, the original text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones…_”. Here’s what Patrick Olivelle thinks.

  “A close examination of the MDh and its exquisite structure …., however, makes it abundantly clear that the text ….. is not an edition or version of a pre-existing text but an original composition written by a single individual. The kind of deep structure, so subtle yet so clear, makes it impossible to have been composed either through unconscious accumulation or through a series of editorial interventions spanning long intervals of time. This was conceived and put together by a single individual with extraordinary ability and a systematic mind.” (_Law Code of Manu_, pg xxii)


> You first call the texts of manusmriti as most racist, casteist and sexist and then say it is not contradicting Vedas?


  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.


> 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.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  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.

  Wilson’s translatation is:

  11. When they *immolated* Purusa, into how many portions did they *divide* him? 
What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called?

  12. His mouth *became* the Brahmana, his arms *became* the Rajnya, 
His thighs *became* the Vaishya, and the Sudra *was born* from his feet.

  Griffith translation:

  11. When they *divided* Puru[FONT=&quot]ṣ[/FONT]a how many portions did they *make*?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?


  12. The Brahman *was* his mouth, of both his arms *was* the Rājanya *made*.
His thighs *became* the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra *was produced*.

  Stephen Knapp’s translation:

  (Now some questions are raised by the sages 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?

  From His face (or the mouth) *came* the brahmanas. From His two arms *came* the rajanya (the kshatriyas). From His two thighs *came* the vaishyas. From His two feet *came* the shudras.

  The author has ingeniously tried to put a spin saying, “_Wilson says *objective* of (X.90.11) was 'to immolate Purusa;' and, Griffith says 'to divide Purusa.' This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to immolate/sacrifice/kill the Purusa…_”.  This is intellectual treason. Wilson’s translation is clear about the division. It was “when they immolated it” that the “division” of Purusa was made. Even that part is irrelevant. *What is however relevant  is what happened to the severed body parts of the Purusa, not withstanding the “objective”*. Verse 12 states: “brahma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]o asya mukhamasid bahu rajanya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] k[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] | urutadasya yad vaisya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] padbhya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] sudro ajayata”. This part, they both interpreted correctly.   

  The author has an agenda. He wants to show that Manu was wrong in interpreting the verse, and hence contradicting the Rg Veda and hence that verse is to be rejected. Two things stand out.

  1) Even if, for argument’s sake we consider Manu was wrong in interpreting the objective of creation of caste and hence should be rejected, the verse in Rg Veda, continues to stand, in support of creation of caste. Whether from birth or otherwise, that can be debated later. Verse 12, in no ambiguous term mentions the birth of 4 varnas. The author, in his zeal to first deny that Rg Veda supports caste, and then to deny Manu, his credibility, has tried in vain to explain this verse as an example of, “_even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed/killed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated._ ” Nothing can be more wrong. The Purusa Shukta actually describes how the visible Universe was created out of the primordial man, Purusa. Thus, it is from him that the 4 varnas were born, as were the sun, the moon, the sky, the earth, Indra, Agni, Vayu etc. It was through his “immolation”, that this visible Universe was created.

  He quotes another translator, no one has ever heard of, in another attempt to redefine the verses. He notes that the mention of the 4 varnas is allegorical reference to a perfect body, where the body is another allegory for society. He thinks that it means, that, “_Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as close harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work._” He therefore denies the entire act of division and in that sense, contradicting Verse 12, which clearly mentions of “creation” of 4 Varnas. If “creation” is denied in verse 12, then the entire Purusa Shukta falls apart, because, it describes “creation”. How then would one define, how Purusa’s mind became moon, eyes became Sun, feet became earth, sky coming from head. Verse 14 ends mentioning, “thus the worlds were formed”. Why would verse 12 be any different from the rest ? 

  Contrary to what you (actually your favourite author), are implying, that caste is based on “nature”, the reference in verse 12, is of “duties” (which btw, means “dharma” here), not nature. Mouth represents Brahmin, because they are to study and preach the words of Vedas. Arms represent Kshatriyas, because they are for protection and fighting. Thighs hold the torso, and thus represent Vaisyas, who are to be traders and agriculturist. Feet, make the entire body move. Hence Sudras get to be the feet, because they are supposed to do the most menial tasks, so that the society can move. The allegory is lucid, but not for idiots.

  In spite of all the mental gymnastics, the author still hasn’t been able to *deny* the creation and existence of the varnas. He has merely sugarcoated it and redefined the whole objective of creation of varnas. Typical of apologists.

  2) Manu, was of course, not incorrect in his translation. Purusa Shukta, for the umpteenth time, is about creation of visible universe. Manu, begins his Smriti, by describing this creation. He mentions of creation of Virag, the 7 Manus, the 10 sages, nature, animals, insects etc. as also the creation of the 4 varnas. It is perfectly in sync with the verses Rg Veda. 

  The author then goes on to quote from, virtually all over the Vedas. In doing so, he assumes, that the vedic texts are homogenous in its content and authorship. Book 1 and 10 are later additions. Book 10 is believed to be even younger than Book 1 and is believed to have been added, as late as the times when Upanishads were being written. Michael Witzel notes in _Blackwell’s Guide to Hinduism_, that, “Book 9 is a separate fairly late collection containing the texts of Saman hymns to be sung during the Soma ritual. Book 10 and part of book 1 are even later additions.” (pg 69). This again, is intellectual treason, on that author’s part.  He forgets to mention the most important piece of the puzzle, that the verses he was quoting was written long before, Purusa Shukta even made its appearance.

  Besides, he just misleads readers in more ways than one. For example, he assumes the revelation of Vedas happened before 5000 BC, just because, cotton was not mentioned in Vedas, and Merhgarh yielded cotton seeds. He forgot, that Vedas describe a pastoral society, while Merhgarh, which is believed to belong to earliest IVC period, was not. The burial rituals, the religious rituals were all different. More importantly, Vedas are full of references to horses. No horses, that can be dated before 1700 BC can be found in the entire IVC.

  Authors like the one you have mentioned thrive on internets, due to gullible lazy bones such as yourself, who would rather be couch potatoes than pay a tiny visit to a library.


> 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.
> 
> Coming to Gita, like I said "born of their own nature" is defining karma only. I dunno why ur serotonins continue to jitter on this one.
> 
> ...


  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



			
				Late Sankaracharya of Kanchi said:
			
		

> Let us first consider the view that according to the Vedas themselves caste is not based on birth. (After all, the Vedas are the source of our religion. So it is essential to be clear on this point.) Earlier I sought to counter the view that there was Vedic sanction for post-puberty marriages. The present contention about what the Vedas say about caste is similar, being based on a passage read out of context. What is mentioned as an exception to the rule is being interpreted as a rule itself. *I will give firm proof in support of the view that caste is based on birth and not on the nature or quality of individuals.* The caula of children belonging to particular caste is performed at the age of three, the upanayana at five or seven. *These are samskaras based on birth and performed in childhood. So it would be absurd to claim that one's vocation is based on one's nature of qualities. Is it possible to determine one's qualities or nature in early childhood?*
> ………
> Some concede that Bhagavan does not deny caste differences, but however argue that, according to the Lord, caste is not based on birth but on the individual qualities of people. In support they quote this line from the Gita. "Caturvarnyam mayasrstam guna-karma-vibagasah".
> *When do we come to know the qualities that distinguish an individual? At what age does he reveal his nature? How are we to determine this and impart him the education and training necessary for the vocation that will be in keeping with his qualities?* Take, for instance, the calling of the Brahmin who has to join the gurukula when he is seven or eight years old. His education covers a period of twelve years; after this alone will he be qualified for his vocation which includes, among other things, teaching. *If a man's occupation were to be fixed until after his character and qualities are formed, it would mean a waste of his youthful years. Even if he were to learn a job or trade thus at a late age it would mean a loss not only to himself but also to society. The Lord speaks again and again that we must be constantly engaged in work and that we must not remain idle even a moment*. How then would he approve of an arrangement in which every individual has to be without any work until his vocation is determined according to his character?
> ...


  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.


> Are u trying to find comparisons to escape from ur sorry state?
> 
> I know u r desperate and frustrated but ateast point to the correct verse. The verse you stated is not 18.44 but 18.47!


  I stand corrected. The point, continues to stand though. Echoes of Manusmriti in Gita.

  I haven’t been able to go through the rest of your gibberish. Probably will not be able to do so, anytime soon. My BS meter *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/BSmeter-Exploding.gif  has gone bust. Let me fix it first. May be then.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 27, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> @karni, why do u even try? I guess u've better things to do in life than this. U know doctors can treat someone who is accidentally blind but can't who is inborn.
> 
> I've already told u about his fickle-mind. He's suffering from STML (Ghajini *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/5.png disease).
> From next time look for resources titled "Mediator Puran", u may get his agreement on verses then



You are correct. You can take a donkey to the well. Can't make it drink. Can you now ? I won't be surprised if Adi Sankaracharya and Sankaracharya of Kanchi turn out to be fake brahmins.

Now that will be....*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/bean_laughing_hb.gif


----------



## karnivore (Jun 27, 2009)

OK, I have finally finished reading the rest of that post. O my goodness.

I feel like...*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/Avatar/suicide_karnivore.gif


----------



## mediator (Jun 27, 2009)

^Yes u feel like trolling....


Seems you completely chicked out of the topic between me and amitash. But neways,





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Here is Adi Sankaracharya’s quote once again:
> 
> “There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti, *which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances.* They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; *how the Veda has to be studied;* in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and asramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.)


1) I know u r frustrated a lot but learn to quote the source. And it better be not "sacred-texts.com" 
2) You seem to have highlighted the first part. Ofcourse the good part can also always be taken into consideration as highlighted by me
3) FYI, Manusmriti was most relevant in "satyuga" and as we know what we have today is nothing but distortions as I already stated. "Parashara smriti" was the one that was compiled for kaliyuga. But again these are not supreme scriptures.


CHATUSHPATSKALO DHARMAHA SATYAM CHAIVA KRITE YUGE ||
NA ADHARMENAAGAMAHA KASHCHINA MANUSHYANPRATI VARTATE ||

Meaning: All the four legs of Dharma were present during the Krita Yuga. Truth always prevaled at that time. No human acted unrighteous against anyone. 
*www.urday.in/manusmriti.htm



KRITE TU MANAVO DHARMASTRETAYAAM GAUTAMO SMRITAH ||
DWAPARE SHANKHALIKHITAA KALAU PARASHARAH SMRITAH ||

Meaning- Manu Smriti was most relevant in Satya Yuga. In Treta, Smriti created by Gautam had most relevance whereas in Dwapar, Shankh's Smriti was mostly recognized. But in Kali Yuga, it is Parashar Smriti that by and large shows the way to the ignorant people.

Parashar Smriti endorses all those ideologies of human life which are capable of improving the life of common people in the present fourth age. Paradoxes are the main feature of human life in Kali Yuga irrespective of region, culture and society.

*www.urday.in/parashar.htm






			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). *Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas.* In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *texts of manusmriti as most racist, casteist and sexist*





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> *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.


U missed the start of my previous post itself...

_"The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular "_
(RV Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8 )

_That I to all the people may address this salutary speech, To priest and nobleman, Sudra and Arya, to one of our own kin and to the stranger. Dear may I be to Gods and guerdon-giver. Fulfilled be this my hope: be that my portion!_ (Yajur-Veda Ch.26 - V2)

The truth of the 4 varnas working together for the society is again given in the previous post of mine which u seem to have missed.

And u think it doesn't contradict Vedas? U seem to enjoyin running naked everywhere now.

Here's more despair for you => *www.hvk.org/articles/0506/4.html



			
				article said:
			
		

> The "Manu Smriti" or the "Yagyavalkya Smriti" has no connection with Adi Manu or the Sage Yagyavalkya. The "Smritis" were written during the reign of Pushyamitra about 2200 years ago. There is no reference of such Smritis in the Mahabharata.
> 
> There are two portions in the Smritis - one is 'Yama' and the other is 'Niyama'. 'Yama' consists of eternal values while the 'Niyamas' were the periodic governing laws or codes of conduct meant for running the affairs of the state of the then kings. There are more than three hundred Smritis. They have little to do with the eternal values of Dharma. These have been responsible for gross discrimination that is alien to our concept of 'Ekaatmataa' (Ekaatm Bhaava/Integralism) that is expounded in our ancient scriptures - the Shrutis (the four Vedas - the eternal revealed scriptures) and the Upanishads.









			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Here’s Vivekanada’s quote:
> 
> “We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (The Complete Works of Vivekanda, Vol. 3)


Again generalising on the basis of one statement? Summer heat, frustration and desperation must really be takin a toll on ur fragile brain.

You did not source the quote. But here it is and read it all => *www.vivekananda.net/Lectures/LecturesColomboAlmora/13.html




			
				vivekananda said:
			
		

> Several dangers are in the way, and one is that of the extreme conception that we are the people in the world. *With all my love for India, and with all my patriotism and veneration for the ancients, I cannot but think that we have to learn many things from other nations*. We must be always ready to sit at the feet of all, for, mark you, every one can teach us great lessons. Says our great law-giver, Manu: "*Receive some good knowledge even from the low-born, and even from the man of lowest birth learn by service the road to heaven." We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us. At the same time we must not forget that we have also to teach a great lesson to the world.* We cannot do without the world outside India; it was our foolishness that we thought we could, and we have paid the penalty by about a thousand years of slavery. That we did not go out to compare things with other nations, did not mark the workings that have been all around us, has been the one great cause of this degradation of the Indian mind. We have paid the penalty; let us do it no more. All such foolish ideas that Indians must not go out of India are childish.


1) Vivek Ananda is addressing something.
2) Understand what that something is.
3) In between his speech he says "everyone can teach us great lessons"
4) He points to manu, the law giver with the statement as in second bold.
5) AS I pointed earlier manusmriti is not applicable for kaliyuga
6) What is supposed to be applicable for Kaliyuga cannot be called a part of Hinduism. Not every ancient Indian work can be considered a part of Hinduism.
7) ]parasharsmriti is believed to be written in 1300 A.D.
8) Where is Vivekananda saying manusmriti is a part of Hinduism?
9) Ofcourse we can "obey" any "ancient Indian work". It our choice!
10) I already stated that you may or may not believe in anything.
11) But where is the part of Hinduism or for that matter any ancient Indian faith like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism vowing to kill people of aother faiths? Where is Budda saying I'm the best?

Oh, I forgot you already chickened out on the 11th point! 





			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Wilson’s translatation is:
> 
> ...


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!

Coming to the point, their is a huge difference between "translation". But ofcourse a religion hater and helpless illiterate would obviously fail to see it.

Arms symbolise something. The "nature"/"karma" of mouth has been pointed to "brahman" in the correct translation. It means "if you show the characteristics of brahman" you are called brahman. Now, This ofcourse relates to professional environment and how you contribute to the society.

Whereas in griffith's translation it says "brahman was his mouth". It means one who is "brahman" shows the nature/karma of "mouth". So who is a brahman? The definition of brahman remains void.

I already stated this and you call it "gibberish"? 

Further, understand the difference between "immolate" and "divide" and difference given in the article that I even highlighted in the previous post and obviously ignored by u.








			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> late_sankaracharya_of_kanchi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jun 27, 2009)

here we go again...

mediator and karnivore don't your fingers sting in typing those contents... 

Both of you are kinda typingbots....

you guys should have wax statues...

Hats off...


----------



## karnivore (Jun 27, 2009)

^^ We are two internet warriors, busy making no difference to each other.


mediator said:


> *Reply to it ALL*


 Your wish is my command. I will make replying to your gibberish my day job, if you want.



> 1) I know u r frustrated a lot but learn to quote the source. And it better be not "sacred-texts.com"
> 2) You seem to have highlighted the first part. Ofcourse the good part can also always be taken into consideration as highlighted by me
> 3) FYI, Manusmriti was most relevant in "satyuga" and as we know what we have today is nothing but distortions as I already stated. "Parashara smriti" was the one that was compiled for kaliyuga. But again these are not supreme scriptures.
> 
> ...


 1) *The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya*, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.

2) And how does that even remotely change the argument in any way. The argument was, if Manusmriti is/was a part of Hinduism and I have quoted Sankaracharya, to show, what the most important Acharya of Hinduism thinks. 

3) You are now clutching at straws. Now lets see when did Kaliyug start. There is no definite date. However, from Aryabhatiya, Aryabhata’s seminal work, we get a date. It is 3012 BC. Guess, when Manusmriti was composed. From one of your links, actually, V.K.Singhal’s gibberish, it was 200 BC. (See, I am using your source only) This would imply, that Manusmriti was written in an age, for the age, that was already gone. That’s called anachronism. There is some more anachronism in verse 1.24 (the second verse) of ParasraSmriti. For example, Gautam Smriti predates Manusmriti, and there is evidence, that Manu copied certain verse from Gautama Smriti. Yet, according to Parashara, GautamaSmriti is supposed to be applicable to the age, that comes next to what Manusmriti is supposed to be applicable to. That’s bizarre. 

Parashara also makes a logical error. Krita yug is supposed to be the perfect yug. No rules were required then. In Shanti Parva (12.59), Bhishma explains to Yudhishtira, “With concentrated attention, O tiger among kings, listen to it in detail as to how in the Krita age sovereignty first began. *At first there was no sovereignty, no king, no chastisement, and no chastiser. All men used to protect one another righteously*. As they thus lived, O Bharata, righteously protecting one another, they found the task (after some time) to be painful. Error then began to assail their hearts. Having become subject to error, the perceptions of men, O prince, came to be clouded, and thence their virtue began to decline. When their perceptions were dimmed and when men became subject to error, all of them became covetous.” 

He then goes on to conclude, that “In consequence, however, of the cessation of all pious rites among men, great distress will be our lot. Do thou then, O Grandsire, think of that which would benefit us, so that the universe, created by thy power, may not meet with destruction.' Thus addressed, the Self-born and divine Lord said unto them, 'I shall think of what will do good to all. Ye foremost of gods, let your fears be dispelled!' *The Grandsire then composed by his own intelligence a treatise consisting of a hundred thousand chapters*. In it were treated the subject of Virtue, Profit, and Pleasure. Which the Self-born designated as the triple aggregate”

In other words, the rules are applicable to the yugas, that succeed Krita (Satya yug).  A very silly logical error on the part of Parashara. The funny part is, after trying to assert his Smriti as authoritative for his age, he actually goes on to quote Manusmriti on several occasions. 

From complete denial of Manusmriti as part of Hinduism to partial acceptance that it is indeed a part, albeit related to some other mythical age, is indeed a progress in the right direction. 



> U missed the start of my previous post itself...
> 
> _"The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular "_
> (RV Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8 )
> ...


 No I didn’t miss any part. I just didn’t know what you were trying to imply. Thanks for clarifying. 

There is absolutely nothing in Manusmriti that contradicts RV 5.61.8 or YV 26.2. In fact Manusmriti acknowledges that husband and wife are equal halves of the Lord

Dividing his own body, the Lord became half male and half female; (M 1.32)

Again, regarding 4 varnas, Manus says nothing against Varnas working together. He merely points out the duties of each class and that each should do his own duty, respective to his caste. That’s not contradiction.



> *Here's more despair for you* => *www.hvk.org/articles/0506/4.html


 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. 

So now you are going to argue with what that demented dickhead has to say. Some golden words from the pamphlet:

“Caste untouchability never existed in our society. *It is the creation of the Muslim rule* because those who put up a fight and did not convert to Islam were punished for their commitment to their indigenous ethos and thrown out of the society as untouchables. These heroic people are enlisted as scheduled castes. We must differentiate between the 'scheduled castes' and the 'Shudras'. *Shudras were held with respect before the advent of the Smritis* and the *scheduled castes are of recent origin created during the muslim rule*.”

It is however futile to point out the ginormous historical errors. Anyway, please don’t quote such idiotic political agenda driven articles. it will do you no good.  Now, since you have quoted Singhal, I will assume that you support what he says. That makes you a dickhead as well. Congratulations.

Dang! Back in denial mode.



> Again generalising on the basis of one statement? Summer heat, frustration and desperation must really be takin a toll on ur fragile brain.
> 
> *You did not source the quote*. But here it is and read it all =>*www.vivekananda.net/Lectures/...Almora/13.html


 Post#1072. 

Vivekanda, in his famous lecture, “*The Work Before Us*”, notes “Says our great law-giver, Manu: "Receive some good knowledge even from the low-born, and even from the man of lowest birth learn by service the road to heaven." We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey hiscommands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (_The Complete Works of Vivekanda_, Vol. 3)



> 1) Vivek Ananda is addressing something.
> 2) Understand what that something is.
> 3) In between his speech he says "everyone can teach us great lessons"
> 4) He points to manu, the law giver with the statement as in second bold.
> ...


 1) to 4) How in freaking hell does the context of his speech change the fact, that he is asking to follow Manusmriti.

5) to 7) Refer above.

8) Dang! 

9) No body is denying that.

10) So ???? I believe than moon is made of cheese. How tenable is that belief.

11) Replied before. If you have a memory span like a gold fish, it is not my problem.



> 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!
> 
> Coming to the point, *their is a huge difference between "translation"*. But ofcourse a religion hater and helpless illiterate would obviously fail to see it.
> 
> ...


 1) Because you have a certain thing for scums.

2) Nope. They end up saying the same thing. Creation of 4 varnas. 

3) Bullsh!t. I have already explained the symbolism. Once more, for your goldfish memory.

“Contrary to what you (actually your favourite author), are implying, that caste is based on “nature”, the reference in verse 12, is of “duties” (which btw, means “dharma” here), not nature. *Mouth represents Brahmin, because they are to study and preach the words of Vedas*. *Arms represent Kshatriyas, because they are for protection and fighting*. Thighs *hold the torso, and thus represent Vaisyas, who are to be traders and agriculturist*. *Feet, make the entire body move. Hence Sudras get to be the feet, because they are supposed to do the most menial tasks*, so that the society can move.”

4) Another bullsh!t. Let go of that straw you are clutching at. Both the translations imply the same symbolism. I have given the Sanskrit verse as well. Did you miss that. Here’s once more for your gold fish memory.

“brahma[FONT=&quot]ṇ[/FONT]o asya mukhamasid bahu rajanya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] k[FONT=&quot]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] 
urutadasya yad vaisya[FONT=&quot]ḥ[/FONT] padbhya[FONT=&quot]ṃ[/FONT] sudro ajayata”

Use your ISCE, 8th standard Sanskrit. (That level of Sanskrit won’t be enough, though)

5) If you want, I can use a synonym for “gibberish”



> 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.
> 
> 
> 1) What sankaracharya says is his own opinions and understanding
> ...


 Links to both the chapters were given. 

1) Yes of course. 

2) Irrelevant.



> 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!
> ...


 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!

Theorem proved. Where’s my candy ?

Regarding, Drona and Kripa, Sankaracharya rejects them as, “*extremely rare, and are exceptions to the rule of jati dharma.*”

Case closed.

As with the “herd instinct”, I understand your frustration.



> 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!
> ...


 O yeah. You got me.
1) Reviewing an entire website is not my day job. I did, however responded to the relevant parts, which incidentally, and curiously, seemed to have slipped your attention.

2) Awaiting evidence.

3) So is Manusmriti. I told you, Manu was a clever dick. He said what he had to say without violating the Vedas. That’s talent.

4) If you are incapable, it doesn’t mean everyone is.

5) Oooooo. Where do I hide ?

6) The other verses are still standing, practically crying for your attention.

7) Coming back again again with the same verse, is proof that Prabhupada couldn’t satisfy you. Btw, can I have that Cerelac. Love it.

8) Ooooooooo…poor baby. Here you go.

“Seeing the charioteer, the Pandava Bhimasena took Karna for a charioteer's son, and said by way of ridicule, 'O *son of a charioteer*, thou dost not deserve death in fight at the hands of Partha. *As befits thy race take thou anon the whip*. And, *O worst of mortals*, surely *thou art not worthy to sway the kingdom of Anga, even as a dog doth not deserve the butter placed before the sacrificial fire.*' ”

Adi Parva:Sambhaba Parva

“But seeing Karna, Draupadi loudly said, *'I will not select a Suta for my lord*.' Then Karna, laughing in vexation and casting glance at the Sun, threw aside the bow already drawn to a circle.”

Adi Parva:Swayamvara Parva

EXPECTED COUNTER-ARGUMENT: But I don’t see the word “sudra”. Therefore I am right, you are so worng. NANANANANANA.

 9) And the fact that Buddhism is non-theistic, means nothing.

10) Replied way back, Mr Goldfish Brain.

I am now tempted to compile my own list. The forum will run out of web space then.


----------



## mediator (Jun 27, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> “Seeing the charioteer, the Pandava Bhimasena took Karna for a charioteer's son, and said by way of ridicule, 'O son of a charioteer, thou dost not deserve death in fight at the hands of Partha. As befits thy race take thou anon the whip. And, O worst of mortals, surely thou art not worthy to sway the kingdom of Anga, even as a dog doth not deserve the butter placed before the sacrificial fire.' ”
> 
> Adi Parva:Sambhaba Parva
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 28, 2009)

mediator said:


> 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!


How infinitely idiotic. *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image20.gif

Bhisma, Bhima and Draupadi represent society. Not every character in MBH is worshiped, but that doesn't make them any less important. Nobody worships Dranacharya or Kripachrya, and yet you chose to use them as example. Why ? Did you forget your own premise ?

Btw, since you quoted me on Karna - it was not Bhisma, it was Bhima. The fact that, the Arjuna didn't compete with Karna, at the archery competition, on the plea of Karna being of lower caste, is proof (one of the many) that caste discrimination existed during the times of MBH. The comment of Bhima was, when Duryadhana had already coronated him as the king of Anga. The comments stand testimony to the fact that, if one is born of lower caste, it is not easy to wash it away. Denial of Draupadi to marry Karna, in spite of the fact, that he was then the king, and supposedly, a kshatriya, is another proof, of how caste can't easily be washed away from public psyche. All these are representative of the society that used to be at that point in time.

Ok pumpkin ?

It is only natural that somebody who can't make sense of this, relatively easy symbolism, would actually be finding the symbolism of chess game and Drapaudi's de-robing difficult to comprehend.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jun 28, 2009)

karnivore said:


> The fact that, the Arjuna didn't compete with Karna, at the archery competition, on the plea of Karna being of lower caste, is proof (one of the many) that caste discrimination existed during the times of MBH



Karnivore, I'm not a geeky boy like you to know all the stuff.I'm not happy with your saying.I asked the same question during the ISKON's youth fest.

I asked "Karna was not allowed to participate in the contest against Arjuna because he belongs to lower cast, Dosen't that mean there were cast discriminations that time...But you said that only the modren man created these casts, Can you explain me about this thing.?" 

Guruji replied like this "See young fellow, not allowing a person to participate in some contest is not mean that there were cast discriminations in those days. There were pre defined duties for every caste. And most important thing is there is dignity of labour in those days. No one used to make fun of odd jobs done by a person. All knew the importance of every person in the society. There were no untouchabilities those days. The reason why karna was not matched to arjuna is not because of his cast but because of the work alloted to his cast. He suppose to do that work. Do you think our officials will see or accept if you want to have a debate against Rahul Gandhi or some thing equal to his cadre...NO. That what it's meant to be. As soon as Dhruyodhana gave some of his kingdoms to Karna. No one objected. Because he is Kshatriya now and he has every right to challenge Arjuna."

Then I asked about Ekalavya. "How do you justify Dhronacharya's attitude against Ekalavya who is a tribal child."

He replied-"Yes, here again Dhronacharya is a rajaguru. He is not a ordinary person to spare his time to make some tibal people educated on warfare. You can see that Drona has not shown any disrespet to Ekalavya when he approched. Later he even went to his place and accepted thier offerings."


----------



## mediator (Jun 28, 2009)

karnivore said:
			
		

> Bhisma, Bhima and Draupadi represent society. Not every character in MBH is worshiped, but that doesn't make them any less important. Nobody worships Dranacharya or Kripachrya, and *yet you chose to use them as example. Why ? Did you forget your own premise ?*


My premise?  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. 

Further its not "kripacharya" and dronacharya that Shakaracharya was talking about, but "Parushrama" and 'dronacharya'. Atleast read before mumbling.

Like I said understand what Mahabharata is.

Neways and again,
Where are the 
1) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
2) 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!

I'm sure u can pull ur chlidhish "you said this and me said this" debate once more. 

Poor lil helpless illiterate trying to plaguirize critics site again n again, even on "karna" something that typical critics usually come up with, putting lil images thinking it will make him look cool and generalising on all those who he disagrees with. 


How ironic, that a person who think religion seeds hatred and intolerance, is generalising on all those who he disagrees with calling them scum etc and plagiarizing critics site to seed his hatred against religion.


@vamsikrishna : Careful, you might also face the brunt of his generalisation skills!


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jun 28, 2009)

^ Never mind. I can't simply see when he makes some wrong statements.


----------



## karnivore (Jun 28, 2009)

You were right in your contention, and if you still hold that position, then you continue to be correct. The replies that you got from ISKON representative, are the typical prevarication that they churn out from their stable.


vamsikrishna919 said:


> I asked "Karna was not allowed to participate in the contest against Arjuna because he belongs to lower cast, Dosen't that mean there were cast discriminations that time...But you said that only the modren man created these casts, Can you explain me about this thing.?"
> 
> Guruji replied like this "See young fellow, not allowing a person to participate in some contest is not mean that there were cast discriminations in those days. *There were pre defined duties for every caste*. And most important thing is there is dignity of labour in those days. No one used to make fun of odd jobs done by a person. All knew the importance of every person in the society. There were no untouchabilities those days. The reason why karna was not matched to arjuna is *not because of his cast* but because of the *work alloted to his cast*. He suppose to do that work. Do you think our officials will see or accept if you want to have a debate against Rahul Gandhi or some thing equal to his cadre...NO. That what it's meant to be. As soon as Dhruyodhana gave some of his kingdoms to Karna. No one objected. Because he is Kshatriya now and he has every right to challenge Arjuna."


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.

Karna, was believed to be a son of charioteer. So the work expected of him was of charioteering. However, Karna through is personal effort, and from Parshurama, learned the art of archery and war. But, at the competition, when he challenged Arjuna, he was reminded of his status as a low caste. He was being judged on the basis of "work expected of him" (in the words of that gentleman representing ISKON), but not on the basis of "work, that he was capable of". The work, that was expected of him, again, depended on the caste that he belonged to. 

Therefore, by implication: a) he was being judged on the basis of caste alone since the caste duty depended on his caste, b) caste duty mattered more than individual ability.

In my book, it is caste discrimination, when someone's individual ability takes a back seat to one's caste, or if you so insist, caste imposed duty.


> Then I asked about Ekalavya. "How do you justify Dhronacharya's attitude against Ekalavya who is a tribal child."
> 
> He replied-"Yes, here again Dhronacharya is a rajaguru. He is not a ordinary person to spare his time to make some tibal people educated on warfare. You can see that Drona has not shown any disrespet to Ekalavya when he approched. Later he even went to his place and accepted thier offerings."


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.

His true intentions, and this is where that gentleman went wrong and strangely, MBH is very clear about this, was to protect his favourite student Arjuna. In Ekalavya, Drona had seen a future competitor of Arjuna, which later on proved to be correct. But Drona, who apparently loved Arjuna more than his own son, had promised to Arjuna that, in archery, there will be no one better than him. He therefore, refused to accept Ekalavya as his disciple, and used his low caste as an excuse. Much later, on being quized by Drona about his extraordinary skills in archery,  Ekalavya admitted that he had in fact always considered Drona as his guru (master), and that he drew inspiration from him. Drona then, didn't hesitate to do the most selfish thing one can expect of him. He asked for the thumb as gurudakshina (fees for his training). Thus he ensured that, Ekalavya would never be able to hold his bow properly and can never match upto the skills of Arjuna.

Hope this helps.



> Karnivore, I'm not a geeky boy like you...



Geeky ? Guilty as charged. Boy ? Its been decades since I have been a boy. Wouldn't mind being one though. 

[SIGH]Those were the days[/SIGH]


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jun 29, 2009)

karnivore said:


> Therefore, by implication: a) he was being judged on the basis of caste alone since the caste duty depended on his caste, b) caste duty mattered more than individual ability.



A) You are Absolutely correct. Lord Krishna in Geetha said that "There are four casts Kshatriya, Bramhana, vaisya, soodra. And he alloted the works that every person bron in a cast to do. To be important(I've said it before) no caste discriminations or untouchability those days.

B) You are correct again..Although a person has knowledge in Vedas he was not allowed to conduct marriages or yagnas. If a person has knowlege in vedas, you are not supposed to bring him as a priest to a marriage. You will go only for Bramhins. Becuase, of their cast not of individiual ebility.



> In my book, it is caste discrimination, when someone's individual ability takes a back seat to one's caste, or if you so insist, caste imposed duty.



There is Cast discrimination. Discrimination is only supposed to be for their duties. No one is kept out of temples, none had faced untouchability. So, it's purely discrimination for alloting works. And to make a organised society.


> His true intentions, and this is where that gentleman went wrong and strangely, MBH is very clear about this, was to protect his favourite student Arjuna. In Ekalavya, Drona had seen a future competitor of Arjuna, which later on proved to be correct. But Drona, who apparently loved Arjuna more than his own son, had promised to Arjuna that, in archery, there will be no one better than him. He therefore, refused to accept Ekalavya as his disciple, and used his low caste as an excuse



Wrong.... Drona didn't knew that ekalvya go this far. He said in his heart when ekalavya showed all his abilities after learning that, "if i knew you would be this great, i would have accepted your request to teach you and i would have thought you less than arjuna."

My grandmother told me that the reson why drona rejected is becuase he is raja guru. He can only teach to Kshatiryas and to be precise "ONLY TO THE CHILDREN OF THAT FAMILY"


----------



## karnivore (Jun 29, 2009)

vamsikrishna919 said:


> A) You are Absolutely correct. Lord Krishna in Geetha said that "There are four casts Kshatriya, Bramhana, vaisya, soodra. And he alloted the works that every person bron in a cast to do. To be important(I've said it before) no caste discriminations or untouchability those days.


 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. 

Anyway, I am not sure why you are saying that there was no caste discriminations. Discriminating someone on the basis of duties of caste, is same as discrimination on the basis of caste. Regarding “untouchability”, it is one form of caste discrimination – an extreme form. We were not debating the different forms of discrimination, but just discrimination as a whole. It is, therefore, irrelevant to the current discussion. 



> B) You are correct again..Although a person has knowledge in Vedas he was not allowed to conduct marriages or yagnas. If a person has knowlege in vedas, you are not supposed to bring him as a priest to a marriage. You will go only for Bramhins. Becuase, of their cast not of individiual ebility.


 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.



> There is Cast discrimination. Discrimination is only supposed to be for their duties. No one is kept out of temples, none had faced untouchability. So, it's purely discrimination for alloting works. And to make a organised society.


 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.”

Regardless of whether temples (mandir) were prevalent during the times of MBH, lets take your point at face value. Gita is specific about duties of respective castes. Sudras, incidentally, get to serve only. Virtually everything can be denied to the lower caste, simply quoting that particular verse if your line of logic is applied, i.e. “discrimination is only supposed to be for their duties. ” 

It is strange, really, that on one hand you seem to be denouncing discrimination on the basis of caste, but then in the same breath, you are justifying, discrimination on the basis of duties. Somehow, one form of discrimination is unacceptable to you, but another form is. How is that?



> Wrong.... Drona didn't knew that ekalvya go this far. He said in his heart when ekalavya showed all his abilities after learning that, "if i knew you would be this great, i would have accepted your request to teach you and i would have thought you less than arjuna."
> 
> My grandmother told me that the reson why drona rejected is becuase he is raja guru. He can only teach to Kshatiryas and to be precise "ONLY TO THE CHILDREN OF THAT FAMILY"


 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.

_Drona’s promise to Arjuna:_

“Drona, hearing the twang of his bowstring in the night, came to him, and clasping him, said, *'Truly do I tell thee that I shall do that unto thee by which there shall not be an archer equal to thee in this world*.”

_Drona’s fame spreads and in comes Ekalavya:_

“And hearing reports of his skill, kings and princes, desirous of learning the science of arms, flocked to Drona by thousands. Amongst those that came there, O monarch, was a prince named Ekalavya, who was the son of Hiranyadhanus, king of the _Nishadas_ (the lowest of the mixed orders). Drona, however, cognisant of all rules of morality, accepted not the prince as his pupil in archery, *seeing that he was a Nishada who might (in time) excel all his high-born pupils*.”

_Ekalavya practices with Drona’s statue as his guru:_

“…*he made a clay-image of Drona*, and began to worship it respectfully, *as if it was his real preceptor, and practised weapons before it* with the most rigid regularity. In consequence of his exceptional reverence for his preceptor and his devotion to his purpose, all the three processes of fixing arrows on the bowstring, aiming, and letting off became very easy for him.”

_Ekalavya proves a point:_

“Thereupon the Nishada prince, *desirous of exhibiting his lightness of hand, sent seven arrows into its mouth (before it could shut it)*. The dog, thus pierced with seven arrows, came back to the Pandavas.”

_Arjuna realizes Ekalavyas’ skills and complains to Drona:_

“Arjuna, in particular, thinking all the while, O king, Ekalavya, saw Drona in private and relying upon his preceptor's affection for him, said, *'Thou hadst lovingly told me, clasping me, to thy bosom, that no pupil of thine should be equal to me. Why then is there a pupil of thine, the mighty son of the Nishada king, superior to me?*”

_Drona asks for Gurudakshina:_

“Then Drona, O king, addressed Ekalavya, saying, 'If, O hero, thou art really my pupil, give me then my fees.' On hearing these words, Ekalavya was very much gratified, and said in reply, 'O illustrious preceptor, what shall I give? Command me; for there is nothing, O foremost of all persons conversant with the _Vedas_, that I may not give unto my preceptor.' Drona answered, 'O Ekalavya, if thou art really intent on making me a gift, *I should like then to have the thumb of thy right hand*.”

_Mission accomplished:_

“Hearing these cruel words of Drona, who had asked of him his thumb as tuition-fee, Ekalavya, ever devoted to truth and desirous also of keeping his promise, *with a cheerful face and an unafflicted heart cut off without ado his thumb*, and gave it unto Drona. After this, when the Nishada prince began once more to shoot with the help of his remaining fingers, *he found, O king, that he had lost his former lightness of hand*. And at this *Arjuna became happy*, the fever (of jealousy) having left him.”

Nowhere, in that version, did Drona show any remorse or repentance for his act – not then not anytime later. If you want, you can check out the Sanskrit version of the section. It is available at the same website. Careful though, the English translation assigns the sections arbitrarily. So the sections may not tally. 

Now there are several versions of MBH. The English translation is of the most popular version. I can’t say, you are wrong, because, the version you are referring to, may have such verses. However, I will appreciate it, if you can give a reference. 

One more thing. Please keep grandmothers and grandfathers away from debates. They serve no purpose other than decreasing the quality of argument.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jun 29, 2009)

> probably sometime in 2007, SC gave a landmark judgment, whereby the people of lower caste can become priest.



Of course, there are many dalits who have knowledge in vedas. No one objects to learn things. But when it is practical, no one hires dalit priest to one's marriage not even dalits.

You asked me to provide sources. I heard epics from my grandmother and grandfather and by following the speech of various the priest of my neighbouring temple. I told you what i have heard. My grandmother, grandfather, priest of the temple passed away.

you are saying that distribution of duties based on cast is bad. I fell that it's not. We should respect each others openion and leave this cast discrimnation in MBH from now.


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 29, 2009)

vamsikrishna919 said:


> leave this cast discrimnation in MBH from now.


Too optimistic.
Some people love this topic so much they would keep on arguing on it. Just wait and u'll come to know (or get to read)


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jun 29, 2009)

I'm not a f@king moron to go on debating....

We should not F@king strech any thing untill it cutts off.

It just ruins the F@king relationships. 

Pardon my language. I just completed watching PulpFiction for 3rd time


----------



## karnivore (Jun 29, 2009)

vamsikrishna919 said:


> I heard epics from my grandmother and grandfather and by following the speech of various the priest of my neighbouring temple. I told you what i have heard.


Then you have a long long long long way yet to travel. 



> you are saying that distribution of duties based on cast is bad. I fell that it's not. We should respect each others openion..


Fair enough. We can agree to disagree.



> ..leave this cast discrimnation in MBH from now.


No can do.


----------



## montsa007 (Jul 14, 2009)

I firmly beleive in god, .
He's the ultimate power which can create or destroy anything.
And those who feel if god exists why can't i see him?
If you can see god he won't be god anymore, he's invincible.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 18, 2009)

^^Yes, you can't see god, because he is in you. If you don't believe it, then just do a serious deep meditation if u can, then u will realize why we believe in god.

*God is not too far from us, but we are always too slow to find him.*


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 18, 2009)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> If you don't believe it, then just do a serious deep meditation if u can


Please elaborate with step by step guidance to do "serious deep meditation"



> then u will realize why we believe in god.


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).   



> *God is not too far from us, but we are always too slow to find him.*


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  (no offense meant to u on personal level, don't sue me!)


----------



## legolas (Jul 19, 2009)

montsa007 said:


> If you can see god he won't be god anymore, he's invincible.



He is invincible, alright...
Why is he invisible??? 
lol


----------



## dips_view (Jul 19, 2009)

some people are believers so they believe.... they need no reason.or just make childish reasons to believe...open your eyes and do some research


----------



## amitash (Jul 19, 2009)

> I firmly beleive in god, .
> He's the ultimate power which can create or destroy anything.
> And those who feel if god exists why can't i see him?
> If you can see god he won't be god anymore, he's invincible.



The tooth fairy is invisible, do you believe in the tooth fairy?


----------



## bhuulo (Jul 20, 2009)

rhitwick said:


> 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).
> ...





legolas said:


> He is invincible, alright...
> Why is he invisible???
> lol





dips_view said:


> some people are believers so they believe.... they need no reason.or just make childish reasons to believe...open your eyes and do some research





amitash said:


> The tooth fairy is invisible, do you believe in the tooth fairy?



Some people are non-believers no matter what or how many reason you give, they just simply don't believe..., there are super natural forces all around us, u just need super natural senses to experience them and that is what meditation gives by calming your mind so that it can catch the flow of those forces...

But I know u'll not believe...., If u want to write it down then better make a note on a paper there will come a time in your life when u'll start believing in God or some positive super natural force... 

No personal offence made


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 20, 2009)

bhuulo said:


> Some people are non-believers no matter what or how many reason you give, they just simply don't believe...,


Just because u r talking something for a long time doesn't make ur claim true. Provide proof. 
In ur logic, we are also telling that there is no God for a long time, but none listens



> there are super natural forces all around us, u just need super natural senses to experience them and that is what meditation gives by calming your mind so that it can catch the flow of those forces...


So, to  understand God u've to be God. And meditation would make us God. Hmmm....good logic...



> there will come a time in your life when u'll start believing in God or some positive super natural force...


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.
No personal offence made[/QUOTE]


----------



## Anders_Branderud (Sep 27, 2009)

*Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose*

Here is my take on science and God.

According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on www.pnas.org) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo (since timespace has a beginning); i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace.

To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator / Singularity).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Source and further reading of how to relate to the Creator:www.netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

(The most common counter arguments are answered at *bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter arguments)

Anders Branderud


----------



## calanor (Sep 28, 2009)

for all non believers out there,i have experienced so many things that i wouldn't call a co-incidence ,so yes i believe there is god
but then again nobody stops you from believing whatever you want to
so fighting over such a topic i think,is a waste of time ,because for true believers of any side it will be hard to see other's point of view.
Coexistence of many ideas is the teaching of "SANATAN DHARMA"


----------



## dhruv_arora (Apr 24, 2010)

*Religion ? God ? Give me a break !*

Source : *infunity.info/component/content/article/2-all/3-religion1.html

Religion, as defined by most dictionaries, is a set or system of beliefs upheld by people, who devote themselves to the cause of their belief. Often, religion is associated with the belief in God, or an array of deities, who may or may do not exist in the physical world.
Despite the invisible and intangible nature of God, millions around the globe continue to worship these figures, which are regarded as omniscient and omnipotent.

Believers claim that it is faith and prayers that allows them to communicate with this figure, the creator of the Universe. So by following this absurd logic, if I have enough faith in my imaginary friend, Ronald, I could communicate with him and possible make him heal the sick. Here, I am relating my imaginary friend to God, both of them non-existent.

I could let Ronald have infinitum knowledge and power, akin to the omniscient and omnipotent God, simply by putting my imagination and will to work. What am I trying to prove here? Well, to simply put it through, God could be a work of our limitless imagination. An imagination that collided with a series of coincidences and eventually leading one to believe that “Hey! There is something out there that grants my deepest wish.”

As this person begins to explore this creation of his imagination, which he now believes to be existent in the current dimension and reality, even more coincidences could happen, which would affirm the person’s belief in the existence of a supreme force beyond the realm of his imagination.

The idea of God could simply be an imagination, stirred with coincidences that people are unaware of. Obviously, I am not stating a fact, its just my hypothesis. But is it possible? Yes, definitely!

Now, lets dive into the concept of prayers, which is an instance of  pleading to god. It could either be a plead to desire something from God, or an act of pleasing God. Most holy scriptures do mention that prayers will be answered by God. In the Bible, Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16 specifically state that all prayers coming from believers will be answered. If believers were to kneel down and pray to God to eradicate all forms of diseases from this planet, to wipe away all evilness, to cure the blind and the deaf and to let everyone lead a happy life, would all of these problem fade away in an instant, as an answer by God to those prayers? I don’t think so, despite what the scriptures mention, its just not possible.

If not, the world would be such a wonderful heavenly place to live in. There are two possibilities here, either the scriptures tell lies, or God is powerless/non-existent in any relative dimension/frame. I believe that prayers embed a psychological effect on the mind. Suppose I am a firm believer and I reveal to God my deepest wishes, I would have a sense of assurance that my wish would come true, thanks to God. Hence, I believe that my wish will come true.

As a result of this belief, I would have a greater determination in the whatever cause my wish pertains to. With that, I would work harder to accomplish that wish and this very effort would allow it to come true, not God. Obviously this could be argued the other way round, by claiming that entrusting God to fulfil my wishes, I would tend to have a reduced responsibility and so on….

Goodness, I could go on typing forever, but my fingers are tired and my eyes are strained. I need a break. I will carry on with part 2 of this topic whenever i find the time. Till Then, Adios!


----------



## rishitells (Apr 25, 2010)

*Re: Religion ? God ? Give me a break !*

So what do you want to say??
It is an endless discussion and there has already been a lot of this.
No one can prove if god exists or not.



dhruv_arora said:


> If not, the world would be such a wonderful heavenly place to live in.  There are two possibilities here, either the scriptures tell lies, or  God is powerless/non-existent in any relative dimension/frame. I believe  that prayers embed a psychological effect on the mind. Suppose I am a  firm believer and I reveal to God my deepest wishes, I would have a  sense of assurance that my wish would come true, thanks to God. Hence, I  believe that my wish will come true.



If you have faith in something, don't try to doubt and analyze it, otherwise don't have faith in it........simple .


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 25, 2010)

*Re: Religion ? God ? Give me a break !*

@OP, if u r very much eager to put ur viewpoint on this topic, please continue here *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39882

And, do try to read previous few posts (if u can)


----------



## FilledVoid (Apr 25, 2010)

I've moved the posts from the other thread into this one since the topic is pretty much the 
same. 

As for my opinion, well I do believe in my religion. Do I have scientific proof to present to prove the existence of God ? Well if there was any, then it wouldn't have been called religion. Either way, I choose to believe simply because *I* choose to.


----------



## hansraj (Apr 26, 2010)

Hey dear the poll is nice but flawed!!! Option 1 and option 4 are the same but the votes are being divided because of the two.


----------



## Nithu (Apr 26, 2010)

Humans created God and Science. that's all i know...


----------



## ssk_the_gr8 (Apr 26, 2010)

Nithu said:


> Humans created God and Science. that's all i know...



discovered science and created god


----------



## Aerohawk (Apr 27, 2010)

Me, I'm agnostic with a wee bit of atheism in it.


----------



## Goleon (Apr 29, 2010)

*You will call Gods name at times of needs when you are in a no way out situation no matter how much a GOD non believer you are. Even the last words of the greatest non- biliever was 'God is there' even tough he used to say rhat even if there was God i killed him and at the end of his life he realized God.*


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 29, 2010)

Goleon said:


> *Even the last words of the greatest non- biliever was 'God is there'*


*
And who was he?
And how did he became greatest non-believer? 
Was he great in "non-believing" or was he great in something else as well as a non-believer?




			even tough he used to say rhat even if there was God i killed him and at the end of his life he realized God.
		
Click to expand...

*And, what does this even mean???


----------



## Irenehabeck (Apr 29, 2010)

There are lots of questions that cannot be answered by science so i believe in god.


----------



## celldweller1591 (Apr 30, 2010)

Human Brain is the biggest power : What you believe is real becomes Real for you ! Its a state of mind . Both Science and God exist bcoz our mind think they do. i am kinda atheist btw


----------



## DK7117 (May 2, 2010)

Religion is mind control.
no god exists, if he did exist the dinosaurs must have eaten him/her/it up.


----------



## rahulkay (May 15, 2010)

Poon said:


> The solution to all the problems is if you want to be religious dpn't subscribe to any religious institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





sysfilez said:


> God is scientific.



Well said. Agreed both of you. We got the answer. "God is scientific." " All for one & one is for all of us".

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

This is a common question asked to check upon our beliefs.
Well I think, this interrogation in itself is unscientific. In this question we r personifying "Science" like 'god'. This is ridiculous. "Science" is not a person, god, place, angel, religion, temple or leader.

 "Science" is a method instead to train our minds to plan our perception of nature in most repeatable manner with help of 'topology' & "mathematics" or other methods & algorithms. 

We humans have become so used to worship "unknown"(god) that we want to choose between GOD & Science. "Neanderthal" within ourselves is still striving to survive ?


----------



## sky90 (May 15, 2010)

You can see science everywhere, but not the god.

science alway says what is practically possible, the concept of god is somewhat hypo...


----------



## celldweller1591 (May 21, 2010)

Science has evolved from logics,experiments,proofs and techniques over the past so many years. But God has evolved from human thoughts and sayings which are neither true nor false. The question about Gods existence remains.


----------



## Neuron (Jun 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## celldweller1591 (Jun 15, 2010)

> Why should a proton attract an electron


Quantum Theory has answer > String theory has explained this behavior.


----------



## Neuron (Jun 15, 2010)

Right bro...But just as you said, science is creation of human logic.But the same human logic is  very limited .There are things beyond our thoughts.Just think (might sound crazy!!) can you imagine a color that you haven't seen in your life?Someone who is blind since his birth do not have any sense of colors and there is no reason for him to believe in the existence of colors.But that doesn't mean that colors do not exist.Can science prove that other primary colors exist or not?It can't.Same way science doesn't yet have a way to prove the existence of god.But one day science will grow to such level where it will be forced to accept the existence of the so called god and might take it as one of the laws!


----------



## ravi_rtr (Jun 18, 2010)

@Neuron i agree with you.


----------



## hansraj (Jun 19, 2010)

Neuron said:


> 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,
> ...



Asking questions which are still under research cannot be a basis of proving that god exists. Its just a matter of time that we will have answers for your second question as well. If questioning is the basis of your belief that god exists then why cant god create life on moon or mars where god cud have created creatures non dependent on oxygen! There could be thousands of such questions asking about so many phenomenon which god could have initiated but not done!! 
Existence of god is an outcome of a very basic nature of humans which is fear..... in Hindu mythology, people worshipped all powerful things around (cobra as nag devta, fire as agni , storm as pawan, lion as vehicle of goddess shakti, wild boar as varah and the list is endless). You can find similar rituals or rules in other religions. No one worships the weak. Humans worship only those which have the capability to harm or destroy. This is done in order to remain safe and recieve minimum damages ever.

To overcome this fear, the strength which keeps you driving whether its against real threats in life or the imaginative nightmares is this feeling of god. Its a nice feeling of course !!! Its as simple as Fear = god. Create a human without fear in him and he shall never feel the presence of god. Science is that logic which decreases this fear and thats why you have so many people around here in this forum who are very well educated, who have logic but still believe that god still exists. Coz they are humans and they too are scared.
I am firm - There is no god.


----------



## Faun (Jun 19, 2010)

@Neuron
Then join the church of flying spaghetti monster. He created everythin with the touch of his tender appendages. His presence solely is the answer to all the question that science cannot answer. Hav faith and belief. Dont bother about searchin answers becoz you dont need one.


----------



## Neuron (Jun 19, 2010)

Guys,I'm not saying to blindly follow the concept of god,but to see the scientific side of it.


----------



## Faun (Jun 19, 2010)

^^but then u will have to change the traditional definition of god.


----------



## emailaatif786 (Jun 20, 2010)

The Most Concise Definition of God
"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."

The word ‘Assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means ‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (swt), all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah (swt) is not dependent on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependent on Him.

The Muslims prefer calling the Supreme Creator, Allah, instead of by the English word ‘God’. The Arabic word, ‘Allah’, is pure and unique, unlike the English word ‘God’, which can be played around with.

If you add ‘s’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Gods’, that is the plural of God. Allah is one and singular, there is no plural of Allah. If you add ‘dess’ to the word God, it becomes ‘Goddess’ that is a female God. There is nothing like male Allah or female Allah. Allah has no gender. If you add the word ‘father’ to ‘God’ it becomes ‘God-father’. God-father means someone who is a guardian. There is no word like ‘Allah-Abba’ or ‘Allah-father’. If you add the word ‘mother’ to ‘God’, it becomes ‘God-mother’. There is nothing like ‘Allah-Ammi’, or ‘Allah-mother’ in Islam. Allah is a unique word. If you prefix tin before the word God, it becomes tin-God i.e., fake God. Allah is a unique word, which does not conjure up any mental picture nor can it be played around with. Therefore the Muslims prefer using the Arabic word ‘Allah’ for the Almighty. Sometimes, however, while speaking to the non-Muslims we may have to use the inappropriate word God, for Allah. Since the intended audience of this article is general in nature, consisting of both Muslims as well as non-Muslims, I have used the word God instead of Allah in several places in this article.

God does not become a human being:
 God does not take human form:    
Some may argue that God does not become a human being but only takes a human form. If God only takes a human form but does not become a human being, He should not possess any human qualities. We know that all the ‘God-men’, have human qualities and failings. They have all the human needs such as the need to eat, sleep, etc.

The worship of God in human form is therefore a logical fallacy and should be abhorred in all its forms and manifestations.

That is the reason why the Qur’an speaks against all forms of anthropomorphism. The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:

"There is nothing whatever like unto Him."


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 20, 2010)

^So........
What were you trying to say again?


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jun 20, 2010)

> Why should a proton attract an electron?


Coulombic forces?



> Why should matter posses gravity?


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...

Not exactly god doing this himself eh?
Anyway I usually stick to the fence, so no further comments.


----------



## Neuron (Jun 20, 2010)

kanjar said:


> ^^but then u will have to change the traditional definition of god.



Not at all.In fact,vedas,upanishads etc. contain highly advanced concepts and definitions of god like the those of the supreme power called 'brahman' rather than the concept of some big good guy who lives to protect good from evil.

Also the science as we know it is not perfect.It makes a lot of assumptions or adjustments while trying to prove something.The 'Big Bang Theory' states that the universe was initially in a very hot and highly dense state.The question *"How does this state came into being?* still leaves the scientists in silence.
* Anything which exists must have a birth and this birth this must take from something which pre-exists.This 'pre-existing' thing is also bound to the same condition.This goes on till infinity and there can't be a first thing But this  doesn't make sense. So the only possibilty of the birth of the initial universe or the 'first thing' is through spontaneous generation by which the universe came into existence with NO REASONS.*Hands of god??


----------



## Faun (Jun 21, 2010)

^^i agree with some pointa but agree to disagree with rest of the content.
For me there is only one definition of god and that is 'its the basic bulding block of everythin, from zero to infinity'.
Imagine telling an average joe abt electrons, protons and neutrons.  someone simplified it with something which a common person can relate better, like we all are made up of soil. Which is correct but at a very low level of understanding. You wouldn't start with calculus from kindergarten ? Would you? And and average person working for daily meal wants an easy and simple solution.
Now someone will say that god is in sh!t too. Yeah it is. What may be sh¡t for you is lifeline for other creatures (unless u r a dumbfcuk thinking that other lifeforms are inferior to us).
My motto is not to worship that god but to follow 'dont be an arsehole to others'. I think that makes me a better and sane person in life.

@laatif*786*
Your post itself is a logical fallacy.


----------



## amitash (Jul 1, 2010)

> 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 you ignore the fact that those things are being explained, ur basic definition of science itself is wrong.. it is not "derived" by any laws.. simply put, science is the logical use of knowledge... and as u said logical doesnt always mean flawless or true.. and those "laws" u mentioned might not have a total explanation behind them, as we look for the explanations, we will keep finding more questions which is inevitable, but these laws are assumed to be, well laws or perfectly true because they are true without the shadow of a doubt (in most cases), even if we dont have a complete understanding of it yet.. like gravitation for example.. even if we dont understand it completely and maybe we never can due to the afforementioned continuous questioning process, it is true, simply because there is pure proof.. u can throw a ball up and watch it come down and even calculate its velocity, gravitational constant etc etc upto the nth decimal point.. but you simply cannot yet see or prove a god..

but now this depends on your definition of god.. Is he just a "power" or "energy" like a simple ball of energy say..? like the one from which everything as we know it might have exploded out of, like the big bang? Maybe but i wudnt call tat a god, its just simply energy.. according to the proper definition, a god is a creator or a supreme being who created us all intelligently..

I dont disagree totally to a concept of a diety in the form of energy or matter or whatever, plainly because tats ur own personal definition of god.. but the idea tat he is intelligent is highly improbable and the concept that he takes attendance and punishes bunkers is laughable indeed..


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 1, 2010)

^^

No matter how hard we explain the fact, they don't believe it at all, other than GOD.... 

Eventhough they knew that science has explanation for everything, they simply ignore this and start doing their daily chores for GOD and advise others to follow them. I felt that . 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. 

I don't have my own opinion even in this. *sigh*


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 10, 2010)

science science science......

there r certain things which science has proved wit time but were considered 2b super natural or some god activities till they werent....

true - god is virtually created by human.... in a small town in jharkhand once happened that a spoon of milk was drunk nearly half amt by god's statue on bringing up to it....the whole town went bazzark and there were 100's of worshiping ppl waiting 2 feed god.... we came 2 know that milk was given by some fraud milk provider who mixes too much water which was absorbed by the statue upon contact as it was made of mud.... tried to convince ppl but all they cud understand is they fed god....

so god is belief...i beleive wat i see n know...i vote science which proves everythin in front of u

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Jul 14, 2010)

There r infinite number of galaxies, planets....and possibly life.
The only question that comes to my immature but curious mind that how the 'Nature' can exist without a source of energy? 
If god or a supreme power doesn't exist then what powers up the universe?

@speedyguy Science can never ever answers all the questions.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 14, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> @speedyguy Science can never ever answers all the questions.



Then who else can?


----------



## rishitells (Jul 14, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> Then who else can?


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. 
At least I don't have any doubt regarding any single element in this universe, unlike science.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 14, 2010)

@Rishav, yes the answer(s) is/are always "God knows"


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2010)

there is no spoon


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 15, 2010)

@Rishabh_sharma1990
Its evident that you even know that it is illogical. Yes, ofcourse its illogical. Can you explain any one of the scientific fact , consulting with your GOD? Or else can GOD explain this to us? No, i didn't say don't believe GOD. I'm just saying don't believe GOD blindly for all facts, when there is a scientific fact behind there.

@rhitwick


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 15, 2010)

@Rishabh_sharma1990 : read carefully, i dint say science asnwers all....i sed it proves or rather justifies watever it answers to u.

science has proved many things with time n its still on.... about god, agree theres still no answers to stuffs like - source of life, origiin of galaxy etc. so people interpret as created by god.....when n how??? who saw it? explain that???? no another answer.... "GOD KNOWS" ...  ok ask him....

Enjoy~!


----------



## Neuron (Jul 15, 2010)

The 'God Vs Science' concept is quite illogical.The question should be whether god exists or not.If anything exists it got to be scientific,right?


----------



## rishitells (Jul 15, 2010)

There can only be one answer, but we can choose either god or science.
I choose God because then I can enjoy the beautiful spiritual experience of meditation and yoga. At least I can have complete faith in something.
And as the proverb says- "If you have faith in something, don't try to analyze it".
You say its all mental illusion, because you've never experienced that state of mind. God gives me the energy, the strength, the motivation. 

The science which you are talking about is materialistic science. 
I believe in spiritual science. Do you have any idea how the Rishi-Munis of past were able to attain unbelievable powers? That's spiritual science. They had the complete knowledge. They had the real and complete sense of life.
Materialistic science in my opinion is a hollow thing, and it will always be incomplete and unanswered.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 15, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Do you have any idea how the Rishi-Munis of past were able to attain unbelievable powers?



LOL, and how come u know about that? 
Any proof?

LOL, man serious, u thought people would believe that and take it as an argument???!!!

Grow up, learn to put logic against ur claims...


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 16, 2010)

completely agreed wit rhitwick....

even today we have pandits or others....making frauds of innocent ppl looting there hard earned money.... some even got into some scandals.... they r doing all this in the name of god, i hate the sight where i see pandits making use of people's spiritual believes fooling them to end n still earn everyday....y doesnt god come n look into this matter.... i never blv in all stories told being told around.... thats wat b practical.... ur living in a science dominated world where scientists r working hard to to explain ur querries and technologies for us....


its shame people speak against science even here when they r using some technology day n night even to post a thread here..... n abt the yoga thing... its also a scientifically explained fact for the reason to wat u observe....

Enjoy~!


----------



## rahulkay (Jul 17, 2010)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



Aberforth said:


> I'd love to see you back up this statement. Science has sufficient answers to the mysteries of the universe (including all in it) to disprove the need to a mystical, super natural god. Science also can explain why people believe in a mystical super being called god. Metaphysics isn't my concern and I don't believe in super natural phenomena, nature is varied enough to have explanations for every observed phenomena, nothing is 'super' for it.
> __________



So, where did you meet Mr. Science. Pretty impressive guy isn't he?

Can you refer me to his office? An e-mail contact will do. Will he answer?

Are you afraid of 'god' or 'Mr. Science' has promised you $$ a billion or more?

'Metaphysics isn't your concern' & you don't believe in super natural phenomena, good

same here-

"people here aren't much concerned about your 'belief'. What matters is 'truth'?"

do you believe in it?

Don't you get it, what prejudice means? or you are one of those who just repeat the same
thing like-

-I don't believe
-It doesn't concern me
-Just look at me
-You know nothing
-just believe in me

You got to give some insight to what you say, buddy. You must learn to listen to other people, rather than yourself. I will just suggest you to review what your are answering to.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 17, 2010)

^and what does ur rant actually means???


----------



## rishitells (Jul 17, 2010)

speedyguy said:


> completely agreed wit rhitwick....
> 
> even today we have pandits or others....making frauds of innocent ppl looting there hard earned money.... some even got into some scandals.... they r doing all this in the name of god, i hate the sight where i see pandits making use of people's spiritual believes fooling them to end n still earn everyday....y doesnt god come n look into this matter.... i never blv in all stories told being told around.... thats wat b practical.... ur living in a science dominated world where scientists r working hard to to explain ur querries and technologies for us....
> 
> ...



First of all there are no real pundits in this world today. Most of them are frauds with some exceptions. But applying this to the past is a shame. Those people were divine and you can never evaluate them in today's perspective.
The Hindu scriptures describe each and every aspect of life. They are divine, and no human can ever write such stuff without divine intervention.

Now the yoga. Its never scientifically explained, and it will never be. For an instance, what about the Buddhist monks who are able to adjust their body temperatures to unbelievable extents. Science still remains silent about that.
Now you will say that is also scientific. So tell me how it is.

@rhitwick I don't have any logic and I would not like to give one if I had, because I have faith in that.


----------



## rahulkay (Jul 17, 2010)

Okay, I didn't see the date. It was replied to an age old post, sorry.

btw, that was not like 'rant'. it was appropriate answer to the post.

post: aberforth   07-03-2007, 01:07 PM


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2010)

@rishab
faith can be dangerous. Not necessarily to u but to the others.

Past is obscure. You cannot say what these rishi munis were upto. May be they were no different from scientists. And the flow of info from them to the current generation is altered beyond proportions. Thanks to the ravages of external barbarians and their air of superior civilization that lead to massive destruction of audits and records. 

Further show a litmus paper to a fellow who doesnt know abt science. Dip it in ur sweat and show him the changing color. Most probably it will be a miracle for him. And then try to make him understand what happened actually. In the end, end up with the miracle as the only plausible way to convince him. It works  for avg masses. So is the idea that there is some fellow over the clouds watching u like a stalker and whipping u if u do something which he considers as inappropriate?

Choice is urs. Be content with  simple divine explanation(for avg joe) without any reasoning or first find the reason and then be content like a true explorer.


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 17, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> First of all there are no real pundits in this world today. Most of them are frauds with some exceptions. But applying this to the past is a shame. Those people were divine and you can never evaluate them in today's perspective.
> The Hindu scriptures describe each and every aspect of life. They are divine, and no human can ever write such stuff without divine intervention.
> 
> Now the yoga. Its never scientifically explained, and it will never be. For an instance, what about the Buddhist monks who are able to adjust their body temperatures to unbelievable extents. Science still remains silent about that.
> ...



yoga is taught all over..... the basic concept is relaxation of muscles, nerves through controlled inhalation n exhalation of breath....not every concept is explained but u have tons of books to read n follow.... ya they work if u follow them properly.....

about ancient story....thats the diff it makes....i speak wat i see, they speak wat they heard from others.... or they were there at that age..... they have only one answer to everything "faith" but cant explain anything furthur.... 

people talk about divine and its importance but most of them only use it commercially.... some indians believe chopping off goats necks to a mandir is worship where they say god only created them, tomorrow they will chop off some humans to find blessings, some temples look more like technology centers rather than a temple with sounds, videos, shops and technology... n people from all over country come to visit them...

a small temple with just a statue is often seen locked but a temple like esckon, kempfort filled wit features like theatres, sound effects, etc etc blah blah is crowded with people from all over even from abroad.... so they dont worship statue of god but god with technology... 

people say god is everywhere n watching u if u do wrong, but pray like hell before exams or results or something like that....so they feel God runs away wen they realise ur in need... humans are killed in 100's worshiping places like tirupathi, gulmarg isnt god watchin that or that is also believed to be a blessing?.....

some cut animals some cut flowers plants etc for pujas and hawans, so they believe god created them for that only....

they say god is one, but classify them and most of them select a few for regular worship...wont elaborate on this...ppl themselves insult what they believe, i find myself giving more respect to wat they believe...by not playing wit it but just keeping it in mind and heart

it is not believe or faith, it is a fear created by man to questions which were not being able to 2b answerd..... talking about monks and all, fine if science says no, how do u answer in terms of god...... or those monks are god, then gimmi their contact i need some help....
they are indeed great people who have worked n practiced a lot doing these medications and are now capable of doing certain things which not every human can do but can be taught....so its not a magic

for eg a little boy from japan had to learn kungfu, all he was taught was hitting a bucked of water almost non stop for two years....he ended up breaking walls n woods wit his hands which is next to impossible for a young child....so its practice...dont believe witout thinking on any one....ya for sure do respect them for their hardwork and achievement...

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Jul 17, 2010)

speedyguy said:


> yoga is taught all over..... the basic concept is relaxation of muscles, nerves through controlled inhalation n exhalation of breath....not every concept is explained but u have tons of books to read n follow.... ya they work if u follow them properly.....


I am talking about the mental, not physical yoga. 
And Its not only about inhalation and exhalation, thats a deep sleep people are currently in about yoga. 
Yoga is much more vast than just relaxation or exercise. Its about experiencing the supreme power by deep meditation or saadhna. 



> about ancient story....thats the diff it makes....i speak wat i see, they speak wat they heard from others.... or they were there at that age..... they have only one answer to everything "faith" but cant explain anything furthur....


what about the divine hindu scriptures? Can u prove them to be false? 
Are you smarter that the people who actually wrote it? They are the proof.



> people talk about divine and its importance but most of them only use it commercially.... some indians believe chopping off goats necks to a mandir is worship where they say god only created them, tomorrow they will chop off some humans to find blessings, some temples look more like technology centers rather than a temple with sounds, videos, shops and technology... n people from all over country come to visit them...
> 
> a small temple with just a statue is often seen locked but a temple like esckon, kempfort filled wit features like theatres, sound effects, etc etc blah blah is crowded with people from all over even from abroad.... so they dont worship statue of god but god with technology...


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.



> some cut animals some cut flowers plants etc for pujas and hawans, so they believe god created them for that only....


I never associate these people with god. They are the biggest evil to humanity and spirituality.



> they are indeed great people who have worked n practiced a lot doing these medications and are now capable of doing certain things which not every human can do but can be taught....so its not a magic
> 
> for eg a little boy from japan had to learn kungfu, all he was taught was hitting a bucked of water almost non stop for two years....he ended up breaking walls n woods wit his hands which is next to impossible for a young child....so its practice...dont believe witout thinking on any one....ya for sure do respect them for their hardwork and achievement...
> 
> Enjoy~!


first of all.....meditation...not medication. 
If it can be taught, anyone can learn it. No man, this is divine thing. And its not possible without saadhna, the real commitment to God.
ask any of those buddhist monks how they achieve it, then you will know what God is.

Enjoy~!


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 17, 2010)

A question to Rishabh, define GOD, and if u r thinking of replying this question with a question "Define science", well, I would request u to not to do that...

What I ask of u is ur definition of GOD...


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 17, 2010)

divine are the proof???? elaborate.... coz that is somthing exactly i was talkin about...all just reply "faith"

about the ones who cut animals n all, they believe that they worship that way....they mite call u the same but all are doing this to worship in their own way....everyone just concludes each other wrong...then who is wrong... all?


abt yoga, google it... the raising of body temp u were talkin about us being taught to learners, n its said to be harmful to kidneys if not done correctly....there is indeed a medical science associated to it....u just need to master it n ya i sed it takes hard work but not impossible....n can be appreciated.... n ya yoga is both physical n mental....u cant do a mental yoga while cutting a wood can u....

@rhitwick: no 1 can ask define science to confuse any1....science is clearly defined 2 everyone....isnt it....

ps: sory abt medication/meditation....was a typo....

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Jul 17, 2010)

speedyguy said:


> about the ones who cut animals n all, they believe that they worship that way....they mite call u the same but all are doing this to worship in their own way....everyone just concludes each other wrong...then who is wrong... all?
> Enjoy~!



Its never called worshiping. Like I said, these people just want to spread misconceptions and wrong beliefs. God is beyond any religious belief. 

@rhitwick I see god as an energy, a supreme power that drives us all. God is not about any religion, He's about the whole existence. He is the ultimate of everything, He is in every single element. I never find God outside, because he is in me, always. While meditating I feel him, I feel the energy coming from him. 

I agree with those who criticize the various practices done with the name of God. Those fraud sadhus, they must be thrown out of India.

When talking about energy, let me tell you that I follow the Hindu principle that we are also an energy, which is called soul. We are not this physical body, we are an energy who drives this body. We never die, our body dies, and we proceed to next form of life, which according to Hinduism, can be any form. The concept is called rebirth and I think science will never ever able to answer how it works. 
You cant say rebirth is also belief, because there has been millions of incidents of rebirth.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2010)

^^in short: god is the basic building block of everything ? Amirite?


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 17, 2010)

misconceptions??? so u admit that u never pray or never follow any puja steps... thats good...

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Jul 17, 2010)

kanjar said:


> ^^in short: god is the basic building block of everything ? Amirite?


so you want to define God with scientific logic. 
I said he's the ultimate of everything, now as you wish to interpret.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 PM ----------




speedyguy said:


> misconceptions??? so u admit that u never pray or never follow any puja steps... thats good...
> 
> Enjoy~!


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. 
As for pooja steps, I believe in Hawan, hope you know what it is.
It purifies the environment so its done at temples, or at the inauguration of new homes and city projects, and I think there is nothing wrong with it.
I have experienced it so I am saying. 
But other type of rituals are just crap. God doesn't want anyone to worship him. He wants peace, equality, and humanity. And having faith in a supreme power doesn't cause any harm. Instead it creates a strength.


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 18, 2010)

yes i know what hawan is n wat it is for... a guy turns up at ur place reads some messages and earns money from u.... n u use some burning stuff with leaves and flowers buds to some further formality and conclude u brought peace to the place.... peace can b easily obtained by humans living at home.... i do it without any hawan if m alone or if others exist but co-operate....

god doesnt want peace humanity etc etc....its we humans who live here want....

everythin is within human mind... i never do such stuff but m living very peacefully coz i know wat i shud do at wat time and how....

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Jul 18, 2010)

speedyguy said:


> yes i know what hawan is n wat it is for... a guy turns up at ur place reads some messages and earns money from u.... n u use some burning stuff with leaves and flowers buds to some further formality and conclude u brought peace to the place.... peace can b easily obtained by humans living at home.... i do it without any hawan if m alone or if others exist but co-operate....
> 
> god doesnt want peace humanity etc etc....its we humans who live here want....
> 
> ...



thats the dumbest evaluation of a Hawan because of your crooked perception about indian traditions and culture. First of all, its not for making money but there is nothing wrong if one does it. At least he is not making money by exploiting poor people or by selling illegal stuff.

And the burning stuff and flower buds you are talking about are not just stuff man, they are of great importance. They are mentioned in scriptures. But there is no sense in telling all this to this because you've no respect for your culture and scriptures, just live with your scientific thoughts.

If there are no cultural diversities, no tradition, no colors, there is no humanity. Imagine a plate with lots of rice, only rice, no Daal or Sabji, nothing to eat with. Would you like it to have as everyday meal, forever??


----------



## amitash (Jul 18, 2010)

> they are of great importance. They are mentioned in scriptures.



Now tats a "dumb evaluation" they a re super important cus they are mentioned in the scriptures? How do u kno the scriptures are of any great importance at all? How can u just trust a book? Dont u need any valid reason?



> If there are no cultural diversities, no tradition, no colors, there is no humanity. Imagine a plate with lots of rice, only rice, no Daal or Sabji, nothing to eat with. Would you like it to have as everyday meal, forever??



Firstly no one has a problem with cultural diversities in general but when they go against pure reason and logic and reprimand you for thinking freely, there comes the problem.. There would still be lots of diversity and even more actually if everyone had his own free views instead of biased garbage.. the daal and sabji in the rice come together to make it a nice tasty dish, but it is only tasy when it comes together equally and mixed properly.. hope u get the point..


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 19, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> thats the dumbest evaluation of a Hawan because of your crooked perception about indian traditions and culture. First of all, its not for making money but there is nothing wrong if one does it. At least he is not making money by exploiting poor people or by selling illegal stuff.
> 
> And the burning stuff and flower buds you are talking about are not just stuff man, they are of great importance. They are mentioned in scriptures. But there is no sense in telling all this to this because you've no respect for your culture and scriptures, just live with your scientific thoughts.
> 
> If there are no cultural diversities, no tradition, no colors, there is no humanity. Imagine a plate with lots of rice, only rice, no Daal or Sabji, nothing to eat with. Would you like it to have as everyday meal, forever??



now that is really the dumbest answer i got....and exactly wat i was talking about, just talking without any common sense. something like " i have faith" but dunno on what grounds.

so if its not for making money why do they make it. try calling them n ask for free service u will come to know. anything that deals with money is business. so ur doing business for ur scriptures and culture. exploit people and sell illegal stuffs, its better than earning in the name of god, the one whom u respect so much.

2ndly about burning stuffs, we say plants animals and all are created by god, we say cutting them is killing nature and gods creation but later scriptures wants you to cut them and burn them to perform hawan. hats off. about respect i know whom to respect i dont need any person's advice on it. and scientific thoughts? scientific are not thoughts they are facts, what u do is a thought. live with it, kill a human next time like some do. they also worship that way n say its their culture so dont call them wrong.

3rdly from culture, this cultural diversities has brought so many differences in humans. people fight kill each other coz they are of different culture n believe they are different not humans. yes ur right, it brings color to life. color of blood. i just dont understand the sense to compare rice with this. rice with dal doesnt harm anyhow you can eat it, dividing people with culture does it. 

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Jul 20, 2010)

speedyguy said:


> 2ndly about burning stuffs, we say plants animals and all are created by god, we say cutting them is killing nature and gods creation but later scriptures wants you to cut them and burn them to perform hawan. hats off. about respect i know whom to respect i dont need any person's advice on it. and scientific thoughts? scientific are not thoughts they are facts, what u do is a thought. live with it, kill a human next time like some do. they also worship that way n say its their culture so dont call them wrong.



Scriptures, at least of Hindus, never tell you to cut trees or kill any living creature. Even its considered as a sin, a disrespect. Hawan are performed with the stuff you can obtain without cutting and killing anything.
Hawans and other type of sacred spiritual practices are mention in the The Yajur Veda - The Book of Rituals. Yajur Veda is also a liturgical collection and was made to meet the  demands of a ceremonial religion. The Yajur Veda practically served as a  guidebook for the priests who execute sacrificial acts muttering  simultaneously the prose prayers and the sacrificial formulae (‘yajus’).  It is similar to ancient Egypt’s “Book of the Dead”. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
::with some reference- internet and some ancient books::

*Now you want to prove Vedas as false and inappropriate?* The Vedas are supposed to be the origin of all knowledge. As far their  importance as the source of *earliest human awareness of the universe* is  considered, they are undisputed and unparalleled in the religious  history of India. No religious thought or school in all subsequent years  have ignored or disputed them as a source of knowledge. Vedas also lay down the concept of almighty God, nature and deities,  without losing focus of the importance of human intention and action.

It will not be wrong to perceive Vedas as the earliest compositions of  the very ancient human civilization that was attempting to find its  roots, rules and values. The fact that Vedas were communicated by god is  just a reflection of their evolution from the awareness about our own  self and the universe.

Tell me who gave birth to you? Your parents of course, they existed before you, they taught you every little thing that helped you in your life journey. Now can you say that they don't make any sense? 
The same way you are insulting our scriptures, thinking that you are smarter than your those who originally wrote these sacred books....a big shame. 

And now comes the scientific facts. Who says Vedas are not scientific. Even scientists are curious about the huge amount of knowledge and facts written in Vedas. 

----------------------
Concepts  of science in vedas which are still beyond modern physics and  cosmology. In search of unified theory, there are 22 alternate theories.  Vedas indicated that combination of 3 theories is needed for complete  cosmology-structures of 13 world levels, field of 10 dimensions, and  chain of transformation. You can read the full article here - Frontiers of Science and Vedas.
----------------------



> 3rdly from culture, this cultural diversities has brought so many differences in humans. people fight kill each other coz they are of different culture n believe they are different not humans. yes ur right, it brings color to life. color of blood. i just dont understand the sense to compare rice with this. rice with dal doesnt harm anyhow you can eat it, dividing people with culture does it.
> 
> Enjoy~!



People fight and kill each other not because of the cultural difference, but the difference of their thoughts and actions. There can never ever be a single culture because no two humans can agree on all points. Cultures are not dividing people, the people are dividing themselves because of their false ego and feeling of being superior. This is the reason behind all the blood.

-------------------------
Culture is related to the development of one’s  attitude. One’s culture plays an important role in shaping the  principles of the individual’s life. The cultural values of an  individual have a deep impact on his/her attitude towards life.  According to the behaviorist definition of culture, it is the ultimate  system of social control where people monitor their own standards and  behavior. A community’s culture lays the foundation of the living of its  people. The cultural values serve as the founding principles of one’s  life. They shape an individual’s thinking and influence his/her mindset.

Why is culture important? It is definitely because it gives an  individual a unique identity. The culture of a community gives its  people a character of their own. Culture shapes the personality of a  community. The language that a community speaks, the art forms it hosts,  its staple food, its customs, traditions and festivities comprise the  community’s culture. The importance of culture cannot be stressed enough  as it is an integral part of living. For those of you interested in  exploring the different cultures of the world, here is your guide to world  culture and heritage.       

source: Why is Culture Important

------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy~!


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 20, 2010)

@Rishabh_sharma1990

So, what are you upto? By copy-paste such big story....????


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 20, 2010)

Why i am witnessing a debate on culture! Unlike god.. man created culture and he is following them. Leave the poor thing alone.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 20, 2010)

^^
If you have been here long ago, this thread would get locked and there would be no debate. You're late.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 20, 2010)

Oh no... what i meant is.. lets get dirty about what role god had played in Inventing the wifi and a the role science did in restarting a stopped heart. And not about this cultural heritage, diversity, homogeneity, values, integrity, differentiation, probability, diffusion, osmosis and reverse osmosis thing.. which is leading us no where. 

btw, that's the nicest way one can put out the words "you are a spammer"


----------



## rishitells (Jul 20, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> @Rishabh_sharma1990
> 
> So, what are you upto? By copy-paste such big story....????



So, you have run out of arguments?
and BTW Its not a copy paste, just wrote it with some reference.
And whether copy-paste or not, its true, and if you are not brave enough to face truth, just leave this debate.

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 PM ----------

@vamsi_krishna 
Spammer....??


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 20, 2010)

And whats that truth might be? Sorry... i wasn't following the debate from the beginning.

No big thingy.. just tell it in four lines or less than 400 words.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 20, 2010)

^^ 
1. I say that God is the ultimate of everything and they want to live on the basis of scientific facts.
2. I say that we should respect our scriptures, and they say its nonsense.
3. I say we must preserve our culture and heritage and they say it creates barrier, blood, violence.

If humanity is happy with the acceptance of existence of God, whats the problem? Live with science and tech, believe in God, Preserve culture, that's humanity in my perspective.


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 20, 2010)

@Rishabh_sharma1990 :

if hawans are not done using any nature killing then what is used for it. ok what do they burn and put up, plastics? stainless steel? or somthing else? cmon man, its not like i have never seen it at temples or home. they use flowers, leaves and woods to burn.

and if culture doesnt create difference then goto pakistan and scream something bad about their culture. let me know if ur back alive. hindu muslims sikh christian are mainly different only coz they worship different god and follow different culture. a hindu family normally avoids marrying in a muslim family or christian only because their culture is different.

if these were not there, there wud have been only one category, humans and humanity, where all wud be same. and still people could eat "dal with chawal" 

Enjoy~!


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 21, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> ^^
> 1. I say that God is the ultimate of everything and they want to live on the basis of scientific facts.
> 2. I say that we should respect our scriptures, and they say its nonsense.
> 3. I say we must preserve our culture and heritage and they say it creates barrier, blood, violence.
> ...



Thinking that god is ultimate and Living with science is not possible, IMO. What science is purely opposite to the subject of god. Like..

God says..I'm the ultimate. Science says speed of light is the ultimate. Science maybe was the reason for insane amount of caucuses in wars.. but with god's intervention that would have been a lot less. These are only few.. the list goes on and on. So, the god is ultimate... for me the science is the god. Atleast.. it makes scene right...? Believing in science which gives reasons and explains most of the things.. instead of divine god, who don't have any logical explanations for 99% of his phenomenons.


And about the culture.... I'm with you. If culture is what making you stand out in 800corores of population and giving you identity, CHUCK all the things, it won't kill us to live in groups with separate cultures which gives us some identity.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 21, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> So, you have run out of arguments?
> and BTW Its not a copy paste, just wrote it with some reference.
> And whether copy-paste or not, its true, and if you are not brave enough to face truth, just leave this debate.



Writing a 2000 words paragraph doesn't mean you know everything. What i want to ask you, whether we are debate for god, or for culture. Now the topic seems to move from "Science or God" to "Cultural Diversity". 

And reference -> copy-paste, as we all know you would've copied some part from elsewhere and paste it here. No offense meant on you.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 21, 2010)

^^Dont go off-topic dude. Its a debate of Science or God.
If I referenced something, what's wrong with that? Seems like you are not in the mood to continue the debate. Well I also think its better not to go ahead, because its not going to make any sense, is it?
And I did not want to elaborate on culture, but the post by Mr. SpeedyGuy forced me to do that.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 21, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> ^^Dont go off-topic dude. Its a debate of Science or God.
> If I referenced something, what's wrong with that? Seems like you are not in the mood to continue the debate. Well I also think its better not to go ahead, because its not going to make any sense, is it?


No comment.


Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> And I did not want to elaborate on culture, but the post by Mr. SpeedyGuy forced me to do that.



Now, thats off-topic. Anyway leave it. I dont want to drag it further. 
I strongly believe that science is GOD.  And please explain me How you say " *I say that God is the ultimate of everything and they want to live on the basis of scientific facts.*"


----------



## a2mn2002 (Jul 21, 2010)

Science is nothing in front of GOD. He is the supreme power.
I wonder,sorry,shocked that the indian people has some doubts regarding GOD. People are becoming materialistic day by day & thats the reason. 

GOD is the thing to feel , not debate .


----------



## rishitells (Jul 21, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> Now, thats off-topic. Anyway leave it. I dont want to drag it further.
> I strongly believe that science is GOD.  And please explain me How you say " *I say that God is the ultimate of everything and they want to live on the basis of scientific facts.*"



well you guys want that everything should be scientifically proved in order to accept it. But its not the way I want to live, because there are things beyond science and tech. There is Spirituality, there are out of body experiences. Science says you are the body. Spirituality says this body is just like a cloth, and you are the owner of this cloth, the Soul. Just as we change clothes after they no longer remain useful, we change body, the form of life, its the concept of rebirth, still under research. These are the things which science will be unable to answer ever, things related to spirituality.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2010)

a2mn2002 said:


> Science is nothing in front of GOD. He is the supreme power.
> I wonder,sorry,shocked that the indian people has some doubts regarding GOD. People are becoming materialistic day by day & thats the reason.
> 
> GOD is the thing to feel , not debate .


I think you need to throw that computer down right away and take sanyas. You cannot preach what you urself don't practice 

Its blatantly stupid thinking that I should do good deeds or else I will go to hell. Proponent of nearly all religions think the person not in their creed is going to hell and by that everyone is going to hell from someone's point of view or scriptures...rofl. I wonder what will be the hell for *sadomasochists* ? 

Blurting out words after words as prayer like a parrot every day thinking that God will be happy and fulfill ur wish is yet another act of selfishness and bigotry.

It baffles me that the God who created universe would be bothered about a minuscule creature on a  random planet among gazillions of planets inside millions of galaxies. Asking the humans to do prayer for him like a true douche. I guess other creatures are just the most unfortunate bunch out there not getting a chance to debate on this topic 

Good luck with your God, God fearing people !


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

@a2mn2002

Change the sentence from "Science is nothing in front of GOD" to "GOD is nothing but Science, but people not willing to trust this".


@Rishabh_sharma1990

LOL @ Re-Birth. All the times you guys don't have any valid reason or proof but still arguing that god is the ultimate power. At least science has proof for almost anything.


----------



## gagan007 (Jul 22, 2010)

a2mn2002 said:


> Science is nothing in front of GOD. He is the supreme power.
> I wonder,sorry,shocked that the indian people has some doubts regarding GOD. People are becoming materialistic day by day & thats the reason.
> 
> GOD is the thing to feel , not debate .



Couldn't agree more with you a2mn2002...more and more westerners are getting attracted towards spirituality Indian culture offers but the people here do not respect that. Well it is just a matter of maturity. Long time ago I said to my younger brother that "There was no Ram no Arjun no Mahabharat...dnt waste your time in giving your attention to these myths..." and my father got very angry. Today I understand that these figures are really necessary...not for just having a blind belief on them but for finding peace in your life and living it meaningfully.

We now read "_Geeta_" daily and it gives me a lot of peace....

Rishabh_sharma1990: I admire many of your posts above...though I am not a religious person, I do not deny existence of a supreme power (most of us term Him as God)...


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

gagan007 said:


> not for just having a blind belief on them but for finding peace in your life and living it meaningfully.



This means, there is no such term as GOD, but we portray such a person, to live a peaceful life(How these things can make a persons life peaceful, just by reading epics!). Is that what you want to say?


----------



## gagan007 (Jul 22, 2010)

rajkumar_pb, I do not know if you have any problem(s) in life...(even though after looking at your title Life sucks!!! and  Location: In HELL...) and please be sure that I am not making *any* assumptions either at all...What I want to say is that everyone in his/her life face challenges and issues. Spiritualism (which also teaches about a supreme power) comes in handy that time. Such things are just not written for amusement or to earn money (although there are many around us who make fool out of others in the name of spiritualism and make merry) but they make society a better place to live in.

There is one thing I always say. You think you are smart, no problem. You think others are fool, that's where you show how amateur you are.

All those IAS officers, businessmen, intellectuals who flock to "Art of Living" and similar programs run by various spiritual leader are not idiots. They have a experience of whole life behind them and yet they come to such places in search of peace. I pity those young people also who make fun of their grandparents saying that those ppl waste time in such gatherings. What they fail to see is that people go there for a reason which they do not understand.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

gagan007 said:


> rajkumar_pb, I do not if you have any problem(s) in life...(even though after looking at your title Life sucks!!! and  Location: In HELL...) and please be sure that I am not making *any* assumptions either at all...



LOL, Do you think the user title in  a public forum is true. Man, its always for fun, What if i wrote it as "Life is awesome". Are you going to care that my life is awesome. No. But when there is something relevant get caught in your eyes, you used it. Simple.

Leaving it aside, i am happy as always. 



gagan007 said:


> There is one thing I always say. You think you are smart, no problem. You think others are fool, that's where you show how amateur you are.



I never wanted to be smart, especially in front of these people.



gagan007 said:


> All those IAS officers, businessmen, intellectuals who flock to "Art of Living" and similar programs run by various spiritual leader are not idiots. They have a experience of whole life behind them and yet they come to such places in search of peace. I pity those young people also who make fun of their grandparents saying that those ppl waste time in such gatherings. What they fail to see is that people go there for a reason which they fail to see/understand.



Well, if i want peace, i go to my home talk with my family members and find the joy of life from that. Not that, i pay for some prayer and go after a swamiji to get peace. I don't say the are idiots, but what they are looking for is not there, but they still act like they found it. That's it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2010)

^^there is no peace but lying in my bed listening to post rock and thinking in slow motion or spinning dreams


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

^^

 

For me, its listening to old melodies and playing some game in my PC...


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 22, 2010)

/offtopic, but..........those of you here have something to say about peace, please (and please, please) report here
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/fight-club/126793-peace.html


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

^^

LOL, rhitwick spammed...  (Juz kidding)

Sure will write about peace if we have anything in our mind...


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 22, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> ^^
> And I did not want to elaborate on culture, but the post by Mr. SpeedyGuy forced me to do that.



Mr. Rishabh_sharma1990 plz refer to ur post #1165 to recall actually who started about cultural diversities with some useless examples like dal-rice...and stop blaming blindly. 
i apologise to others for continuing with that off-topic subject.

@a2mn2002 : yes people are becoming materialistic and i believe its good for them in todays world. the leading countries are leading because they are more logical and practical than us. thats what i feel. when indians were not that materialistic they followed so many ill practices like sati and all. my persona opinion.





Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> ^^Just as we change clothes after they no longer remain useful, we change body, the form of life, its the concept of rebirth, still under research. These are the things which science will be unable to answer ever, things related to spirituality.



agree, science has no answer as yet. but just something i hve been talkin about since last few posts. how does god explain this. what is the concept of soul? all are answered by one word "faith". if i add this word with science then i wud say theres no god. soul, rebirth and everything is science. theres no proof but i have faith in science and also have faith that it will prove it. theres no faith like this, if u dont support science dont use ur pc, use your soul and spiritual power to post next reply.

Enjoy~!


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

speedyguy said:


> Mr. Rishabh_sharma1990 plz refer to ur post #1165 to recall actually who started about cultural diversities with some useless examples like dal-rice...and stop blaming blindly.
> i apologise to others for continuing with that off-topic subject.



Well i tried to explain him but he just pointed out your post.



speedyguy said:


> @a2mn2002 : yes people are becoming materialistic and i believe its good for them in todays world. the leading countries are leading because they are more logical and practical than us. thats what i feel. when indians were not that materialistic they followed so many ill practices like sati and all. my persona opinion.



Well said bro. Lets wait and see what they say about this.



speedyguy said:


> if u dont support science dont use ur pc, use your soul and spiritual power to post next reply.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 22, 2010)

gagan007 said:


> Couldn't agree more with you a2mn2002...more and more westerners are getting attracted towards spirituality Indian culture offers but the people here do not respect that. Well it is just a matter of maturity. Long time ago I said to my younger brother that "There was no Ram no Arjun no Mahabharat...dnt waste your time in giving your attention to these myths..." and my father got very angry. Today I understand that these figures are really necessary...not for just having a blind belief on them but for finding peace in your life and living it meaningfully.



Well said, the world is respecting our culture and yet these people are arguing senselessly.....actually they don't have enough intellect and understanding about our own spirituality and culture. 

*@rajkumar_pb* valid proof about rebirth? Do have any idea how much incidents relating to rebirth have occurred yet? Science is silent about that because it knows that this thing is beyond its scope.



rajkumar_pb said:


> ^^
> For me, its listening to old melodies and playing some game in my PC...



So thats peace for you? That's it??
Then you don't know what real Peace is. You don't know how it feels when I lose myself in front of God. You don't know how tears come to my eyes when I listen and practice Indian Classical Music, which was originally formed to worship the Pramatma, the God. You don't know anything about out of body experience, when one detaches himself from his body, the soul and body become different, and the soul roams freely, and then reunites itself with body. If you don't believe it, just do some research and then come back.

It can never be experienced by the idiots like you. Be materialistic, Keep listening to those melodies and get lost in your PC.



speedyguy said:


> @a2mn2002 : yes people are becoming materialistic and i believe its good  for them in todays world. the leading countries are leading because  they are more logical and practical than us. thats what i feel. when  indians were not that materialistic they followed so many ill practices  like sati and all. my persona opinion.


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. 

And for Sati, there were very few hindu communities who practiced it  actually. And by the way every human civilization has some really ill  traditions, its not only the case with India, but with the total  humanity.



speedyguy said:


> if u dont support science dont use ur pc, use your soul and spiritual power to post next reply.


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.


----------



## gagan007 (Jul 22, 2010)

speedyguy said:


> use your soul and spiritual power to post next reply.
> 
> Enjoy~!



is this statement coming from a 10th class student?bcuz it sounds like one. 



See we should not get confused and related ill practices with God. I agree they all are done in the name of Him but that shouldn't make you hate Him or have disbelief in His existence. It is people among and like us who have crooked mind to do such things (like sati and all that cr@p).

Is science untouched from such things? I think not. Science has created so many things around us which can destroy us all in seconds. Do you think nuclear bomb is good and the machine guns and all other destructive objects that were only possible because we studied science?
See I am not blaming science, I am just saying that it depends on how to use it. So please do not bring in such things as _sati_/cast-ism/_bali_ and other cr@p which were invented by human being. 

I will not shy away in going to an extent to say that even worshiping idols is not necessary in order to have faith in God.


I am not angry on you guys who deny in His existence and on His faith. I am just sad that you don't yet understand its power. It is this faith only which majorly runs the world. Otherwise it will take no time for human beings to eat (perhaps I need a better word here) one another and finish everything. Believing in God not only makes us a better human being (by following best practices being modeled by Him) but makes us fearsome so that we do not do anything wrong.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> *@rajkumar_pb* valid proof about rebirth? Do have any idea how much incidents relating to rebirth have occurred yet? Science is silent about that because it knows that this thing is beyond its scope.



If someone not research on that doesn't count as its way beyond his scope.
It has some other meanings too and please try to get into that too. May be they think thats a waste of time, as if it doesn't exist why would one want to bug about that.



Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> So thats peace for you? That's it??



Yes, for me it is. Does it bothers you? Meaning of peace varies from person to person. For me it is, and for you its something else like pray to god and blah,blah. What it does matter is, does we feel calm and good after that. 



Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> It can never be experienced by the idiots like you. Be materialistic, Keep listening to those melodies and get lost in your PC.



Now thats the way you debate with someone, by calling them idiot. Without even understand our stance you calling me an idiot. That scales you down.



Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Its not for replying  to the idiots like you.



I am sure that you are frustrated. Go chill yourself and come here for debate. 



gagan007 said:


> I am not angry on you guys who deny in His existence and on His faith. I am just sad that you don't yet understand its power. It is this faith only which majorly runs the world.



Well, we never say we trust, but we need a solid proof for its existence, thats it. We don't trust anything coz we don't know about them and think it exists, *blindly*.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2010)

gagan007 said:


> It is this faith only which majorly runs the world. Otherwise it will take no time for human beings to eat (perhaps I need a better word here) one another and finish everything. Believing in God not only makes us a better human being (by following best practices being modeled by Him) but makes us fearsome so that we do not do anything wrong.



Yeah, add the punishment of hell too and see what it does...fear is not the right thing to instill judgment of good and bad into someone.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

^^

Well they never gonna understand that and they still say, it is the supreme power that drives the world and one should go to hell for all his deeds.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 22, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Well said, the world is respecting our culture and yet these people are arguing senselessly.....actually they don't have enough intellect and understanding about our own spirituality and culture.
> 
> *@rajkumar_pb* valid proof about rebirth? Do have any idea how much incidents relating to rebirth have occurred yet? Science is silent about that because it knows that this thing is beyond its scope.
> 
> ...



First of all.. don't be a jackass moron who calls a person idiot in a debate. According to the rules..when a person accuses opposite one it indirectly indicates that he is being frustrated and no longer eligible for debate. Show some respect to others... at least.. that's what god says.

And talking about your tears while listening songs.. it's your way of getting lost. Some will choose helping the humans by making some discoveries instead of just sitting around and listening to classical songs and crying. And some will choose, just to eat and find their happiness there. And some will choose just lying in the bed with the help of vicodin.  If you do some classical god songs and cry.. don't expect that is the only thing to get lost. Take me... I do hear the praising of pramatma... but i got lost when i was playing crysis exodus level with ultra high settings and 8xAA with nearly 35 frames per second. Now.. i do got lost some where.. where there is only pure excellence and awesomeness. When i said that.. then, we are talking about my outer body experience. There are no predefined tools.. it just depends on your mind.


Yea.. ancient Indians were living in peace.. so did every ancient race. The tricky part is those dudes didn't even knew who the god is.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

^^

Yes, they are not eligible for participating in a debate. Thats why i ask them to chill down, note down some valid points and come here.

And i told him, the meaning of peace varies from person to person. I prefer to play games rather than cry hearing a song(May be that song was too bad . Not to hurt, just kidding)


----------



## gagan007 (Jul 22, 2010)

ichi said:


> Yeah, add the punishment of hell too and see what it does...fear is not the right thing to instill judgment of good and bad into someone.



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  ). 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?


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

@gagan007

Atleast you got some valid point to post here, not like others who simply post some stuff and call others as idiots.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2010)

gagan007 said:


> 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  ). 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?



fine.

I'll relate you a pretty interesting incident. I was one of the person in conversation. This person *A* is from a religion *X*(I will not name the religion to stir the still water). We were just talking about whether one should give money/food to a person dying of hunger or not. The person *A *said that money/food should be given to poor but the one who honestly do prayer n times a day. To back up he said that its written in their scripture and thats what learned ones says. I said that a person in need of money/food will be least bothered about God, first thing will be to feed his hungry stomach. Even then he was reluctant to accept that he will give it to the one who is dying of hunger. The only thing that mattered for him was that he should be pious and everything else is considered later. I felt pity on myself. Even though that person is working in an IT company enjoying material pleasures (ironically uses technology for reciting prayers) but still contains daily dose of bigotry receeded back in his mind by years of brainwashing.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 22, 2010)

vamsi_krishna said:


> First of all.. don't be a jackass moron who calls a person idiot in a debate. According to the rules..when a person accuses opposite one it indirectly indicates that he is being frustrated and no longer eligible for debate. Show some respect to others... at least.. that's what god says.
> 
> Yea.. ancient Indians were living in peace.. so did every ancient race. The tricky part is those dudes didn't even knew who the god is.



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.


---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------




rajkumar_pb said:


> @gagan007
> 
> Atleast you got some valid point to post here, not like others who simply post some stuff and call others as idiots.



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.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 22, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> 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????
> ...




Well, he didn't mentioned like " They didn't even know *what* a god is????"
He said " They didn't even know *who* a god is????"
 
Read twice before you post. 



Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> 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.



What i asked you is, is there a valid proof for the GODs existence? And no0, i don't read them if i knew it's not worth reading it. I've read gagan007's post as it has some valid point, not like yours.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 22, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> 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????
> ...



Oh no need for research.. it is just 5th standard stuff...
Last know ancient indian civilization was mehrgah civilization(which is now in pakistan)(7000BC), indus valley civilization(3000BC), Late harappan civilization(~1900BC).. in all these indian civilizations.. they didn't even know the gods we are worshiping today.. and there were no predefined rules that we are following today. They use to worship the nature(trees, river, sun, animals) which were giving them life and livelihood. Problem rose with the sun... as he was invisible for worship at the set. So, they created a replica of him which was like a stone.. later they gave a proper shape for it.. which is their or our's shape. So.. started the long journey of the myths, epics we are hearing. 

FYI, they didn't use to hear and cry to devotional songs because they want some outer body experience. They use to work their asses out to make lively hood and to pave a way for their feature.. in which we are clearly living. And which we are clearly forgetting to pave the same route for next generations by hearing and crying to songs.

And.. if you are talking about the Egyptian pagan gods, Greek gods which were in the other parts of the world.... then i don't have anything except  a deep sigh.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 22, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> Well, he didn't mentioned like " They didn't even know *what* a god is????"
> He said " They didn't even know *who* a god is????"
> 
> Read twice before you post.


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.



vamsi_krishna said:


> FYI, they didn't use to hear and cry to devotional songs because they  want some outer body experience. They use to work their asses out to  make lively hood and to pave a way for their feature.. in which we are  clearly living. And which we are clearly forgetting to pave the same  route for next generations by hearing and crying to songs.



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~!


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 22, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> And for soul and spiritual power, Its not for replying  to the idiots like you.



i guess u need to watch your language, if u have a temper problem keep it to yourself, everyone knows using those (or worst) language but have a certain level of respect as a member. maintain that.

and someone asked if its 10th grade student. to make it clear it was intended for matured people to understand the hidden meaning, to others it will approach like a 10th grade comment.

in general, people always conclude existance and power of god as faith, i have faith in science that just like it has answered so many unanswered questions so far will answer questions like origin of life, nature etc.

i dont believe that there is something called god, acc to me its a mind game n i just tel myself that even when m alone m not the most powerful one so i should fear doing anything wrong. but its just my mindgame nuttin else. so i hate people praying and crying before handmade statues, worshipping places which are more like becomming commercial places. or perform hawans to bring peace. as i said i can bring peace to myself by my own means. i dont believe in such things but m still leading a peaceful life (without loosing temper even on this debate  )

talking about foreigners coming to india, i know about a esckon group in my city (quite famous, some mite know here). i had some spanish people in my neighbours, they are cheated badly and now they give seminars to cheat others to recruit them. one of my friends got into them, lost his career and has now become psycho and isolated. so i dont give a damn about that point.

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

^^I've already accepted it was my mistake, please don't drag it further.

Now as for Hawan, let me tell you that is also has a scientific importance. This is an age-old Hindu ritual in which offerings of ghee, googol,  sugar and other saamaagri are offered into the sacred fire to the  accompaniment of Sanskrit mantras. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is a  rare combination                      of accupressure, touch healing, meditation,  psychiatry, knowledge                      and wisdom.[/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Havan                      is a scientific procedure, which is associated with  the science                      of mind and soul. This science was realised by our  great rishi-munis                      or seer scientists in Vedic times, through their  mind power. 

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Yajurveda says that four types of things mainly used to prepare  offerings for a Havan- 1. Sweet Like honey, jaggery, raw sugar etc., 2.  Antibiotic herbs like gyol, etc., 3. Nutrition like pure ghee, dry  fruits etc., 4. Fragrant materials like elaichi (cardamom) dried petals  flowers etc.

Scientific experiments have proven that havan destroys harmful bacteria  in the atmosphere. A scientist named Tautilk proved that a patient  stricken with typhoid disease can be freed of this scourge if he is  exposed to the smoke of havan for half hour.  

With the development of the modern science we are getting more dependent  on synthetic chemicals to kill bacteria or remove pollution other than  the use of natural sources like medicinal plants or energy like Sun. In  our ancient days people used the natural sources to fight the bacteria  and pollution.

If you want to read in much detail, it's the complete answer to your statements-
American Chronicle | Smoke of medicinal plants can kill harmful bacteria.

And don't call it a copy-paste now, I had to do it in order to clear your doubts. If I am linking something informative and as a proof, there should be no problem with that.

And Now please don't write anything ambiguous about this sacred ritual[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 23, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

vamsi_krishna said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



The Indus Valley civilization has not so much to do with our modern India dude, it was completely destroyed either by invasion or some earthquake. The formation base of current India is the last 2000 years. And the Mughals are the most important rulers in the history of India. And how can you say that the Indus valley people didn't listen to devotional songs? In fact many terracotta figures of various Instruments have been found.

I know science has granted has boons, without which life can't even be imagined. But does that mean that you disrespect everything that is not scientific. Making fun of our own Instruments? our own Culture? The culture that world loves.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> 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.



I don't go any further, with a person who don't even understand basic english. I was just pointed out the error you made and quote the right thing vamsi mentioned. Anyway leave it.

And you're saying that whatever happens for the past 500 years only came to know as indian culture. Is that so? Do you know when Mahabaratha happens? Do you know when all your epic happens? So, if it happens a long ago, then why you still praise those things.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

^^I didn't say forget long things....didn't say it at all, why do you always try to stretch a statement so long? What I say is that our current India is mostly influenced by what happened in last 2000 years, Who said 500 Years??? and its a very, very long time.

p.s. Humans make grammatical mistakes.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

^^

LOL. So, do you say that all the epics happens within these 2000 years?


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

^^Now tell me when did I say it, can't you extract straight meaning out of a statement??


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 23, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> And you're saying that whatever happens before 500 years only came to know as indian culture. Is that so? Do you know when Mahabaratha happens? Do you know when all your epic happens? So, if it happens a long ago, then why you still praise those things.



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.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

I say that our culture, our traditions, rituals, various religious practices, are 90% influenced by what happened in last 2000 years. For example, there was no Ghoonghat system for females in India before mughals arrived, and now you see it in every rural area of India, mostly here, in northern India.

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------




rhitwick said:


> 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.



will you please explain the reason behind this clapping?


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

rhitwick said:


> 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?


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 23, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> Did i post something wrong?



Nope, not at all...
U posted something very right...its a clap that debaters get when someone puts a gr8 argument.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

^^

So which side are you? Science or God?


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 23, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> ^^
> 
> So which side are you? Science or God?


LOL...man.....
well, u r obviously new to this thread (don't take it otherwise)

Always with science.

I think I'll quote one of my previous post here...

b/w, anyone of you here cared to read the posts of mediator and karnivore here??
Rishav, please read mediator's posts, I like him as he always backs up his claims with proofs. He just doesn't believe something, he has reasons for what he's doing.

quote from my first post in this thread,


> 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.
> 
> ...


*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/873068-post651.html

@Rishav's posts, dude I first thought of replying to ur posts, but day by day ur replies are containing more "I believe", "I think", "How can u" phrases...

First, science does not care what you believe, science does not care what u think until and unless you can provide some proofs for your claims.
And on "how can I", yes I can, on the same logic/reason that u can't. 

On culture, if something is wrong and was practiced for 1000 years, then, even now and for next 1000 years it will be wrong to me. 

About ur jumbled up timeline on hindu beliefs...well, I hope u've heard the words "adaptation" and "influence".......

culture is always adapted and influenced by other culture(s)...so you just can't keep something that like and discard others...if u have to take, take the whole thing...


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 23, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> The Indus Valley civilization has not so much to do with our modern India dude, it was completely destroyed either by invasion or some earthquake. The formation base of current India is the last 2000 years. And the Mughals are the most important rulers in the history of India. And how can you say that the Indus valley people didn't listen to devotional songs? In fact many terracotta figures of various Instruments have been found.
> 
> I know science has granted has boons, without which life can't even be imagined. But does that mean that you disrespect everything that is not scientific. Making fun of our own Instruments? our own Culture? The culture that world loves.



Great.. now you are telling mughal empire which was started by Babur.. who is a decedent of Timur and born in Andijan, Farghana as a retrospect of pure indian culture and who never followed indian and only showed tolerance towards indian culture. Mughals brought the culture of other countries and mixed it with indian. Now.. those customs and cultures mingled with indian so much.. that we don't even realize now that it was brought to india and was not born in india.

Disrespect! please. I always have respected the thought of GOD who is keeping many people in check with the fear factor. Infact it is you.. who gone boom on science.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

rhitwick said:


> LOL...man.....
> well, u r obviously new to this thread (don't take it otherwise)
> 
> Always with science.
> ...



LOL, i read but just want to spit out the word from your mouth. 

And ofcourse i read first few posts of them and quite impressed. But you know reading this whole thread wont be a easy job and not doable. 

I am always asking for proof if he is making an statement, but he never gave one. I simply feel pity for them, coz they believe in something, that they dont even know about (completely).

Whatelse to talk about?


----------



## m-jeri (Jul 23, 2010)

This thread still lives.. :O...

naice.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

^^

You still alive in this forum. Nice 

Man, i've seen you active in TE but why not in TDF?


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 23, 2010)

@m-jeri, 

where have you been..!?!?!? (rises hand for hypothetical high five)


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

rhitwick said:


> b/w, anyone of you here cared to read the posts of mediator and karnivore here??
> Rishav, please read mediator's posts, I like him as he always backs up his claims with proofs. He just doesn't believe something, he has reasons for what he's doing.


Yes I really admire their posts. Will try to take care next time.
But there are things beyond our sense and mental ability to understand, denying them on the basis of being not reasonable isn't a good idea. Everything can't be proved scientifically, because science still has some limits.


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Everything can't be proved scientifically, because science still has some limits.



Can you care to explain?

Science has limits? I didn't get you, its better if you enlighten me.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

The fact that science is not able to explain "everything" puts some limits to it. I mean *everything.*


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 23, 2010)

@Rishabh_sharma1990

Can you tell me one fact which science not able to answer? Leave aside GOD? But other than that, science has answer for everything you need, you do.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 23, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> But *there are things beyond our sense and mental ability to understand*



I would sure like to know about them, please mention a few of such incidents/things.


> denying them on the basis of being *not reasonable* isn't a good idea.


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.



> Everything can't be proved scientifically, because science still has some limits.


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. 

Todays miracles will have reasons tomorrow, I would wait for tomorrow but would not settle for "just belief".
The answers that God knows...well God only knows them, and you don't, right? So shut up, if you don't know, let him/her/it answer.
Well, on His wish...who can argue with wish? Even you can't argue with a common man's wish. Wish does not care for logic, reason, facts etc. That is why its a wish.


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

-----
*originally posted by rhitwick*
I would sure like to know about them, please mention a few of such incidents/things.
-----

Firstly, scientific theories, especially about the birth of universe, are based on some assumptions. Take for example the big bang theory, its already been discussed so much here so I don't want to elaborate it. Science can't tell how the conditions of big bang were actually formed.

science can describe all complex biological structures, but its silent about how all this came into existence at the first place, do not mention evolution here, because evolution itself need some basis. What's the energy, the source that gives life to our biological bodies? without energy, every object in this infinite universe is dead. 

You say science will answer these questions in coming times, so you can just wait and see....


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 23, 2010)

Yea.. big bang theory, supernovas, earth being a veggy before are all assumptions. 

In the contrast.. the epics we are reading are facts. Every one saw the gods we are worshiping today. 

Come on... who are we kidding here!?


----------



## rishitells (Jul 23, 2010)

^^you didn't get the point, I said the forming conditions for big-bang, means how universe came into the state so that big-bang could occur.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jul 23, 2010)

^ Obviously, you didn't get my point either. Sad thing.


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 23, 2010)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Scientific experiments have proven that havan destroys harmful bacteria in the atmosphere. A scientist named Tautilk proved that a patient stricken with typhoid disease can be freed of this scourge if he is exposed to the smoke of havan for half hour.



first of all sorry for my delayed replies, i have a slow connection these days so dont login much. i know u accepted ur mistake but i just sed coz u pointed that 2 me personally.

now for hawan, u only saying that science has proved the concept of hawan on how it works. this wasnt done when the hawans started so it was a "miracle of god" but now u accept that there is a science behind it aswell. everything does have a science behind it. its the people who make beliefs just to tell themselves that they shudnt b scared theres some one protecting them.




Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> science can describe all complex biological structures, but its silent about how all this came into existence at the first place, do not mention evolution here, because evolution itself need some basis. What's the energy, the source that gives life to our biological bodies? without energy, every object in this infinite universe is dead.



goodness thats what we are always saying. no1 says science has explained everythin on this universe. but how do you relate it to god? when did you see god creating them or who did? why dont you leave those poor creatures alone till theres an answer to it.

even if hawans were used 2 treat typhoid why isnt it used now globally instead of so many medications? if a person suffers some desease, even blind faith keepers of god wont start a hawan but would take that person to a hospital once they find time they start praying or hawans. its only because (as u told) treatment with smoke is also a science but later science created a better treatment so people blindly use that, above gods prayer.

or if you really have faith in god, when someones in danger why dont you just pray and leave it to god? wheres your faith there? why do u want to use technologies that time?

now i know if people cant answer they will comment the same " some 10th grade student's remarks". rite?

Enjoy~!


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 23, 2010)

:evil laugh:


Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> -----
> Firstly, scientific theories, especially about the birth of universe, are based on some assumptions. Take for example the big bang theory, its already been discussed so much here so I don't want to elaborate it. Science can't tell how the conditions of big bang were actually formed.



Now you see how you do it...
So God actually created the conditions for BigBang and then all happened as accordingly as science say right? 

U know how it happens...in ancient days they used to there were only sun and earth. Science told no there are other planets too. And u (theists) came ip with a new theory that God created those planets. Then science told that there are other stars too, u (again theists) told that God created them. Then science came up with other universes too, theists told God created them...do you follow the pattern?
Every time science came up with some discovery, theists tried to took away the credit by repeating only one phrase "God created them"...even they failed to provide some new explanation for it. 
On, the other hand, I'm not that good at Physics, so I'm leaving the task of providing you the various theories of how the universe created to our fellow TDF physics champions   (Plz, don't call me ignorant, I still fear the subject like hell)



> science can describe all complex biological structures, but its silent about how all this came into existence at the first place, do not mention evolution here, because evolution itself need some basis. What's the energy, the source that gives life to our biological bodies? without energy, every object in this infinite universe is dead.


: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.

*"US scientists create artificial life in a lab"*   (shocking??)

The man responsible for this is *Craig Venter.*
Wiki profile
The process of creating artificial life is called *"Synthetic Life"*
according to wiki,


> Synthetic life is artificial life *created from non-living (abiotic) substances*. It belongs to the discipline of synthetic biology. It is usually distinguished from mechanical life that usually belongs to the discipline of robotics


Do a google search on "Synthetic Life" and you will get more details.

Why am I quoting him? Well, isn't he playing God? He created life from non-living substances and has put life (energy in ur language) in it. So, I, a n00b, can't explain to you how life is created, you would better contact him. I admit *I* don't know about the process very much in details, and I might be the last person you would want to know the details from. 
Please contact Craig Venter.

A few more links on this topic,
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. *It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time*, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.


(on the bold part, does not it sound similar to ur post? "do not mention evolution here, because evolution itself need some basis" )

Please do watch this...
The TED video: Craig Venter unveils "synthetic life" | Video on TED.com




> You say science will answer these questions in coming times, so you can just wait and see....


Well, what did I just say, science has already answered and for one of ur queries has actually played God 

I waited and saw, where were you?


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 24, 2010)

^^ 

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 )


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 24, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> ^^
> 
> 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 )



rofl 

well i never knew such things, thanks a lot for info mate....it was a learning for many like me

now about next possible reply, "but i have faith in god and i believe him because of some ancient story again, which is read somewhere"  

Enjoy~!


----------



## Cooltechie (Jul 25, 2010)

Science knows that the universe was created from  big bang but does science knows that the originating particle the HIGGS BOSON came from into a void space


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 25, 2010)

^^
Well, then does GOD knows where it comes from?


----------



## confused (Jul 25, 2010)

you people are still debating about this? dont you grow tired of this? I mean cant you reach a ceasefire agreement?


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 25, 2010)

no there are some new participants everytime or people take a break n join back. like me 

and also some loose and quit 

Enjoy~!


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 25, 2010)

confused said:


> you people are still debating about this? dont you grow tired of this? I mean cant you reach a ceasefire agreement?



Nope mate. 

You came to know a lot of things in this thread and you get an idea on how everything and everyone is, regarding their faith, believe or whatever.


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 26, 2010)

looks like now its going towards a ceasefire... without agreements 

Enjoy~!


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 26, 2010)

^^]

Maybe the opponents considering about surrendering. 

So, what does that mean?


----------



## speedyguy (Jul 26, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> ^^]
> 
> Maybe the opponents considering about surrendering.
> 
> So, what does that mean?



god knows   

Enjoy~!


----------



## furious_gamer (Jul 26, 2010)

^^

 Are you an believer of GOD? (Just kidding )


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 26, 2010)

^ oh stop spamming....
Save ur energy for the next one


----------



## m-jeri (Jul 27, 2010)

rajkumar_pb said:


> ^^
> 
> You still alive in this forum. Nice
> 
> Man, i've seen you active in TE but why not in TDF?



Alive and kicking.

Is there anything worthwhile to join here now? :S. 

Discussions like this was like THA THING...when it started for a month..maybe 2.. now its just sad. ehehe.. To each its own. 



vamsi_krishna said:


> @m-jeri,
> 
> where have you been..!?!?!? (rises hand for hypothetical high five)



*rises hand for hypothetical high five*


----------



## avichandana20000 (Oct 26, 2010)

science finds the laws of nature. NATURE is that which starts when time time starts . We also know that total  amount of energy throughout the universe is constant. It only changes its forms.So the robustness of nature is beyond our imagination & calculation. For those who are stubborn to know that beginning are called SCIENTIST. They themselves know that they have just collected some pebbles throught their lives standing in front of the infinite ocean of knowledge. But those who just want to have a peace of mind personified that vastness of nature into GOD.  Its just a name on which vastness  thrusted upon. Any one can call it by any name they find convenient.


----------



## Psychosocial (Oct 26, 2010)

Theists argue that there is no basis for the Big Bang theory... but seriously an invisible guy up in the sky making little planets and putting some creatures in it through the course of seven days ? No thank you, I will stick with the explosion thingy. It's cool, more sensible and hey... who doesn't like explosions ?


----------



## SunnyChahal (Oct 26, 2010)

This thread is still up? This thread was created way before I joined up I guess.


----------



## Goten (Nov 12, 2010)

Who cares...LOl


----------



## Faun (Nov 12, 2010)

Psychosocial said:


> ... who doesn't like explosions ?



like Explosions in the Sky


----------



## skippednote (Nov 12, 2010)

This thread will make no sense when you will watch it in your sixties.


----------



## Goten (Nov 25, 2010)

I love girls......gawd....


----------



## naveen_reloaded (Dec 11, 2010)

wow , its been really relly long time i came to TDF... , and this thread goes on n on n on.....


----------



## mediator (Mar 21, 2011)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> "US scientists create artificial life in a lab" (shocking??)



The link doesn't state, that they created "life", but artificial life.




			
				link said:
			
		

> ROCKVILLE, MD and San Diego, CA (May 20, 2010)— Researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), a not-for-profit genomic research organization, published results today describing the successful construction of the first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cell. The team synthesized the 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides genome. The synthetic cell is called Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 and is the proof of principle that genomes can be designed in the computer, chemically made in the laboratory and *transplanted into a recipient cell* to produce a new self-replicating cell controlled only by the synthetic genome.


JCVI: First Self-Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researchers

BTW, what people do not understand is that there is a big difference between abrahamic god and non-abrahamic god. If we speak of ultimate reality, it is actually the opposite of the "personal" god that we find in abrahamic sense and the god that most people are debating in this thread since time immemorial. Even the terms like religion and theism are of western origin where abrahmic sense was high. Thus we get distortion when we try to view the Indian concepts from a western eye/terminologies.




			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> U know how it happens...in ancient days they used to there were only sun and earth. Science told no there are other planets too. And u (theists) came ip with a new theory that God created those planets. Then science told that there are other stars too, u (again theists) told that God created them. Then science came up with other universes too, theists told God created them...do you follow the pattern?
> Every time science came up with some discovery, theists tried to took away the credit by repeating only one phrase "God created them"...even they failed to provide some new explanation for it.


That is again, what we can call, is abrahamic and western conditioning. 


The reason there is a confusion is because Indians have a distorted understanding as they view everything through a western approach or abrahamic sense and belittle their own scriptures. A fundamental difference between abrahamic and nonabrahamic is

1) Attachment to a god (personal god), whereas in nonabrahamic there is no such attachment. Both Hinduism and Buddhism call for detachment. Both Buddha and Krishna teach detachment from Vedas. It doesn't mean to reject Vedas but simply to understand the knowledge from a detached or objective state of mind. 
2) A particular name, whereas the same ultimate reality is called by different names due to its different roles of manifestations.
3) Lack of questioning in abrahmic faiths, whereas questioning and knowledge is the basic essence of the non-abrahamics.
4) The abrahamic god is isolated from nature and has his own set of miracles to perform, whereas everything is a part of ultimate reality with its various manifestations.



The rigvedic hymn of creation presents the most scientific questions that present scientists are dealing with.


			
				rigveda said:
			
		

> Hymns of Creation (Nasadiya Sukta). Rig Veda 10/129/ 1 – 7
> 
> 1. At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
> There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
> ...



One should understand that Veda do not deal with some gods as in abrahamic sense, but different aspects of ultimate reality and nature which are personfied as "deva" which when we translate to English we call as God. But, it distorts when we relate that "deva" from a western understanding of "God". Here's a good article though : 

The Vedic God: An Evolutionary Journey | The Chakra News

Similarly, in ancient days, those who questioned the churches were burnt alive, Galileo was threatened, and hands and limbs chopped off. Whereas, Buddha was adored for questioning the corrupted Bhramins who deviated from their dharmic path. The term Religion comes from the west which means a set of blind beliefs followed without any questioning. Whereas, dharma means duty, righteousness, spirituality and scientific questioning which is the dharma of a student. How can religion and dharma be the same? Astik means one who accepts the Vedic conceptualizations. Vedas promote questioning and knowledge. Thus how can theism and astik be the same?


*Theism i.e polytheism, monotheism, atheism, theism are the terms of the west and not Indian. One may research on his own if he doesn't understand what has been stated. But to do so he/she needs to decondition his/her mind from western conceptualization and terminologies to understand the Indian concepts. Theist stated that earth is flat and atheist laughed at theists and further added that "everybody" in past thought earth was flat? Does that means Indians also thought earth was flat?

Little do we know that renowned scientists and philosophers like Tesla, Schroedinger etc have their motivations from Vedas and the Upanishads. Ken Wilber used the Upanishads to derive the 10 levels of consciousness.



> Erwin Schroedinger (1887--1961) Austrian theoretical physicist, was a professor at several universities in Europe. He was awarded the Nobel prize Quantum Mechanics,  in 1933. During the Hitler era he was dismissed from his position for his opposition to the Nazi ideas and he fled to England. He was the author of Meine Weltansicht
> 
> Schrodinger wrote in his book Meine Weltansicht
> 
> ...



More from other scientists


Indians are strongly recommended to read their scriptures instead of becoming Macaulayites who wanted to break India by creating Indians english in taste. In his speech minutes, he stated "We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.". He further stated, "we are free to employ our funds as we choose; that we ought to employ them in teaching what is best worth knowing; that English is better worth knowing than Sanscrit or Arabic".

Science Vs God, just passing by, now I see it from a different angle. Is it Modern material science Vs Western/abrahamic God? Or is it Vedic science Vs Ultimate reaity? If its former, then proceed on! If its latter, then research yourself, as there is no "Vs" in the latter. [] One would understand why secularism started in the west, what religion is, what theism is.

A few nice reads : 
Dharma and Religion - à¤µà¥‡à¤¦ Veda
Michel Danino - Effects of Colonization on Indian Thought


----------



## Rahim (Mar 21, 2011)

Good to see the animated avatar (mediator)


----------



## mediator (Mar 21, 2011)

@Ico : Yeah, feels like home! I hope you are fine. 
@Rahim : Good to see you too buddy  . 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 

Good to see some of the old members still there


----------



## pauldmps (Mar 21, 2011)

So the thread is bumped up yet again.

I didn't fully get the post above Ico's but I'll assume that he's on science's side.

I think I should share some of my "divine" knowledge.

*Being a science student myself, I believe in God only during the exams!* 

Now this is not a funny statement. You'll have to realize that sometimes people need mental support. The belief that there is someone who is looking over you in the toughest times of your life. This creates hope which helps in coping up with the situation. Thus God is only a mental belief & its role ends here. Period.


----------



## furious_gamer (Mar 22, 2011)

pauldmps said:


> So the thread is bumped up yet again.
> 
> I didn't fully get the post above Ico's but I'll assume that he's on science's side.
> 
> ...



Answer for all these theories and debates. A simple explanation which deserves a


----------



## Neuron (Mar 22, 2011)

Totally agree with post  #1261


----------



## rhitwick (Mar 23, 2011)

@Mediator, u put life to this dead thead again. U R GOD! 



mediator said:


> The link doesn't state, that they created "life", but artificial life.


So life and artificial life is different? 

I don't know what is called life. Like the clisched question I'm also searching (not what is the meaning of life) but how life is created and WHAT is life, what does it mean staying alive? what does it mean staying dead?

The experiment I quoted sure explained how a self replicating cell can be created. The y got the whole 100% structure of a genome and now able to reconstruct (design) it in computer too. Someday the experimet would go beyond bacteria to animals even human too.

I'm not going to cross question you about abrahamic god and non-abrahamic god. Few topics u discussed there seemed to be irrelevent to me.


Why do you do things you do? Do you think things you are saying are never said before, do you think things you are doing are never done or tried before? What drives us to do something and not to do?

Simply I won't accept "God's will" or "God wanted me to do so" kind of answer. 

Science would say (or I think it should be like this) some actions are our reflex action, some are driven by our hormones, some are what we have learned till date seeing others.

Then what do "I" do here? Nothing but replicating, spreading like virus... however intelligent we are, however big or small philosophical questions we ask or answer; if you sum it up we execute some very basic steps in our life (survive and spread) and die. 

Who cares if there is God or not. 

I think the above post had become totally out-of-topic of this thread.


----------



## utkarsh009 (Mar 23, 2011)

God is a belief which prevents you from going wrong. it increases your "vivek" and strengthen you from inside. so one must believe on god. the cruel rituals are totally made by humans and have no relation with god. so believe in god but not cruel rituals.


----------



## mediator (Mar 23, 2011)

@Rhitwick : Modern science doesn't give you much answer related to life. It is stuck into material boundaries and thats why the ideas from Indian scriptures are revolutionising the west today, as in India science went hand in hand with spirituality. Some say life is basic energy and some that it is mode of conciousness which becomes life when it mixes with maya/prakriti which is always changing or dynamic. Thus even though energy or consciousness are infinite, they become finite when they merge with maya which is an aspect of prakriti.

What is the guarantee you were the same person before? 
A second before mentally, you had different thoughts lesser knowledge/awareness etc. Chemically you exchange millions of molecules per second with the nature i.e breathe(exhale), fart, excrete, perspire etc and breathe(inhale), eat, drink, eat etc. Physically, you are not the same Rhitwick who existed some 5 years ago. Your weight, height, breadth, face and even complexion might have changed! Well this what we call as Maya, a concept! It doesn't mean that world doesn't exist.


Yes life and artificial life is different and robotocs is an entirely different thing. So how can you create energy, how can you create consciousness? In terms of physics, energy can neither be destroyed nor created. Even during procreation, you are "sacrificing" your sperm which consists of basic consciousness or "life" into a female. This nature itself is said to be conscious by many which explains why a lifeless old seed which is nothing but a chemical composition can germinate under favourable conditions and show signs of "life".  

The universe doesn't have just a material angle which is questioned by the rigvedic hymn of creation.



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> Why do you do things you do? Do you think things you are saying are never said before, do you think things you are doing are never done or tried before? What drives us to do something and not to do?


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:
			
		

> Simply I won't accept "God's will" or "God wanted me to do so" kind of answer.
> 
> Science would say (or I think it should be like this) some actions are our reflex action, some are driven by our hormones, some are what we have learned till date seeing others.


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.

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? 

You may ponder over it or you may not! Like Gita (18.63), Vedas also do not force anything on you. Further, "detachment" is a part of Indian scriptures to gain complete knowledge.



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> The experiment I quoted sure explained how a self replicating cell can be created. The y got the whole 100% structure of a genome and now able to reconstruct (design) it in computer too.


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:
			
		

> Someday the experimet would go beyond bacteria to animals even human too.


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. 


A child born in this world only sees the nature. He sees the sun, he can feel its heat, smell the water. He doesn't know what god is. This is something that west has conditioned on us and even Indians have a distorted view now. IMO, it would be wise if you stop wasting your time on theism, western god who is a personal god who dictated a set of DOs and DONTs, hate and fear etc. Indians never knew what god is, for them the nature (Sun, moon, water, air, fire, earth, plants, trees, rivers etc) was divine as it constituted their living "surya-dev" was a personification of surya. And hence, "deva" is just a concept which is a part of ultimate reality.

The westerners distorted it as polytheism and forced their monotheistic personal god (which is subjective) on others! Thus any term related to *theism i.e polytheism, atheism, theism, monotheism etc is western and much inferior conceptually.

Anyways, you are right this discussion is out of track or may be I'm out of track as I don't have any interest in western or abrahamic beliefs or its rivalry with modern material science. The common thing between both is that both are "limited" and they limit the infinite human mind which has the ability to comprehend much much more. 

I didn't see the date, so sorry for bumping this thread  ....lets bury it again



			
				utkarsh said:
			
		

> God is a belief which prevents you from going wrong. it increases your "vivek"


Beliefs 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 :

* Science will solve all our problems one day
* Science will find it tomorrow if not today
* Tuesday is the day for HanumanJi/Sai baba etc. I wonder if Hanuman knew what tuesday was or which day universe started.
* We should sit in a particular direction of Kabba. Well we have a direction too in this directionless universe!
* Slaughter of Goat on bakri-id to appease Allah. Well story started with Allah's command to Mohammed to slaughter his son and when he opened eyes their was a sheep. Here even belief is not believed properly because as per belief muslims should be slaughtering their sons to see if sheep comes.
* A black cat crossing your path is bad luck
* Flat earth that came from bible and the west.

Surely it is only described as a mode of lower consciousness and not "vivek".


----------



## utkarsh009 (Mar 23, 2011)

@mediator: first of all i am a hindu so i dont know much about beliefs in other religion but for 3rd point: association of gods with days is just a way to include healthy habits at least one in a week. now please dont drag me in a debate as i dont like arguing on such topics. science and god are totally different things. what does science want to say about non-existance of god? god is not a creature!!!!!!. it is a form of belief.


----------



## mediator (Mar 24, 2011)

@Utkarsh :

If you are a hindu, then you must understand that the ultimate reality is formless, unmanifested, unborn, impersonal (*shruti*). If you associate gods with days, then it is only subjective. Who taught you these things? Is it your parents? From your post, I can tell that you have neither read the upanishads nor have any knowledge on the Veda. You may be born in a hindu family, but the essence of science and spirituality is absent in your understanding.

Belief is a central tenet of a religion. Hence, what you do is subjective. It certainly is not a part of the Hinduism. Holistic healthy eating habits can be developed by knowledge and by controlling your mind. Why set beliefs for such simple things and why follow the ones which are not yours anyways?



			
				utkarsh said:
			
		

> what does science want to say about non-existance of god? god is not a creature!!!!!!. it is a form of belief.


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?


----------



## rhitwick (Mar 24, 2011)

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
> ...


----------



## mediator (Mar 24, 2011)

@rhitwick :

I don't know where you are picking the fundamental definitions on something simple as cell from, but cell is the basic functional unit of life. As a follower of modern science, you should have known that. Would genome work on a dead living object? 




			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> 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  Now-a-days he says he has started doubting things.)
> 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.


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.

What tools do you have to verify the boundaries of universe or its depth, to measure consciousness, thoughts or intelligence etc? Thus science is important, but we cannot know ultimate reality via material science alone. Similarly, Vedas are just a tool to raise your consciousness or give you a clue on ultimate reality. In extreme case, how can you know ultimate reality if you can't even comprehend universe?

But there is a difference in what you argued with friend and what I stated here. The difference was explained in my earlier replies. The difference is that what you and your friend discussed again has an abrahamic mix in it. In abrahamics, everything is god's whereas in ancient Indian thinking everything is indeed a part of ultimate reality. You simply cannot know what will happen to you after you are dead, can you? Do you have "faith" in science that it will? Was this momentary existence of yours like a wave in the ocean whose material aspect will merge in nature when it will die?  



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> 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?


Again you are talking abrahamic! BTW, I'm not trying to prove or force anything on anyone. 

What is the formula for life, the universe etc? I think you have never comprehended or pondered yourself on universe. Randomness, prime numbers, thoughts etc do not have a formula. Based on your approach would you deny their existence? A classic approach or again a clue to explain one of the aspects of universe is given in the famous purusha sukta, the article which I gave in my first post recently.




			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> 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 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! 

BTW, there is verse for 33 devas and not 33 crore gods. I keep listening to 33 crore rumor, but the critics can't establish what all 33 crore gods are there.

Your mind is just way too conditioned due 
- Attachment to modern material science
- Conditioning due to abrahamic faiths, because of which you are trying to use "same logic" on Indian scriptures. I have already given a few fundamental differences between abrahamic and non-abrahamics.



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> I did not get it! What is the distorted view here?!!!


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.
2. You are treating ultimate reality like a western god which his own set of miracles, playing dice with us and isolated from nature.
3. You are ignoring the non-material comprehensions. Going by modern material science is only a limited knowledge. You need to have a philosophical bent to detach and question also.



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> 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....


Yes 

When you'll have a clear understanding and differentiation of western originated ideas and Indian ones, english and sanskrit, you'll conclude the same thing.
The simple question you need to ask is where did the English term "god" originated and in what context and usage? And, where did the term deva originated and in what context and usage? Same goes for religion and dharma, theist and astik, inaction and akarma etc 



			
				rhitwick said:
			
		

> 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.


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.


Anyways, like I stated I'm not trying to prove anything. I had the same questions that you do now and the same arguments some 7 years back. But to me it seems you are stuck may be due to attachment to both material science and abrahamic conditioning.


A video to watch : perhaps entertainment for you 
YouTube - Philip Goldberg on American Veda: How Indian Spirituality Changed the West

Its similar on the lines of schroedinger and ken wilber...


Anyways, I realize that you haven't understood anything I stated in my first post recently. So lets bury it ......


----------



## rishitells (Mar 25, 2011)

mediator said:


> @rhitwick :
> Anyways, I realize that you haven't understood anything I stated in my first post recently. So lets bury it ......



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 . no offense intended.


----------



## furious_gamer (Mar 25, 2011)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> 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* . no offense intended.




So you are back, good to see you man.


----------



## rishitells (Mar 25, 2011)

Each and every truth that science has discovered, and will ever discover, is already mentioned in Vedas, or already discovered by our seer-scientists, the Rishis. From the creation of the universe, to the end of it. Its another thing if *they are misinterpreted* by the western thinkers and philosopher in their own context, which was infinitely limited compared to the thinkers and philosophers of "Sanatan Dharma". And what most people know and think of Indian Culture and Vedas, is based on those totally false interpretations.
If you really want to know what is contained in Vedas and Upnishadas, their true meaning, and to what extent they've been misinterpreted, please read the book-
"Before the beginning and after the End - Beyond the universe of physics"  
By Rishi Kumar Mishra.

The difference is, that modern science proves and states everything on the basic of "material" discoveries and inventions, but the "Truth" that science and religion both want to discover is beyond the material... that is "Supreme Consciousness", which is the source of everything that we know of.

@furious gamer
good to see u too


----------



## furious_gamer (Mar 25, 2011)

^^ Eventhough we literally have proof for almost everything happened in the universe, some guys like you (No offense meant  ) 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. 

Even the rishis did some scientifical things but it is named as Vedas, and now we do the same and called as research. Simple


----------



## mediator (Mar 25, 2011)

rishabh said:
			
		

> 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


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. 

A lot of Indians are indeed conditioned. It is not their fault. Years of colonization and brainwashing by abrahamics by hook and crook has distorted the thinking of the Indians. NCERT preaches us that in ancient era people thought that earth was flat, thus ignoring the essence of the Veda. It teaches how noble mughals were, thus ignoring their atrocities. Further, the hoaxes like  aryan Invasion and dravidian race is still taught in the south. Missionaries like Max Muller, Griffith, Bloomsfield etc have distorted the Veda in their comprehensions. Today we have likes of Wendy doniger and minions like DevDutta Pattanaik who need the testimony of whites to approve of the Indian knowledge suffering from the disease that "if he is white then he is right". People use the english meaning of the established sanskrit terms, like stated before, leading to intellectual pollution. One can read the minute speech by Macaulay alone.

*gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/readings/25.pdf
vvv03.com

Children will grow up under such illusion and are bound to not understand the Indian concepts and continue living in the distortion created by the westerners. Today, the Indian treasure is being exploited by the west, whereas the Indians are ignoring it and blindly following the west.

IMO, we shouldn't use the term religion, god, theism, inaction etc when speaking of Indian scriptures at all. We should use only the sanskrit ones.

I have linked a few articles, but if anyone really wants to understand the Veda, then "Secret of the Vedas by Sri Aurobindo" is the recommended one.


A link that might interest a few, may be or may be not....
Generating power out of thin air? This man from Karnataka is confident - Bangalore - DNA



			
				furious_gamer said:
			
		

> Even the rishis did some scientifical things but it is named as Vedas, and now we do the same and called as research


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.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 25, 2011)

science is just explanation of gods doing ... or god is just an explanation for things science cant explain


----------



## rishitells (Mar 25, 2011)

@all science believers

why don't you just read some important upnishadas, or books mentioned, and come back. Alomost everything you have ever known about Indian Philosophy, every single fact, is wrong. If you think God in "Sanatan Dharma" is which we pray daily in temples, then you seriously have to revamp your beliefs. 

"Vedas" contain the secret of everything in this universe, and they are based on logic, not on Mythology, as most of you think of them. and if you don't believe, I would suggest you either to read their real interpretations, or just don't be foolish and conclude that they are useless.



> Excerpts from "Before The Beginning And After The End - Beyond The Universe of Physics:-
> 
> The answers to several questions which are baffling scientists and philosophers today are contained within the treasure house of Vedas, as well as the solutions to several daunting problems threatening human society. Access to these answers would open up the possibility of a quantum leap into a world of new truths and new experiences, and a study of the knowledge contained in these texts should also help in understanding the founding principles of one of the most ancient civilizations in human history. Together these could indicate to us the road to the establishment of an enduring harmony and happiness on our planet.
> 
> ...



No need to say anything, because I know you will still argue without actually analyzing and knowing anything...


----------



## ico (Mar 25, 2011)

ok


----------



## saswat23 (Mar 25, 2011)

Thinking to copy this thread and print it into a book.
Really TDF has great writers.
....


----------



## lm2k (Mar 26, 2011)

GOD is ultimate

whatever we mortals do and see is His will and there is nothing beyond it .
those who don't accept this ,u will surely get a experience in u r life that will prove God is there watching every one.
This whole universe sings His glory we humans are the one who are closed among the walls of our reasoning and arrogance just like blind-deaf and dumb.

a month back one of my friend gave me this book worth reading.


----------



## Faun (Mar 26, 2011)

^^Then God is a troll.


----------



## Piyush (Mar 26, 2011)

both
*science+god=scienod*


----------



## jsm17 (Mar 26, 2011)

both
the first step to answer this question would be to define god and science
i wonder if anyone has a clear definition of both

@the ones who believe in science and not god
so u know eveything?

@the ones who believe in god
how can u be so sure


----------



## karnivore (Mar 27, 2011)

Ahem....someone please pass me a bottle of Hajmola. Seems my allergy to BS is incurable.


----------



## Faun (Mar 27, 2011)

karnivore said:


> Ahem....someone please pass me a bottle of Hajmola. Seems my allergy to BS is incurable.



BS is ~50% fiber 

PS: welcome back


----------



## jsm17 (Mar 28, 2011)

karnivore said:


> Ahem....someone please pass me a bottle of Hajmola. Seems my allergy to BS is incurable.


that is bcos cute lil kitties arent supposed to be carnivores. they are supposed to eat grass not hajmola


----------



## ico (Mar 29, 2011)

so, everyone is coming back now?


----------



## gopi_vbboy (Mar 30, 2011)

putaparthi sai baba is hospitalized

hope he recovers...its not important he is god or not...but he has done lot of good things to humanity


----------



## amitash (Apr 11, 2011)

> Each and every truth that science has discovered, *and will ever discover*, is already mentioned in Vedas



So we can safely assume that the vedas are 100% correct and will never ever come into question? Is'nt that kinda blind? I think nothing in the world is  completely confirmed like that.. I don't really know what things are in the vedas but Ithink its safe to say that anything, be it religious "truths" or scientific "facts" can always come into question and be proved, re-proved or disproved.. I think it is not right to make such a huge assumption like the one quoted.

Also guys, your comments on this: " I am an atheist because I dont need a God to heal my mental pains and fear of the unknown"


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2011)

^^agree, how can you guys believe in interpretations over centuries ?


----------



## mediator (Apr 16, 2011)

amitash said:
			
		

> So we can safely assume that the vedas are 100% correct and will never ever come into question? Is'nt that kinda blind?


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.



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> agree, how can you guys believe in interpretations over centuries ?


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!


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 16, 2011)

amitash said:


> Also guys, your comments on this: " I am an atheist because I dont need a God to heal my mental pains and fear of the unknown"


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.



Faun said:


> ^^Then God is a troll.


this is like the redeemer, one hit, over 9000 kills



Piyush said:


> both
> *science+god=scienod*


seriously, WHAT?!?!
science is based on HARD facts and theories taht can be tested out.
god is nothing but a figment of the imagination implanted into our brains since we are born.

if god was similar to science, "miracles" would be reproducible. 
and miracles affect only the few.

what about the others? where do they go?
while 1 guy gets his sight back, waht about the tens of thousands of other blind?


----------



## Neuron (Apr 16, 2011)

If there can exist something with infinite mass and zero volume,why should there be a spoon?


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 16, 2011)

your post count is not going anywhere with that random gibberish.
show me something that has zero volume and infinite mass, and i will show you a spork made of cake


----------



## Neuron (Apr 16, 2011)

^^Small correction,zero volume infinite density.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 16, 2011)

i still dont understand what you mean to say


----------



## Neuron (Apr 16, 2011)

If it's the density part then I was talking about the concept 'Singularity' or if it's the spoon part,then you should see the movie 'The Matrix'.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 16, 2011)

neither of them have anything to do with the current discussion.
singularity is a concept which is highly theoretical in nature. you cannot put it in any other terms. even the best physicists have trouble interpreting and analysing it.

there is no spoon, as there is no matrix. 

i donot understand why you posted in this discussion. i see no link between the matrix and singularity and science and god


----------



## Neuron (Apr 16, 2011)

What I meant is that if an illogical concept like 'zero volume - infinite density' is theoretically true(I'm not trying to state that the theory is wrong),then you don't have much reason to reject an idea saying that its illogical.(The concept of Maya taken as an example).Also by illogical,I mean beyond logic.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 16, 2011)

it is not illogical.
if you have zero volume, LOGICALLY, you HAVE to have infinite density. what is illogical in that? 
and its not just theoretically true. enough evidence has been accumulated to show that the theory behind it is largely correct.

now if we just made a atom-smasher 1000 times more powerful than the LHC, we would COMPLETELY demolish the notion of god. we could theoretically control time, space, EVERYTHING!!!


----------



## Neuron (Apr 16, 2011)

Infinite density is not the illogical part.How can you say that something with zero volume exist?If something has zero volume then it is not tangible.Something that can't be touched has infinite density!


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 16, 2011)

Neuron said:


> Something that can't be touched has infinite density!



where did you get that? electrons cant be touched. individual atoms cant be touched. quarks cant be touched. do they all have infinite density?

the infinite density and zero volume are because our current understanding of physics is not enough to comprehend it. same thing happened in the 1900's with the discovery of the electron. people dismissed it as a figment of imagination, until the quantum theory kicked in and gave it proper values and characteristics.

i say what they are going to do in the lhc will radically change our views about the universe. and then we will find that nothing is what it seems in the universe, at least wrt singularities and other breaking points of the quantum theory.


----------



## Neuron (Apr 16, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> enough evidence has been accumulated to show that the theory behind it is largely correct.



Okay,i never opposed the theory.What I am trying to say is that beyond a certain limit universe is devoid of logic.There are things that cannot be logically predicted but can only be experienced and only then can we say that 'it' is real.
Put simply, scientists discovered black-holes only because its effect was visible on near by planets,not by formulating a theoretical ideology like "if something=something and something else=2.43 then it implies that something with zero volume and infinite density exists".



> Something that can't be touched has infinite density!


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.



doomgiver said:


> where did you get that? electrons cant be
> touched. individual atoms cant be touched.



Its the other way,you can feel an individual electron,atom etc.


----------



## amitash (Apr 17, 2011)

> 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.



Maybe you don't, fine, but there are people in this world who do require belief and hope in life.. I think mental peace brings about more harmony and leads to all the "productiveness" you speak about.. and some people do require this, it can be a healing balm to those troubled..

Its the people who became corrupt and misused the system of religion for their profits, not the religion itself.. By this of course im not including those religions that force you to believe in a God..


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 17, 2011)

Neuron said:


> Okay,i never opposed the theory.What I am trying to say is that beyond a certain limit universe is devoid of logic.There are things that cannot be logically predicted but can only be experienced and only then can we say that 'it' is real.


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.
case in point. a stone age man will fear and "worship" guns coz he has never understood how they work. a medivial guy will fear and respect atomic bombs coz he doesnt understand them. we fear death, black holes, etc coz we dont understand them. its an endless cycle. there will always be something around the corner which will baffle you coz u have not yet opened your mind.



Neuron said:


> Put simply, scientists discovered black-holes only because its effect was visible on near by planets,not by formulating a theoretical ideology like "if something=something and something else=2.43 then it implies that something with zero volume and infinite density exists".


they discovered the effect, but 



Neuron said:


> 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.Its the other way,you can feel an individual electron,atom etc.


how can you touch an atom?



amitash said:


> Maybe you don't, fine, but there are people in this world who do require belief and hope in life.. I think mental peace brings about more harmony and leads to all the "productiveness" you speak about.. and some people do require this, it can be a healing balm to those troubled..


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.



amitash said:


> Its the people who became corrupt and misused the system of religion for their profits, not the religion itself.. By this of course im not including those religions that force you to believe in a God..


who is this god person anyway? what has he done to deserve so much of our time?


----------



## Anish (Apr 17, 2011)

I answered for who cares..

For those who believe in God:
Have you ever felt the presence of God? Then how? REady to prove it???
Why the hell did more innocents starve hardly for everyday food, isn't GOD merciful?

For those who dont?
Why cant there be a super being un noticed by human intelligence? Take for example a microscopic organism.. it very primitive that with its intelligent, it cant identify a man.. what if we were like that organism and something more superior is there out?

And my attitude:
If GOD is present, let him be there doing his own job. coz, no one (and even god) can help do your work! You carry on your work. If god is really present, then the gods envy us. If god is not present, well and good..then too you must work to get your job finished.

PS:and i mean no harm to any of your feelings


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 17, 2011)

Anish said:


> I answered for who cares..
> 
> For those who believe in God:
> Have you ever felt the presence of God? Then how? REady to prove it???
> ...



wow, talk about hitting the nail on the head!!!

if there is a super-being, it cannot go un-noticed. but humans have a bad habit of downgrading exciting stuff into everyday boring stuff.

eg : is that superman?!?!? prolly a bird or a plane, lol. 

right about that microbe in a petri dish analogy (reminds me of the ending scene of MIB, where our universe is just another marble in the being's hand), we wont be aware of anything greater than us, unless we change our way of thinking. and who thinks for us? the scientists!!!

get it? we are comfortable and complacent, we just sit around on our butts lazing around, we dont want to solve any of life's mysteries, we just care for stupid facebook and stupid converse, stupid apple, stupid gucci. its the scientists who do all the thinking for us, and for all that, what do they get??? fame? recognition? no, it all goes to stupid rajnikanth, stupid aishwarya, stupid SRK. they also get sidelined when they try to prove that an imaginary thing like god does not exist.


----------



## Anish (Apr 17, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> right about that microbe in a petri dish analogy (reminds me of the ending scene of MIB, where our universe is just another marble in the being's hand), we wont be aware of anything greater than us, unless we change our way of thinking. and who thinks for us? the scientists!!!



yeah dude i too was thinking of the MIB while writing this


----------



## amitash (Apr 17, 2011)

> 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.



Again, inter-religious warfare is all due to the people and not the core of religion itself.. its the people who fight, religions (atleast most of them dont) dont ask you to fight and kill people in its name to spread it.. The people do that.. Its not so different from fighting for rights of nuclear weapons.. Do the weapons ask you to misuse them on the innocent and not just for self defence? NO the people do this.. Did football ask Zidane to headbutt that italian guy? Did cricket ask the indian fans in the 1996 worldcup to set fire to the stadium, cause unnecesary violence and stone the players as their team was loosing?



> if someone requires an imaginary friend to console him, i feel very sorry for him



Again, I think its safe for me to assume you have  a fairly comfortable life which promotes free thinking.. Think of the millions of poor people, or people being told something and forced into religion from their childhood.. People in short, who have not had the opportunity or the enthusiasm but believe  blindly.. you would just, as you said "put them in an electric chair"? How can one person even begin to understand the problems and motivation that all these people have towards their religion? If a person kills all these people in the name of "atheism", then how does it make him any better than a religious person killing another religious person? People fight believing their belief system is better.. If an atheist fights, isnt he doing just the same thing?



> 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? 

People who believe he is a strong deity think he deserves time for being responsible for creation..
People who find their minds calmed by the notion of a God go to him to be at their sense of peace..
People who think he is a beam of energy fire sub-atomic particles at each other, spending billions of dollars, just to understand God better.. 

All of these people at the core, are looking for answers.. Where did we come from? What is the meaning of life? And hence they have come up with various answers.. Answers called Islam, Christianity, The Hindu hymn of creation, The big bang theory, evolution.. You are free to agree or disagree with any of these answers.. The problem happens when people start moving away from these answers and use them selfishly..


----------



## Faun (Apr 17, 2011)

amitash said:


> or people being told something and forced into religion from their childhood..



So religion takes away the free thinking and comfortable life ? Do not want that religion, sir.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 17, 2011)

amitash said:


> Again, inter-religious warfare is all due to the people and not the core of religion itself.. its the people who fight, religions (atleast most of them dont) dont ask you to fight and kill people in its name to spread it.. The people do that.. Its not so different from fighting for rights of nuclear weapons.. Do the weapons ask you to misuse them on the innocent and not just for self defence? NO the people do this.. Did football ask Zidane to headbutt that italian guy? Did cricket ask the indian fans in the 1996 worldcup to set fire to the stadium, cause unnecesary violence and stone the players as their team was loosing?


the very definition of religion creates this divide. the world would be a better place without it.
everyone assumes his or her religion is the best, all others are useless, but the 'others' think the same way too. this just leads to meaningless violence.




amitash said:


> Again, I think its safe for me to assume you have  a fairly comfortable life which promotes free thinking.. Think of the millions of poor people, or people being told something and forced into religion from their childhood.. People in short, who have not had the opportunity or the enthusiasm but believe  blindly.. you would just, as you said "put them in an electric chair"? How can one person even begin to understand the problems and motivation that all these people have towards their religion? If a person kills all these people in the name of "atheism", then how does it make him any better than a religious person killing another religious person? People fight believing their belief system is better.. If an atheist fights, isnt he doing just the same thing?


im not talking about killing them. i just said that they should get their heads checked.
a human being is a superemely motivated animal. given the right motivation, he is capable of the greatest feats, the basest cruelties. this religious bs gives him motivation to do stuff. it is not healthy. it has an unhealthy effect on the mind. god, im rambling (lol), back to the point.
an atheist fights to rid the world of "blindness". he fights to destroy unnecessary suffering. i fight to show that THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. in an atheists' way, you donot need a god to tell you to love your fellow man, he does it out of kindness in his heart. how many believers are there who can say that? how many have died thinking that they were going to be saved/were protected by god? how many were actually protected? why were the rest not saved?




amitash said:


> 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?
> 
> People who believe he is a strong deity think he deserves time for being responsible for creation..
> People who find their minds calmed by the notion of a God go to him to be at their sense of peace..
> ...


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.

is this what you want? to put your trust in an intangible "entity"? about whom you have no idea or means of communication? how do we know the god is just and merciful? how do we know that he is not evil and manipulative?

if you really want answers, turn to logic and science. the road may be long and hard, yes, but the fruits of hard labour are the sweetest.



amitash said:


> People who think he is a beam of energy fire sub-atomic particles at each other, spending billions of dollars, just to understand God better..



well said!!! it is an honor to spar with you!!


----------



## Neuron (Apr 17, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> 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.



Can you give me one example that according to you is illogical?Anything that you find to be illogical.



doomgiver said:


> how can you touch an atom?



You cannot see or sense a singular atom because your receptors are too big.
If you were such a small organism or if you had powerful sense ,feeling an atom is no big deal.


----------



## amitash (Apr 18, 2011)

> the very definition of religion creates this divide. the world would be a better place without it.
> everyone assumes his or her religion is the best, all others are useless, but the 'others' think the same way too. this just leads to meaningless violence.



Again, my point is, its the peoples choice.. They cause the divide, not the religion itself.. The notion of a "divide" is always going to be there, may it be religion, sports, patriotism, etc.. Religion is not at fault here but the people who misuse it.. Would the world be a better place without religion? I certainly think it would be a better place without religions that force people to do things, as I said, a religion like hinduism say (which is more of a way of life imo), which does not force anything upon you actually helps benefit the world.. but sadly corruption ruins this too.. And again corruption is due to the people..
It's just like saying everyone assumes their country is the best, their color is the best, their scientific theory is the best, which again causes violence, and as humans there are going to be plenty of divides between people, it's how we can live peacefully with these divides is what matters, not waging an all out war against one type of divide, which will just cause more bitterness.



> im not talking about killing them. i just said that they should get their heads checked.
> a human being is a superemely motivated animal. given the right motivation, he is capable of the greatest feats, the basest cruelties. this religious bs gives him motivation to do stuff. it is not healthy. it has an unhealthy effect on the mind. god, im rambling (lol), back to the point.



religion motivates people to do very great and good things as well as terrriblr ones as you said, but at the core, religion just motivates, good or bad is again upto the people.. People of science have invented both nuclear reactors which provides limitless energy as well as the nuclear bomb.. Will you blame and destroy science because of this invention?



> an atheist fights to rid the world of "blindness". he fights to destroy unnecessary suffering. i fight to show that THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. in an atheists' way, you donot need a god to tell you to love your fellow man, he does it out of kindness in his heart.



As I said earlier, as humans there are always going to be differences.. In an ideal world there wouldnt be any but its not an ideal world and can never be as long as we have emotions.. People from all religions will say the same thing, my religion is "IDEAL", I will show you the way, bla, bla.. keep in mind that religion came into existence just the same way that atheism did.. It is not flawless, no ethical system ever is..



> how many believers are there who can say that? how many have died thinking that they were going to be saved/were protected by god? how many were actually protected? why were the rest not saved?



Agreed, great many have died foolishly.. However, this is true with all forms of murder, how many have died in the nuclear bombings of japan, just for a country to show its might? How many have died in vietnam? How many died in the fascist rule? How many died due to requirement of unnecassary power rather than co-operation?



> 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.



Is it not illogical to fight and turn to violence at all in the first place? Hinduism and other non-abrahamic religions tell you just that, it doesnt tell you not to fight on the battlefield, it tells you not to start a fight at all.. Is'nt that the best logic?



> is this what you want? to put your trust in an intangible "entity"? about whom you have no idea or means of communication? how do we know the god is just and merciful? how do we know that he is not evil and manipulative?



I never said put your trust in God.. I merely said, don't fight even though you have your differences.. Some people need to believe, need to believe that in this cruel world, there is some hope, for this some of them turn to science, some to religion, it is their choice and ours to respect their choice as long as it doesnt cause any harm.. It is hard for some people to accept that their lives are meaningless.. That they are just chemical reactions and will soon fade, they need that belief and hope to keep them spirited and happy.. This need has been misused which is wrong, but the need itself, is very much an important factor.



> if you really want answers, turn to logic and science. the road may be long and hard, yes, but the fruits of hard labour are the sweetest.



Agreed, but this cannot and should not be forced on people.. It is their choice to make as to what road they follow.. Logic and science comes from what information we have.. Maybe at the time of creation of a religion, with the information that the people had, the subsequent religion was the logical conclusion.. Or in some cases, maybe people just wanting to control..


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 18, 2011)

the concept of worshiping a god is illogical in the extreme.
how can you ask anything from a hypothetical something that you cannot even detect?
how can you even expect that your "prayers" will be heard?


i meant that how can YOU touch/feel an atom, forget about others, i am concerned only about humans.


----------



## Neuron (Apr 18, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> the concept of worshiping a god is illogical in the extreme.
> 
> how can you even expect that your "prayers" will be heard?



We all know that conscience of a living being is possible due to the co-ordinated communication between nerve-cells or similar structures.Many of these cells interact each other to develop many emotions and to bring forth logical decisions.In a similar way,may be a group of particles can be brought to particular state at which they inter-transmit some form of energy so that there develops a state of conscience.This conscience can be in such a way that it can sense other 'state of minds' too and also it can trigger some events in relation to the thoughts it sense.Why should this be illogical?Of-course something like this haven't yet been discovered,but you can't disregard the possibility.



doomgiver said:


> how can you ask anything from a hypothetical something that you cannot even detect?



How can you say that something which cannot be sensed cannot exist.
Humans cannot sense sounds with frequency below 20Hz and above 20KHz,but sound below and beyond that frequency is producable.Until the invention of infrared sensors wasn't there infrared light?



doomgiver said:


> i meant that how can YOU touch/feel an atom, forget about others, i am concerned only about humans.



Suppose an atom is accelerated by some means.This atom passes through your body following random paths several times.Progressively your internals get cut and start to bleed because a definite volume of the atom as well as your body come into contact.But no matter how many times a zero-volume particle passes through your body,you won't get cut by any means since no real contact is possible.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 18, 2011)

Neuron said:


> We all know that conscience of a living being is possible due to the co-ordinated communication between nerve-cells or similar structures.


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.



Neuron said:


> Many of these cells interact each other to develop many emotions and to bring forth logical decisions.In a similar way,may be a group of particles can be brought to particular state at which they inter-transmit some form of energy so that there develops a state of conscience.This conscience can be in such a way that it can sense other 'state of minds' too and also it can trigger some events in relation to the thoughts it sense.Why should this be illogical?Of-course something like this haven't yet been discovered,but you can't disregard the possibility.


to be sentient, the "group of particles" would have to be larger than the solar system, and as dense as thick fog. highly unlikely.
all evidence till date points to the "this is total bs" in the bs meter. of course, no possiblity, however remote, can be disregarded, BUT, it is not prudent to assume just because a thing might exist, to take its existence for granted, without any real evidence.

even if such a "god" exists, what would he want from us? what could we do to please/placate/lure(???) him? if he's a mass of particles, he might not even count us as living beings, and just ignore, as we ignore ants. NOW TELL ME, IN THIS CASE, WHAT GOOD WOULD YOUR RELIGION/BHAKTI/SACRIFICE/WHATEVER BE, IF THE GOD DOES NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING???

on a scarier note, what if he is aware, and is intentionally igniting the tensions in the world, just for the sake of fun?

i say, if this world is ruled by a god, it is a very evil god indeed.




Neuron said:


> How can you say that something which cannot be sensed cannot exist.


where did i say that?



Neuron said:


> Suppose an atom is accelerated by some means.This atom passes through your body following random paths several times.Progressively your internals get cut and start to bleed because a definite volume of the atom as well as your body come into contact.But no matter how many times a zero-volume particle passes through your body,you won't get cut by any means since no real contact is possible.



no big deal. a single atom cannot do much harm on its own. even in the above scenario, it'd take several billion passes before any noticible damage is done.


----------



## Neuron (Apr 18, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> 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.


The truth is that i mistook the meaning of 'conscience'.I was intending 'consciousness'.Replace 'conscience' with 'consciousness' and read that again.




doomgiver said:


> to be sentient, the "group of particles" would have to be larger than the solar system, and as dense as thick fog. highly unlikely.


Why?Is there a law stating the same?


doomgiver said:


> all evidence till date points to the "this is total bs" in the bs meter.


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.



doomgiver said:


> of course, no possiblity, however remote, can be disregarded, BUT, it is not prudent to assume just because a thing might exist, to take its existence for granted, without any real evidence.


I wasn't telling you otherwise.



doomgiver said:


> even if such a "god" exists, what would he want from us? what could we do to please/placate/lure(???) him?


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.



doomgiver said:


> if he's a mass of particles, he might not even count us as living beings, and just ignore, as we ignore ants. NOW TELL ME, IN THIS CASE, WHAT GOOD WOULD YOUR RELIGION/BHAKTI/SACRIFICE/WHATEVER BE, IF THE GOD DOES NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING???


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.



doomgiver said:


> NOW TELL ME, IN THIS CASE, WHAT GOOD WOULD YOUR RELIGION/BHAKTI/SACRIFICE/WHATEVER BE, IF THE GOD DOES NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING???


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.



doomgiver said:


> on a scarier note, what if he is aware, and is intentionally igniting the tensions in the world, just for the sake of fun?
> i say, if this world is ruled by a god, it is a very evil god indeed.


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.



doomgiver said:


> where did i say that?


Sense/detect what i said applies for both.



doomgiver said:


> no big deal. a single atom cannot do much harm on its own. even in the above scenario, it'd take several billion passes before any noticible damage is done.



A several billion passes is enough.With light speed it doesn't make more than one second to have you sliced.A zero-vol particle no matter even if it takes infinite passes you'll still be the same.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 18, 2011)

Neuron said:


> Why?Is there a law stating the same?


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.



Neuron said:


> 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.


yes, i see where this is going.




Neuron said:


> 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.


what if the vedas are wrong? the vedas say to divide the society into castes. bravo.



Neuron said:


> 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.


umm, thats elementary, watson. what is your point here? it goes right over my poor tiny brain.



Neuron said:


> 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.


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.




Neuron said:


> 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.


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.

Originally Posted by doomgiver  
i meant that how can YOU touch/feel an atom, forget about others, i am concerned only about humans
Originally Posted by Neuron  
How can you say that something which cannot be sensed cannot exist.


Neuron said:


> Sense/detect what i said applies for both.


umm, I said that you cannot touch/feel/sense/detect an atom with your regular senses




Neuron said:


> A several billion passes is enough.With light speed it doesn't make more than one second to have you sliced.A zero-vol particle no matter even if it takes infinite passes you'll still be the same.


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.
why are we even discussing this? i just meant tht you cannot sense an atom.

sorry, didnt see it before.

dont mind if i dont make sense, im sleepy.



amitash said:


> Again, my point is, its the peoples choice.. They cause the divide, not the religion itself.. The notion of a "divide" is always going to be there, may it be religion, sports, patriotism, etc.. Religion is not at fault here but the people who misuse it.. Would the world be a better place without religion? I certainly think it would be a better place without religions that force people to do things, as I said, a religion like hinduism say (which is more of a way of life imo), which does not force anything upon you actually helps benefit the world.. but sadly corruption ruins this too.. And again corruption is due to the people..
> It's just like saying everyone assumes their country is the best, their color is the best, their scientific theory is the best, which again causes violence, and as humans there are going to be plenty of divides between people, it's how we can live peacefully with these divides is what matters, not waging an all out war against one type of divide, which will just cause more bitterness.



i agree, man has no one, but himself to blame. so is it not our responsiblity to remove all such hurdles which stand between global harmony and brotherhood/sisterhood (like religion, god; na rahega baas, na bajegi baasuri)
hinduism has caste system, offerings, blah blah




amitash said:


> religion motivates people to do very great and good things as well as terrriblr ones as you said, but at the core, religion just motivates, good or bad is again upto the people.. People of science have invented both nuclear reactors which provides limitless energy as well as the nuclear bomb.. Will you blame and destroy science because of this invention?



science is not colored by emotional glasses. it accepts with a cold and calculating logic. there is no "my tech is better than yours".




amitash said:


> As I said earlier, as humans there are always going to be differences.. In an ideal world there wouldnt be any but its not an ideal world and can never be as long as we have emotions.. People from all religions will say the same thing, my religion is "IDEAL", I will show you the way, bla, bla.. keep in mind that religion came into existence just the same way that atheism did.. It is not flawless, no ethical system ever is..



ethics are flawed at the core. its seekers tend to place themselves above others. "oh, look, im so damned ethical, i have the higher moral ground, so i will rain down judgement upon you"





amitash said:


> Is it not illogical to fight and turn to violence at all in the first place? Hinduism and other non-abrahamic religions tell you just that, it doesnt tell you not to fight on the battlefield, it tells you not to start a fight at all.. Is'nt that the best logic?



yes it is, but then to protect hinduism, you have to resort to violence, else moggledegooks(example only) will wipe us out. dilemma 






amitash said:


> Agreed, but this cannot and should not be forced on people.. It is their choice to make as to what road they follow.. Logic and science comes from what information we have.. Maybe at the time of creation of a religion, with the information that the people had, the subsequent religion was the logical conclusion.. Or in some cases, maybe people just wanting to control..



as i said, its up to you. pick your sides, i will be as judging and condescending and mean and logical as i want to you because you chose the easy way out(not directed to anyone in particular) 

believe me, man will do anything for a bit of control.

thats why gods were invented.

give god sacrifice, god appeased, god does not send a plague of locusts. MAN HAS CONTROL!!!


----------



## Neuron (Apr 19, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> 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.


Again,which theory/law states this?



doomgiver said:


> yes, i see where this is going.






doomgiver said:


> what if the vedas are wrong? the vedas say to divide the society into castes. bravo.


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?



doomgiver said:


> umm, thats elementary, watson. what is your point here? it goes right over my poor tiny brain.


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.




doomgiver said:


> the "property" which you talk about is not INHERENT.


Why shouldn't?Why is it illogical?



doomgiver said:


> else everything, including the clouds and the stars, would be sentient.



Why do you say so?I can't see how those 2 are related?



doomgiver said:


> 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.


So when you look around, you don't see a single one living happily?All are in eternal misery and pain?


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 19, 2011)

Neuron said:


> Again,which theory/law states this?



common sense. in interstellar space, particles can only communicate via 2 methods
1. gravity
2. e/m or strong or weak force.

as the distance increases, gravitational force decreases^2, so we cant have large distances
the strong/weak/em forces stop operating at a few hundred nm(not sure, might be a bit more)

so you HAVE to have close contact. why do you think the brain is so dense? so that impulses have to travel less.




Neuron said:


> 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?


^ that should be fictitious
yoga shmoga. even having good sex will keep you in shape, and in great happiness
you can also have the sati and social discrimination that comes with them. special price this summer, you only have to sell your soul!!!

this is why we should never take stuff at face value.
everyone behaves like the ancient indians were holy fsck huge rockstars or something. they just cant do anything wrong. anyone who disagrees is not a patriot and has been "westernized".
what the fsck is wrong with you lot? cant you see that they did some very bad things??




Neuron said:


> 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.



how do we know its living?
here's the paradox. ppl are hell bent on worshipping this thing that cannot be regarded as alive, because we donot have the means to know whether it is alive or not, yet you expect it to see us as sentient living beings so that it showers blessings on us?

would you worship a stone, if u didnt know it was not living, but i told you???





Neuron said:


> Originally Posted by Neuron
> 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.
> 
> 
> ...



im talking about the "property". if that system has that "property", then stars and clouds too must have the same inherent "property", because stars and clouds too are just particle systems....



Neuron said:


> So when you look around, you don't see a single one living happily?All are in eternal misery and pain?


as is said "sad eclipses happy. there is happiness, but more sadness"
i see the pain of over 3 billion people who dont get enough to eat, who are forced to do menial, dangerous and bad jobs, whose homes have been torn apart, whose loved ones killed, and lives destroyed.

where is the happiness???

the fake smiles on the faces of film stars and businessmen as they go to the bank?
the fake smiles on the shopper's face when she buys a diamond pendant?

that is not happiness, that is instant gratification.... a big difference.


----------



## Faun (Apr 19, 2011)

Alan watts primer for everyone here


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 19, 2011)

ehh? never heard of him. wiki says hes a philosopher kinda guy


----------



## Neuron (Apr 19, 2011)

> I have realized that the past and future are real illusions, that they exist in the present, which is what there is and all there is.
> -Alan Watts


Definitely someone with a higher neuron count 




doomgiver said:


> common sense. in interstellar space, particles can only communicate via 2 methods
> 1. gravity
> 2. e/m or strong or weak force.
> as the distance increases, gravitational force decreases^2, so we cant have large distances
> ...


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
arising here.No matter how much large is the distance the state of one is in relation with the other.And this state shift is a 'property' of this particular genre of particle.



doomgiver said:


> ^ that should be fictitious
> yoga shmoga. even having good sex will keep you in shape, and in great happiness


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?



doomgiver said:


> you can also have the sati and social discrimination that comes with them. special price this summer, you only have to sell your soul!!!


Except a few of those possibly misinterpreted ideas,you don't have anything to argue about,do you? 



doomgiver said:


> this is why we should never take stuff at face value.
> everyone behaves like the ancient indians were holy fsck huge rockstars or something. they just cant do anything wrong. anyone who disagrees is not a patriot and has been "westernized".
> what the fsck is wrong with you lot? cant you see that they did some very bad things??


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.



doomgiver said:


> how do we know its living?
> here's the paradox. ppl are hell bent on worshipping this thing that cannot be regarded as alive, because we donot have the means to know whether it is alive or not, yet you expect it to see us as sentient living beings so that it showers blessings on us?


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.



doomgiver said:


> would you worship a stone, if u didnt know it was not living, but i told you???


I will rely on probability of actuality of a fact.If the probability is more than 49% ,i'll take it.



doomgiver said:


> im talking about the "property". if that system has that "property", then stars and clouds too must have the same inherent "property", because stars and clouds too are just particle systems....


There can't be a 'must' but there can be a 'can' since all particle systems aren't the same.



doomgiver said:


> as is said "sad eclipses happy. there is happiness, but more sadness"
> i see the pain of over 3 billion people who dont get enough to eat, who are forced to do menial, dangerous and bad jobs, whose homes have been torn apart, whose loved ones killed, and lives destroyed.
> where is the happiness???
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## amitash (Apr 20, 2011)

> i agree, man has no one, but himself to blame. so is it not our responsiblity to remove all such hurdles which stand between global harmony and brotherhood/sisterhood (like religion, god; na rahega baas, na bajegi baasuri)
> hinduism has caste system, offerings, blah blah



Yep, I agree, it is our duty to remove such obstacles, but not in a do-or-die kinda way.. religion is not at fault, but the corruption, exploitation and out-dation are.. So wouldnt it be better to stop following all that, that doesnt make sense to you and let other people do the same?



> science is not colored by emotional glasses. it accepts with a cold and calculating logic. there is no "my tech is better than yours".



Yep, science has no emotions.. My point is that differences and exploitation exist in science to.. Science as a field is pure but look at the exploitation that exists today.. Numerous patents, preventing a person from bettering or using an existing technology, just so that one person can become rich.. Buyouts and subsequent killings of the bought companies due to threat of competition.. Pressure by governments to research more ways of killing people rather than more ways to help people.. Science is being exploited, just as religion is.. We just dont blame science for it but the companies, the governments and the people.. But here, we blame the religions and not the people exploiting it.. There is a "My tech is better than yours"



> ethics are flawed at the core. its seekers tend to place themselves above others. "oh, look, im so damned ethical, i have the higher moral ground, so i will rain down judgement upon you"



People do the best they can to spread what they think is right.. If you saw someone kill, would'nt you tell him what he did was wrong? Isnt it "raining judgement" if you tell him? Judgement based on ethics is one of the most required things for a peacefull life.. Otherwise wouldnt there be chaos everywhere?



> yes it is, but then to protect hinduism, you have to resort to violence, else moggledegooks(example only) will wipe us out. dilemma



Did Gandhi resort to violence to protect India? Did Mandela to protect he dark skinned?



> as i said, its up to you. pick your sides, i will be as *judging* and *condescending* and *mean* and logical as i want to you because you chose the easy way out(not directed to anyone in particular)



Earlier posted by you:



> ethics are flawed at the core. its seekers tend to place themselves above others. "oh, look, im so damned ethical, i have the higher moral ground, so i will rain down judgement upon you"





> believe me, man will do anything for a bit of control.
> thats why gods were invented.



Is this the correct way for a man of science and logic to put forth his point of view? *"Believe me"*.. I'm sorry, is there a belief system in atheism or science?


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 21, 2011)

Neuron said:


> 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
> arising here.No matter how much large is the distance the state of one is in relation with the other.And this state shift is a 'property' of this particular genre of particle.



thats called resonance, and its not a way of communicating.




Neuron said:


> What should be fictitious?


you wrote "fatuous", it should be fictitious.



Neuron said:


> Except a few of those possibly misinterpreted ideas,you don't have anything to argue about,do you?


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.



Neuron said:


> 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.


they just said that sun is the centre of the solar system. good job, please give the man a nobel.
and you are supposed to understand that the sheep mentality of people is responsible for all that. not one has ever questioned whether the vedas are wrong or not.
and so what if they did heroic things in the past. they are dead. dust. gone. of no use, other than arguing who did what first. i scored 3 goals in a football match 2 years ago. i demand you recognize this feat and call me "heroic" for that. and what did they do about it? allow themselves to be conquered.... they should have instead tried to make advanced weapons.



Neuron said:


> 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.


how would you classify something like that. where would you find such a thing?
ok, imagine yourself as "not living" but with consciousness and conscience. you are not aware of any other beings other than your kind. now, some carbon based life forms(humans) start raising their hands in the air and chanting at you. how do you know that they are worshiping you and not calling you names or something? would you just give them boatloads of gold and diamonds?



Neuron said:


> I will rely on probability of actuality of a fact.If the probability is more than 49% ,i'll take it.


so you are willing to worship anything, if someone tells you to do it? without thinking logically?



Neuron said:


> There can't be a 'must' but there can be a 'can' since all particle systems aren't the same.


so according to you, some particle systems "can" have some property(like angular spin) and others cannot?
that is pretty arbitrary.



Neuron said:


> 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.


then why worship him??? what can he do??? whats the use???

a god has no place in today's world. its just a tool invented for keeping the tribals and other primitive people in line. like "go to sleep or the god will get you" or "sacrifice this goat or a drought will come"


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 21, 2011)

amitash said:


> Yep, I agree, it is our duty to remove such obstacles, but not in a do-or-die kinda way.. religion is not at fault, but the corruption, exploitation and out-dation are.. So wouldnt it be better to stop following all that, that doesnt make sense to you and let other people do the same?


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.



amitash said:


> Yep, science has no emotions.. My point is that differences and exploitation exist in science to.. Science as a field is pure but look at the exploitation that exists today.. Numerous patents, preventing a person from bettering or using an existing technology, just so that one person can become rich..


did i not say man is responsible for all evils? lets remove evils in the order of least to most productive.
1. religion
2. politicians
3. your pick.




amitash said:


> People do the best they can to spread what they think is right.. If you saw someone kill, would'nt you tell him what he did was wrong? Isnt it "raining judgement" if you tell him? Judgement based on ethics is one of the most required things for a peacefull life.. Otherwise wouldnt there be chaos everywhere?


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.




amitash said:


> Did Gandhi resort to violence to protect India? Did Mandela to protect the dark skinned?


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.
i dont know about Mandela. but the stuggle was bloody.

imagine, if the oppressors had wmd's, and were willing to use them. would an unarmed horde stand up to a small battalion armed with modern guns and mechanized armor??



amitash said:


> Is this the correct way for a man of science and logic to put forth his point of view? *"Believe me"*.. I'm sorry, is there a belief system in atheism or science?


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.

im only interested in getting people to stop wasting their time and money in worshipping some "god".
stupid south fagg0ts give crores of rupees to temples, when they could have used that money to make roads, schools and other stuff.

yup, buddhism is fine. their monks are plain people, and the lead simple lives.


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Apr 21, 2011)

I am athiest,my family is hindu.

the only thing that comes close to "god" for me are my parents and grandparents.


----------



## mohiuddin (Apr 21, 2011)

god..
Science once said, earth is flat,then comes earth is round...
Again, 1.sun circling around the earth,2. then earth around the static sun,3. then everything is orbiting in their own orbit...
First was 'Matter is not destructable', now, it is...
First, every speed was relative, but einstein said no light speed is absolute...
First, u can't make time slow, but now theoritically possible...
First, there was one universe theory , now different universe r present simultinously, in same place in different dimension as sheets, intercrossing each other, but no way to jump from one to another... 
First, total matter in the universe was constant, then , (total mass+ total energy) was constant...now come the antimatter theory...
And these examples r endless...science is nothing but the discover what god has already created.
The ultimate scientist is the almighty god...
(my opinion)

we r talking here about atom, strong force, weak force...blabla bla...these r discovered by science that always change, isn't it...u talk about atom! Wait, there r nurton, proton...ah wait, there r neuclions...aah, more tiny things that made up protons...and like universe is endless in case of its largeness, it is also endless in case of tinyness...
Lets talk about our mind,yea free mind. Medical science tell that, it is complex result of different neuronal discharge occuring mainly in cerebral cortex...DON't U think 'IT IS PURE BULLSHEET?'


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2011)

^^lol...isn't it much easier to believe in God than study science.


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 21, 2011)

^U seem to be confused on who told what?

Oh, sry, I did not notice, it was ur "opinion".


----------



## mohiuddin (Apr 21, 2011)

'My opinion' was for- i believe on god over all...not that facts...how come, facts become opinions?
@faun, yes, it is very easy to believe god than study science ...


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 21, 2011)

Faun said:


> ^^lol...isn't it much easier to believe in God than study science.



its also easier to give bribes rather than stand up to corruption.
its also easier to dispose off a hooker rather than pay her.
its also easier to take drugs and live off your parents money rather than facing the world.
its also easier to commit suicide rather than continue living.

congrats, just take a jump off a cliff and all your problems are solved.

its gutless traitors like this who are responsible for all the bad things in the world. just because of their laziness, everything that is wrong in this world happens.



mohiuddin said:


> And these examples r endless...science is nothing but the discover what god has already created.
> The ultimate scientist is the almighty god...


does your "almighty god" tell you anything about the universe? *what exactly does this "god" thing do that you are calling him "almighty"???*



mohiuddin said:


> Lets talk about our mind,yea free mind. Medical science tell that, it is complex result of different neuronal discharge occuring mainly in cerebral cortex...DON't U think 'IT IS PURE BULLSHEET?'


no, my dear hominid, your "opinion" is PURE BULLSHEET. 

whatever you had ranted about in your post.... what did you want to prove? that god is great?

if we go according to your god, then we must live in utter and absolute ignorance.
god has made this world, and we have no right to change it

NO, LET ME TELL YOU, GOD IS NOTHING, WE ARE GREAT.

we have unravelled the secrets of the cosmos, we have sent man to the moon. we have brought light, food and warmth into billions of homes. what did your god do??? other than trying to slow down progress in the name of bullsheet??? 

if you claim that "omg, all that was done by a small segment of our religion", then go change your religion and then come back. i dont care who did what, it was done by religion in religion's name, so everyone of that religion is as guilty as the next.


----------



## Neuron (Apr 21, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> thats called resonance, and its not a way of communicating.


Carefully read what I explained.Its nothing like resonance.




doomgiver said:


> you wrote "fatuous", it should be fictitious.


Why should it be fictitious?



doomgiver said:


> 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.
> and you are supposed to understand that the sheep mentality of people is responsible for all that. not one has ever questioned whether the vedas are wrong or not.
> and so what if they did heroic things in the past. they are dead. dust. gone. of no use, other than arguing who did what first. i scored 3 goals in a football match 2 years ago. i demand you recognize this feat and call me "heroic" for that. and what did they do about it? allow themselves to be conquered.... they should have instead tried to make advanced weapons.


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.



doomgiver said:


> how would you classify something like that. where would you find such a thing?


Now like I said before if I had introduced to you the idea of black holes your reaction would have been no different.



doomgiver said:


> *ok, imagine yourself as "not living" but with consciousness and conscience. you are not aware of any other beings other than your kind*. now, some carbon based life forms(humans) start raising their hands in the air and chanting at you. how do you know that they are worshiping you and not calling you names or something? would you just give them boatloads of gold and diamonds?


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.



doomgiver said:


> so you are willing to worship anything, if someone tells you to do it? without thinking logically?
> 
> 
> Neuron said:
> ...


Probability is derived by applying logic.Everybody knows that.



doomgiver said:


> so according to you,*some particle systems "can" have some property(like angular spin) and others cannot?*
> that is pretty arbitrary.


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.



doomgiver said:


> when why worship him???


I've never substituted the system with a 'him'.I'd prefer 'it'.



doomgiver said:


> what can he do??? whats the use???


These I've explained several times before.



doomgiver said:


> a god has no place in today's world. its just a tool invented for keeping the tribals and other primitive people in line. like "go to sleep or the god will get you" or "sacrifice this goat or a drought will come"


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??


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 21, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> its gutless traitors like this who are responsible for all the bad things in the world. just because of their laziness, everything that is wrong in this world happens.



Faun, dekh tujhe kay abol rahe hai


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 21, 2011)

oye!!! im not saying anything personal!!! im just generalising!!!


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2011)

rhitwick said:


> Faun, dekh tujhe kay abol rahe hai



I am open to reason


----------



## Piyush (Apr 22, 2011)

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  ");


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 22, 2011)

^Ummm AFAIK, God has never predicted anything like that, it was the Mayans who did not know how to count beyond 2012 and told world will end then.

I've another random, Which religion does God follow?


----------



## Neuron (Apr 22, 2011)

Piyush said:


> phew......i took me around 25 min to read just this page..............
> 
> ok....related to topic
> its simple
> ...



Error,'Invalid arguement'


----------



## Piyush (Apr 22, 2011)

dont do any investigations
enjoy the code .... duh....


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 22, 2011)

Neuron said:


> Carefully read what I explained.Its nothing like resonance.



sorry, i meant quantum entanglement. but its going to be more than 2 entangled particles.Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

------------------------

go code!!!


----------



## Neuron (Apr 22, 2011)

^ What about the rest?


----------



## Sarath (Apr 22, 2011)

science is boring... i like theories of how to prove god exists that i listen from others.
Surprisingly those are mostly the ones that are currently unexplainable by science.

But since as time goes by more and more scientific theories started explaining those other worldly phenomenon the ultra pious have to keep coming up with new theories of God.

God is like Santa Claus. We dont know if he exists or not but we know the gifts are coming from somewhere. You can use search every year till you find out(science) or smile and go to bed that Santa gave u a gift(God)

Respect the believer and respect the atheist

I was an atheist. I say was coz as i am getting older (Im 21) i have started to believe that you need that extra help from God to survive in this world. I am half a believer now. 

I am of the opinion that it is nice to believe in God [since a huge part of our brain is dedicated to spirituality] but not let it over shadow our understanding of science or affect the progress of science [remember how Darwin got his a@@ kicked all over for tabulating the theory of evolution]

Peace


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 22, 2011)

hell, im not going to argue alone against 3 religious nuts, i have a life irl!!!
my friends tell me i stopped hanging out with them since i started posting in this thread.

i have one thin to say :

religious nuts will find more and more preposterous ways to (un)prove that their imaginary friend exists. there is no way in hell im going to use that much brainpower just to riposte silly arguments.


----------



## Piyush (Apr 22, 2011)

btw which 3 are you talking  about?


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 22, 2011)

neuron, mohiuddin, and faun. total overdose!!!


----------



## Neuron (Apr 23, 2011)

^And how are they nuts excatly?Being unable to prove your ideas to be foolproof doesn't make others anything.

Talking about brainpower,I were the one to introduce to you those theories.You just simply said 'it's not like that' without even bothering to understand what's been said.

And for the theory is suggested ,it could be a special case of quantum entanglement.
I don't see any point in arguing with you anymore,so let's just wind up this discussion.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 23, 2011)

nothing is foolproof. a few years down the line, people will be laughing at us for wasting time and money one the LHC. as more knowledge is available, the current understanding of the universe changes too, so nothing is foolproof.

which theories are you talking about?

i doubt there would be entanglement for such a large amount of particles


----------



## Neuron (Apr 23, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> i doubt there would be entanglement for such a large amount of particles



'i doubt,'highly unlikely',you cannot say 'impossible'.That's all i've been trying to tell you.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 23, 2011)

i meant doubt as in science fiction. i can say impossible with our limited knowledge.

why god? why do you need a god? there is nothing out there. no heaven or hell. as for whether god exists or not, i'll believe it when i see it.


----------



## Neuron (Apr 23, 2011)

Never mind ,this is turning out to be an 'yes-no,yes-no' fight.Also my university exams are closing in.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 23, 2011)

mine too, one month to go. good luck


----------



## Faun (Apr 24, 2011)

^^lol...I don't even say prayersor go to worship places.


----------



## Neuron (Apr 24, 2011)

^^He is nuts.


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 24, 2011)

amen!


----------



## Faun (Apr 24, 2011)

Neuron said:


> ^^He is nuts.



refer   #1350


----------



## Neuron (Apr 24, 2011)

^^ I know.


----------



## sygeek (Apr 30, 2011)

*READ IT AND THEN ****ING ARGUE*
I know alot of people spreading misconceptions about a certain religion even when they don't even know the ****ing truth. We are so much used to the miracles of god that we don't even believe it as a miracle, nothing special, happens every day, what on earth is new in that, yet if you look at it the other way it is a miracle.
I've read alot about evolutionism and creationism (though I didn't go to deep into it). Evolutionism has alot of proofs (so does creationism, but I will go on to that later), most of the debaters of the other side just act arrogant and think that their opponent's points are just wrong (they don't care why). Even most of the creationists I have seen just go on arguing with evolutionists that their theory is wrong, because it just is. Even if they argue on the specific points, they come up with something totally useless that is not at all true. 
And same goes with you all evolutionists, instead of studying religion and scriptures you guys just base your points on the topics you have heard/read (not in the scriptures) from somewhere and when a smart creationist comes up with a totally bias point and the evolutionist just can't prove how it's wrong, they just disregard it.
I've spent a long time studying evolutionism, and I must say evolutionists aren't fools certainly (neither are creationists). They weren't just a group of atheists against religion who sat in a room trying to make up points against religion.
The reason evolutionists don't agree with creationists is that because creationists come up with points based on their religion's scriptures which goes against evolutionists rule #? (Never rely on religion's original scriptures). But if you try and read the scriptures carefully you will get alot of even scientific points written earlier than man actually discovered it. (They are many scientific points stated in the scriptures in a very basic way (meant for people thousand of years ago), but today when science has evolved so much that many people now think that the scientific points in the scriptures are completely useless because they sound too vague and stupid. Everything explained in the scriptures is meant in a VERY basic way and during this age if you try to understand it, it will sound ridiculous)
People, please don't rely on stuff you hear about on news and papers about religion, rely on the original scriptures and if you can't do that then just don't bother arguing.

Here's my theory about how it all started:


> When God made earth, He just let life evolve on earth. He then probably decided to create man after seeing the most complex evolved organism till then, and make something much more complex enough to survive the world and evolve. Man after that was the most complex organism. He had nothing other than a brain which gradually evolved (not meant in the same sense as evolution) to something to what you see today. In my opinion, my theory sounds much more logical (to me) than "BACTERIA TO MAN IN BILLION YEARS".
> _I've been very vague explaining my theory because I was just tired of typing the above stuff, may explain it more later._


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 30, 2011)

^ how did god create the earth?
how did god create man?
^ tell me the process. i can tell you easily how man evolved from bacteria.

if god created a earth, why didnt he create 2-3 more just for kicks?
if god can create 2-4 earths, then why not more, like all over the galaxy/universe?
if god can make earths all over the universe, how can he keep a tab on all of them?
can it be that he has a vested interest in earth?
i say thats pretty small-minded and cheap, not god-like behaviour at all.



> creationism has proofs


PROVE IT!!!!

why do you guys keep bumping it?!?!?!
i cant reply to all your questions!!!


----------



## sygeek (Apr 30, 2011)

@doomgiver : These types of questions really piss me off! It's just like asking can a lower organism like dog all about humans, from their very basic knowledge to the most complex ones. The lower organism may get used to the BASIC behaviour of the more complex organism but he just cannot know the much more complex (or detailed) knowledge/information about the complex organism, because it is just not capable of it, NEVER WILL BE. I guess you are getting my point. God is much more complex than us, MUCH MORE THAN YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE. We have used our brains to it's full capability and still know very little (basic) information about god.

_Please if you may, share all your knowledge about Bacteria to man in a billion years (no links please), I'd be happy to learn something from it. Consider my above post's theory that makes a little more sense (it is something that just makes sense to me, maybe wrong or right though). I never said evolution is not possible, I just said MAN has not evolved directly from bacteria (try searching for the missing link in bacteria to man, that may explain my theory)_

And Who on earth says that there are not more planets like earth that can sustain life.  As far as I know about my religion's scripture, it says that there are many other planets that God created life in. Don't you think If God created numerous amounts of planets that would be close to us like neighbours than we'd be way more prone to invasion attacks (like war)? Yes, even if he created (>_> <_< which he obviously did not then he would have easily kept a look on them because he is WAY MORE COMPLEX! Try thinking about the above, slowly this may seem to sound logical too)

_I request you kindly read my post carefully and give some thought about it and don't try to make up negative points, although if you find a fault state it. Consider replying after that and feel to spam me with your boatloads of questions related my reply, if any._



> People, please don't rely on stuff you hear about on news and papers about religion, rely on the original scriptures and if you can't do that then just don't bother arguing.


----------



## doomgiver (May 1, 2011)

sygeek said:


> I guess you are getting my point. God is much more complex than us, MUCH MORE THAN YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE. We have used our brains to it's full capability and still know very little (basic) information about god.


glad to agree. now tell me, you pray to god. what makes you think that he will have anything for you?




sygeek said:


> I just said MAN has not evolved directly from bacteria


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.

the rest was due to natural selection. those traits which were helpful to survival were passed on to future generations, while others died out.

like, having camouflage, big sharp claws and teeth is important for a top level predator, like lions and tigers. do you think a lion would survive for long if he was colored bright red and had teeth made of cartilage? so the red lion will die, and his bad/unsuitable genes wont pollute the gene pool, and the lion with the larger fangs will go on and produce more kids with longer and sharper fangs.

wtf, i dont understand why its so hard for ppl to understand this, it is completely logical.

it doesnt take a god to make man. missing links exist because we have not found them yet. example, google for lucy hominid. one of the most famous "missing links"

agar humans ke skeletons ki ye halat hai to jo chote chote bacteria and unicellular organisms hai, unko dhoondhna kitna mushkil hoga???

if this is the condition of human excavations, imagine how much difficult it would be if we went searching for missing links of bacteria, and others?



sygeek said:


> As far as I know about my religion's scripture, it says that there are many other planets that God created life in. Don't you think If God created numerous amounts of planets that would be close to us like neighbours than we'd be way more prone to invasion attacks (like war)?QUOTE]
> you mean to say that every planet that 'god' has created has life?
> show me where is a mention of ANY extra-solar planet having life?
> 
> ...


----------



## sygeek (May 1, 2011)

> glad to agree. now tell me, you pray to god. what makes you think that he will have anything for you?


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.)
What makes you think he doesn't have anything for us, God is much more complex than us which means, MORE FREE WILL. God can do even the most impossible thing you can ever think of because he is the most complex!

_Note: There might be even other living beings/organisms in the universe more complex than man, more free will then probably, but VERY LESS complex to God in comparison._

No, I didn't mean that with that statement. I meant MAN has not evolved from Bacteria VIA EVOLUTION directly. I totally believe that bacteria might have evolved into  a more complex being, like even an ape (and God with the reference to it would have made a more complex being, powerful enough to survive in the world, while considering the balance of the nature), Evolution totally makes sense to me, probably is true but man has not evolved from bacteria VIA EVOLUTION directly. 





> Evolutionists weren't just a group of atheists against religion who sat in a room trying to make up points against religion and discovered evolutionism as an answer.


 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.


> you mean to say that every planet that 'god' has created has life?
> show me where is a mention of ANY extra-solar planet having life?


I meant God has created life but it is scattered along long distances because 





> If God created numerous amounts of planets that would be close to us like neighbours than we'd be way more prone to invasion attacks (like war)?





> In Sura 42,Verse 29 (42:29) of the Quran,we are told, “Among His (God’s) signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth,and the living creatures that He has scattered through them and He has power to gather them together when He wills.”



_Note the simplicity of the language, but this language was decent enough to understand for the average people living thousand of years ago. Quran didn't went on to the details of it because God knew that one day or the other man would certainly discover it._

Before proceeding further, a point or two must be noted. The word “sama”, translated “heavens”, is also the Arabic for “sky”. One may object that the verse refers to creatures in the sky (which would be birds), not in the heavens.
However, birds are mentioned separately from creatures of the heavens in 24:41, “Seest thou not that it is God Whose praise all beings in the heavens and on earth do celebrate, and the birds (of the air) with wings outspread?…” (9) In a note to 42;29, Muhammad Asad states, ”In the Quran, the expression “the heavens and earth” invariably denotes the universe in its entirety.” (10) The Quran mentions that inanimate objects also worship God: “Do they not look at God’s creation, (even) among (inanimate) things- how their (very) shadows turn round,from right to left, prostrating themselves to God…”(16:48). (11) Therefore, may not the creatures spoken of in 42:29 in the heavens, be inanimate creatures of God. No, The next verse, 16:49 goes, “And to God doth obeisance all that is in the heavens and earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels…”. (12) The word translated “living creatures” here is the same as that in 42:29- “Dabbatun”.
_Source_

It was a figure of speech, I didn't say you spam. I meant feel free to shower (spam) me with your boatloads of questions with my reply, if any. I also meant don't "try" to make up negative points just for the sake of argument, i.e. false claims, which you didn't ofcourse. Feel free to argue with me with on a negative (true as you think) point you have in mind, I will be glad to answer.

_BTW, I think you have misinterpreted alot of my statements, Please consider re-reading my above post or there might be a confusion.
_


> *People, please don't rely on stuff you hear about on news and papers about religion, rely on the original scriptures and if you can't do that then just don't bother arguing.*


----------



## Faun (May 1, 2011)

^^except that billions of people are dying out of hunger and God did't help them except you the special one.
Care to elaborate why ?


----------



## sygeek (May 1, 2011)

I know most of you people can't rely on reading the whole scriptures to find your answer, but you can rely on something called "GOOGLE" instead of asking me a simple question and waiting for it to be answered, in short wasting my time (and yours). And hey, it's God's will if my pray is worth accepting or not, even some of my insensible prayers weren't answered. Sometimes if your prayers come in the way of the predicted DIVINE PLAN, it probably won't be accepted at that time then.

_I'm not referring to doomgiver atm, his questions sounded sensible and worth answering to me._

Anyways, there you go - www.TurnToIslam.com - View Single Post - Contradictions in the Qur'an and Weird Stuff

Don't keep yourself arrogant to a certain POINT, have an open mind (not too positive/negative) and you will surely find the answer by yourself just like I did.


----------



## Faun (May 1, 2011)

So, in short, the prayer of an emaciated child dying out of hunger is not sensible. I sense trolling here, God.


----------



## sygeek (May 1, 2011)

You are trying to twist my sentences just to prove your point. 





> 1. It's God's will if my pray is worth accepting or not, even some of my insensible prayers weren't answered.
> 2. Sometimes if your prayers come in the way of the predicted DIVINE PLAN, it probably won't be accepted at that time then.


THEY ARE DIFFERENT SENTENCES, DON'T TWIST OR MIX THEM..oh god!
I don't think you even bothered reading the link I gave you, seriously how can you even bother arguing then.

If you are trying to twist my sentences, make up negative points JUST TO PROVE your point AND to add  to that you are not even trying to read the actual reply behind your question (the link!) You think you are just better off to argue mindlessly, make up false claims and twist my sentences to make others (and me) feel that I am terribly wrong and inhuman. I think you proved your arrogance (and the arrogance of most of the atheist community out there) and successfully claimed you point false yourself (who's trolling now, fail troll though xD). Congrats! Now, I won't be getting caught in your troll bait again.

_I highly apologize for my very offensive nature in this post, but sometimes arrogant people really get on my nerves and there's no way of keeping my anger under control._


----------



## Faun (May 1, 2011)

sygeek said:


> I don't think you even bothered reading the link I gave you, seriously how can you even bother arguing then.


I've been thru that phase, bro. Take your time


----------



## sygeek (May 1, 2011)

Faun said:


> 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.
*i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Jus3h/Inutilidades/failed_troll.jpg

Edit: After reading some previous posts it looks to me like all the atheists here are making fun of religion by twisting up sentences and just finding a fault with the statement (grammar) and using it as a argument instead of a sensible debate. I can't explain how much respect most of you trolls have lost from me. There should be some rules of arguing about religion and science here. Trying to find a fault with the statement instead of showing proof/logical answers from your side is like you have considered yourself as a loser in your inner-self (And that goes for some of the religious people with the likewise nature too). 
*IF YOU (people with the *above* nature) CAN'T COME UP WITH A SENSIBLE ARGUMENT THEN PLEASE DON'T BOTHER ARGUING.*


----------



## mohiuddin (May 8, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> its also easier to give bribes rather than stand up to corruption.
> its also easier to dispose off a hooker rather than pay her.
> its also easier to take drugs and live off your parents money rather than facing the world.
> its also easier to commit suicide rather than continue living.
> ...



now now now. Don't make things complicated keep it simple.
U say we give this and that to those people , we went to moon.
I say, god gave u life, god gave u that ability to help those people, god made the universe(we call it).
Main thing science is nothing but repeatative experiment and evaluation of that experiment by some basic natural phenomenon by (always making a mistake) human brain, or some super thought based on probability(we call it quantum science!!!)...it changes always, it takes its time to evolve. Is it absolute?
Let me ask u a question, what was before the big bang?? Why science here speechless?science may find that answer someday, but what the benefit ? Huh? It will arise more question...isn't it????
Wth science gave us?
Are we happier than our anchestors?are we feeling safer? Damn it. No.science is not a platform to proove but to be prooved by other means...


----------



## doomgiver (May 8, 2011)

mohiuddin said:


> I say, god gave u life, god gave u that ability to help those people, god made the universe(we call it).


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?



mohiuddin said:


> Main thing science is nothing but repeatative experiment and evaluation of that experiment by some basic natural phenomenon by (always making a mistake) human brain, or some super thought based on probability(we call it quantum science!!!)...it changes always, it takes its time to evolve. Is it absolute?


will you call quantum teleportation "natural" phenomenon? superconductors? electromagnetism?
qunatum science exists because we can measure it, study it, and make predictions that ACTUALLY COME TRUE.
show me a prediction about your "god" that can be trusted.




mohiuddin said:


> Let me ask u a question, what was before the big bang?? Why science here speechless?science may find that answer someday, but what the benefit ? Huh? It will arise more question...isn't it????


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.



mohiuddin said:


> Wth science gave us?Are we happier than our anchestors?are we feeling safer? Damn it. No.science is not a platform to proove but to be prooved by other means...


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.

you have medicines that can cure diseases that killed billions of your 'ancestors' 
you have the internet that enables you to do stuff your 'ancestors' did not even imagine in their wildest dreams.
dont you want that? fine, turn off your computer and step into your time machine, which has been made by SCIENTISTS to go back a few thousand years. good luck surviving a common cold back then.


----------



## mohiuddin (May 8, 2011)

Do u have any idea on quantum teleportation?
Superconductor isn't a natural phenomenon?
Do u know  what theory, quantum physics is based upon? The coexistance of electron as both particle and energy!!
Relativity !!! 
God gave us life bro, and i can prove a lot prediction to trust god. But it is beyond of this thread and will make this thread more aggressive to me. So i don't want to.
Again simple, science is changing,it is/was/will be partly wrong , not absolute.
U say, science did this and that ....but tell me, are we happier having those speedy transports? Shiny buildings? Mind blowing internet? 
Yea, we defended life by med science,but more complex and newer strains of microbs are emerging  partly due to over indiscriminate use of antibiotics ,partly our socalled modern life leadings and partly of unknown cause(idiopathic)...
Don't u think coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetis, radiation, cancer, congenital anomaly,AIDS etc etc etc. are/gonna be major burden?these are what science given consciously/subconsciously....isn't it?


----------



## sygeek (May 8, 2011)

mohiuddin said:


> Wth science gave us?
> Are we happier than our anchestors?are we feeling safer? Damn it. No.science is not a platform to proove but to be prooved by other means...


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.



doomgiver said:


> 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?


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.


> 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?


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).
(If you are thinking why do god's will let us "do bad things to others/bad things happens to others", see my above replies)


----------



## mohiuddin (May 8, 2011)

SyGeek said:


> 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.
> ...



i never said science is bad. It is bad what it gave us. Yea, we take the benefit by using it. Ofcourse there will be groups in mankind ,who will always make bad things out of it.
Why invent a thing ,we can't even control its outcome?why?
What was the noble moto of science ? Make life easier, simple ane hassel free. Isn't it?
Just not to answer, think deeper that really our life is being made easy?plain?simple?*hassel* free?
Yea, back then u had to face natural calamities, epedemics, hard food resources.
But, today are not those merging dangers are more dangerous? O3 layer is depleting, major change in environment is strongly suspected, recurrent earthquake in this subcontinent, radiation in japan after that recent tsunami, non-communicable disease, accidents aahh...damn...admit it, we are infact alot more indanger than our ancestors, nature played with them. But we little monsters tried to play with the nature and now nature is gonna take revenge.
Yea, we always say science is good, it is guilty the way we use it. But, it is the way, we always have to bear the negative effect, no, noway we can get rid of it...
Yea, we took measures, but what the result?
Tiny winy steps aren't gonna change the result.*I LOVE SCIENCE, BUT HATE ITS CONSEQUENCES*


----------



## doomgiver (May 8, 2011)

mohiuddin said:


> Do u have any idea on quantum teleportation?
> Superconductor isn't a natural phenomenon?
> do YOU have any idea of quantum mechanics?
> give me ONE example of superconductivity as a natural phenomena
> ...


----------



## Neuron (May 8, 2011)

@doomgiver: Dude,just scientifically prove to me that god doesn't exist and i'll join you.Until then you have no reason what so ever to say god doesn't exist with such surety.And talking about me I never said god exist for sure.I just told you to consider the high probability.


----------



## doomgiver (May 8, 2011)

mohiuddin said:


> Why invent a thing ,we can't even control its outcome?why?


why pray to a god who does not care? why? why pray to a god which does not exist? why?



mohiuddin said:


> What was the noble moto of science ? Make life easier, simple ane hassel free. Isn't it?
> Just not to answer, think deeper that really our life is being made easy?plain?simple?*hassel* free?


i dont want a plain life, no excitement. but life is waaaay easier than before.
do you want to spend a week cutting crops from a acre of land or use a tractor to do it in a day?



mohiuddin said:


> But, today are not those merging dangers are more dangerous? O3 layer is depleting, major change in environment is strongly suspected, recurrent earthquake in this subcontinent, radiation in japan after that recent tsunami, non-communicable disease, accidents aahh...damn...admit it, we are infact alot more indanger than our ancestors, nature played with them. But we little monsters tried to play with the nature and now nature is gonna take revenge.


pffft!!! 
major change in environment was also the ice ages, no one blames science for causing the ice ages.
recurrent earthquakes?!?! how??? 
non-communicable diseases? we are in danger? when are we not in danger?
ok, QUICK POLL!!! tell me, how do you want to die?
1. FLESH TORN AND SLOWLY EATEN BY LIONS/TIGERS/HYENAS
2. SLOW POISONING FROM SNAKEBITE
3. QUICK DEATH IN ACCIDENT
4. DIE OF OLD AGE AT 80

5. DIE OF OLD AGE AT 30



mohiuddin said:


> Yea, we always say science is good, it is guilty the way we use it. But, it is the way, we always have to bear the negative effect, no, noway we can get rid of it...


you can get rid of god, its got no use in today's world



Neuron said:


> @doomgiver: Dude,just scientifically prove to me that god doesn't exist and i'll join you.Until then you have no reason what so ever to say god doesn't exist with such surety.And talking about me I never said god exist for sure.I just told you to consider the high probability.



dude, STAY OUT OF THIS!!!
i too will join you if you find definite proof of god.

but existance of god cannot be proven or disproven, ergo, god must not exist.


simple.


----------



## sygeek (May 8, 2011)

mohiuddin said:


> i never said science is bad. It is bad what it gave us. Yea, we take the benefit by using it. Ofcourse there will be groups in mankind ,who will always make bad things out of it.
> Why invent a thing ,we can't even control its outcome?why?
> What was the noble moto of science ? Make life easier, simple ane hassel free. Isn't it?
> Just not to answer, think deeper that really our life is being made easy?plain?simple?*hassel* free?
> ...


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 
But yeah I agree that nowadays the ratio of disadvantages of science is overtaking to the ratio of advantages of science, but that doesn't mean we should just stop DISCOVERING/INVENTING.

God -> Humans -> Science

You know what guys, I have come to a conclusion. I don't believe in Thomas Edison, the so called inventor of bulb. He doesn't exist! Bunch of liars made him up, wrote books about him and told the world about it. Painted a photo of him just for the proof. Everyone says thank him for he was the inventor of the bulb, why? How can you say that he invented it? With just a bunch of books? Bulb has always been there and people still say that it was a miracle by Thomas Edison (if he exists). Bulb has always been there, what is new in it, it is not a miracle. I don't know why on earth almost everyone believes him and write about him. Hell! It is taught in school too. How can you guys say that he invented it? With a bunch of stories of his hardwork, his made-up photograph and some books. BAH! Show me a proof!! 

BULB IS NOT A MIRACLE OF SCIENCE! THOMAS EDISON DOESN'T EXIST! The world is full of liars, liars who did such a hard-work to make up a man called Thomas Edison who invented bulb, LOL!

_If you don't agree with the above then get ready to be made fun of OR join our group of smart people who know everything and don't believe in stupid stuff like thomas edison._


----------



## speedyguy (May 10, 2011)

any personal grudges with mr. edison mate??? 

Enjoy~!


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

^If your wise enough to get my point, you'll know what I actually mean.


----------



## doomgiver (May 10, 2011)

edison's work(invention of bulb) is proof itself. we have drawings, schematics, and designs. they all are proven to work. even if it was not edison, then someone else must have made the bulb. the point is, the bulb can be proven to exist. the same cannot be said for god.

nothing about "god" is proven to work.
show me one instance where you can say : "yes, if we do this, we get this"


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

We are the invention of God, carefully made with such perfection to work. We can be proven to exist. We have scriptures (Word from God explaining everything in a very basic way).


> show me one instance where you can say : "yes, if we do this, we get this


??? Do you mean:
Every action (by man/naturally) has a reaction? I think some famous scientist proved that..hmm..

_I proved my point bro, briefly. If you can't find holes in it, get rid of your arrogance and accept it._


----------



## Neuron (May 10, 2011)

The reasons why I believe in a 'GOD'.

1.Every event(except one) occurring in the universe has a cause.
Suppose an event A was caused by an event B and B by C and C by D and so on.BUT,this chain cannot be infinitely long.If it is then there is no first event since every event X_n has a parent event(or cause) X_n-1.So there must be a first event which occurred without any cause.Thus one of the basic principles of science has already been violated.There is no way on earth science is going to successfully explain why/how this occurred.And I find my GOD here.

2.We live in the present.ie, the present time,not past neither future.But,think how long is the present time?
Surely less than one second and also less than one nano second or even less than (1/10000000) of a nano second.ie,the length of 'present' should be so small such that it cannot be any further small.And there is only one number that satisfy this and its zero(0).Take any other number,a smaller value can be found by adding a 0 after the decimal point.Like(0.001>0.000001>0.0000000001>........>0).There you go.We live in 'present' of length zero and yet we live or do we?.


----------



## doomgiver (May 10, 2011)

SyGeek said:


> We are the invention of God, carefully made with such perfection to work. We can be proven to exist. We have scriptures (Word from God explaining everything in a very basic way).


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  forgot 



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???"


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


I mentioned that in my theory, that there might have been apes first and God made MAN based on them. 
Perfect in the sense that it has no "bugs" or "exploits" (like machines) such that the balance of the world can be maintained. 
You know why there are diseases and other bad things? To maintain the balance of the world, to prevent overpopulation to occur TOO SOON. If everybody would have been perfect in your sense then the world just have been BOOOORING. All those things maintain the balance of the earth. EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD THAT EXISTS SERVES FOR A PURPOSE.
By scriptures I meant my religion's scriptures, I haven't read other religion's scriptures so I can't say anything. It doesn't have those above things you mentioned (or atleast in the way you mentioned it). And please try to actually read the scriptures instead of hearing what others say and exaggerating it in a stupid way.

You didn't really read anything in the scriptures did you, just base your thoughts on what others say...*sigh*. That's ignorance and arrogance, something which would never help anyone in a fair argument...


----------



## doomgiver (May 10, 2011)

i read enough of scriptures to get sick of them.
totally illogical.

well, in cas e of overpopulation, your god can just wave a hand and burn to ashes the extra load!!! why all this need for the virus-shirus mumbo jumbo???

ok, i can plead a bit of ignorance, but its your scriptures which are arrogant in assuming that god exists for them.


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

^Wouldn't that be stupid, illogical, weird and insensible? God does everything in a very general and logical way.


> ok, i can plead a bit of ignorance, but its your scriptures which are arrogant in assuming that god exists for them.


Well, how? It is your arrogance that you see it in that way.


----------



## doomgiver (May 10, 2011)

arrogant back to you

how can you say that your god is logical?

give the PROOF, instead of generalizing.
i ask, can a normal, sane man imagine mutant monkeys? 10 heads? surely, its the work of someone high on lsd.

ok, enough is enough, there is only one true god, and he is the God Emperor of mankind.
bow down to Him, heretics, or face His Wrath

Emperor of Mankind - Lexicanum

FOR THE EMPEROR!!!


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

Here we go all over again, that's what I was trying to PROVE FROM MY FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD AND YOU ASK IT ALL OVER AGAIN...
Arrogance back to you bro..


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2011)

SyGeek said:


> I mentioned that in my theory, that there might have been apes first and God made MAN based on them.
> Perfect in the sense that it has no "bugs" or "exploits" (like machines) such that the balance of the world can be maintained.



You do realize vesitgial organs and homologous organs
Why people suffer from appendicitis 

Perfect...eh !


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

^Perfect in the sense that the balance can be maintained, perfect in the sense that it can survive the world..*sigh*.
Ok, here's a question, You guys ask why people die of diseases so badly when there's God and at the same time curse about the overpopulation crisis in some countries..Don't you answer the question yourself?
*Overpopulation wasn't a crisis before, someday the world is going to end and it is one of it's sign that it is near. Like every organism shows some signs before his death/end and soon naturally (or by man's actions ) 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.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2011)

SyGeek said:


> The more the complex the organism is the more it's lifespan is.



Not quite true.


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

^Yup doesn't apply to everything but I meant in a general sense to what I have been observing. But hey, instead of finding a grammatical fault with my statement, please prove with science that God doesn't exist.
BTW, Do you know if there's a missing direct link between early apes to Humans? I don't know if it is true cause I saw that in an episode of "The Simpsons"...lol..But can you clarify it? If it is true then my theory (in previous page) might make a LITTLE sense.


----------



## doomgiver (May 10, 2011)

wait for 2 weeks, mr SyGeek, i will get you then


----------



## sygeek (May 10, 2011)

^Sure thing bro, I'll be waiting..


----------



## speedyguy (May 13, 2011)

defination of god...theres no single one.....different people have different meanings... the best answer i have is an undefined power....

for me....theres no god...theres just a few undefined/undiscovered science.... whichever is proved is ofcourse science.....terms like galaxy evolution or source of life is still somewhat a mystery,,,agreed....that doesnt say its god who created....its just a mystery...may be we find answers soon.....like we had so far...

Enjoy~!



SyGeek said:


> ^If your wise enough to get my point, you'll know what I actually mean.



no offence intended...was just lightening things up a bit....i got ur point... 

Enjoy~!


----------



## sygeek (May 13, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> defination of god...theres no single one.....different people have different meanings... the best answer i have is an undefined power....
> 
> for me....theres no god...theres just a few undefined/undiscovered science.... whichever is proved is ofcourse science.....terms like galaxy evolution or source of life is still somewhat a mystery,,,agreed....that doesnt say its god who created....its just a mystery...may be we find answers soon.....like we had so far...


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.
_
Please read my above posts, starting from my first post in this thread._


----------



## speedyguy (May 13, 2011)

no sir...i have never come across a situation which would make me believe like that... i just believe what seems justified to me...

surely there are things, like i said, still unanswered but believing its just someone more complex would stop us from trying to discover it.  i dont have any disrespect for ppl who believe in god but im surely not one of them.

Enjoy~!


----------



## sygeek (May 13, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> no sir...i have never come across a situation which would make me believe like that... i just believe what seems justified to me...


*sigh* You are just too used to it to notice it. 


> surely there are things, like i said, still unanswered but believing its just someone more complex would stop us from trying to discover it.  i dont have any disrespect for ppl who believe in god but im surely not one of them.
> 
> Enjoy~!


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.


----------



## speedyguy (May 14, 2011)

if u believe its god why do u want to discover it... leave it to god... show some respect to his creation... why to call such people ignorant... humans just want an answer to these at the same time say its much more complex (and its god)... do they really know what exactly they want...

if people come out of some danger... they call gods miracle but what about the ones who couldnt make it.... its just an imagination by the humans in different forms based on their religions...

at the same time i agree to this fact that, we humans, do need to believe that something more powerful is always watching us so we dont create any sins... but its all mind games.... god is a fiction and will remain so till humans believe

Enjoy~!


----------



## sygeek (May 14, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> if u believe its god why do u want to discover it... leave it to god... show some respect to his creation... why to call such people ignorant... humans just want an answer to these at the same time say its much more complex (and its god)... do they really know what exactly they want...


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.
God hasn't just created the whole universe just for the sake of it. God knows that someday we would be able to use our knowledge to our utmost limit and discover the greatest mysteries of the worlds, and use it for our OWN GOOD.


> if people come out of some danger... they call gods miracle but what about the ones who couldnt make it.... its just an imagination by the humans in different forms based on their religions...


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. 


> at the same time i agree to this fact that, we humans, do need to believe that something more powerful is always watching us so we dont create any sins... but its all mind games.... god is a fiction and will remain so till humans believe


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).

_Please try to read my posts (CAREFULLY) starting from the first post in my thread, even if it sounds stupid and wrong to you, do it just for the sake of the argument. Without reading any of my posts it would be just mindless of me to argue on the same topic again and again._


----------



## Faun (May 14, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> at the same time i agree to this fact that, we humans, do need to believe that something more powerful is always watching us so we dont create any sins...
> Enjoy~!



Wait...so I can kill creatures without any worries because I don't fear any super being ?  Wonder what has stopped me uptil now 



SyGeek said:


> 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).



You have put all the people with notion "live life to the fullest and enjoy till you can" in a single bracket.


----------



## sygeek (May 14, 2011)

Faun said:


> You have put all the people with notion "live life to the fullest and enjoy till you can" in a single bracket.


Yes I did, I was too lazy to explain it all in a full paragraph unless you know what I mean.


----------



## speedyguy (May 14, 2011)

SyGeek said:


> it.
> God hasn't just created the whole universe just for the sake of it. God knows that someday we would be able to use our knowledge to our utmost limit and discover the greatest mysteries of the worlds, and use it for our OWN GOOD.



Question....how do u know that...???



SyGeek said:


> 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.



have u ever come across some situations where a very decent person dies such a torturing death and his/her family and loved ones suffer for there entire life. i have seen such people and the most faith keepers on god were screaming "how can god be so cruel".... is he really so cruel....??? ur right its a milisecond work for death but its not god who decides whether he should die or not? death never judges a person...it comes to good as well as bad.... 



SyGeek said:


> 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).



sir, i have seen many drinkers and party going ones survive much more than healthy ones. some healthy ones dont get to live life to fullest. well, god decided he shouldn't. how does he justify?



SyGeek said:


> _Please try to read my posts (CAREFULLY) starting from the first post in my thread, even if it sounds stupid and wrong to you, do it just for the sake of the argument. Without reading any of my posts it would be just mindless of me to argue on the same topic again and again._



i would really love to but in that case i joined this thread some more than a year or two ago and have around 100+ posts in this...can't ask anyone to read through all before talking to me. even im repeating stuffs which i already discussed for your sake. hope u understand. apologies for inconvenience.

ps: im not atheist since childhood but had faced tons of consequences which made me believe either god is just imagination or is a too cruel entity. instead of showing dis-respect to others beliefs i chose the 1st option. 

Enjoy~!


----------



## sygeek (May 14, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> Question....how do u know that...???


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.


> have u ever come across some situations where a very decent person dies such a torturing death and his/her family and loved ones suffer for there entire life. i have seen such people and the most faith keepers on god were screaming "how can god be so cruel".... is he really so cruel....??? ur right its a milisecond work for death but its not god who decides whether he should die or not? death never judges a person...it comes to good as well as bad....



It was their time, everyone can't just die a simple and easy death, can they? Unless the family is aware (or believe) that there will be some other consequences after death, good or bad, good for the good and bad for the bad (not re-incarnation), they will grieve for some time but will be sure that the good person will have a good consequence after death.  Death comes to everyone in any way possible and it is decided by God (the world is planned in that way). How can you say God does not decide who will die, when and how? Ever thought about it?


> sir, i have seen many drinkers and party going ones survive much more than healthy ones. some healthy ones dont get to live life to fullest. well, god decided he shouldn't. how does he justify?


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.


> ps: im not atheist since childhood but had faced tons of consequences which made me believe either god is just imagination or is a too cruel entity. instead of showing dis-respect to others beliefs i chose the 1st option.


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 .


----------



## speedyguy (May 14, 2011)

SyGeek said:


> 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.



yes i see around....yes its seems planned...but by man.....where we live today is what we planned and the resources were the nature....and again coming back...where did nature come from....nobody knows... but the way of saying "i dont know" is "god created"....



SyGeek said:


> It was their time, everyone can't just die a simple and easy death, can they? Unless the family is aware (or believe) that there will be some other consequences after death, good or bad, good for the good and bad for the bad (not re-incarnation), they will grieve for some time but will be sure that the good person will have a good consequence after death. Death comes to everyone in any way possible and it is decided by God (the world is planned in that way). How can you say God does not decide who will die, when and how? Ever thought about it?
> 
> 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



thats my question...how do we know what consequence one survives after death. how do we know what happens after death? we just imagine it we dont know it..theres no source of our information, no good or bad human comes back 2 tell us what they faced after death.why do we make such assumptions... we havnt seen it. and what about people alive who suffer someone else's life loss... they are not dieing to face good consequences. why them?



SyGeek said:


> 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



Exactly my point...positive or negative...its all about "thinking", no reality...

Enjoy~!


----------



## sygeek (May 14, 2011)

Why are you just saying God exists and we don't know about it, people aren't that stupid to believe in someone's word of mouth. There were experiences people had earlier that led them to this thought and I'm serious. 

Dude, all of the information is available in any religion's scriptures, have you noticed that many religions share the same thoughts and points. Incidents and deep thinking let me into the believe in God in a logical way such that, it makes sense. If you don't believe in God, you won't believe in scriptures (in a simple way, scriptures = word of God, I know that sounds illogical but unless you think about it deeply, you won't get the actual meaning and even if I explain you my sense, which I tried in earlier posts, you still won't understand it).

It is all about thinking..?! Thinking makes you differ from reality and fiction, people who believe, BELIEVE. People who don't believe have different thoughts.

Here's a question, do you believe that every invention in this world (earth) is created (or do you believe it just exists)?

_This may be offensive (sorry) but actually your earlier posts just mention that it is not possible because God does not exist (and not why), which makes me believe that you won't ever believe in God even if I try hard to explain it to you. Unless and until God comes to talk to you for himself (in your way) you won't believe it which leads to no sense of continuing the argument._


----------



## speedyguy (May 14, 2011)

SyGeek said:


> Why are you just saying God exists and we don't know about it, people aren't that stupid to believe in someone's word of mouth. There were experiences people had earlier that led them to this thought and I'm serious.



The people we are talking about have also spread these by word of mouth only. A thousands of evidence showing impossibility doesn't alter our thinking whereas a small clue makes us a 100% believer, blindly.  



SyGeek said:


> Dude, all of the information is available in any religion's scriptures, have you noticed that many religions share the same thoughts and points. Incidents and deep thinking let me into the believe in God in a logical way such that, it makes sense. If you don't believe in God, you won't believe in scriptures (in a simple way, scriptures = word of God, I know that sounds illogical but unless you think about it deeply, you won't get the actual meaning and even if I explain you my sense, which I tried in earlier posts, you still won't understand it).



Religious books are written by humans only not god himself. So that is again the case of nothing more than a faith. If i think deeply i can make anything happen in virtual reality. Thinking is a very strong process thats why we say it eats more calories(sorry off-topic). My point is, we can make it look very real but it still remains just an imagination.



SyGeek said:


> Here's a question, do you believe that every invention in this world (earth) is created (or do you believe it just exists)?



Answer: No. I have been telling this. Scientific inventions exist but some mystery behind natural discoveries are pending. But my alternate answer won't be "God created them".



SyGeek said:


> _This may be offensive (sorry) but actually your earlier posts just mention that it is not possible because God does not exist (and not why), which makes me believe that you won't ever believe in God even if I try hard to explain it to you. Unless and until God comes to talk to you for himself (in your way) you won't believe it which leads to no sense of continuing the argument._



Lol. Dude, ur not my well wisher that u want to make me change my mind for the good as u think. this is a discussion forum where we just keep our views. need not convince anyone, just justify why you think what u think. we both know we ain't gonna change each others mind. and god wont do that so your right, i wont ever believe  

Anyways respecting your conclusion we shall end this here. Had a nice time debating with u. At least you concluded normally people here don't just stop unless they happen to stay disconnected for a while so a matured move by you. Hope to see you again. So long then. Tk care. 

Enjoy~!


----------



## Demon Lord (May 15, 2011)

Yes god is there.
where? 
Anyone knows?
God is not there!
I mean he has gone for a vacation to a different planet and has told me to take over.So I am ur new God;Demon Lord.

Ah just kidding.
I believe in science not something which is non existent!


----------



## thenotsodarkknight (May 19, 2011)

dudes

god is present 
but this jesus **** is all crap
its an aristocrats idea to make all people civilized by making up some dumb commandments
even the bible is completely astrological see zeitgeist the movie if you want to
just respect and love everyone and you will never get f****d with


----------



## Sarath (May 19, 2011)

I believe in God

My exams are due in a week.


----------



## doomgiver (May 20, 2011)

Demon Lord said:


> Yes god is there.
> where?
> Anyone knows?
> God is not there!
> ...


way to go, we need more rational and logical people like you.
why waste your time with things that are beyond understanding when there are better things to do?

sygeek, let us assume what you said is true, so god exists, but we dont know anything about it. 
if you were in the dark ages, would it be logical to pray to the "nuke" god or the "bijli" god? those things were not invented till then. 



thenotsodarkknight said:


> dudes
> 
> god is present
> but this jesus **** is all crap
> ...


yes, jesus is complete load of bull$hit. that book, bible, will make a hollywood blockbuster.
so much drama, and best of all, it was extensively changed and republished in the 14th century




Sarath said:


> I believe in God
> 
> My exams are due in a week.



didnt do diddley for me. fail in maths again


----------



## tkin (May 22, 2011)

God exists, Here's the proof:


Spoiler



*blog.seanbonner.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1246818583060.jpg


----------



## doomgiver (May 22, 2011)

no, thats a pan-dimensional hyperbeing who has come to the earth to save us from Tacgnol.

you of all people should know better.


on a side note, how the f do you do spoilers?


----------



## tkin (May 22, 2011)

doomgiver said:


> no, thats a pan-dimensional hyperbeing who has come to the earth to save us from Tacgnol.
> 
> you of all people should know better.
> 
> ...


That is LONGCAT.

Any way use this [SPOILE_R][/SPOILER]
Remove the underscore.


----------



## doomgiver (May 22, 2011)

nice.

exactly, thats LONGCAT, come to save us from TACGNOL, on the day of the VELOCIRAPTURE.


----------



## tkin (May 22, 2011)

Food for thought:
*2.bp.blogspot.com/_DBmS5Qnt5qI/TPFbXn7TujI/AAAAAAAAJtY/YzixcOeQnK0/s1600/die+philosoraptor-die-god.png


----------



## doomgiver (May 22, 2011)

all believers, read this and commit mass suicide to get closer to god.

and leave the earth to us poor folks

this was the most confusing philosoraptor quote ever.
i had to wrap it around my head a few times to make sense of it


----------



## sygeek (May 23, 2011)

People with different opinions cannot conclude with each other. Let's just say, God doesn't exist for you because you cannot logically evaluate him, but it does for us because we believe in him through personal experiences and have been successful in evaluating Him to a limit.

What I'm asking here is, I respect your opinion, please respect mine, but you don't have to agree with it.


----------



## Sarath (May 23, 2011)

+1 for this^^^
leave the believers alone and leave the non believers alone too.


SyGeek said:


> People with different opinions cannot conclude with each other. Let's just say, God doesn't exist for you because you cannot logically evaluate him, but it does for us because we believe in him through personal experiences and have been successful in evaluating Him to a limit.
> 
> What I'm asking here is, I respect your opinion, please respect mine, but you don't have to agree with it.


----------



## doomgiver (May 23, 2011)

world war 5 will be fought between religion and science


----------



## rhitwick (May 23, 2011)

I do no understand one thing, when people want respect to their individual opinion and want to maintain individuality why do they involve in such discussions where such thing is impossible? 

This thread is not for making truce between Science and God. Only one can survive here. If you want ur idol to survive keep pouring points on its favor.


----------



## doomgiver (May 23, 2011)

alright, lock up this topic.


----------



## tkin (May 23, 2011)

Meet the non believer:
*i.ytimg.com/vi/tvJMia11QLw/hqdefault.jpg

PS: This is fight club, so everything is allowed, TO WAR.


----------



## doomgiver (May 23, 2011)

*static.funnyjunk.com/gifs/machinegun_2.gif
LET THE BATTLE BEGIN!!!


----------



## tkin (May 23, 2011)

Lets spam this thread to oblivion:
*assets.diylol.com/hfs/6db/ee7/a01/resized/philosoraptor-meme-generator-so-if-guns-don-t-kill-people-people-kill-people-does-that-mean-toasters-don-t-toast-toast-toast-toast-toast-ffad48.jpg


----------



## doomgiver (May 23, 2011)

hahaha, mindfscked!!

toasters dont toast toast, but toast toast toast << EPIC!


----------



## Sarath (May 23, 2011)

I gave up trying to understand that


----------



## tkin (May 23, 2011)

Sarath said:


> I gave up trying to understand that


Some more:
*3.bp.blogspot.com/-cEuCKUyYKXE/TcFRPX4FbHI/AAAAAAAAAeA/UooUgMMxl1o/s1600/philosoraptor+-+god+created+man+in+his+own+image.jpg

*dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Philosoraptor-ponders.jpg

*files.sharenator.com/memes_philosoraptor_babies_Meme_base_13-s360x360-156561-580.jpg

Hey guys, someone speed this thread up:
*t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoJw1X3D6B75qbygS1JpP0BqkZaT3HD3RL7_P34r4Zs-ZTHsEf&t=1


----------



## doomgiver (May 23, 2011)

Sarath said:


> I gave up trying to understand that



toasters dont toast, but toast toast toast.

here, i'll explain.

toasters dont toast
toasters is an object(noun), toast is a verb

toast(1) toast(2) toast(3)
toast(1) is a noun, same as toasters above, toast(2) is a verb, while toast(3) is the 2nd noun(or object, i forget which), which is being talked about(toasted).

it means, toasters toast nahi karte, toast(1) toast(3) ko toast(2) karta hai

i cant put it in simpler terms


----------



## Sarath (May 23, 2011)

haha that is quite an explaination. Understood. Roger that!


----------



## Faun (May 23, 2011)

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo


----------



## doomgiver (May 23, 2011)

Sarath said:


> haha that is quite an explaination. Understood. Roger that!


thank you, thank you, it was nothing at all


Faun said:


> Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo


eh, whats that mean? kala akshar bhaais barabar?


----------



## DarkDante (May 23, 2011)

ROFl at Toasters =D


----------



## sygeek (May 24, 2011)

Good work hijacking this thread (and making it off-topic) tkin. 


rhitwick said:


> I do no understand one thing, when people want respect to their individual opinion and want to maintain individuality why do they involve in such discussions where such thing is impossible?
> 
> This thread is not for making truce between Science and God. Only one can survive here. If you want ur idol to survive keep pouring points on its favor.



So you want each of the side to fight till the end of the world and disrespect each others opinion. Hmm...We should totally go on for a war with Pak.

We should make truce in the sense to not DISRESPECT or make fun of others opinion, argumenting with the opposite side is fine. Everyone here knows that this discussion will never come to an end..

You often may have heard people asking you to respect others religion, Why? So as to always be open-minded and have a sense of respect for them, are they not human? You don't have to  believe others opinion, just respect it.

Respect and individuality have a HUGE difference and discussing about it is beyond the topic of this thread.


----------



## doomgiver (May 24, 2011)

BANNED FOR OFFTOPIC!!!

i have the flames of war!!!


----------



## eggman (Jul 4, 2011)

sygeek said:


> BTW, Do you know if there's a missing direct link between early apes to Humans? I don't know if it is true cause I saw that in an episode of "The Simpsons"...lol..But can you clarify it? If it is true then my theory (in previous page) might make a LITTLE sense.



YouTube - ‪How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists‬&rlm;



sygeek said:


> Yup, he does....... *I got surprisingly got out of it.*


How do you know that the prayer did the trick? 
Even if you haven't prayed the result would've been the same. If not, how do you know that it wouldn't ?



sygeek said:


> 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.)


It's just your imagination. 
I think that my dead dog talks to me , and gives me a beautiful bark.
That doesn't mean he is there. It's just that the though is comforting.Just like yours.


sygeek said:


> What makes you think he doesn't have anything for us, God is much more complex than us which means, MORE FREE WILL. God can do even the most impossible thing you can ever think of because he is the most complex!


Can you prove that? At best it's just your assumption.



sygeek said:


> No, I didn't mean that with that statement. I meant MAN has not evolved from Bacteria VIA EVOLUTION directly. I totally believe that bacteria might have evolved into  a more complex being, like even an ape (and God with the reference to it would have made a more complex being, powerful enough to survive in the world, while considering the balance of the nature), Evolution totally makes sense to me, probably is true* but man has not evolved from bacteria VIA EVOLUTION directly*.


Can you prove that or atleast have any lead which made you think this way.
At best, it's just your assumption.



sygeek said:


> 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.


Brrr......in the term nature's selection , Nature doesn't have a functional brain or way of doing . Please understand what it means.



sygeek said:


> I meant God has created life but it is scattered along long distances because


Can you prove that or atleast have any lead which made you think this way.
At best, it's just your assumption.



sygeek said:


> God knew that one day or the other man would certainly discover it.


Many problems with that.
1)How do you know that God knew it. At best it's your assumption.
2)You just said that GOD is the most complex blah blah and we human dogs can understand him. And now you being a human, according to yourself an inferior being and unable to know how god works, knows that God knew something.
I LOL'ed 



sygeek said:


> You are trying to twist my sentences just to prove your point.
> *1. It's God's will if my pray is worth accepting or not, even some of my insensible prayers weren't answered.
> 2. Sometimes if your prayers come in the way of the predicted DIVINE PLAN, it probably won't be accepted at that time then.  *



Same set of problems.
Point 1: How do you know what is god's will and what is not. 
Aren't you the inferior being.
Point 2: Stupidest logic ever. 
It's like saying , I'm watching Sachin bat and wish (or pray to god) that he hits boundary in the next ball. After a couple of delivery , he hits it.  So I can attribute that my prayers got answered after a couple of delivery , but before that it didn't because God has some problem with it. Lol

It's more like some of your wish (prayers ) come true and some doesn't. That's fact of life and probability having fun with it.
Its noway connected to God or stuff , apart from your wishful thinking.





sygeek said:


> 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).
> (If you are thinking why do god's will let us "do bad things to others/bad things happens to others", see my above replies)



Do you have any prove , apart from your wishful thinking , that God did all that. And moreover, how do you know what is God's will. Lol...

Me off to sleep now. More theist pwning saved for later..


----------



## Neuron (Jul 4, 2011)

*@eggman* : I would be glad if you can give me some explanations to these 2.



Neuron said:


> 1.Every event(except one) occurring in the universe has a cause.
> Suppose an event A was caused by an event B and B by C and C by D and so on.BUT,this chain cannot be infinitely long.If it is then there is no first event since every event X_n has a parent event(or cause) X_n-1.So there must be a first event which occurred without any cause.Thus one of the basic principles of science has already been violated.There is no way on earth science is going to successfully explain why/how this occurred.
> 
> 2.We live in the present.ie, the present time,not past neither future.But,think how long is the present time?
> Surely less than one second and also less than one nano second or even less than (1/10000000) of a nano second.ie,the length of 'present' should be so small such that it cannot be any further small.And there is only one number that satisfy this and its zero(0).Take any other number,a smaller value can be found by adding a 0 after the decimal point.Like(0.001>0.000001>0.0000000001>........>0).There you go.We live in 'present' of length zero and yet we live or do we?.


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 4, 2011)

for 1.
for no cause at all, i will bump off the mods of this forum. good enough to be random??? hell yeah.

for 2.
how do you know we actually "live"? all this could be bull$#!t.


----------



## Neuron (Jul 4, 2011)

^^what??


----------



## eggman (Jul 4, 2011)

Neuron said:


> *@eggman* : I would be glad if you can give me some explanations to these 2.
> 
> 1.Every event(except one) occurring in the universe has a cause.
> Suppose an event A was caused by an event B and B by C and C by D and so on.BUT,this chain cannot be infinitely long.If it is then there is no first event since every event X_n has a parent event(or cause) X_n-1.*So there must be a first event which occurred without any cause.*Thus one of the basic principles of science has already been violated.*There is no way on earth science is going to successfully explain why/how this occurred.*



True. I agree that every event has to have a parent event which happened some time before the current event. And it seems obvious , because we experience time as a continuous event that seems to have no start or end.
You're assuming that the initial event (root of all events, maybe big bang) happened at a moment when  time existed before that moment. 
But what science tells you (although with not 100% confidence) is that TIME itself did not exist before that event. There was nothing but singularity before that. There was no TIME before that moment. i.e. if you have a time machine and keep moving the dial backwards and backwards , the dial would get stuck at that moment. Since there is no TIME before that , it can not go further in reverse.
I know, it still doesn't answer your question, that what was the trigger of that event. Why did it happen? What was it's reason and what was it's purpose (if it really had one). 
Unfortunately ,_ at this moment _ science can't tell you with certainty. Yes, it has theories and speculations but nothing is 100% sure. 
But, it doesn't mean that we will never be able to find out. Every day science is getting closer to it and (my expectations from it's track record) is that one day it will find out the reason. It might happen, that it may raise 5 more questions  while answering that .
I would recommend you to watch an excellent lecture :
YouTube - ‪'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009‬&rlm; .

The sad fact is , we don't know everything at this moment and ofcourse it'll be great if we had the answers to everything. But for the unanswered questions , if you say "God did it" , it's not right , although it will quench your thirst . The reason is:
1)There is no way to test it . And there will never be. The thought is comforting , but it is not the truth.
2) If you assume God did it, then you will never have the desire to find out more and thus blocking your means to look for answers.  



Neuron said:


> 2.We live in the present.ie, the present time,not past neither future.But,think how long is the present time?
> Surely less than one second and also less than one nano second or even less than (1/10000000) of a nano second.ie,the length of 'present' should be so small such that it cannot be any further small.*And there is only one number that satisfy this and its zero(0).*Take any other number,a smaller value can be found by adding a 0 after the decimal point.Like(0.001>0.000001>0.0000000001>........>0) .There you go.We live in 'present' of length zero and yet we live or do we?.


Sorry but wrong. Absolutely wrong. It tends to zero, but is not zero.
Consider a line . It is obvious that it exists. But it made up of smaller particles. 
On a computer screen it might have been made of 10 pixels. But of course the pixel can be divided further and further and further. But do you say that at the end of it , that line is made of some basic _atom_ unit , which is of length 0? Obviously it can't be true , because if you put any number of that unit (of length  0) that answer would still be zero , since  anything x 0 = 0 (except infinity ) . The truth is you can never reach one basic _atom_ unit. It might suck , because you would want to get to it. But you can't . However you can operate mathematically on those unit , using calculus ( concept of Delta). But unfortunately, you can't isolate it .
Time , the 4th dimension , is just like that linear line except that we can't control our movement in that dimension like the other 3. 
The Delta(time) , the smallest change of time , will always have a value but can't be realized as a measurable unit. 

Hope it helps. The basic questions of life are the most mind boggling.  But saying "God did it or made it this way " just gives you a reason to give up your responsibility to find out more .


----------



## Neuron (Jul 4, 2011)

eggman said:


> Sorry but wrong. Absolutely wrong. It tends to zero, but is not zero.



Yep.This might be the truth.But still confusing.



eggman said:


> Hope it helps. The basic questions of life are the most mind boggling.  But saying "God did it or made it this way " just gives you a reason to give up your responsibility to find out more .



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


----------



## eggman (Jul 5, 2011)

Neuron said:


> Yep.This might be the truth.But still confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Glad to help 
It's not improbable, but there is not one evidence, except our blind faith (and personal experiences, which can be easily misinterpreted by the person) to believe its' existence. 
Moreover, it defies any logic. (Now don't say GOD doesn't have a logic, or it has it's own set of logic blah blah.....it is again you assumption ) .


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Jul 7, 2011)

If god existed, why do we have multiple religions, that too fighting and defying each other?

Why the hell doesnt God come and say what is right/wrong?.


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 7, 2011)

haha, they will say that their god is different, so why should we listen to other's gods?

there is no evidence that something like a god exists, so why bother debating?


----------



## Alok (Jul 8, 2011)

^^


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Jul 8, 2011)

I read an article which proves google is god lol.


----------



## lugia (Jul 8, 2011)

Just because so many people believe in god doesn't mean it is true.Till the fifteenth century earth was considered to be flat in Europe(another myth spread by religion) and it took Christopher Columbus to go around the world to finally prove them wrong.
Its true we don't know about everything but its better to say i don't know rather than saying god did it.


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 8, 2011)

Extreme Gamer said:


> I read an article which proves google is god lol.


that is one worthy god, as long it doesnt leak personal info 



lugia said:


> Just because so many people believe in god doesn't mean it is true.Till the fifteenth century earth was considered to be flat in Europe(another myth spread by religion) and it took Christopher Columbus to go around the world to finally prove them wrong.
> Its true we don't know about everything but its better to say i don't know rather than saying god did it.



best first post by a newbie, ever


----------



## Neuron (Aug 15, 2011)

My views have changed since the past month when i read the wikipedia article on free will.
Stephen Hawking says that free will is just an illusion which i think must be true since everything happening in the universe is bound to some laws and every thought that develop in our brain is related to the environmental conditions and also the brain structure which indirectly is related with the past events.
Now if there is no free will then well, nobody is responsible for what they do.If that's the case then there can't be a hell or heaven and the chance for the existence of a god becomes less.Even if he exists he cannot be all powerful since he too is bound to these rules.
However,there s still a small chance that this isn't the case.


----------



## doomgiver (Aug 15, 2011)

no free will = no responsibility.
we "know"/understand intuitively that we are responsible for our own actions, so there is no god.

else lets go on a rampage like the london folks and then tell the police that "it wasnt me", lol


----------



## Neuron (Aug 15, 2011)

Read the book 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.I am going to.


----------



## doomgiver (Aug 15, 2011)

no. i am not going to read them.

reason? no money  dont worry, i'll get them as soon as i get some cash.


----------



## Neuron (Aug 22, 2011)

Or listen to these 2
[YOUTUBE]SHSLt8W0hME[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]WqMWFhtx5d0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MohsinMan99 (Aug 23, 2011)

It's a debate that has been going on  since years:

Predestination Vs Free Will


----------



## nakulp (Sep 19, 2011)

"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!


----------



## Faun (Sep 19, 2011)

^^clever of you


----------



## sygeek (Sep 19, 2011)

nakulp said:


> "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 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.


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Sep 19, 2011)

^lol, Jesus ? It wasn't even mentioned in his post.


----------



## The Conqueror (Sep 21, 2011)

Had a question in my English test today to write an article on Science and Religion. This thread has been useful for me


----------



## sygeek (Sep 21, 2011)

JojoTheDragon said:


> ^lol, Jesus ? It wasn't even mentioned in his post.


It was just an example.

The same way people commit to a relationship with their god or jesus, he committed to science... That doesn't even make sense, science is not a religion.


----------



## Neuron (Sep 21, 2011)

^^ Religions and gods aren't the only things that people can commit to.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 21, 2011)

Come on! U can commit to anything!!!

Forgot Oracle. Even u commit in programming


----------



## Neuron (Sep 21, 2011)

Well the point is that to what you are going to be committed is already determined.


----------



## meetdilip (Sep 21, 2011)

I like to believe that there is someone who will take care of my during bad times. It gives, hope and strength. I call it god.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 22, 2011)

^Dude thats not god, thats me!!! Namakharam !!!


----------



## sygeek (Sep 22, 2011)

Neuron said:


> ^^ Religions and gods aren't the only things that people can commit to.



Yes, but read the whole context. If I say a quote about religion and then say I'm committed to science, what does it represents? He's following it like a religion, which it isn't.

Let's say he said a quote about religion and then said I'm committed to programming. Would that make sense altogether, learning the point he's referring to?


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Sep 22, 2011)

Agreed. Science is full of holes. But religion has more holes 

God never said that you have to visit temples and crowd around his statues. Why do people trample each other to see a stupid statue? God should be appalled and he should call on some "Aakashvani" BS or come in one of his hundreds of thousands of forms and set things straight.

BTW Stephen Hawking says that the creationist theory is invalid 

I don't know the specifics but look it up in internet. I think there was a tiny article in the unwind section of a much earlier digit issue.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 22, 2011)

I've one question...Re you sure God is a "he", not "she"?


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Sep 22, 2011)

Thats his pronoun.

Technically god should be 'it'


----------



## speedyguy (Sep 27, 2011)

@Extreme Gamer : i got a mail showing an image of a car which almost fell off a clip after loosing control but every one was safe staying at the edge. the punch line was "now do you believe god exists". ok agreed god saved them and it wasn't a consequence. i mean every accidents are not that lucky but still lets agree for a second.

now i have a different situation here, in these worship places in india, there are hundreds killed every year in stampede. why no one mentions the same quote there? what's their fault who are killed? worshiping? or is it God only who does that to help india out with population?

Enjoy~!


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 27, 2011)

God did not want them to live!!!

He's God, he can do anything and he's not answerable to you!


----------



## Sarath (Sep 27, 2011)

God will exist till science makes a little more progress. 

I keep wondering a world full of aetheists would suck. Religion runs on "*Unexplained scientific phenomenon*" and "*Early childhood brainwashing*" (something like ROM, cannot/impossible to erase) but then no more festivals. That would suck.


----------



## sygeek (Sep 27, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> @Extreme Gamer : i got a mail showing an image of a car which almost fell off a clip after loosing control but every one was safe staying at the edge. the punch line was "now do you believe god exists". ok agreed god saved them and it wasn't a consequence. i mean every accidents are not that lucky but still lets agree for a second.
> 
> now i have a different situation here, in these worship places in india, there are hundreds killed every year in stampede. why no one mentions the same quote there? what's their fault who are killed? worshiping? or is it God only who does that to help india out with population?
> 
> Enjoy~!


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.

Yes, he is. But not in our reality, not in our falsified reality. Imagine praying for someone at his deathbed but he still dies. You lose faith, because God killed that guy despite you praying for him.

What some people don't understand is that, God has to treat the world has a whole for the betterment of everyone. If some people die, it may be for the better of the rest of the society. When relatives die, someone who is close to you, its to create the balance in nature while at the same time taking the person's deeds and other stuff as a factor. But it is not necessarily applicable for the cause of HIS good all the time.

If you imagine someone as complex as God who looks over us, will he save a few people from an accident, if they're a cause of a major accident in the future OR if they will affect the divine plan, in some way or the other. And, if there were no accidents, we would be dying of overpopulation sooner than the where our current race is going.

Miracles and accidents are pretty much the same.


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Sep 27, 2011)

@Speedyguy:



Extreme Gamer said:


> God never said that you have to visit temples and crowd around his statues. Why do people trample each other to see a stupid statue? God should be appalled and he should call on some "Aakashvani" BS or come in one of his hundreds of thousands of forms and set things straight.



Didn't I write what you just said? 
How will he? He does not exist.

@sygeek:If everything is predetermined, then you are suggesting intelligent design. Clearly that falsifies the theory of evolution, where Natural selection is suggested, which is random.

People do not die because god decided so. They die because of events around them. 

I could shoot you and you may or may not die. It depends on where the damage occurs i.e. where the bullet hits, which depends on external factors, like distance, aim, weapon stability, wind, humidity, Coriolis effect, thermals, elevation difference, gravity; the amount of bullet penetration, which depends on force of the bullet, distance, air resistance, body resistance to name a few. These factors vary every second, and themselves are dependent on each other and other factors, which ma or may not depend on even more factors.

See where I am getting? It is random. Probabilities is a well established field of mathematics. The concept itself defies the existence of god.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 27, 2011)

Ya....festivals.

I would be really sad if all bengalis become atheist one day and they stop celebrating Durga Puja.  

Nope, God exists (till we find something similar reason for such festivals)


----------



## sygeek (Sep 27, 2011)

rhitwick said:


> God did not want them to live!!!
> 
> He's God, he can do anything and he's not answerable to you!


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.

Note: I'm using the "technical" term of reality, not the everyday usage word.


----------



## Sarath (Sep 27, 2011)

sygeek said:


> 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.
> 
> Note: I'm using the "technical" term of reality, not the everyday usage word.



Hey mods here do answer. They obviously let you know why you are getting screwed by them 

If God does exist then I am sure he is busy somewhere else minting new planets.



> What some people don't understand is that, God has to treat the world has a whole for the betterment of everyone. If some people die, it may be for the better of the rest of the society. When relatives die, someone who is close to you, its to create the balance in nature while at the same time taking the person's deeds and other stuff as a factor. But it is not necessarily applicable for the cause of HIS good all the time.



I am surprised at how people treat God. Worship and pamper at first like a superior being. Then order around, save my relative, save my exam paper (most common one ), 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.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 27, 2011)

Sometimes I wonder should we have law and order at all?!!!

God is doing everything. God knows everything and if some one gets killed, robbed or raped today that must have some bigger role. 

Like some other person not getting killed, not robbed or raped. That some other person must have been very close to God, very dear and important. So he/she has to live in expense of this poor soul's life and dignity.

Sometimes, I wonder (I wonder too much you see!) if all the theists look back on the logics they put to explain an incident in favor of God.


----------



## Sarath (Sep 27, 2011)

Theist are more into science than us actually. You know they need to see every scientific phenomenon to make sure they are not quoting one which has already been proved. 

Its a tough job. Give 'em some breathing space.


----------



## sygeek (Sep 27, 2011)

rhitwick said:


> Sometimes I wonder should we have law and order at all?!!!
> 
> God is doing everything. God knows everything and if some one gets killed, robbed or raped today that must have some bigger role.
> 
> ...


It is not necessarily good or bad. MORE OVER, you're talking about free will, not accidents which come in unexpected.

So, human is responsible for his wrong-doing in this case, he OBVIOUSLY can't predict what will happen to his victim to save someone else.

See, I know what you're talking about. I've had these questions tonnes of time. GOD IS ALL LOVING and all that BS is false. God is all loving but not directly, not in your little own world. I advice you do a little study on "reality" (youtube).

God's reality is pretty much what reality is. Ours is just falsified, we haven't even discovered the true reality yet.

I'm just going to give an example which may look unfair, but have you ever read about quantum physics. Its full of MIND-BOGGLING things that although are true and proved, yet they are UNBELIEVABLE, its like you're talking about (PROVED AND TRUE) fantasy stuff. That is where our false reality fails.

Other than that, to be honest, I'm not your everyday orthodox theist. I don't believe in the same spirituality (with the same mindset) that the average theist does. So on practical terms (on generalization), I believe in spirituality partially. I try to reason, I don't believe in half the (misintrepreted) stuff my mom talks about.


----------



## Sarath (Sep 27, 2011)

> God's reality is pretty much what reality is. Ours is just falsified, we haven't even discovered the true reality yet.



Please add "Inception Plot alarm" when posting such comments. Its is too taxing on the mind.


----------



## speedyguy (Sep 28, 2011)

@Extreme Gamer : my point was that i agree with you and was trying to throw some more light on your comments!!!

@sygeek : so you mean my sarcasm was not actually a sarcasm. god do make accidents happen to get a control over population and stuffs like that. if its really in hands of god why does he allow these things to happen. why he allowed over population rather than killing people. why he allowed evil people to get birth so he makes them suffer after they do all the bad stuffs. on what grounds do we say god is controlling everything that is happening. there is no such base to it. 

like already mentioned above, shoot me at my heart and i will die. just pointing a gun at my heart wont work. that does not make you god because you just had a control over my life. its all about our deeds. 

Enjoy~!


----------



## sygeek (Sep 28, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> @Extreme Gamer : my point was that i agree with you and was trying to throw some more light on your comments!!!
> 
> @sygeek : so you mean my sarcasm was not actually a sarcasm. god do make accidents happen to get a control over population and stuffs like that. if its really in hands of god why does he allow these things to happen. why he allowed over population rather than killing people. why he allowed evil people to get birth so he makes them suffer after they do all the bad stuffs. on what grounds do we say god is controlling everything that is happening. there is no such base to it.


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.

Like I said, people aren't evil by birth, they're evil by their will, free will. 


Exactly, there is no proper scientific base to it, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place then. Okay, imagine if there is someone so complex that he created and maintains the whole of universe. Will he just make everything work just like that? There is no magic mumbo jumbo here, it all happens in such a natural way that we're accustomed to, we can call it coincidence. 

Coincidence is a succession of events which leads to a specific eerie event. That's how God works, he doesn't just lay everything out directly in front of you. In practical terms, God works indirectly.

Talking about his base is the same as asking a dog about the inner workings of a human. We can never be as complex as God, even through evolution our race is destined to finish off before we can reach that amount of complexity.
*
TLDR*: Every action of God is justified in his reality, i.e. the true reality. But we fail to interpret it because our reality is falsified. The consequence, good or bad, the action is truly justified. Imagine all the millions of cancer patients who want to live their life, they die, people around them lose faith. That's our dynamic reality, falsified.


_For the people who are confused with the term reality._


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 28, 2011)

sygeek said:


> 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?
And if humans are failing and that is the devine plan then how are humans failing?



> Like I said, people aren't evil by birth, they're evil by their will, free will.


What is free will?
Men in nature are imitative. We copy since the first day we are born. walking, talking, every jesture, posture all.

Your actions today is not the result of your will, its the result of your ability to copy from others and how much of the copied material you remember. If you consider an action by someone else as a straight line
____________________________________________

and after copying and in time of repeating it in near future it would turn to like this,
_______   _______________   _____________________
Those gaps form due to your memorizing power and as you had to repeat it, you need to fill in the blanks...........and your uniqueness born thus.




> Exactly, there is no proper scientific base to it, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place then.


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.
Why do that? Why not defend your earlier argument, your earlier claim? If some incidents and unexplained phenomena are your proof of God being existing...then denying them even one incident one day makes you denying god if for one bit everyday.
You just move from topic to topic....nothing else.




> Okay, imagine if there is someone so complex that he created and maintains the whole of universe.


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?



> Will he just make everything work just like that? There is no magic mumbo jumbo here, it all happens in such a natural way that we're accustomed to, we can call it coincidence.



There is no co-incidence. Everything that happens, happens for a reason. I think you have never tried to trace back any events that seemed to be a co-incidence. 
Making an incidence unnatural and unpredictable makes it special, and makes you feel special and you either want to thank someone or blame someone (depending on the nature of the incident) thus god is brought again.

From now on when you see something happening, try asking why rather settling for "God's will". Accepting things as a result of God's will is easy but getting the answer of a "why" requires courage, enthusiasm and willingness to go on even when you are faced with a dead end.
Can you do it? 

(Task: find a person who has broken his/her hand someday. Try to get to the bbottom of that. Why his/her hand/leg/x is broken? Why that part is only broken not any other part? why its even broken? etc. )  



> Coincidence is a succession of events which leads to a specific eerie event.


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.



> That's how God works, he doesn't just lay everything out directly in front of you. In practical terms, God works indirectly.



And, how a co-incidence (or rather well explained and expected) incidence is a work of god?




> We can never be as complex as God, even through evolution our race is destined to finish off before we can reach that amount of complexity.


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.)

Though I do not completely agree with the theories of *Daniken* but he could answer your few queries.




> *
> TLDR*: Every action of God is justified in his reality, i.e. the true reality. But we fail to interpret it because our reality is falsified. The consequence, good or bad, the action is truly justified. Imagine all the millions of cancer patients who want to live their life, they die, people around them lose faith. That's our dynamic reality, falsified.


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?

If reality is is nothing but perspective of different persons then that might just be called point-of-view.


----------



## fractalnoize (Sep 28, 2011)

god (religion) either makes you a coward or  a terrorist !!


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Sep 28, 2011)

If god decides who will die and who will live. Why does he choose the innocents and not the criminals like Dawood Ibrahim?

Unless he is randomizing it, it doesnt make any sense.

If he is randomizing it then the basic tenet of the existence of god (intelligent design) is proved wrong, because intelligent design claims that a higher level of intelligence (i.e. god) caused this universe and in extension, earth to occur.

So you theists are f***ed over twice


----------



## Sarath (Sep 28, 2011)

Extreme Gamer said:


> If god decides who will die and who will live. Why does he choose the innocents and not the criminals like Dawood Ibrahim?



He has bigger plans that we humans cannot comprehend. Hence he lives. BTW god already blessed his last sons marraige (in *censored*istan). No media was allowed to attend the marraige and hence God could not be captured on film


----------



## speedyguy (Sep 29, 2011)

Sygeek: sir all your statements reflect only one thing and it is belief. Good youhave belief in something but does that really make you prove your point. Anything which humans find beyond understanding reach interpret it as actions of god. But theres no base to it.

Enjoy~!


----------



## Sarath (Sep 29, 2011)

It is difficult to make a theist not believe in God. 
Its is even more difficult to make an atheist believe in God.​


----------



## The Conqueror (Sep 29, 2011)

> *Anything which humans find beyond understanding reach interpret it as actions of god.* But theres no base to it.


I do not agree with this point.
For me, God is actually our own thoughts. It's like when you desire something, our thoughts somehow connect with the universe and make it happen. Watch The Secret.

I will make my reply more substantial once I am free today.



> now i have a different situation here, in these worship places in india, there are hundreds killed every year in stampede. why no one mentions the same quote there? what's their fault who are killed? worshiping? or is it God only who does that to help india out with population?





> If god decides who will die and who will live. Why does he choose the innocents and not the criminals like Dawood Ibrahim?
> 
> Unless he is randomizing it, it doesnt make any sense.



Of course, that's why we are humans. Everyone has freedom to go and kill anyone. The same freedom is given to all the animals. The rule of the nature " Survival of the fittest".

 Now when two are involved in a fight, God will not favour anyone. That's it!
One Decision may be good for one, but it is not applicable for everyone. *
In fact the concept of Good and Bad is not clear. Violence is often perceived as "Bad" but think about it again - when you eat vegetables you are also eating a "living" cell which was killed.* Should you be punished for eating it? Should you be punished for eating a chicken? 
For humanity and for the continuiation of our species we think terrorism is bad and that is very correct. But when you change your perspective, you can see that every organism has to compete for survival even among their own species.


> Everyday when the sun rises, a Lion awakes knowing it has to outrun a deer
> or be starved to death
> Everyday when the sun rises, a deer awakens knowing it has to outrun a Lion
> or embrace death
> ...


----------



## Sarath (Sep 29, 2011)

The Conqueror said:


> I do not agree with this point.
> For me, God is actually our own thoughts. It's like when you desire something, our thoughts somehow connect with the universe and make it happen. Watch The Secret.


Yeah I heard this is "Om Shaanti Om". 

Theists are actually happier since such fantasy reasoning is actually more pleasing than say that the possiblity of a success rate for you is this this and this based on permutations and combinations. Ofcourse an atheist would just come to a boring conclusion like he had a 1 in a million chances of landing the lottery and would revel only in the "winning money"; whereas the theist would revel in the fact that "God" had blessed him with such a bounty out of all the people and would even go ahead and offer, maybe free food to the poor etc or donate some and then be happy with the fact that he is so "bloody" rich.

You see atheist is more happy than theist. Being theist sucks and I know that but I cannot blind myself once I know the truth. 

*Its like you still believe in Santa Claus and hence your christmas is always  happier than mine.* (Since I know its my dad, I would be making calculations based on his salary and his interests, like if he would like buying what I asked for and then act like I don't know the secret and innocently ask for a gift that has the highest possibility of fruition)





> For humanity and for the continuiation of our species we think *terrorism is bad* and that is very correct. But when you change your perspective, you can see that every organism has to compete for survival even among their own species.


Survival? Why does he have to kill me for him to survive. Please use normal people as examples.

Please remember the rule:
Humans > Animals > Plants
Maybe you can take that exponentially. So comparing humans killing humans (terrorism) , humans killing animals (chicken) and then human killing plants is like comparing Ferrari to a Maruti. You need to level the arguments.

Esp when you are trying to say that god killed those people at temple because they killed vegetable 



> Now when two are involved in a fight, God will not favour anyone. That's it!



Bhagwan Krishna did favour Arjun in the battle of Kurukshektra. Umm point void! 

{I am trying to be secular but my knowledge is pretty limited to what I watched on TV and this is the only example I could muster}



> Everyday when the sun rises, a Lion awakes knowing it has to outrun a deer
> or be starved to death
> Everyday when the sun rises, a deer awakens knowing it has to outrun a Lion
> or embrace death
> ...



*All the organisms (animals) quoted above are atheists. Kindly quote atheists for exapmles.*


----------



## The Conqueror (Sep 29, 2011)

Sarath said:


> Esp when you are trying to say that god killed those people at temple because they killed vegetable


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.


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 29, 2011)

But, everything that happens is a work of God right? How come he's not responsible?


----------



## The Conqueror (Sep 29, 2011)

Well to clear things up,  I in no way mentioned God to be an authority who is in charge of the world. God is "God". Think about it. Who gave force necessary for the planets to revolve around the sun? And so on.. Every cause has a reason but what about the cause of 'that' reason?


rhitwick said:


> But, everything that happens is a work of God right? How come he's not responsible?



I would not be surprised to see that those who claim that they do not believe in god will have some god's idols in their house.


----------



## speedyguy (Sep 29, 2011)

point to be noted rhitwick 



> I do not agree with this point.
> For me, God is actually our own thoughts. It's like when you desire something, our thoughts somehow connect with the universe and make it happen. Watch The Secret.



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  , 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.

Enjoy~!


----------



## The Conqueror (Sep 29, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> point to be noted rhitwick
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From Google:
some·howAdverb/ˈsəmˌhou/
1. In some way; by some means.
By Some Means. The medium is unknown, but the the thing is known. Don't we use  arbitrary "assumptions" when proving things in Science?


----------



## rhitwick (Sep 29, 2011)

Why is it cool to idolize Superman/Batman/Etc-man and not Ram/Arjun/Hanuman?

We should have more movies on these epic figures.

Oh, sorry wrong thread...

Move to offtopic thread plz...


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Sep 29, 2011)

@The Conqueror: No.

They are classified as hypotheses, and have to be verified experimentally before the proposed information can be promoted to theory, which again is not proof.

Arbitrary assumptions, called hypotheses (singular- hypothesis) are used only to hold the explanation together. When experimentally verified, and thus, promoted to theory, it is just the most logical explanation available.

Remember newton's Laws of motion? Qualitatively they are correct (hence laws), but the calculation part was proved wrong by relativity (which wasn't Einstein's creation at all: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist and Fraud).

In a high level mathematics meet that was held in India, it was suggested that quantum theory can explain our "sentience" and "free thought" process. It was agreed to by most of the attendees (very senior-level mathematicians from around the planet).

Your mind's thought process works in a random manner, which cannot be god's will. If god is a higher level sentience, then to not defy his own principle he must be working under a 'super-god's' will and that 'super-god' under a 'hyper-god' and so on(infinitely) . If he is not, then automatically he is working under random thought, which defies the logic of sentience that you theists are saying.
You cant have randomization and intelligent design under the same roof.
If there are infinite levels of 'god' then god sounds really absurd doesn't it?

If it really was 'god's will', why would he make a mockery of himself in this thread? Why would he make us Atheists insult him. Its like calling yourself a dick.

@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  ).

There cant be different gods for different religions. That is like suggesting that the Bible god only created Jews (Christians came when humans were on earth for a VERY long time).
Its like suggesting that Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains (at least they're Atheists), Parsis etc are actually defying 'god's will', if god created everyone. Everyone knows Hindus have been around before Jews have.

There have been prehistoric religions too before Hindus came into existence (obviously). Which again defies the existence of God.

How is it that some theists believe in 200 gods, others only 10, others only 1? Decide, people.

How can we take any theist's words on god seriously if they cannot decide among themselves on the customs, principles and more importantly religious beliefs and the number of gods/goddesses etc BS that actually exist?


----------



## Sarath (Sep 29, 2011)

The Conqueror said:


> I would not be surprised to see that those who claim that they do not believe in god will have some god's idols in their house.



That reminds me. I haven't done the Puja for my bike. Been a year without it, scary.



Extreme Gamer said:


> @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  ).



Sarcasm or not? haha. You should know better what my true intentions in those words were. 

Don't worry. I am not making personal attacks on anyone so that should keep me safe. BTW I forgot what I typed, will check it out.


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Sep 29, 2011)

My house has 'god' idols.

My family, except my brother and I are theists.


----------



## speedyguy (Sep 30, 2011)

The Conqueror said:


> From Google:
> some·howAdverb/ˈsəmˌhou/
> 1. In some way; by some means.
> By Some Means. The medium is unknown, but the the thing is known. Don't we use  arbitrary "assumptions" when proving things in Science?



Fine then you explain the basis of your theory. How do you come to your conclusions? Just by reading a few points. No, for me reading would do but it has to be accompanied by a proper justification to make sense of it.

Enjoy~!


----------



## Neuron (Sep 30, 2011)

sygeek said:


> It is not necessarily good or bad. MORE OVER, you're talking about free will, not accidents which come in unexpected.
> So, human is responsible for his wrong-doing in this case, he OBVIOUSLY can't predict what will happen to his victim to save someone else.



Free will?There is no such thing,says Stephen Hawking.



sygeek said:


> See, I know what you're talking about. I've had these questions tonnes of time. GOD IS ALL LOVING and all that BS is false. God is all loving but not directly, not in your little own world. I advice you do a little study on "reality" (youtube).
> 
> God's reality is pretty much what reality is. Ours is just falsified, we haven't even discovered the true reality yet.
> 
> I'm just going to give an example which may look unfair, but have you ever read about quantum physics. Its full of MIND-BOGGLING things that although are true and proved, yet they are UNBELIEVABLE, its like you're talking about (PROVED AND TRUE) fantasy stuff. That is where our false reality fails.



So you are telling me that our reality is falsified.Then why burn people in hell for doing 'evil'.It's falsified reality right?If i am doing evil then i can be sure that i am not doing evil,it's the 'falsified evil'.The Same way if i do 'good',well i am doing something that is not necessarily 'good'.And why the heck did god create a universe at the first place?Wouldn't it have been much better if nothing existed?It's like everyone is having a nice long slumber,without nightmares.


----------



## fractalnoize (Sep 30, 2011)

God created the universe ???!! haha .. seriously ?? let him create himself first !!


----------



## rishitells (Sep 30, 2011)

fractalnoize said:


> God created the universe ???!! haha .. seriously ?? let him create himself first !!



let there be nothing, no God, No Science.. just void. Then from where did the existence come? We see infinite manifestations of matter and energy in this universe, like water, plants, living beings, but after all they belong the same matter, that comprises this existence, the universe. What is the purpose of this existence? If the universe is, then it was certainly created, and it is sure to end someday, this is the law of life, nothing can be immortal. But if nothing is immortal, then how can the existence be there? There must be an Ever Existing element, isn't it? 

Science has made great discoveries and probably helped humanity much more than Religion, because of the distorted definition of religion humans always perceive and apply to their life. Humans created divide on the basis of religions, and many evils have emerged. But that religion belongs to the Abrahmic God, or Moorti-Pooja God.

If you ever read Samkhya Theory, given by ancient sage Kapil, or Advaita Vedanta, which is the sum of all the teaching of Vedas, you will not argue about their authenticity, because they never ever conflict with the scientific principles. The Samkhya philosophy even denies the existence of an "Ever Existing God", and it has a brilliant explanation about the origin of the universe. At that time, when there were no telescopes, no instruments to measure the universe, A theory given by sage Kapil, so accurate and so beautifully described, can't be just a coincidence. Science has it's own way of exploring things, and the ancient Rishis has their own way.  At some points, they might conflict with science, but that's doesn't mean they are wrong. Guys, let not be biased about any religion, since I do not want to drag the argument to that level. Just go through these two articles on Cosmology and Study of Samkhya Philosophy by Swami Vivekananda, and read them with open minds, and you will realize they have a meaning in them - At Least Read The Later One, please... And Let There Be A Healthy and Great Discussion, or Fight, whatever...



> COSMOLOGY
> 
> There are two worlds, the microcosm, and the macrocosm, the internal and the external. We get truth from both of these by means of experience. The truth gathered from internal experience is psychology, metaphysics, and religion; from external experience, the physical sciences. Now a perfect truth should be in harmony with experiences in both these worlds. The microcosm must bear testimony to the macrocosm, and the macrocosm to the microcosm; physical truth must have its counterpart in the internal world, and the internal world must have its verification outside. Yet, as a rule, we find that many of these truths are in conflict. At one period of the world's history, the internals become supreme, and they begin to fight the externals. At the present time the externals, the physicists, have become supreme, and they have put down many claims of psychologists and metaphysicians. So far as my knowledge goes, I find that the real, essential parts of psychology are in perfect accord with the essential parts of modern physical knowledge. It is not given to one individual to be great in every respect; it is not given to one race or nation to be equally strong in the research of all fields of knowledge. The modern European nations are very strong in their research of external physical knowledge, but they are not so strong in their study of the inner nature of man. On the other hand, the Orientals have not been very strong in their researches of the external physical world, but very strong in their researches of the internal. Therefore we find that Oriental physics and other sciences are not in accordance with Occidental Sciences; nor is Occidental psychology in harmony with Oriental psychology. The Oriental physicists have been routed by Occidental scientists. At the same time, each claims to rest on truth; and as we stated before, real truth in any field of knowledge will not contradict itself; the truths internal are in harmony with the truths external.
> 
> ...






> A STUDY OF THE SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY
> 
> Prakriti is called by the Sânkhya philosophers indiscrete, and defined as the perfect balance of the materials in it; and it naturally follows that in perfect balance there cannot be any motion. In the primal state before any manifestation, when there was no motion but perfect balance, this Prakriti was indestructible, because decomposition or death comes from instability or change. Again, according to the Sankhya, atoms are not the primal state. This universe does not come out of atoms: they may be the secondary or the tertiary state. The primordial material may form into atoms and become grosser and bigger things; and as far as modern investigations go, they rather point towards the same conclusion. For instance, in the modern theory of ether, if you say ether is atomic, it will not solve anything. To make it clearer, say that air is composed of atoms, and we know that ether is everywhere, interpenetrating, omnipresent, and that these air atoms are floating, as it were, in ether. If ether again be composed of atoms, there will still be spaces between every two atoms of ether. What fills up these? If you suppose that there is another ether still finer which does this, there will again be other spaces between the atoms of that finer ether which require filling up, and so it will be regressus ad infinitum, what the Sankhya philosophers call the "cause leading to nothing" So the atomic theory cannot be final. According to Sankhya, nature is omnipresent, one omnipresent mass of nature, in which are the causes of everything that exists. What is meant by cause? Cause is the fine state of the manifested state; the unmanifested state of that which becomes manifested. What do you mean by destruction? It is reverting to the cause If you have a piece of pottery and give it a blow, it is destroyed. What is meant by this is that the effects go back to their own nature, they materials out of which the pottery was created go back into their original state. Beyond this idea of destruction, any idea such as annihilation is on the face of it absurd. According to modern physical science, it can be demonstrated that all destruction means that which Kapila said ages ago — simply reverting to the cause. Going back to the finer form is all that is meant by destruction. You know how it can be demonstrated in a laboratory that matter is indestructible. At this present stage of our knowledge, if any man stands up and says that matter or this soul becomes annihilated, he is only making himself, ridiculous; it is only uneducated, silly people who would advance such a proposition; and it is curious that modern knowledge coincides with what those old philosophers taught. It must be so, and that is the proof of truth. They proceeded in their inquiry, taking up mind as the basis; they analysed the mental part of this universe and came to certain conclusions, which we, analysing the physical part, must come to, for they both must lead to the same centre.
> 
> ...


----------



## speedyguy (Sep 30, 2011)

oops! that was a bit too long so not posting my response based on that but the answer to the question. So where did nature come from? existence of humans, water earth, heavenly bodies etc etc are all question marks. Science doesnt have answers to all of these. So you only answer me, where did they come from? God created? Can u elaborate on that?

Enjoy~!


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Sep 30, 2011)

@Rishabh: Dont post pages of info here.

Short precise answers needed, not 10 pages that most will skip :S


----------



## rishitells (Oct 1, 2011)

speedyguy said:


> oops! that was a bit too long so not posting my response based on that but the answer to the question. So where did nature come from? existence of humans, water earth, heavenly bodies etc etc are all question marks. Science doesnt have answers to all of these. So you only answer me, where did they come from? God created? Can u elaborate on that?
> 
> Enjoy~!



Read the second lecture I posted.. A Study of The Samkhya Philosophy. It actually denies the existence of an "Ever Existing God", and has all the answers to the origin of the universe, earth, life, consciousness etc, only if u read it with broader perspective. And the Advaita Vedanta supplements the Samkhya Philosophy by the concept of an Ever Existing Element. What you are calling God, is mostly the Jesus concept, which is more a fairytale than reality. 

Here, the definition of God is an ever existing element which is the source of all the creation. Even if the universe ends, it exists, eternally. It has no birth, no death. Which is universally conscious, has the universal intelligence. Just go through the second lecture once, and you will get to know what the eastern science used to be.

@Extreme Gamer
There has already been much more info in the posts here than mine. It's not about the pages, it's about what is contained in them. Indian Philosophy, especially Samkhya or Advaita Vedanta is not a lollipop, so I can make u understand in 1-2 paragraphs. Or if u really want to read in short, here are some important paragraphs.




> *About The Origin of The Universe, The Samkhya Philosophy*
> 
> What we call matter in modern times was called by; the ancient psychologists Bhutas, the external elements. There is one element which, according to them, is eternal ; every other element is produced out of this one. It is called Âkâsha. It is somewhat similar to the idea of ether of the moderns, though not exactly similar. Along with this element, there is the primal energy called Prâna. Prana and Akasha combine and recombine and form the elements out of them. Then at the end of the Kalpa; everything subsides, and goes back to Akasha and Prana. There is in the Rig-Veda, the oldest human writing in existence, a beautiful passage describing creation, and it is most poetical — "When there was neither aught nor naught, when darkness was rolling over darkness, what existed?" and the answer is given, "It then existed without vibration". This Prana existed then, but there was no motion in it; Ânidavâtam means "existed without vibration". Vibration had stopped. Then when the Kalpa begins, after an immense interval, the Anidavatam (unvibrating atom) commences to vibrate, and blow after blow is given by Prana to Akasha. The atoms become condensed, and as they are condensed different elements are formed. We generally find these things very curiously translated; people do not go to the philosophers or the commentators for their translation, and have not the brains to understand them themselves. A silly man reads three letters of Sanskrit and translates a whole book. They translate the, elements as air, fire, and so on; if they would go to the commentators, they would find they do not mean air or anything of the sort.
> 
> The Akasha, acted upon by the repeated blows of Prana, produces Vâyu or vibrations. This Vayu vibrates, and the vibrations growing more and more rapid result in friction giving rise to heat, Tejas. Then this heat ends in liquefaction, Âpah. Then that liquid becomes solid. We had ether, and motion, then came heat, then it became liquefied, and then it condensed into gross matter; and it goes back in exactly the reverse way. The solid will be liquefied and will then be converted into a mass of heat, and that will slowly get back into motion; that motion will stop, and this Kalpa will be destroyed. Then, again it will come back and again dissolve into ether. Prana cannot work alone without the help of Akasha. All that we know in the form of motion, vibration, or thought is a modification of the Prana, and everything that we know in the shape of matter, either as form or as resistance, is a modification of the Akasha. The Prana cannot live alone, or act without a medium; when it is pure Prana, it has the Akasha itself to live in, and when it changes into forces of nature, say gravitation, or centrifugal force, it must have matter. You have never seen force without matter or matter without force; what we call force and matter are simply the gross manifestations of these same things, which, when superfine, are called Prana and Akasha. Prana you can call in English life, the vital force; but you must not restrict it to the life of man; at the same time you must not identify it with Spirit, Atman. So this goes on. Creation cannot have either a beginning or an end; it is an eternal on-going.





> You must remember that the first manifestation of this Prakriti in the cosmos is what the Sankhya calls "Mahat". We may call it intelligence — the great principle, its literal meaning. The first change in Prakriti is this intelligence; I would not translate it by self-consciousness, because that would be wrong. Consciousness is only a part of this intelligence. Mahat is universal. It covers all the grounds of sub-consciousness, consciousness, and super-consciousness; so any one state of consciousness, as applied to this Mahat, would not be sufficient. In nature, for instance, you note certain changes going on before your eyes which you see and understand, but there are other changes, so much finer, that no human perception can catch them. They are from the same cause, the same Mahat is making these changes. Out of Mahat comes universal egoism. These are all substance. There is no difference between matter and mind, except in degree. The substance is the same in finer or grosser form; one changes into the other, and this exactly coincides with the conclusions of modern physiological research. By believing in the teaching that the mind is not separate from the brain, you will be saved from much fighting and struggling. Egoism again changes into two varieties. In one variety it changes into the organs. Organs are of two kinds, organs of sensation and organs of reaction. They are not the eyes or the ears, but back of those are what you call brain-centres, and nerve-centres, and so on. This egoism, this matter or substance, becomes changed, and out of this material are manufactured these centres. Of the same substance is manufactured the other variety, the Tanmatras, fine particles of matter, which strike our organs of perception and bring about sensations. You cannot perceive them but only know they are there. Out of the Tanmatras is manufactured the gross matter — earth, water, and all the things that we see and feel. I want to impress this on your mind. It is very, hard to grasp it, because in Western countries the ideas are so queer about mind and matter. It is hard to get those impressions out of our brains. I myself had a tremendous difficulty, being educated in Western philosophy in my boyhood. These are all cosmic things. Think of this universal extension of matter, unbroken, one substance, undifferentiated, which is the first state of everything, and which begins to change in the same way as milk becomes curd. This first change is called Mahat. The substance Mahat changes into the grosser matter called egoism. The third change is manifested as universal sense-organs, and universal fine particles, and these last again combine and become this gross universe which with eyes, nose, and ears, we see, smell, and hear. This is the cosmic plan according to the Sankhya, and what is in the cosmos must also be microcosmic. Take an individual man. He has first a part of undifferentiated nature in him, and that material nature in him becomes changed into this Mahat, a small particle of this universal intelligence, and this particle of universal intelligence in him becomes changed into egoism, and then into the sense-organs and the fine particles of matter which combine and manufacture his body. I want this to be clear, because it is the stepping-stone to Sankhya, and it is absolutely necessary for you to understand it, because this is the basis of the philosophy of the whole world. There is no philosophy in the world that is not indebted to Kapila. Pythagoras came to India and studied this philosophy, and that was the beginning of the philosophy of the Greeks. Later, it formed the Alexandrian school, and still later, the Gnostic. It became divided into two; one part went to Europe and Alexandria, and the other remained in India; and out of this, the system of Vyasa was developed. The Sankhya philosophy of Kapila was the first rational system that the world ever saw. Every metaphysician in the world must pay homage to him. I want to impress on your mind that we are bound to listen to him as the great father of philosophy. This wonderful man, the most ancient of philosophers, is mentioned even in the Shruti: "O Lord, Thou who produced the sage Kapila in the Beginning." How wonderful his perceptions were, and if there is ant proof required of the extraordinary power of the perception of Yogis, such men are the proof. They had no microscopes or telescopes. Yet how fine their perception was, how perfect and wonderful their analysis of things!


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 1, 2011)

yeah, right, we should really listen to the pot smoking ancients.



> Take an individual man. He has first a part of undifferentiated nature in him, and that material nature in him becomes changed into this Mahat, a small particle of this universal intelligence, and this particle of universal intelligence in him becomes changed into egoism, and then into the sense-organs and the fine particles of matter which combine and manufacture his body.



what are we? tiny bits in a universal parallel computer?
i have read douglas adams, but seriously, this is taking it way too far



> This wonderful man, the most ancient of philosophers, is mentioned even in the Shruti


yes, perfectly reasonable, citing recursively. genius.



> The atoms become condensed, and as they are condensed different elements are formed


this is SO wrong. i dare you to try and "condense" gold out of a soup of elementary particles.


----------



## ico (Oct 1, 2011)

men may come and men may go...but this thread goes on forever....


----------



## Sarath (Oct 2, 2011)

ico said:


> men may come and men may go...but this thread goes on forever....



Every three months this thread is brought back to life. 

It an interesting read and it goes in the same cycles all the time.


----------



## rhitwick (Oct 28, 2011)

*farm7.static.flickr.com/6041/6286973468_7aabd13e9b_b.jpg
11 - 1 by rH1twick, on Flickr

 

This brought me some old memories related to this thread


----------



## prasath_digit (Nov 17, 2011)

*RELIGION* tells us to *BELIEVE...*  

*SCIENCE* tells us to *EXAMINE...* 

I'll go with *SCIENCE* anyday... 

*SCIENCE ROCKZ.....*  *SCIENCE IS ANYTHING & EVERYTHING.....* 

One of My favorite *Scientific Explanation* from the 1999 Hollywood Sci-Fi Movie *'THE MATRIX'*:-

*What is Real? How do you define Real? If you are talking about what you can see or smell or taste or touch, then Real is simply the Electrical Signals Interpreted by your Brain....*


----------



## digit.sh (Nov 28, 2011)

I think we, the human will never know(i.e. be able to prove) whether God exists or not. Until we can prove(or disprove) God is here, some people will always believe in God and others will deny God.

Someone told me once, "to prove God is here, you have to be God yourself". He also told, "God is not a know-it-all person or very powerful person, rather God is knowledge himself, and God is power himself". I feel what he said is logical. And I think we will never know God, because one can become very powerful or knowledgeable, but will never be power or knowledge himself.

I also think, the whole universe is a framework created by some power(lets call it God), where our scientific theories are applicable.(like P=Mf, E = mc^2 etc etc). Maybe, there are other universes(again, we may never be able prove or disprove their existence, exactly like a fish in your pond may or may not be able to know there is a thing called the Pacific Ocean out there!)

So, my point is, God(or the supreme power that is behind the CREATION) IS Science. Only because we don't know everything of Science doesn't mean God is not there. The day we will know all, will be the day when we will know God. And my personal take is that we will never know everything of Universe and we will never know God as well.



P.S.
Scientists say, homeopathy is a myth. They say, its nothing but "placibo effect"! I find these comments ridiculous cause i have seen serious patients get cured by homeopathy. I have been treated by homeopathy and cured almost all my problems permanently. Scientists say homeopathy medicines can't work cause it doesn't contain any chemical particles or mass(cause they are very very diluted, to such an extent that not trace of mass of the original material be there), thus it violates the "mass action" law of chemistry! Then how will scientists explain me getting cured? 
Its time that we admit that our 'science' isn't complete, it can't explain everything. There is something more beyond that "mass action" law of chemistry. Only because we could not prove that, doesn't mean "mass action" is the limit!!


----------



## rhitwick (Nov 28, 2011)

digit.sh said:


> I also think, the whole universe is a framework created by some power(lets call it God), where our scientific theories are applicable.(like P=Mf, E = mc^2 etc etc). Maybe, there are other universes(again, we may never be able prove or disprove their existence, exactly like a fish in your pond may or may not be able to know there is a thing called the Pacific Ocean out there!)


I've something for you,


> Däniken claimed that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists, has entered the local solar system in the past, and that evidence of this past contact is abundant. He also speculates as to whether human evolution may have been manipulated through means of genetic engineering by extraterrestrial beings.
> 
> The evidence that Däniken has put forward to support his paleo-contact hypotheses can be categorized as follows:
> 
> ...


 From wiki
Read works of "Erich Von Daniken"...he's famous on known territories as Daniken only.

and,


> Chariots of the Gods -The Series is based on the books of Erich von Däniken who more than twenty years ago first presented his theory of extraterrestrial contact with the ancient world - a theory so incredible yet so logical that it has become part of a wide ranging debate that continues stronger today.
> His examination of ancient ruins, forgotten texts, and other archeological anomalies points to evidence of extraterrestrial intervention in human history. Most incredible of all are von Däniken's claims that we ourselves are descendants of these galactic pioneers and that the evidence is out there to lead us to them. Chariots of the Gods follows the adventures of the team who will attempt to do just that


SOURCE


> P.S.
> Scientists say, homeopathy is a myth. They say, its nothing but "placibo effect"! I find these comments ridiculous cause i have seen serious patients get cured by homeopathy. I have been treated by homeopathy and cured almost all my problems permanently. Scientists say homeopathy medicines can't work cause it doesn't contain any chemical particles or mass(cause they are very very diluted, to such an extent that not trace of mass of the original material be there), thus it violates the "mass action" law of chemistry! Then how will scientists explain me getting cured?
> Its time that we admit that our 'science' isn't complete, it can't explain everything. There is something more beyond that "mass action" law of chemistry. Only because we could not prove that, doesn't mean "mass action" is the limit!!


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.

P.S. Daniken's main site is blocked in our company under the category "un-conventional religion..."!


----------



## speedyguy (Nov 28, 2011)

Homeopathic medicines are highly diluted composition which means side effects are reduced when compared to allopathic medicines. On the other hand they are known to have slower impacts hence take time to cure. Also scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo(Source - wiki).

Agreed patients do get cured by homeopathy but it has nothing to do while proving existence of god.



> And my personal take is that we will never know everything of Universe and we will never know God as well.



My personal opinion is that we need not connect existence of God with Universe when it comes to debate. We do know things about the galaxy, solar system and other aspects of universe via several researches and space travels which we didn't know, say around a few hundred years ago. Existence of God started with belief, is still a belief and it looking at the progress it doesn't look like it will be anything more than that in future. We can positively say we might discover a new planet in future but the one who says he would one day meet God will have tons of irrelevant points for his thinking.

Enjoy~!


----------



## Reaper_vivek (Jan 13, 2012)

GOD equates to everything we(Almost all) can't explain!! For many it's Formation of the universe, life, etc....for people who do think and deduce things the answer is Big Bang, Evolution, etc respectively...

With the help of Science(Human Intellect) we have been able to find and deduce answers for numerous events and questions, which were earlier said to be an act of god..e.g Lightening was considered to be an emotion of an Angry god, read Zeus(Greeks) and Indra Dev(Hindu's) but then Science proved that it was due to electrons and it's interactions....

I am an atheist, partly because I can't explain presence or absence of an entity called GOD but mostly because SCIENCE makes more sense than believing in myths..

Even if GOD exists for many, I don't see it making any difference to the life of the non-believers...
My family worships god(blindly), I don't see any harm in that(or think it's bad) until the point where such faith affects your reasoning, decisions and Actions..If you believe in GOD and it brings peace to your lives, it's awesome...

Quoting an article "According to most of the religions, if u don't abide by their rules and beliefs then u are bound to go to hell and rot" With so many religions around and most of them forbidding something or the other everyone is going to die(The Universal Truth )
The stories will never fade away, Gita,Bible and Quran will remain forever and so will other recent literature(Aren't they all written by humans )


----------



## Sarath (Jan 13, 2012)

God is science. Science is God.


----------



## Alok (Jan 13, 2012)

^^I think we are discussing to clear the confusion.


----------



## sygeek (Jan 13, 2012)

Kola2842 said:


> ^^I think we are discussing to clear the confusion.


I think he means science exists in everything. I mean if God exists there must be some science to him as well.


----------



## Sarath (Jan 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## sygeek (Jan 13, 2012)

Sarath said:


> *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.


You don't know that, do you?


----------



## Sarath (Jan 13, 2012)

Don't use that line during examinations 

I get religious around exam time and quite atheistic in between .


----------



## sygeek (Jan 13, 2012)

Sarath said:


> Don't use that line during examinations


Why should I?


----------



## Alok (Jan 13, 2012)

Sarath said:


> 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.



Human virtues you mentioned does not depends on his favour for Science/God.


----------



## Sarath (Jan 14, 2012)

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 



Spoiler



BTW after God of War 3, how many Gods remain?


----------



## sygeek (Jan 14, 2012)

Sarath said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


That..doesn't make sense :/

bye anyway.


Spoiler



I haven't played the God of War series


----------



## Alok (Jan 14, 2012)

Sarath said:


> 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.
> 
> ...






Spoiler



there are some angels in Diablo series.


----------



## Tarun (Jan 14, 2012)

have a look here


----------



## theserpent (Jan 15, 2012)

No Offense To any One over here "SORRY".
Well They say god created man??So wasn't God an human to??So each an very religions god created separate two people??



fractalnoize said:


> God created the universe ???!! haha .. seriously ?? let him create himself first !!


Lol you right


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 16, 2012)

die, zombie thread, die!!!


----------



## Faun (Jan 16, 2012)

*i.imgur.com/ww2Jz.png


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 17, 2012)

^^ haha, oh wow!!
this is why i keep subscribed to htis thread, xD

ty, faun!!


----------



## mohiuddin (Jan 18, 2012)

Simple. Science is always changing. If x is today's truth then tomorrow will be y.
So science is reltative and not reliable.
And secularism?? Hell no...
Would u believe ,if i tell that i found a i7 proccessor or even simply a 'electric wire' in the mars?i mean without any manufacturer? In nature?? Would u believe or send me to a mental hospital?
Then why u guys satisfy urself thinking that this whole logic-dependent universe , these miracle human body were the result of spontaneous natural act?


----------



## Neuron (Jan 18, 2012)

^^Answer my signature.


----------



## Faun (Jan 19, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> Simple. Science is always changing. If x is today's truth then tomorrow will be y.
> So science is reltative and not reliable.
> And secularism?? Hell no...
> Would u believe ,if i tell that i found a i7 proccessor or even simply a 'electric wire' in the mars?i mean without any manufacturer? In nature?? Would u believe or send me to a mental hospital?
> Then why u guys satisfy urself thinking that this whole logic-dependent universe , these miracle human body were the result of spontaneous natural act?



Cool satori bro !


----------



## mohiuddin (Jan 19, 2012)

Neuron said:


> ^^Answer my signature.



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.


----------



## Faun (Jan 19, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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?
> ...



That's totally the reason I should believe in books. But which one, there are too many out there ?


----------



## Neuron (Jan 19, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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?
> ...



I used to think like this.Then i read some advanced theories in physics.My perception of the universe was wrong.You see existence of life really isn't a miracle.Why?To know that you should understand the theory of multiple/parallel universes.And ultimately science has enough understanding of the universe so that it can make one anew.

Furthermore i was once a believer and i don't see any difference between my past life and the current in terms of peace,success,failure or whatever.And trust me i got back my lost ring without praying to god.

And if you need a very simple guide to god here you go.
*i.imgur.com/uh6VJ.jpg


----------



## rhitwick (Jan 19, 2012)

You don't need to be from any specific religion or believer of a particular god or a non-believer to do good.


----------



## Alok (Jan 19, 2012)

^^+1.. .


----------



## sygeek (Jan 19, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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?
> ...


Yes, black hole is easily explained with science. Despite being very complex, scientists have really discovered a lot about black holes. Not a miracle.

Start of the universe can be explained theoretically in a logical manner by science although it isn't as perfect as it'll be in the coming few years. Science is very rigid when it comes to results. Not a miracle.

Your body is a result of millions of years of evolution and natural selection. Chances of your existence in this gigantic universe are really very high. Not a miracle. 

The route maintenance is a result of numerous processes like conservation of angular momentum, space-time fabric and gravity.

Yes, science, actually, humans will reach an omega point. Not a miracle.

Get over your ignorance, it won't help you.


----------



## Alok (Jan 19, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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?
> ...



why not ? Only and only science can give you answers. As Sygeek explained all of your q. can easily be explained.

Science is nothing but
it is creation of your own thoughts , imagination, and curious mind; which observer things , understand them and takes decisions. Thus Science moves on. This is not external thing but it is in the human.And only science is thing that makes you different from other species.


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 19, 2012)

Neuron said:


> I used to think like this.Then i read some advanced theories in physics.My perception of the universe was wrong.You see existence of life really isn't a miracle.Why?To know that you should understand the theory of multiple/parallel universes.And ultimately science has enough understanding of the universe so that it can make one anew.
> 
> Furthermore i was once a believer and i don't see any difference between my past life and the current in terms of peace,success,failure or whatever.And trust me i got back my lost ring without praying to god.


hey, mate, i thought we lost you back there.
good to have an intelligent fellow on our side




mohiuddin said:


> science 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?
> ...


answers in blue italics



mohiuddin said:


> Simple. Science is always changing. If x is today's truth then tomorrow will be y. _a wheel is always moving. so its not good. lets all replace round tyres with square ones, then it wont move, so its "perfect"_
> So science is reltative and not reliable. _you want to say religion is absolute and reliable?_
> And secularism?? Hell no...
> Would u believe ,if i tell that i found a i7 proccessor or even simply a 'electric wire' in the mars?i mean without any manufacturer? In nature?? Would u believe or send me to a mental hospital?
> Then why u guys satisfy urself thinking that this whole logic-dependent universe , these miracle human body were the result of spontaneous natural act?_lolwut?_


----------



## Tarun (Jan 20, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]*www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPCS94UzR-s[/YOUTUBE]
i find this one of the most inspiring videos i have heard


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Jan 20, 2012)

if Krishna was black, why do we say 'hare krishna'?



Spoiler



Before you stupidly assault me for making fun of him, read up what pun means.


----------



## rhitwick (Jan 20, 2012)

Isn't Krishna all blue...? Photos say.


----------



## Anorion (Jan 20, 2012)

lol Lord Krishna can be red, green, blue, glorious glowing golden, fair, dark.... any colour he chooses
hmm there were some ideas where god is not so incompatible with science, heard of the demiurge? he/she is like the architect of the universe who crafts all things using real colossal tools


----------



## Faun (Jan 20, 2012)

So who is joining the Flat Earth Society ?
Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sygeek (Jan 20, 2012)

Faun said:


> So who is joining the Flat Earth Society ?
> Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Whole World Deceived... Except the Very Elect" (Dec. 1977)
    "Australia Not Down Under" (May 1978)
    "Sun Is a Light 32 Miles Across" (Dec. 1978)
    "The Earth Has No Motion" (Jun. 1979)
    "Nikita Krushchev Father of NASA" (Mar. 1980)
    "Galileo Was a Liar" (Dec. 1980)
    "Science Insults Your Intelligence" (Sep. 1980)
    "World IS Flat, and That's That" (Sep. 1980)
    "The Earth Is Not a Ball; Gravity Does Not Exist" (Mar. 1981)


*i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975


----------



## Tarun (Jan 21, 2012)

Extreme Gamer said:


> if Krishna was black, why do we say 'hare krishna'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Hare" can be interpreted as either the vocative of Hari, another name of Vishnu meaning "he who removes illusion", or as the vocative of Harā, a name of Rādhā, Krishna's eternal consort . According to A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Harā refers to "the energy of God" while Krishna and Rama refer to God himself, meaning "He who is All-Attractive" and "He who is the Source of All Pleasure"



rhitwick said:


> Isn't Krishna all blue...? Photos say.



Krishna is not blue or black He is Bluish-black just like a new formed rain cloud


----------



## d6bmg (Jan 21, 2012)

Such a big thread consisting of 52 pages for this simple thing? 
If you are using PS/laptop/internet, the answer is quite simple, without which you can't reach here.


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Jan 21, 2012)

Tarun said:


> "Hare" can be interpreted as either the vocative of Hari, another name of Vishnu meaning "he who removes illusion", or as the vocative of Harā, a name of Rādhā, Krishna's eternal consort . According to A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Harā refers to "the energy of God" while Krishna and Rama refer to God himself, meaning "He who is All-Attractive" and "He who is the Source of All Pleasure"



Did you read my spoiler? I know what Hare means


----------



## Tarun (Jan 22, 2012)

^ i read it but some guys misunderstand it with many other things


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Jan 22, 2012)

lol ok.


----------



## mohiuddin (Jan 25, 2012)

doomgiver said:


> hey, mate, i thought we lost you back there.
> good to have an intelligent fellow on our side
> 
> 
> ...



doesn't science suggest a 'god''s existence ?? 
black hole clearly explained? AFAIK , our science couldn't explore inside the black hole cause, even lights cannot escape out of it.AFAIK.
lol... u think science would reach an omega point? even if it reach that point,the cause would be the 'limit of our intelligence' thet we can't go beyond that level. ok, its 'future' thing, so lets the future to tell about that.
what science would u believe to be so reliable? that science ,that told once, earth is static? then, comes sun is static....one universe theory? then, multiple universe theory? isn't these ''universe theory'' are of prediction on the basis of quantum mechanics??
again, explain human mind... please don't tell that bullshit that it the product of discharge from a complex neuron web..
andyea yea i know big bang theory...that explained time, universe expansion. but what about 'before_big_bang' ?? if u say there was nothing, than explain 'nothing' by science.
hehe... smaller prticle...smaller particle...then again smaller particle.. what is the end then? no end? then explain that "NO END" thing.
u wanna say our body is not a miracle?
then, i wanna ask have u heard a word called 'IDIOPATHIC' in medical science? no? google it.
science is creating and solving confusions. both..........

ohoh..and about 'human-is-a-product-of-nature-eovution'..please don't tell me u  (who said) believe what darwin discovered.

**peace**


----------



## Neuron (Jan 25, 2012)

doomgiver said:


> hey, mate, i thought we lost you back there.
> good to have an *intelligent fellow* on our side



Thanks, i guess.



mohiuddin said:


> ohoh..and about 'human-is-a-product-of-nature-eovution'..please don't tell me u  (who said) believe what darwin discovered.
> 
> **peace**



So you think Darwin's theories aren't true.Then i'm afraid you cannot be fixed.


----------



## rhitwick (Jan 25, 2012)

> *Richard Dawkin*s is amongst the most provocative thinkers of our times. The Oxford University geneticist has waged a blazing intellectual war on religion, calling for the rule of science and rationality. At the recent Jaipur Literature Festival, Dawkins spoke with Vineet Gill about why he prefers science over faith, whether he is an 'atheist fundamentalist', - and issues such as immortality:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I liked this interview.
Read the complete one *here*


----------



## sygeek (Jan 25, 2012)

^Yeah read it on TOI today. I think there was an article yesterday as well.


----------



## jayantr7 (Jan 26, 2012)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



cvvikram said:


> Lemme ask one question...Who is all behind this science ????



Then who's behind God? You?  C'mmon! If God can be created outta nowhere, then why can't the universe be.  

When the elementary particles(eg. electron, proton) were discovered, God lovers said it's a piece of s*it and fake. Now when it has been proved, they say God made it. And the fate will be the same for to be proved particles like Higgs Boson. 

_(No offence meant against Theists)_


----------



## Anorion (Jan 26, 2012)

Yeah I have read most of Dawkins Books

River out of Eden
Blind Watchmaker
Climbing Mount Improbable
The God Delusion
The Selfish Gene (we were talking about memes in 8th standard lol, dont know what they would turn out to be)

I also signed up for his forums and used to be there, then I thought that his whole campaign against religion was either driven by publicity or with the same signs of fanaticism that he was decrying

Also, his DVD collections/ lecture publicity was pathetic

I still respect what his pop science publications have done and the genre it created, but not this campaign against god.


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 27, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> doesn't science suggest a 'god''s existence ??
> _what the hucking feck are you talking about??? gods existence? nothing in this universe hints at "gods' existence"_
> black hole clearly explained? AFAIK , our science couldn't explore inside the black hole cause, even lights cannot escape out of it.AFAIK.
> _i would LOVE to see your "almight, all-powerful" "god" survive one._
> ...


answers, as always, in blue italics


----------



## reddead (Jan 28, 2012)

i was at JLF recently and heard Dawkins for the first time..
and 


Spoiler



he turned me into a bloody ATHEIST !


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 28, 2012)

ahahaha, that happens.
especially, if you believe in ancient, unscientific and intentionally convoluted cr@p called religion.


----------



## Sudh4r (Jan 28, 2012)

God is real, unless declared integer.


----------



## Neuron (Jan 29, 2012)

God is imaginary, which cannot be declared real.


----------



## Sudh4r (Jan 30, 2012)

REAL     :: god

Tada declared REAL


----------



## Neuron (Jan 30, 2012)

lol,but it is only valid within the program/function where it is declared.By default 'god' isn't defined or is imaginary.


----------



## Minion (Jan 31, 2012)

I am with god you can't do each and everything with science.My first question is where from single cell organism comes to earth and how do they learn to combine to form more complicated organism and how we are created, Have you felt sometime, You desperately want to do something but it is not possible on your part to do or is very hard 1st thought that come to your mind oh god please help after sometime you see what you thought was impossible is done I have many experience so my vote goes to god.


----------



## Sudh4r (Jan 31, 2012)

@neuron thats an atheist quote. wat did u thought ?? i was making fun of 'THE GOD' .


----------



## rhitwick (Jan 31, 2012)

@Minion, read biology books and revise ur 10th standard biology, specially the chapters on evolution, adaptation and cell division.


----------



## Neuron (Jan 31, 2012)

Sudh4r said:


> @neuron thats an atheist quote. wat did u thought ?? i was making fun of 'THE GOD' .



Okey,i was just sayin'.


----------



## rishitells (Feb 1, 2012)

Let me share with you something - 



> The Prashna Upanishad (Sanskrit: प्रश्न उपनिषद्, Praśna Upaniṣad) is one of the earlier, "primary" Upanishads commented upon by Shankara. This text is a series of six questions and answers about the Ultimate Reality (Brahman), the vital force of Universe.
> 
> The first question is asked by Kabandhi concerned with the root cause of the universe.
> 
> ...



3000 BC, when the human race used to roam in forests, our Rishis (seer-scientists), thought like that, not a child's play I suppose. It's not something that can be denied that easily. And remember that "Hinduism is not a religion, it is an intellectual system, a school of thought." And now please don't throw back any stupid points and argue. Put aside modern science for sometime and study what is actually contained in Vedic Literature( not what Max Muller idiotically translated), with an open mind. Till then at least don't deny it without any basis. 

Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr who received the Nobel Prize in Physics, said "I go into the Upanishads to ask questions."

And you might be aware of the fact that Richard Dawkins himself, has stated that Hinduism & Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews than any other religion.


----------



## Faun (Feb 1, 2012)

^^Hinduism was never a religion. Hindu term itself is not native. 

Those were the Vedic people.


----------



## Minion (Feb 2, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> @Minion, read biology books and revise ur 10th standard biology, specially the chapters on evolution, adaptation and cell division.


 
I have read lots of biology in my school careers do you think you can create a organism If you can create then you are god.Basically almighty is something even science Can't explain.

If you don't believe in god its ok but you can't explain every thing with science LOL.



rhitwick said:


> @Minion, read biology books and revise ur 10th standard biology, specially the chapters on evolution, adaptation and cell division.


 
I have read lots of biology in my school careers do you think you can create a organism If you can create then you are god LOL.Basically almighty is something even science Can't explain.

If you don't believe in god its ok but you can't explain everything with science.


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 2, 2012)

Minion said:


> I have read lots of biology in my school careers


And forgot...right?



> do you think you can create a organism If you can create then you are god


Its done!
Check here Craig Venter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Basically almighty is something even science Can't explain.


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.



> If you don't believe in god its ok but you can't explain every thing with science LOL.


I won't...science will. Wait.

Searching for an explanation which backs itself with proper fact and proof is better than settling for answers such as "God wanted it that way"


----------



## doomgiver (Feb 2, 2012)

Minion said:


> I am with god you can't do each and everything with science.My first question is where from single cell organism comes to earth and how do they learn to combine to form more complicated organism and how we are created, Have you felt sometime, You desperately want to do something but it is not possible on your part to do or is very hard 1st thought that come to your mind oh god please help after sometime you see what you thought was impossible is done I have many experience so my vote goes to god.


you dont have to "learn" to combine together.
look at algae. they stick together.
a single algae will not survive, it will be swept off by the currents of the river.
but a group of algae will give more resistance to the flow of water, increasing chances of survival.
its not something thats "learnt"
tell me, who taught you to walk with your feet?
WHY ARE YOU NOT WALKING ON YOUR HANDS???????




Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Let me share with you something -
> 
> 3000 BC, when the human race used to roam in forests, our Rishis (seer-scientists), thought like that, not a child's play I suppose. It's not something that can be denied that easily. And remember that "Hinduism is not a religion, it is an intellectual system, a school of thought." And now please don't throw back any stupid points and argue. Put aside modern science for sometime and study what is actually contained in Vedic Literature( not what Max Muller idiotically translated), with an open mind. Till then at least don't deny it without any basis.
> 
> ...


in 3000 BC, the sumerians had reached, and exceeded the climax of their civilization, and were on a sharp decline.
the ppl on the island of britain were building the stonehenge
those guys in americas were founding great cities.
the egyptians were building pyramids.
homers' tales were going to be written soon.
and the indus river civ was just putting up its first hamlets.

want to know more???
you are so self absorbed in praising he indian culture, that you dont even see that even greater civilizations existed before that time.




Minion said:


> I have read lots of biology in my school careers do you think you can create a organism If you can create then you are god.Basically almighty is something even science Can't explain.
> _science creates viruses and bacteria and siple single-cell organisms daily, to custom specification. we are gods. now just wait till we find those fake ones, we will shove this specially prepared "apple" down their throats._
> 
> If you don't believe in god its ok but you can't explain every thing with science LOL.
> _your god cant explain ANYTHING. LOL._



replies, as always, in blue italics


----------



## rishitells (Feb 3, 2012)

> in 3000 BC, the sumerians had reached, and exceeded the climax of their civilization, and were on a sharp decline.
> the ppl on the island of britain were building the stonehenge
> those guys in americas were founding great cities.
> the egyptians were building pyramids.
> ...



Building stonehenge, pyramids, great cities is a different thing, and asking the questions like those mentioned in Prashopnishada is another. Every big civilization in this world built cities, fought wars, conquered each other. But no one from Aryavart (Bharat / India) came outside to conquer anyone. India is known not for it's worldly achievements, but for the centuries of wisdom it has, which despite being attacked for thousands of years, still remains, and flourishing. 

Swami Vivekananda puts it in very beautiful lines -


> *“Civilizations have arisen in other parts of the world. In ancient and modern times, wonderful ideas have been carried forward from one race to another...But mark you, my friends, it has been always with the blast of war trumpets and the march of embattled cohorts. Each idea had to be soaked in a deluge of blood..... Each word of power had to be followed by the groans of millions, by the wails of orphans, by the tears of widows. This, many other nations have taught; but India for thousands of years peacefully existed. Here activity prevailed when even Greece did not exist... Even earlier, when history has no record, and tradition dares not peer into the gloom of that intense past, even from until now, ideas after ideas have marched out from her, but every word has been spoken with a blessing behind it and peace before it. We, of all nations of the world, have never been a conquering race, and that blessing is on our head, and therefore we live...”
> 
> "Let foreigners come and flood the land with their armies, never mind. Up, India , and conquer the world with your spirituality!"(Complete Works, Vol. 3, p. 284).*



You cannot imagine the interest the world is showing in India and Indian things. Especially in developing nations like Brazil ,the desire to learn Indian religion, yoga, dance, music, cuisine, and so on is terrible. You can safely say that there are at least 500 yoga schools in Brazil alone. Then there is a mad rush for yoga in the United States , United Kingdom , and so on. But in India ? We hate ourselves. We decry our History. We hate our Science and Technology and want to imitate Americans and British.



> "Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with foreign things? Is it a legacy of our colonial years? We want foreign television sets. We want foreign shirts. We want foreign technology. Why this obsession with everything imported?"
> Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam



And after all it was not about how old who is. As always, deviating from the topic has been the agenda in this debate. You took just one point from the post which you could answer. My point was that no one that time thought as deeply as Vedic Rishis, about Universe, Consciousness, and had such tremendous wisdom. We had the biggest universities in the world, Nalanda and Takshila, which were burning for almost a year after being destroyed by barbaric Islamists. 
Topics like Astronomy, Metaphysics, Theology and Law, Medical Science, Astrophysics, Surgery had been taught in India even before the coming of Britishers (Souce: Prof. Dharampal's Lifetime Research). 

Beautiful Tree - Indigenous Indian Education in Eighteenth Century

But perhaps, you closed mind will not allow you to accept anything beyond your beliefs. You will always try to prove everything false, because of the brainwashing about Indian Technology and Science you all have been going through since long.


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 3, 2012)

I was reading this novel *"Genesis Secret"*. Its on a conspiracy theory but today I came across this National Geographic article on some of the baselines of teh novel. Now I'm really excited!

Its about *Gobekli Tepe*. World's oldest temple. How old? Well its 11,600 years old.

Few excerpts from the article,



> Known as Göbekli Tepe (pronounced Guh-behk-LEE TEH-peh), the site is vaguely reminiscent of Stonehenge, except that Göbekli Tepe was built much earlier and is made not from roughly hewn blocks but from cleanly carved limestone pillars splashed with bas-reliefs of animals—a cavalcade of gazelles, snakes, foxes, scorpions, and ferocious wild boars. *The assemblage was built some 11,600 years ago, seven millennia before the Great Pyramid of Giza*. It contains the oldest known temple. Indeed, Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable scale existed in the world.
> 
> *At the time of Göbekli Tepe's construction much of the human race lived in small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild animals. Construction of the site would have required more people coming together in one place than had likely occurred before. Amazingly, the temple's builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet despite having no wheels or beasts of burden.* The pilgrims who came to Göbekli Tepe lived in a world without writing, metal, or pottery; to those approaching the temple from below, its pillars must have loomed overhead like rigid giants, the animals on the stones shivering in the firelight—emissaries from a spiritual world that the human mind may have only begun to envision.
> 
> Archaeologists are still excavating Göbekli Tepe and debating its meaning. What they do know is that the site is the most significant in a volley of unexpected findings that have overturned earlier ideas about our species' deep past. Just 20 years ago most researchers believed they knew the time, place, and rough sequence of the Neolithic Revolution—the critical transition that resulted in the birth of agriculture, taking Homo sapiens from scattered groups of hunter-gatherers to farming villages and from there to technologically sophisticated societies with great temples and towers and kings and priests who directed the labor of their subjects and recorded their feats in written form. But in recent years multiple new discoveries, Göbekli Tepe preeminent among them, have begun forcing archaeologists to reconsider.



These are amazing, aren't they?!!!

Read the whole article *here*

As it seems, even before the Abrahammic religion (Muslim, Christ, Zoroastrianism) or others (Hindu, Boudh...etc) people needed to worship. Researchers soon might just uncover the facts what and why did they worship?


----------



## eggman (Feb 3, 2012)

^^That's cool. Is the novel based on half base facts or it's based on scientific facts?


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 3, 2012)

The novel has a disclaimer that apart from the plot all are facts.


----------



## Anish (Feb 4, 2012)

@Rhitwick: Thats amazing I've never heard of that. Thanks for sharing bro. So, the result of this research would favor the existence of God I suppose.



Minion said:


> do you think you can create a organism If you can create then you are god


You must first read Urey-Miller hypothesis - class 10 biology I suppose


----------



## doomgiver (Feb 5, 2012)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Building stonehenge, pyramids, great cities is a different thing, and asking the questions like those mentioned in Prashopnishada is another. Every big civilization in this world built cities, fought wars, conquered each other. But no one from Aryavart (Bharat / India) came outside to conquer anyone.
> _
> well, you think that building a effing HUEG structure is just a piddling thing?
> no one from bharat built any building of note.
> ...


_
perhaps your one-sided views arise from your closeted  upbringing (nothing wrong with that, except, if you build a impenetrable shell to keep in your candle-light, you miss out on the bright sun shining outside)_


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 5, 2012)

Anish said:


> @Rhitwick: Thats amazing I've never heard of that. Thanks for sharing bro. So, the result of this research would favor the existence of God I suppose.



Favor? Can't say. 

They found temple and trying to understand why it was made when men even weren't used to live in caves and weren't used to come together to do any work.

Why they needed to build a temple that is the question? How would it favor in proving God's existence I've no idea.


----------



## Anish (Feb 5, 2012)

^^I presumed may be,they built it for their gods.
And who knows? May be its not built by the humans at all!!


----------



## rishitells (Feb 5, 2012)

> no one from bharat built any building of note.


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.. 



> everyone came to india and raped the country, and what did we do? we ran to the hills, we ran for our lives.


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?



> what culture? spit piss and **** in public? social customs? blindly hero worshipping anyone of fair skin and treating those less than fair as slaves?


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..



> i'd rather have a few pillars of crumbling marble rather than this $hithole.


Thanks for showing me your intellectual level, I'd rather debate with somebody with guts of writing...




> We hate our Science and Technology and culture and want to imitate *indians and blacks.*


Very good, I expected no less..



> well, what good did all that do?
> imagine most of the dinosaurs were HYPERUBEROMGWTFBBQ intelligent, had awesome culture, and were terribly polite and non violent, then suddenly some furry mammals got their litte furry paws on laser cannons...... now tell me, what good will all that culture and "sipping tea with pinky sticking out" do???


What do you want to say? Comparing Hindus to DINOSAURS?? 
Take some rest man! 



> perhaps your one-sided views arise from your closeted upbringing (nothing wrong with that, except, if you build a impenetrable shell to keep in your candle-light, you miss out on the bright sun shining outside)


Don't be so desperate bro, find some debatable content and come back


----------



## Neuron (Feb 5, 2012)

Anish said:


> ^^I presumed may be,they built it for their gods.
> And who knows? May be its not built by the humans at all!!



Ancient aliens.


----------



## doomgiver (Feb 6, 2012)

i'll try to answer tomorrow. you pick a bad time to post :/


----------



## mediator (Feb 8, 2012)

@Rishabh : 

You are wasting your time here. There was a reason why Vedic knowledge was imparted only to the eligible ones. Through meditation also one can experience of what we know as the ultimate reality. But reading the scriptures can have both negative and positive effects. It can help one understand the ultimate truth and one can become too egotistical about it. Some people are presumptuous about it and some are busy tagging it as "monotheism or polytheism". Some think ancient is equivalent to outdated and unscientific (and crap  ) 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.

Please read Kena and Other Upanishads by Sri Aurobindo 

Other reads : 
The Max-Muller Syndrome istorting Hinduism (Part 1) | The Chakra News
Eminent Supporters and Upholders of Hinduism
Generating power out of thin air? This man from Karnataka is confident - Bangalore - DNA

Other nations are promoting sanskrit to know Vedas, some Indians are trying to figure out energy resources through Vedic knowledge, but then there are those who have never even read the shrutis, but still are busy tagging,concluding,judging,assuming based on abrahamic conditioning of "god" and "modern material understanding" of science. Higher than these is still another category which further judges the Veda from the 'critics sites' and superficialities happening in the society, where we often land up on the forums of Zakir Naik .

And, From that distorted and reduced framework, they are busy abusing and further degrading the Indian literature which had been represented often in forms of metaphor and riddles. I guess they would make a mockery even of the Kena Upanishad where the whole scripture is written in the form of a riddle. Max Muller Syndrome is what they are suffering from!

Earlier, when a child was born, he/she used to sleep beside the mother and now we have western conception where the new born child is made to sleep separately and often given in the hands of strange and unknown faces called 'baby sitters' without even empathising on the effects it has on the child!


----------



## doomgiver (Feb 8, 2012)

mediator said:


> Earlier, when a child was born, he/she used to sleep beside the mother and now we have western conception where the new born child is made to sleep separately and often given in the hands of strange and unknown faces called 'baby sitters' without even empathising on the effects it has on the child!



as i said, the whole culture is being force-fed intravenously to dogs


----------



## Anorion (Feb 8, 2012)

^yes, vedism and Hinduism are both tags, un umbrella term for a wide range of umm.. vidya, totally legit btw, there was always freedom to pursue your own natural beliefs, and many hindu/vedic schools were based on atheism, rejecting rituals, and many other so called "modern" ideas

its just our way of life, find a guru and follow his/her teachings


----------



## Anish (Feb 9, 2012)

Anorion said:


> ^yes, vedism and Hinduism are both tags, un umbrella term for a wide range of umm.. vidya, totally legit btw, there was always freedom to pursue your own natural beliefs, and many hindu/vedic schools were based on atheism, rejecting rituals, and many other so called "modern" ideas
> 
> its just our way of life, find a guru and follow his/her teachings



^^yeah.. I agree with this troll (you are promoted to level 13  )
Just live your own way of life (which you like) as long as it doesn't hurt others (I mean the human community) and of-course yourself. Why do people tie themselves to those hard rituals I wonder!!!
Four choices:
1. Don't care about God, (if god exists, as Achilles said: the gods envy us!) Live your own way of life with your own principles of humanity. (I fall here)
2. Fear for the existence of god - he is watching you when you are out with your GF 
3. Atheism
4. Research whether god exists - Break your head until your precious spills out your entire room and at-last you come to know that you've wasted you life.

Most of the curious sapiens are of the fourth category.


----------



## Monk (May 27, 2012)

Religion for me is mere traffic rules, US has specific traffic rules. India has different traffic rules, same applies with all other countries/communities.
But no traffic rule is greater than one and other (That's what people are fighting for). You have set of instructions to follow, to make a civil society and you call it 'Religion'.



> "Religion is for human, not vice-versa"





> "There is no God, but Godliness"


----------



## doomgiver (May 27, 2012)

Monk said:


> Religion for me is mere traffic rules, US has specific traffic rules. India has different traffic rules, same applies with all other countries/communities.
> But no traffic rule is greater than one and other (That's what people are fighting for). You have set of instructions to follow, to make a civil society and you call it 'Religion'.



OHOHOHOHOHO!!!!

i LOVE it when a newb necro's this thread!!!

yeah, all those "rules" are just in place so that a few profit off the many.
i dont follow the rules, hence, i am that person who overthrows tyrants and "restores" "order" upon the world.

choke on it.


----------



## rhitwick (Jun 16, 2012)

Men hate uncertainty, unknown and unexplained (IDK about animals if they also react to unknown same way as men do; but, yea men do).

Since the beginning we tried to explain things we see. It was need of the hour then and even now. Everything had to have some reason, something had to be source of it...when science was not established (well, as 'Science') the answers were given philosophically. "If, you do this, this and this, thus would happen". As identical as a scientific formula to reach a goal.

This formula or rule later became boundaries for men. Everything that can be explained or fall under these boundaries are accepted. And things that don't fall in the boundaries or can't be explained by the existing rules are...not accepted. 

Now, men just did not stop assigning "not accepted" to such things/events...like I told earlier everything had to have an explanation...the next immediate task was to find out a reason of that. And if the path taken to reach the conclusion was hurried or with least effort or calculative methods...a GOD was invented to be responsible for the phenomena! Sometimes the GOD would be a bad one (Evil) responsible bad/destructive events and sometimes good ones. In summary...even in the old ages they needed someone to blame/appreciate/make responsible for things that happened.

Yes, that approach is still followed in every aspect in our daily life. Your home, your office, daily commute medium, politics, economy etc. Whenever something bad/good (though now the scapegoat is searched to take blame only) happens people start to find the reason. As if the sooner the reason is found the problem will be solved. Well, the approach is right most of the times. If you can pinpoint the reason, you just need to find an antidote for it. But, which pains me that the process now stops the moment someone agrees to take the fall.

Well, the above stanza kinda went offtopic, but this indomitable thirst to explain everything and bind everything by rule took us where we are now. The intelligent and all questioning minds gave us science whereas the lazy and all accepting minds gave us GOD.


----------



## Anorion (Jun 18, 2012)

^catch a phenomenon and follow it to it's conclusion. A tree bears fruits. The scientic approach will tell us that the only way trees can survive is to bribe other life forms and hide their seed in food. Evolution solved the problem of how to spread seeds. Science stops here. Religion adds a force to this phenomenon, a meaning, shakti gives us all fruits. Nature is bountiful for man, not for itself. This force giving us so many things is visualised as a thousand real hands giving us the fruits. We worship this force as devi. This is not being lazy, it's taking more effort to celebrate the same phenomena. Otherwise we take nature for granted, look what science is doing to it.


----------



## amruth kiran (Jun 18, 2012)

great scientists have been put behind bars in the centuries behind us. all for thinking out of the box. that nature is set of events which started billions of years ago, not that a supernatural force just "made it happen".
science is merely not just a belief, but more of a understanding, then believing.
i am not saying religion(god) is just belief, but i feel people take to the side of god cause they believe it is easier to "believe" in someone greater,powerful , wiser than themselves. just as a morale boost. i have done it. its better than thinking that life is just a set of coincidental events. and anything can happen at the next turn.
scary but true.


----------



## rishitells (Jun 19, 2012)

amruth kiran said:


> great scientists have been put behind bars in the centuries behind us. all for thinking out of the box. that nature is set of events which started billions of years ago, not that a supernatural force just "made it happen".



Great seer-scientists like Patanjali, Panini, Charaka, and many more were not put behind the bars, but are indeed the most revered individuals of Indian Civilization's History. Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are studies and researched all over the world by brilliant scholars of Cambridge and Harward. And there has been no greater grammarian than Panini, who standardized the Sanskrit, there is no doubt in that. I would request you not to Generalize every world view into one single narrow minded view. There has been no fight between Science and Religion in India. Actually there has never been a "Religion" in India. We did not have any orthodox "Must-Follow" Rules and Regulations of life and society. 

Reason, Speculation and  Research was an integral part of our Civilization which led to the development of various branches of practical importance such as anatomy and medicine, architecture and town planning, meteorology and astronomy, language and linguistics, music and dance, statecraft and economy, social engineering and jurisprudence, psychology and physiology etc.


----------



## amruth kiran (Jun 21, 2012)

first of all. this is a general discussion so we have to generalize . we are lucky that great men you mentioned were not stoned for their achievements . India is unique in that way, that's why we accepted men from " the new world" or foreign lands as our own brothers, or even accepting new ideas or even ideals for a better life.
no doubt of the contribution which Indian scientists made and still make. 
so we can happily say in a way science is treated like a god in India.


----------



## rishitells (Jun 21, 2012)

amruth kiran said:


> first of all. this is a general discussion so we have to generalize . we are lucky that great men you mentioned were not stoned for their achievements . India is unique in that way, that's why we accepted men from " the new world" or foreign lands as our own brothers, or even accepting new ideas or even ideals for a better life.
> no doubt of the contribution which Indian scientists made and still make.
> so we can happily say in a way science is treated like a god in India.



Glad to acknowledge your respect towards Indian Civilization.


----------



## sharang.d (Jun 21, 2012)

Science


----------



## Vyom (Jun 21, 2012)

"Believe in God. If he exist you will find redemption. If he doesn't exist, you will loose nothing."
- IRIS.


----------



## Neuron (Jun 21, 2012)

amruth kiran said:


> we are lucky that great men you mentioned were not *stoned* for their achievements .



Okay, what does that mean?


----------



## Flash (Aug 11, 2012)

We are the result of lucky organic mutations that brought the 1st life.

God is a belief, whereas SCIENCE is the basic of all.


----------



## amruth kiran (Aug 11, 2012)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Glad to acknowledge your respect towards Indian Civilization.



well i am hindustani.


----------



## Theodre (Aug 12, 2012)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I think god is treated by the non-believers as SciENCe!!! 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!!!!


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 12, 2012)

*Re: ***science Or God?****



NikiNfOuR said:


> I think god is treated by the non-believers as SciENCe!!! 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!!!!



May be you are confusing GOD with with your parents.


----------



## jsm17 (Aug 17, 2012)

*Re: ***science Or God?****

I dont know how science contradicts the concept of God in the first place or vice versa.
If science cant prove the existence of God and i think it never will be able to, it cant prove that God doesnt exists either.
I mean before Newton discovered gravity, people werent floating in air.
Now believing in God is just a matter of faith. You either believe in him or you dont or there are people like me who only believe in Him during trouble and exams.


----------



## Hrishi (Aug 17, 2012)

So have you arrived at any conclusion about this endless topic ??


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 17, 2012)

Religion is defined as a means of dividing people into different categories thereby ensuring they follow their own and fight against other "categories" after finding out that their respect was hurt somehow by them even if it actually never happened. Such fights are brutal and and in most cases costs wealth and life. In short its a means of controlling population.

Science never asks you to "Believe". It just answers questions or tells that this is unanswered. When it comes to God, its belief, belief and belief. It's true, that's just a "belief" so people ensure there is some super power above them so they stay in fear. One who doesn't fear, does whatever he wants and leaves. Things happen as destined, it's all about your perception.

Enjoy~!


----------



## Flash (Aug 17, 2012)

Rishi. said:


> So have you arrived at any conclusion about this endless topic ??



Thought this same question and came here! 
5 years, 9 months, 2 weeks, 4 days and still alive!


----------



## Anorion (Aug 17, 2012)

^no was meant to unite people. before radio or teleivision and internet, you knew people across the land would work towards the same thing because of religion
not all religions are meant to fight other groups. Sikhs are religiously bound to protect the practice of all faiths, not just their own. 

god does not need to be real to affect us, the idea of god is sufficient. god is the ultimate projection of man's ego. It's a fantasy of micro-managing the world. this is the one thing that allows humans to think of really long term effects, for the planet, it's people, and all the other creatures as well, as against an animal-like one track mind of taking care of only yourself. it's the idea of God that allows us to play God when we want to... why are we saving creatures that were going extinct anyway? 

being an atheist is just being selfish.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 17, 2012)

Anorion said:


> why are we saving creatures that were going extinct anyway?


And, what the reason you think is?



> being an atheist is just being selfish.


Could not agree. Please clarify.


----------



## Faun (Aug 17, 2012)

Anorion said:


> being an atheist is just being selfish.



being an atheist is simply the lack of belief in God.


----------



## Alok (Aug 17, 2012)

Anorion said:


> being an atheist is just being selfish.



no , i'm not selfish (relatively ,). Its just i don't believe that phenomena.


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 17, 2012)

Anorion said:


> ^no was meant to unite people. before radio or teleivision and internet, you knew people across the land would work towards the same thing because of religion
> not all religions are meant to fight other groups. Sikhs are religiously bound to protect the practice of all faiths, not just their own.
> 
> god does not need to be real to affect us, the idea of god is sufficient. god is the ultimate projection of man's ego. It's a fantasy of micro-managing the world. this is the one thing that allows humans to think of really long term effects, for the planet, it's people, and all the other creatures as well, as against an animal-like one track mind of taking care of only yourself. it's the idea of God that allows us to play God when we want to... why are we saving creatures that were going extinct anyway?
> ...



none of the religions are taught to fight/show voilence. all religions teach peace not only Sikh. As per the "faith", we still live in the world which belongs to God. Even today's micro managed world with radio, television and internet is at the mercy of God. Then how come we have such world and people.

FYI, we are saving creatures for few reasons mainly being, to balance the food chain cycle (Eg. Tigers). Also, to avoid a particular breed to completely extinct from existence. Not because God told them to.

About being selfish, I can contradict. Atheist rely on themselves no matter what condition they are in. Faith keepers are "selfish" as their belief and prayers are at peak when they are in need (results, exams, medical emergency etc). We never pray when we are hanging out, having fun, working etc. All of sudden if bad news comes, our hands are joined.

PS: No offence, and I'm not an atheist. 

Enjoy~!


----------



## Anorion (Aug 17, 2012)

hmm all religions may teach peace, but don't think any other religion except Sikhism makes it compulsory to protect the practice of all faiths

atheism is simply no belief in god, in theory, the way it is practiced is atheists can go around saying believers are stupid, and reject all kinds of spiritual things, basically no time for all these things, which is why, selfish In a sense. also, selfish in the sense that the people are thinking about not practicing the religion as against the wishes of their parents or family. maybe the statement is over-generic, not all atheists are selfish, but a lot of these nihilist 90s kids are gripped by this attitude, it's common in our age group

why put science against god? because we don't see the meaning of prayer or worship in our day to day lives. but in times of intense trouble, or life threatening situations, people pray, does not matter if theist or atheist, there is a series of thoughts that takes you a step at a time away from panic and brings you back into control of your body, the only way to draw the strength to do this is to pray from higher powers (luck maybe), or wish for a certain consequence without any grounded logic on why it should happen. this process is prayer, and can be done before you fall into trouble. worship continuously prepares you for tackling such situations better.


----------



## theserpent (Aug 17, 2012)

Give me one thing to prove that god existed!
NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE HERE
Okay? So shiva just cut ganapathis head and put a elephants head woah? How can anyone even believe that.;
Did he join all the nerves,bones etc to ??


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 17, 2012)

Disagree. Just praying doesn't always bring your nerves back to control. It's always the situation the controls your emotion. You pray like hell but you still carry the fear until the problem is solved. Its all about mind games nothing else. People fool themselves to stay in control which is not required if you have a sense of self control.

And its really funny/weird to call someone selfish because he/she follows his own beliefs. What you said is something like I asked you to learn Yoga, which you didn't learn so your selfish. Makes absolutely no sense at all. Selfishness is something that you don't do by norms but when you are in need you come up running with joined hands. 

And there is no religion which can claim that they have never participated in voilence. So no point discussing on that.

Enjoy~!


----------



## Anorion (Aug 17, 2012)

ok will say how this prayer brainwave came about to me
on a trek. there was a steep incline, fort on top, and path leading to the fort. I was on top of the fort, watching a group come up the path. One oversmart guy thought he could skip the path, and just go straight up the incline to the fort... where I was seeing him from. None of his group members had the sense to stop him. See him coming up fast, and it's easy to go up a steep slope, but it's a one-way road, once you start like that you can only slide down. But he made it almost to the top, about five meters from the edge of the fort wall, he stopped at a particularly steep area, difficult to go on. Then he saw behind him how steep it was. Then he went sideways to try a slightly diff route, and slipped. Donno if he panicked and then he slipped, or he panicked after he slipped. He slipped for a little distance and grabbed the hill side with his fingers used like claws. Then he started looking around helplessly, and I saw him praying. No folded hands or anything, but you could clearly see him wishing he was out of that place. He turned around, sat down, wiped sweat from face and looked skywards. This was not a conscious motion, but a very animal-like one. And then after about two-three minutes, he slowly and carefully, looking around at the terrain made it to the wall of the fort, and walked along the edge till he found a broken bit he climbed over. 

this incident made me think specifically prayer and maybe religion has some natural aspects to it, that we have become very separated from. 
you can say it was his own self control. does not stop from prayer being a component of it. 

If you ask me to learn Yoga, and I don't then that's not selfish. But if I come from a family of Yoga Teachers, or say mridangam players, and I don't turn out to be a Yoga Teacher or a Mridangam Player myself, just like my ancestors, would call that at least a lil bit selfish. There are many, many benefits of belief and religion. Atheists, simply throw all these away as irrational, superstitious, and stupid, another way to assert their independence. Im talking about atheists we know irl, friends of ours, not experts and scholars in atheism. Also, many are atheists only during debates, but at home will eat prasad, touch elder's feet, and all that. Wudn't call them hypocrites. 

skepticism is good in science and religion

You strictly can practice religion for it's community benefits (Christmas, Ganesh Utsav, eg), even without believing in or God


----------



## Faun (Aug 17, 2012)

Anorion said:


> Also, many are atheists only during debates, but at home will eat prasad, touch elder's feet, and all that.



What's the point here ?


----------



## Anorion (Aug 18, 2012)

^it's very impractical to be an atheist, no real benefit from it


----------



## theserpent (Aug 18, 2012)

Okay please tell me whats the use on spending 50k on a pooja?Instead give the money to the poor/child/old age homes


----------



## Anorion (Aug 18, 2012)

^it's exactly that, Temple runs many hospitals, schools, orphanages 

have nothing against atheism, do your thing, but just don't call believers blind, stupid, ignorant, superstitious, because many people are smart enough to know all this and still believe in god

best science can do is Richard Dawkins? his web site is full of extremist stuff you can find in the cult hide outs. have you ever asked the question if at least some of science is a self sustaining, perfect lie, just like the alleged god? Because, it totally is. Just look at what scientists believed 200 years ago. Religious people are still carrying forward bronze age belief systems, they are relevant even today.


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2012)

@Anorion
are you dead sure that the amount donated is not used for selfish purposes and other illegal activities. Why not help someone who is in immediate reach of yours directly ? 

A life without believing in God is good enough for me. I don't see the impractical stuff.

A huge number of believers can be swayed with one word of their religious leaders. Just look at the recent events.



Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Ignorantly flawed statement.



He  (Mr. speedyguy) is just another Indian oblivious of the teachings of other religions and assuming that everything rosy out there. Not his fault for not doing enough research on this subject :sarcasm:

Enjoy~!


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 18, 2012)

@Rishabh_sharma1990 : You should prefer not to pin point and speak such about a particular religion. You do not belong to that religion and no one gives you such rights to do so in public, we don't want a new topic here. People who are taught like that are not teaching what is written in their holy book Quran. Quran also teaches peace and that is what real muslims follow. People who teach such things are misguiders, not God. Thats my point, in the name of religion, people are taught bad things by wrong people even though the religion does not say that. We are all humans with 2 hands, 2 legs and a face. But we are divided by religions and communities and we assume other communities are the worst of all/our enemies. Your statement clearly speaks how adverse impact religionism has on you. And there are many like you who will ensure peace is not our cup of coffee.
PS: I'm not discussing about a particular religion any more so your statements pointing such things would be ignored by me, no offence.

Secularism, has allowed people from different religions to migrate in India, furthermore has also divided India into different states. Need not mention the adverse impacts of this in our day to day life, especially if you are studying/working in some other state. Feels like a new planet.

@ Anorion: And, who on earth says if you come from a "Yoga teachers" family you are bound to become another Yoga teacher. Every child is born with his own destiny. He/she has his full rights to choose a path of his wish and should be intervened only if he/she chooses the wrong path. They are still not selfish, infact its unjustified act by parents if they push their children to follow them. That I shall say another adverse impact of religion and belief.

Enjoy~!


----------



## rishitells (Aug 18, 2012)

Faun said:


> He is just another Indian oblivious of the teachings of other religions and assuming that everything rosy out there. Not his fault for not doing enough research on this subject.



Expected answer. Well I know you *(@SpeedyGuy)* have problem accepting the Hard-Hitting facts about Islam which you are unable to disprove, so wrap them in a 'Secular', 'All-One' kinda package and you are done! 
Listen man, this is a debate, and I don't feel restricted here for not naming, or not retelling the bitter truths of any group of people (Islam, here). I am sure I will not be stoned to death, or my throat cut in the name of God here. And nobody here will issue a Fatwa against me.
I wish I could do the same for Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism.. but Alas, I can't find even a 'Single' teaching, which you can even 'question'.

The problem and conflict arises in people when they claim *'Exclusivity'*, as Rajiv Malhotra points out. Islam, Christianity like religions fall in this category where they 'Claim', that theirs is the 'Only-Truth', and everything else is a crap and must be destroyed (The reason Nalanda, Takshila was destroyed).
The fundamental principal of Islam is 'intolerance' towards Non-Believers, or Atheists (Kaafir). They want to covert me into their belief, and that's where I have a problem, and always will be.

Then there is Hinduism, Buddhism and eastern philosophies which are based on the belief of 'Vasudhev Kutumbakam', i.e. "all the world is a family". Thousands of years, and Indian-Civilization is still alive. It's just because of the respect towards each and every element of universe we people have. And I again point out, it is only because of the Majority of Hindus, Sikhs that you have 'Secularism'. 
*Name me ANY Islamic 'Secular' country, where you can preach Hinduism, Christianity or anything. 
*
What I basically want to point out, that* 'Do Not Generalize' everything.* There is a Fundamental difference between eastern and western philosophies, and teachings. It doesn't mean West has not had any Great Teacher, or East has always been 'Rosy', but that only means 'there is difference', just as you and me are different, just as sun and moon are different from each other, just as two galaxies are different. Hope you are getting the right meaning. Difference is in our Nature, and this difference has led to the the creation of various groups of people, religions, philosophies in humans. 

*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) 

*@SpeedyGuy* It's not religionism man. You people are so fast in categorizing people, and then you blame religion for dividing? If you have a problem in reading 'Pointed-Out-Hard-Facts', then please for God's sake.. err.. for Science' Sake  , do not participate in this 'God vs Science' debate, which is more 'Religion vs Science'.
But anyway, rest assured, this was the last time I pointed out the 'Religion of Peace'. I do not want any Fatwa against me


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 18, 2012)

@Rishabh_sharma1990 : Thanks for your advice but no thanks, I don't need your decision on participating in this debate or not. If you can't handle it just say it as it doesn't matter whatever your personal perceptions are. And yes, you still continue to show the adverse effects of "religionism". 

The most fatal wars these days are only due to ethinic clashes. These are just because people belong to different ethinicity and hardly you find people who actually understand and respect other religions.

Enjoy~!


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2012)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Expected answer.



My comment was directed towards Mr. speedyguy. Amended my post to remove confusion.

I know the difference between abrahamic exclusivity and dharmic non-exclusivity. I was the one reading a lot into religious scriptures a couple of years back.



speedyguy said:


> The most fatal wars these days are only due to ethinic clashes. These are just because people belong to different ethinicity and hardly you find people who actually understand and respect other religions.
> 
> Enjoy~!



May be if you read up more on the subject.

Enjoy~!



Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> *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)



I don't have problem with other people's belief as long as they keep it to their individual spheres and not turn into an organized raging army of drones.

It's not like I don't give respect to my mom because she is a God believer. She never forced this religious mumbo jumbo on me and I respect her for that and for reasons far more than this.


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 18, 2012)

Faun said:


> I don't have problem with other people's belief as long as they keep it to their individual spheres and not turn into an organized raging army of drones.
> 
> It's not like I don't give respect to my mom because she is a God believer. She never forced this religious mumbo jumbo on me and I respect her for that and for reasons far more than this.



Good Point.

Enjoy~!


----------



## Anish (Aug 18, 2012)

A great preacher told "One who doesn't believe in himself is called an atheist!" and "If you have love as one of your qualities, you do not need to follow any religion and all of the religion tries to teach to be lovable!"
It can be clearly inferred from the above sentence that all that matters is self-confidence and love towards other beings.!
And this ultimately narrows down to one thing: Man had tried from age old days, to unite his species by various ways


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 18, 2012)

Anorion said:


> ok will say how this prayer brainwave came about to me
> on a trek. there was a steep incline, fort on top, and path leading to the fort. I was on top of the fort, watching a group come up the path. One oversmart guy thought he could skip the path, and just go straight up the incline to the fort... where I was seeing him from. None of his group members had the sense to stop him. See him coming up fast, and it's easy to go up a steep slope, but it's a one-way road, once you start like that you can only slide down. But he made it almost to the top, about five meters from the edge of the fort wall, he stopped at a particularly steep area, difficult to go on. Then he saw behind him how steep it was. Then he went sideways to try a slightly diff route, and slipped. Donno if he panicked and then he slipped, or he panicked after he slipped. He slipped for a little distance and grabbed the hill side with his fingers used like claws. Then he started looking around helplessly, and I saw him praying. No folded hands or anything, but you could clearly see him wishing he was out of that place. He turned around, sat down, wiped sweat from face and looked skywards. This was not a conscious motion, but a very animal-like one. And then after about two-three minutes, he slowly and carefully, looking around at the terrain made it to the wall of the fort, and walked along the edge till he found a broken bit he climbed over.
> 
> this incident made me think specifically prayer and maybe religion has some natural aspects to it, that we have become very separated from.
> you can say it was his own self control. does not stop from prayer being a component of it.


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.

And, the incident explains nothing. He prayed. You have never mentioned if he was an atheist and prayed when in danger. 

Being an atheist is not a style statement, its not same as wearing a "Che Guevara" T-shirt to scream to world you are a rebel, its not also being a rebel. Being an atheist is a responsibility to be with logic always. ALWAYS. (Now obvious question if I follow the same? I do, yes I do. But I've never prayed since the day I'm on the path of atheism. Though I've not come to a situation like falling off mountain cliff but I've encountered workplace disasters; server kaput 1hr b4 client demo, code not working way beyond deadline...these are IT nightmares. But i never prayed. I know there is none to help me and I've to clean the mess I did)



> If you ask me to learn Yoga, and I don't then that's not selfish. But if I come from a family of Yoga Teachers, or say mridangam players, and I don't turn out to be a Yoga Teacher or a Mridangam Player myself, just like my ancestors, would call that at least a lil bit selfish.


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.

And, if I generalize your comment a bit more, this whole debate on castesism is pointless. In your line, everyone should follow what their ancestors did. 



> There are many, many benefits of belief and religion.


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, simply throw all these away as irrational, superstitious, and stupid, another way to assert their independence.


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.

There are extremists in Atheism too. There are few who makes it their responsibility to force people to convert. Convert to non-believer from a believer. Those are over-enthusiastic and knows little about "why"s of God and science.
Once I was one of them too. But, now I've understood one thing, peace is important, irrespective of which way it comes. If someone is doing good to mankind and believes in God, I no more see any harm in him/her. *But I hate people who claims things*. They should not do that. If you claim, I'll question you and you have to give an answer which can be measured in these parameters: facts, logic and reasoning.



> Also, many are atheists only during debates, but at home will eat prasad, touch elder's feet, and all that. Wudn't call them hypocrites.


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. 




> You strictly can practice religion for it's community benefits (Christmas, Ganesh Utsav, eg), even without believing in or God


Exactly!


----------



## theserpent (Aug 18, 2012)

Faun said:


> @Anorion
> are you dead sure that the amount donated is not used for selfish purposes and other illegal activities. Why not help someone who is in immediate reach of yours directly ?
> 
> A life without believing in God is good enough for me. I don't see the impractical stuff.
> ...



Exactly.
Suppose say i launch a product i want it to go viral..What should i do.Wait let me think....
Let me say that if you buy this product and drink the water everyday and chant the name of god you will live for 100 years.
100000'S of people belive this
You'll should listen to talks of *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Nayak

Some of his words
Sages put some chemicals in your hand which they call as holy powder.
In some peoples hand they put two chemicals which..change color.
So the people,whose hand changes to red.They say your effected by EVIL.
Pay Rs.X and get this thing.
You'll be free from evil


----------



## rishitells (Aug 18, 2012)

Faun said:


> My comment was directed towards Mr. speedyguy. Amended my post to remove confusion.
> 
> I know the difference between abrahamic exclusivity and dharmic non-exclusivity. I was the one reading a lot into religious scriptures a couple of years back.]
> 
> ...



Thanks for removing the confusion brother. And my reply too, was directed towards *SpeedyGuy*


----------



## theserpent (Aug 18, 2012)

A Group Of Travelers teaming up to educate villagers on Holy Miracles - YouTube

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52pcyKEFAQ


----------



## mediator (Aug 19, 2012)

speedguy said:
			
		

> Quran also teaches peace and that is what real muslims follow. People who teach such things are misguiders, not God.


On one hand you think others shouldn't talk about a "particular religion" and then you are fancying with Islam.


O you who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoever amongst you takes them for friends he is indeed one of them. Surely Allåh guides not the unjust people. (Quran 5.51)


“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger [i.e., Muhammad], and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. ( Quran 5.33)”


Fight those who believe not in Allåh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allåh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of s subjection (9.29) 


Quran not only talks about a particular religion, but calls to destroy those who do not believe in Islam. Perhaps, you should tell the maulanas that Quran should not talk about "Jews and Christians" and infidels. The above source is from muslim.org. I have quoted the same old thing many times in the past, but many people with the same mentality that "All religions are the same", busy tagging themselves into the foolish definitions of theists and atheists which are based on Abrahamic framework and not Indian could neither provide me an alternate translation let alone disconnecting it from the ignorant idea of "Islam teaches peace". The above is just a salad. If you think it is flawed, then I request you the same to find me alternate translations for it which do not talk of killing jews, christians and infidels. 




@Rishabh has told you some wonderful concepts. The Indian thought is neither about some religion or god or atheists or theists. It is much beyond these limited and childish taggings, the fancies of an immature mind which people in this thread have still not graduated from. The Indian thought is neither about the impressions you recieve from the TV shows and serials where the devi-devtas are busy conspiring, marrying and leading a life like that of humans. If you are speaking about secularism, then do understand where, how and why it came into being in Europe.


The Islam speaks about judging the taggings of Jews and Christians and killing the people tagged under such banner. Can you tell if any of the Indian texts like Guru Granth Sahib, Upanishads etc speak about killing and judging someone called "Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist etc"?


The Quran speaks about attachment to a name Allah : la ilaha il-alaha, mohammed urrasool allah, whereas the Indian texts speak about nameless : Ekam satviprabahuda vadanti, where the infinite is nameless yet called by various names like brahman, purusha (not purush i.e guy if you think) etc, formless yet manifests into various forms like different waves from the same ocean, where that "ideal ocean" is infinite and its essence, the central binding force, immutable, whereas the waves are finite and mutable some marked with a sense of "I" and some not! To be explicit, I hope you understand the metaphor. Many people I discuss this, esp. atheists, think I'm talking about oceans literally. No wonder, they cannot understand the Indian shrutis.




			
				Bhagvad-Gita said:
			
		

> 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)




If you understand any of the above distinctions, then proceed to this for further details : Theism and Vedas | The Chakra News




If you understand that, do read Aurobindo's : The secret of Vedas. It is available freely with pdf format. Trust me, you'll laugh yourself at the average understanding of the Indian philosophies which we see in this thread alone which is not even intellectual in nature, let alone being intelligent!


Like Zakir Naik speaks in inferior words : In Islam everything is "God's" (with an apostrophe s, which is the whole central point of discussion in this thread i.e Modern Science Vs God, who is actually Abrahamic and not Indian devi or Devta) where as in Hinduism everything is God (In Hindi it means divya and divya is not the same as God. These devi-devta are the different powers of the infinite, like air/wind, water, intellect, mind, supermind which are called by terminologies like vayu, varuna, indra, Vishnu etc in the Vedas, Shakti and Shiva in the Tantras, purusha and prakriti in the Gita etc . From divya comes the sanskrit offsprings like deva and even Maya is a devi. There is a similar analogy to the Greek philosophy as well). He, Zakir, surely doesn't know how he himself is making a mockery of Islam! IMO, he is speaking the truth.


I can see that your thoughts are noble, but there is still an immense amount of conditioning where your views, both positive and negative, are based on abrahamic thought and not Indian at all. It is the story of most of the Indians today who assume on Indian texts based on the perceptions from TV shows and movies like Jaani Dushman, Freddy Vs Jason etc, instead of reading the texts and behave in the exact way that the missionaries like Max muller, Griffith, Bloomsfield wanted them to, the missionaries who mistranslated many of the Indian works like Vedas through their degraded understanding based on the same taggings like Theism, Atheism, Religion where they saw Vedas to be speaking about Gods figting and worshipping different animals like Cow, Horse etc and drinking liquor called Soma . If you are thinking of tagging me into some words like theist, atheist, religionist etc, then feel free. I'd only ask you to rise beyond these childish terminologies! 








Some excerpts from Secret of The Vedas -----


The word go means both cow and light and in a number of passages evidently meant light even while putting forward the image of the cow. This is clear enough
when we have to do with the cows of the sun — the Homeric kine of Helios — and the cows of the Dawn. Psychologically, the physical Light might well be used as a symbol of knowledge and especially of the divine knowledge (Page 43)  { i.e cow is the metaphor of light or wisdom/knowledge recieved}


Indra is invoked as the maker of perfect forms to drink the wine of Soma; drinking he becomes full of ecstasy and a “giver of cows” .... A study
s of the Vedic horse led me to the conclusion that go and asva represent the two companion ideas of Light and Energy, Consciousness and Force, which to the Vedic and Vedantic mind were the double or twin aspect of all the activities of existence. (Page 44) { i.e mind is illumined when by the sheer amount of knowledge, the eternal bliss, the truth and thus "giver of cows" by which we can act objectively and wisely } 


Agni for the ordinary worshipper may have meant simply the god of the Vedic fire, or it may have meant the principle of Heat and Light in physical Nature, or to the most ignorant it may have meant simply a superhuman personage, one of the many “givers of wealth”, satisfiers of human desire. How suggest to those capable of a deeper conception the psychological functions of the God? The word itself fulfilled that service. For Agni meant the Strong, it meant the Bright, or even Force, Brilliance. So it could easily recall to the initiated, wherever it occurred, the idea of the illumined Energy which builds up the worlds and which exalts man to the Highest, the doer of the great work, the Purohit of the human sacrifice. (Page 56) { i.e Agni is the will power, the force which is one the first devtas who is invoked by Indra i.e mind/itelligence. Obviously this is true in any case. If you want to learn guitar, your mind will automatically increase focus.  }


This wine of Soma represents, as we have abundant proof in the Veda and especially in the ninth book, a collection of more than a hundred hymns addressed to the deity Soma, the intoxication of the Ananda, the divine delight of being, inflowing upon the mind from the supramental consciousness through the Ritam or Truth. If we accept these interpretations, we can easily translate the hymn into its psychological significance. (Page 74) { i.e The awakening as experienced by the mind, metaphorically written in the form of drinking of soma by Indra. }


What can these rivers be whose wave is full of Soma wine, full of the ghrta, full of urj, the energy? What are these waters that flow to the goal of the gods’ movement, that establish for man the supreme good?....Obviously these are the waters of the Truth and the Bliss that flow from the supreme ocean. These rivers flow not upon earth, but in heaven; they are prevented by Vritra the Besieger, the Coverer from flowing down upon the earth-consciousness in which we mortals live till Indra, the god-mind, smites the Coverer with his flashing lightnings and cuts out a passage on the summits of that earth-consciousness down which they can flow. Such is the only rational, coherent and sensible explanation of the thought and language of the Vedic sages. (Page 113)


This matter of the lost herds is only part of a whole system of connected symbols and images. They are recovered by the sacrifice and the fiery god Agni is the flame, the power and the priest of the sacrifice; — by the Word, and Brihaspati is the father of the Word, the Maruts its singers or Brahmas, brahmano marutah, Saraswati its inspiration; — by the Wine, and Soma is the god of the Wine and the Ashwins its seekers, finders, givers, drinkers. The herds are the herds of Light and the Light comes
by the Dawn and by the Sun of whom Pushan is a form. Finally, Indra is the head of all these gods, lord of the light, king of the luminous heaven called Swar, — he is, we say, the luminous or divine Mind; into him all the gods enter and take part in his unveiling of the hidden light. We see therefore that there is a perfect appropriateness in the attribution of one and the same victory to these different deities and in Madhuchchhandas’ image of the gods entering into Indra for the stroke against Vala. Nothing has been done at random or in obedience to a confused fluidity of ideas. The Veda is perfect and beautiful in its coherence and its unity. (Page 144)








Vedas : Mind is the chief controller of all the senses, of the breaths in the Human being (inhale, exhale, life breath etc) which we see as "devraj Indra". It is the mind which is always wavering with positive and negative thoughts and yields to the self for the guidance which we see as "Swargaloka always wavering and being attacked by Demons and presided over by devtas and Indra running to Vishnu for guidance".


Shiva and Shakti : Where Shakti is the individual jiva (when perceived at human level) always trying to achieve the state of perfect knowledge i.e Shiva which we see in serials loosely as Shakti always trying to seek Shiva and how consciousness continues seeking even after death e.g Sati to Parvati where the desires are part of the nature of the body, but one has to control over those desires or detach from those desires. This Shiva is residing on the top of Mount Kailash which is metaphor of the human body itself and the super-mind, the top of Kailash which is beyond all the dualities of life, where space and time cease to exist, where past, present, future all become one, which are nothing more than the division created or perceived by the mind only.




-----------------


Some quotes from Aurobindo's : Kena and other Upanishads's


If God is everywhere, He must be in the food we eat. Not only is God the eaten, but He is the eater and eventually, says the Vedanta, when you come to the bottom fact of existence there is neither eaten or eater, but all is God. (Sri Aurobindo, Kena and Other Upanishads, Page 166)


*What is the use of avoiding the word “God” and speaking always of the Supreme as “It” simply because the Sanscrit usually, — but not, be it observed, invariably — employs the neuter gender? The neuter in Sanscrit applies not only to what is inanimate but to what is beyond such terms as animate and inanimate, not only to what is below gender but to what is above gender. In English this is not the case. The use of “It” may therefore lead to far more serious  misconceptions than to use the term “God” & the pronoun “He”. (Sri Aurobindo, Kena and Other Upanishads, Page 169)*


“Now the Mind in dream revelleth in the glory of his imaginings. All that it hath seen it seemeth to see over again, and of all that it hath heard it repeateth the hearing; yea, all that it hath felt and thought and known in many lands and in various regions, these it liveth over again in its dreaming. What it hath seen and what it hath not seen, what it hath heard and what it hath not heard, what it hath known and what it hath not known, what is and what is not, all, all it seeth; for the Mind is the Universe.
But when he is overwhelmed with light, then Mind, the God, dreameth no longer; then in this body he hath felicity.
(Prashna Upanishad, translated by Sri Aurobindo, Pg 186 of Kena and Other Upanishads)


Therefore as all these flowing rivers move towards the sea, but when they reach the sea they are lost in it and name and form break away from them and all is called only the sea, so all the sixteen members of the silent witnessing Spirit move towards the Being, and when they have attained the Being they are lost in Him and name and form break away from them and all is called only the Being; then is He without members and immortal. Whereof this is the Scripture.
(Prashna Upanishad, translated by Sri Aurobindo, Pg 191 of Kena and Other Upanishads)  { i.e the waves merging back into the nameless ocean }


Sat, Chit and Ananda are in this Highest, but He is neither Sat, Chit nor  Ananda nor any combination of these. He is All and yet He is neti, neti, He is One and yet He is many. He is Parabrahman and He is Parameswara. He is Male and He is Female. He is Tat and He is Sa. This is the Higher than the Highest. He is the Purusha, the Being in whose image the world and all the Jivas are made, who pervades all and underlies all the workings of Prakriti as its reality and self. It is this Purusha that Aswalayana seeks. (Page 289, Sri Aurobindo, Kena and other Upanishads)


it is in another passage stated to have two sides, obverse & reverse, Vidya and Avidya, Science and Nescience. Nescience eternally tends to envelop Science,
Science eternally tends to displace Nescience. Avidya or Nescience is Parabrahman’s power of creating illusions or images, things which seem but are not in themselves; Vidya or Science is His power of shaking off His own imaginations and returning upon His real and eternal Self. The action and reaction of these
two great Energies doing work upon each other is the secret of Universal activity. (Page 378, KOU) { Essentially talking about Purusha and Prakriti and Maya as one of the powers or forms of Prakriti }






Like I stated, the Indian thought is neither the Vedic rituals you see these days nor the presentation of Indian TV shows. It is neither some reduction into childish terminologies like theists, atheists, religion etc.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 19, 2012)

K. Be aware of forum rules.
No religion is not unique in claiming exclusiveity. Hindus do that too. Hare Krishnas call nobel prize winners asses and rascals. This is a total rotten scene in the west where people lose their beloved family members and friends to this bizarre cult... we have some spiritual conquests if not some military ones (back to that later). But all this argument is kid stuff. Not that srs. Not what most ppl  actually blv and practice(outside these cults - now these cults may have some entirely diff benefit of their own within them). But without any burden,  it still feels good to hear an echo of jai shree ram no matter where you utter it. some gods are nothing more than ideal humans. For most people, it makes no diff one way or another, whether or not we believe in god, we are gonna live our lives the exact same way. Mostly because even if we reject ritual and tradition in theory, we follow it in practice. we have absolutely no idea what else to do. 

now, about some things that were not put into textbooks, don't ever get the illusion that we are innocent
there are incidents where we have massacred helpless women and children of foreign nationalities, in our own homeland! We didn't even need to go outside to do such atrocities. Nana Sahib, just look up Bibighar Massacre, we didnt read it in 8th std textbooks where it wud totally fit in 

as long as someone organises Dandiya, me haz no prolem.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 19, 2012)

Anorion said:


> it still feels good to hear an echo of jai shree ram no matter where you utter it. some gods are nothing more than ideal humans. For most people, it makes no diff one way or another, whether or not we believe in god, we are gonna live our lives the exact same way. Mostly because even if we reject ritual and tradition in theory, we follow it in practice. we have absolutely no idea what else to do.



Again, you have posted the tip of the iceberg. You obviously have a lot of observations and theories in your mind but posted only the conclusion. Now...go detail.

@Mediator, liked your post. Always a pleasure reading your posts.


----------



## rishitells (Aug 19, 2012)

*@Mods* I would request you to please inform before or after Deleting a post, or give a warning. I no longer see my first post on this page, and I can't figure out why. Same happened with my very 'clean' post in 'Girls attacked in Manglore' thread. I don't know if it's a forum bug or what. But please take this into consideration.


----------



## ico (Aug 19, 2012)

'La ilaha ilallah' was the easiest way out for the socially boycotted. And again the easiest way out from our own failings is to say all the social evils existant today are because of invasions/Marxist historians and misconceptions because of missionaries etc. 

It is better to be concerned with our own _actions_ or someone else's _actions_ rather than being concerned with a hilarious pile of text. Be concerned only with actions.

The country would do with some Indian nationalists.



Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Name me ANY Islamic 'Secular' country, where you can preach Hinduism, Christianity or anything.


Turkey as it stands. Socially and culturally superior to India in every way possible.


----------



## rishitells (Aug 19, 2012)

ico said:


> Turkey as it stands. Socially and culturally superior to India in every way possible.



Thanks. But I basically wanted to pinpoint Islamic countries where you can live, of course, but you 'cannot' preach your religion (though no need of it).


----------



## ico (Aug 19, 2012)

lol @ 'Victory of Hindus' *twitter.com/Hindujagrutiorg/status/233641143781437440



> *Victory of Hindus:* Visit of 'Sunny Leone' as Guest to Dahi-Handi programs cancelled due to protest by Hindus. Read on @ *www.hindujagruti.org/news/14722.html



Honestly, I don't link any of the following with any text or anything. Be only concerned with actions. Yindoos aren't any better.

[youtube]TObngkm4sIk[/youtube]


----------



## aaruni (Aug 19, 2012)

@ 


ico said:


> lol @ 'Victory of Hindus' *twitter.com/Hindujagrutiorg/status/233641143781437440


----------



## whitestar_999 (Aug 19, 2012)

mediator said:


> If you think it is flawed, then I request you the same to find me alternate translations for it which do not talk of killing jews, christians and infidels.





Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> The fundamental principal of Islam is 'intolerance' towards Non-Believers, or Atheists (Kaafir). They want to covert me into their belief, and that's where I have a problem, and always will be.



Koran a Book of Peace, Not War, Scholars Say


> But the Koran also states in Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, *but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."*
> The essence of the verse, Nyang says, is to fight back "if you are attacked by your persecutors, but don't fight back indiscriminately. Follow the rules of engagement." According to mainstream Muslim clerics, those "rules of engagement"' are explicit: women, children, and innocent civilians are off limits.



do you know what is common between you two & millions of muslims & other people around the world?you all seems to believe in wahabi brand of islam instead of the original one.this is a problem not just with islam but all religions.religious texts just like everything else created by humans/mortals can be corrupted & in fact it will be.also with no offence to anyone majority of the humans born do not possess the intellectual/spiritual caliber to resist such corruption & which is why it is always some extraordinary individuals on whose shoulders lies the responsibility & their actions determine the course of history.it is just that islam is still waiting for such individuals for last few hundred years unlike other religions & that is why it seems the most extremist as of now.


----------



## mediator (Aug 20, 2012)

I don't know how old you are or if it is you couldn't read my post properly even after quoting me, but I asked for alternate translations for verse 5.51, 5.33, 9.29 of Quran and not 2.190. You'll get tired if I post all the verses I know from muslim.org. But then, just to justify your end, you will start using the translations by Griffith, Bloomsfield, Max muller to show that killing has been done by Indra also and that "Yindoos", like one our admins happily pronounces, worshipped Cows, Horses etc, and embarrass the soul of Vedic seers like Aurobindo even further 




Remember, the fight starts the moment you cannot accommodate other's point of view and "force your own opinion on others". So don't rush in just because your swabhava triggered some reactions. Read my post, slowly and carefully. It is the whole point of "La ilaha Il Alaha, mohammad ur rasool allah" that the "believers" want to impose the word Allah on every one's throat. 


If the "believers say, that "Allah is the eaten, the eater and the process of eating and the output of that eating" then it would make sense as every thing in this universe is matter and energy as per modern science and even matter is energy (Refer Quantum Theory). A person (made up of matter and energy), is born from matter and energy, uses matter and energy as food and becomes matter and energy after his death. 


When one puts consciousness into the picture of this dance of matter and energy, it becomes a higher concept which is pronounced as brahman as per the Indian science.




More for you, Chapter 5 for the appetizers ---




			
				Quran_chaper_5 said:
			
		

> ch5, v41
> O Messenger, let not those
> grieve thee who hasten to disbelief,
> from among those who say with their
> ...




First, you can see that Quran is full of contradictions as you made it easy for me. Bring me any version of Quran you like for discussion. Secondly, like I stated, Quran preaches attachment to a name and his prophet which further dictates you what to do and who your enemy is. It is not the demons like lust, greed,anger etc as a philosophical mind would understand but jews,christians and infidels. It further divides the society between regions like Israel etc. Thirdly, "my thought better than yours and if others don't obey it then fight them" (9.29) certianly is a breeding ground, a spark of the war no matter what. If others fight to protect themselves, then they will face even more terrible consequences (5.33).


And every body knows, those who leave Islam, are punishable by death e.g Salman Rushdie, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Taslima Nasreen who have been issued fatwas and death sentences by muslim councils.








If it is a discussion between theist/Religion and atheists, then I'd be pro-atheists. If it is atheists and agnostics, then agnostics. But there is a world which lies beyond all these childish distinctions, where the asuras and devtas are the powers of the same infinite, which is indivisible but seems divided because of our conditioning, uncontrolled mind etc. It is this indivisible, infinite, all pervading ocean which the Indian thought advocates which teaches tolerance, where the same nameless ocean can be called be any name (ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti), where friendship itself is divine and not weighed by childish taggings like "Jews, Christian and infidels". Even friendship with the members of your perceived enemy is divine e.g Ram and Vibhishan. 










			
				bhagvada-gita said:
			
		

> *Sages see with an equal eye the learned and cultured Brahmin, the cow, the elephant, the dog, the outcaste. (BG 5.18 )* (Refer to the story of SatyaKama Jabala and the king Bharat)
> 
> 
> That which is in us is he and all that we experience outside ourselves is he. The inward and the outward, the far and the near, the moving and the unmoving, all this he is at once. He is the subtlety of the subtle which is beyond our knowledge. He is indivisible and the One, but seems to divide himself in forms and creatures and appears as all the separate existences. All things are eternally born from him, upborne in his eternity, taken eternally back into his oneness. (Chapter 13.16-17, BG)
> ...




Please read the bold part from my previous post. Yet it/he/she, i.e the infinite ocean, brahman, purusha, parameshvar etc whatever you'd like to call, is glorified in masculine form in some upanishads, neutar in other and feminine aspect in Devi Purana and as "I/Me" in Gita and Devi Purana as well. The same way can be seen for the hymns dedicated to Indra, Varuna, Vishnu etc in Vedas. There are some upanishads which are flexible in calling the infinite as "it" in some verses and "he" in other verses.


Not woman is He, nor man either, nor yet sexless; but whatsoever body He take, that confineth & preserveth Him. (Svetasvatara Upanishad, 5.10)


It means that the "ideal ocean" is infinite and generates waves like "man, woman, stone, eunuch etc" and hence when viewed from the highest truth it is neither man nor woman neither sexless as it consists of man, woman, eunuch, stone etc. Once you understand the metaphorical and riddle like nature of much of the shrutis, most of the understanding will come automatically to you.




Can Allah see with an equal eye, a believer (muslim), jews, christian, infidel and a goat (Refer Bakr-id)? But even if you disagree with any of the "Yindoo" texts, then you are free to do so as there is no attachment to the knowledge anyhow.




Ending conversation between Arjun and Krishna --


			
				bhagvad-gita said:
			
		

> Thus the most confidential wisdom of all that is confidential has been described by me to you; deliberating fully on this; accordingly *act as you wish*. (Bg 18.63)




About corruption in shruti texts, it can only be mistranslation and no corruption which has been discussed before. You'd have understood it better had you been a sanskrit literate and why it is being put in computers and why NASA is hiring sanskrit experts. This matter has been discussed before anyways yet this thread continues with the painful reincarnations of the same ignorance.



NASA on Sanskrit & Artificial Intelligence by Rick Briggs


No textual corruption in Vedas - Agniveer


In the Indian thought everyone is free to do as he likes unless it imposes opinions on others. It is the reason why different sages had different interpretations of the same truth like Kena, Katha etc, different scriptures like Vedas, Tantra etc which seem different from different angles, but lead to the same understanding of the truth. 






			
				whitestar said:
			
		

> it is just that islam is still waiting for such individuals for last few hundred years unlike other religions & that is why it seems the most extremist as of now.


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? 


What is the "cause of Allah" which you quoted? Is it the judgment day when the muslims will be asked if they converted an infidel or is it the hatred for Jews, Christians and infidels? Is it the attachment to the name Allah, and making the non-believers and believers fear Allah? The rest of the questions fall under the purview of atheists like "Who is God", "Prove God exists" etc.


According to some, the older the text, the more outdated it is. The newer it is, the purer it is. Some theorise, newer the text the translations are even more authentic and now you come up with a different theory. Interesting! In that case, the readers of Vivek Anand, Aurobindo etc would be even more extremists than the Muslims, as you state, destroying mosques, killing muslims, destroying the muslim equaivalent of Amar Jyoti etc.






Anyways, "the rules of engagement" that you quoted i.e women, children, and innocent civilians are off limits is sadly debunked in Chapter 33 of Quran




			
				Quran_chapter_33 said:
			
		

> O Prophet, We have made lawful
> to thee thy wivesa whom thou hast
> given their dowries, and those whom
> hy right hand possesses, out of those
> ...




I can keep posting endlessly. The question is can your really provide me an alternate translation of the same which deny the same? Like I said, "I asked for alternate translations for verse 5.51, 5.33, 9.29 of Quran and you gave 2.190". 2.190 from muslim.org pretty much say the same as you pointed out.




Please read any version of Quran completely and not out-of-context or random verses, or quote "scholars" to show "Islam is about peace". Scholars and authors also state that Mohammed was a schizophrenic (Just google for sources). Please read and show me which version or translation by any scholar of complete Quran speaks of 


1) Detachment from name Allah and his prophet mohammed?
2) Does not mention hatred towards Jews, Christians and infidels?
3) Does not Propogate the "cause of Allah", taxation, judgement day?
4) Chopping of hands, limbs etc? Just a few questions!








-------------


@Rhitwick : Thank You


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2012)

@whitestar_999

You need to take into consideration that some of the earlier verses which were said during the nascent phase (Mecca) were abrogated later (Medina) in Quran. Figure it out why ?



> Surah 2:106 says: “We do not abrogate a verse or let it be forgotten without bringing a better or similar one. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”


----------



## ico (Aug 20, 2012)

what we need to change is the things which people have mentioned in this thread - India Says It'll Will Be On Mars By 2013 - [H]ard|Forum (Completely fair comments by some deluded idiots. Nothing related to Mars.)

Arguing over what's written, what has been misinterpreted etc. won't change anything - the present.

As it stands, we are morally and culturally corrupt. If one chooses to live in history/past, then it's his wish. At least use it to progress in the present. There is no denying that we have regressed. Big time.

Unless the country progresses, no one will *understand* what India stands for and stood for.


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2012)

^^still comments in facepunch forum were better barring a few, considering the crowd there is much younger. 

Looks like whole hardforum forum is filled with 12 year olds.



> Arguing over what's written, what has been misinterpreted etc. won't change anything - the present.


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.


----------



## ico (Aug 20, 2012)

Faun 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.

*twitter.com/panditkmr/status/235752958862708736

In India, only nationalism can sort things out.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 20, 2012)

@Mediator, this is not right. We do not have an expert or any member of Muslim religion posting in this thread. It is only you who is posting all verses from Quran. Obviously you have a upper hand here as none directly related to Islam is posting here, but your logics are very much one sided. I would really love to hear someone posting some other translations of Quran. Its like you are running alone and claiming you are first.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Aug 20, 2012)

@mediator,i am a rational person & don't read religious texts so i guess i can not provide you alternate translations of quran.it is just my understanding that those who are not rational can be turned to extremism no matter what the religion.after all its not like no muslim drinks alcohol or indulge in other such activities prohibited by islam.


> According to some, the older the text, the more outdated it is. The newer it is, the purer it is. Some theorise, newer the text the translations are even more authentic and now you come up with a different theory. Interesting! In that case, the readers of Vivek Anand, Aurobindo etc would be even more extremists than the Muslims, as you state, destroying mosques, killing muslims, destroying the muslim equaivalent of Amar Jyoti etc.


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.


----------



## ico (Aug 20, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> @Mediator, this is not right. We do not have an expert or any member of Muslim religion posting in this thread. It is only you who is posting all verses from Quran. Obviously you have a upper hand here as none directly related to Islam is posting here, but your logics are very much one sided. I would really love to hear someone posting some other translations of Quran. Its like you are running alone and claiming you are first.


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.

Tell me, how many Indians will trust a random and obscure group of Pakistanis? I'd tell you not to. Yeah, prejudice again.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 20, 2012)

@ico, its about perspective. How do I even know that the verses Mediator posted mean what its written, none tried to cross him, none enough knowledgeable here who can post something else. Thus I wanted to hear other opinions, and that only can some from who practices Islam on daily life. May be, may be he/she would be aware of a bigger picture where this fits. 



> Tell me, how many Indians will trust a random and obscure group of Pakistanis?


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.

We do not hold the voice of whole India here so, lets not drag 'em here.


----------



## ico (Aug 20, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> @ico, its about perspective. How do I even know that the verses Mediator posted mean what its written, none tried to cross him, none enough knowledgeable here who can post something else. Thus I wanted to hear other opinions, and that only can some from who practices Islam on daily life. May be, may be he/she would be aware of a bigger picture where this fits.
> 
> 
> 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.

People arguing about hilarious texts are as foolish as people who take them seriously.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Aug 20, 2012)

> People arguing about hilarious texts are as foolish as people who take them seriously.


couldn't have said it better.this is the reason why i don't post mini-essay posts in such threads.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 20, 2012)

ico said:


> People arguing about hilarious texts are as foolish as people who take them seriously.


Applies to Mediator's post too about hindu scriptures


----------



## mediator (Aug 20, 2012)

@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.






@Whitestar : I understand and I appreciate your honest statement : "& don't read religious texts so i guess i can not provide you alternate translations of quran". Your thoughts are noble as well. But still I'd request you to read the shrutis, if you are an Indian or want an understanding of the Indian science and if possible any version of Quran you might find authentic or original, if you want to discuss on Quran/Islam.


The Secret of Vedas : *www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=30


----------



## ico (Aug 20, 2012)

What am I missing anyway?  I guess you'll figure out this as well over TCP/IP.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 20, 2012)

hmm no need to quote religious texts, there's been enough interpretation of them - go read em! sure you can find some things to take away. Have read these texts, and other versions too. Liked Ar-Rehman and Al-Jinn. No matter what the Quran says, most people have a code of conduct that they live their daily lives by. In the most war torn extremist taliban operated area of Afghanistan, a group of Pushtun Villagers still found it fit to help one American Soldier to safety (while shielding him from the Taliban, putting their own lives in danger)

Marcus Luttrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> He would soon regain consciousness and evade the pursuing enemy, with the help of local Pashtun villagers, who would eventually send an emissary to the nearest U.S. base to secure his safe release, and ultimately save his life.



think about how everyone would behave if there were cctv cameras everywhere in the world recording everything. at any time, anyone can go back and check who did what. God fearing people live in this world where our actions have permanent and eternal consequences as against being lost in the void. 

Also, please avoid Prabhupada version of the Bhagavat Gita, if any of you do get interested in reading those texts. You will see Hare Krishnas selling these in public places.


----------



## mediator (Aug 20, 2012)

Anorion said:
			
		

> Also, please avoid Prabhupada version of the Bhagavat Gita, if any of you do get interested in reading those texts. You will see Hare Krishnas selling these in public places.



Kudos to that!! Prabhupada actually makes Krishna look like some abrahamic male chauvinist. I read the Sanskrit verses and his translations and I was shocked! Well Said. 



			
				Anorion said:
			
		

> No matter what the Quran says, most people have a code of conduct that they live their daily lives by. In the most war torn extremist taliban operated area of Afghanistan, a group of Pushtun Villagers still found it fit to help one American Soldier to safety (while shielding him from the Taliban, putting their own lives in danger)



I agree!


----------



## Faun (Aug 20, 2012)

ico said:


> Every human lives with some prejudice in his head. Questioning and rational debating won't change this.
> 
> In India, only nationalism can sort things out.



The point is that nationalism means nothing to people who are motivated by religion and think that religion comes first. And it won't come by in a pill you can take. 

And further, nationalism is not a cure all.

What we need are the people with rational thinking, people who can think on their own (not by some book written eons ago), people who don't get incited by religious leaders, people who don't walk out violent demonstration just because some rumor spread of their own religion people getting killed in another country, people who don't form a moral police of hypocrites.

Finally, a well guarded border.



rhitwick said:


> 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.



Why not start reading these yourself ? I bet you will find it intriguing enough.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Aug 20, 2012)

> The point is that nationalism means nothing to people who are motivated by religion and think that religion comes first. And it won't come by in a pill you can take.


i disagree.just wait for a few hundred years & there will be a pill for everything.


----------



## mediator (Aug 20, 2012)

Faun said:
			
		

> What we need are the people with rational thinking, *people who can think on their own* (not by some book written eons ago), people who don't get incited by religious leaders, people who don't walk out violent demonstration just because some rumor spread of their own religion people getting killed in another country, people who don't form a moral police of hypocrites.



Very well said! This is what is called in essence, the self-knowledge or understanding of the self.

Better is one's own law of works, swadharma, though in itself faulty than an alien law well wrought out; death in one's own law of being is better, perilous is it to follow an alien law ( BG 3.35)

 This Self is not won by exegesis, nor by brain-power, nor by much learning of Scripture. Only by him whom It chooses can It be won; to him this Self unveils its own body. (manduka Upanishad 3.2.3, Page 145)

When thy intelligence shall cross beyond the whirl of delusion, then shalt thou become indifferent to Scripture heard or that which thou hast yet to hear. When thy intelligence which is bewildered by the Sruti, shall stand unmoving and stable in Samadhi, then shalt thou attain to Yoga. (BG 2.52-53)


----------



## ico (Aug 20, 2012)

Anorion said:


> hmm no need to quote religious texts, there's been enough interpretation of them - go read em! sure you can find some things to take away. Have read these texts, and other versions too. Liked Ar-Rehman and Al-Jinn. *No matter what the Quran says, most people have a code of conduct that they live their daily lives by. In the most war torn extremist taliban operated area of Afghanistan, a group of Pushtun Villagers still found it fit to help one American Soldier to safety (while shielding him from the Taliban, putting their own lives in danger)*
> 
> Marcus Luttrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


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_.



ico said:


> It is better to be concerned with our own _actions_ or someone else's _actions_ rather than being concerned with a hilarious pile of text. Be concerned only with actions.





mediator said:


> IMO, the people who don't take the texts seriously are even bigger idiots. *History is meant  to be repeated if ignored.*


yup, really better if ignored. We get rid of prejudices and corruption. Back to the vedic age.



mediator said:


> @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.
> ...


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.


----------



## tripleclutch (Aug 20, 2012)

Different programmers created different versions of the same program and described their programs as containing a different code, and saying that their codes came from different sources. 
Different programmers= different Gods; different versions= different races; program=human; different code=different aspects and beliefs of different religions; sources=religions, and ultimately God


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 20, 2012)

Faun said:


> Why not start reading these yourself ? I bet you will find it intriguing enough.


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.



ico said:


> 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.



This is kinda arrogant. In an argument either you have something to say or you don't. None asked you to flaunt your knowledge. If you are talking about Mediator's posts...his post is valid and relevant. He established his point with proper facts and reference.


----------



## rishitells (Aug 20, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> This is kinda arrogant. In an argument either you have something to say or you don't. None asked you to flaunt your knowledge. If you are talking about Mediator's posts...his post is valid and relevant. He established his point with proper facts and reference.



+1. 
Mediator makes real sense out of his posts, unlike those who proudly post Racist comments to hide their frustration. The so called 'Hilarious Texts' were studied by history's most known scientists like Nicholas Tesla, Albert Einstein, and to name many more.



> Source: Nicola Tesla, Albert Einstein and Swami Vivekananda
> 
> Nikola Tesla used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena. As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy which could be harnessed at any location. His concepts during the following years were greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda was the first of a succession of eastern yogi's who brought Vedic philosophy and religion to the west. After meeting the Swami and after continued study of the Eastern view of the mechanisms driving the material world, Tesla began using the Sanskrit words Akasha, Prana, and the concept of a luminiferous ether to describe the source, existence and construction of matter. This paper will trace the development of Tesla's understanding of Vedic Science, his correspondence with Lord Kelvin concerning these matters, and the relation between Tesla and Walter Russell and other turn of the century scientists concerning advanced understanding of physics. Finally, after being obscured for many years, the author will give a description of what he believes is the the pre-requisite for the free energy systems envisioned by Tesla.



Read the full article posted above, before judging something out of sheer ignorance.

Documentary on Tesla.
Tesla's Interest in Vedic Works

And a well known statement by Elbert Einstein -
"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.” 

For the ignorant beings here, a Must Watch. Listen without any prejudices. -

Rajiv Malhotra Lecture at Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Mumbai

Even after this, It's really sad how people go up to any extent to demean the Indian Science, without really understanding the essence, and sheer 'practical importance'.

Below are the excerpts from the book *'The Cosmic Matrix' by Rishi Kumar Mishra*, just to share the wonderful insights of the author on Vedic Science. Do read it in order to really understand the essense of Indian Science.



> *The Universe of Modern Science - An Overview*
> 
> The modern scientist deals with the physical universe of which we are a part, while the rishi or seer-scientist deals with the *supraphysical* universe of which the physical universe is a part. Whereas modern science uses the tools of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and conclusions, the seer-scientists go beyond the *limitations* of these tools. The modern scientist tells us, on the basis of her or his observation, experimentation and analysis, how this universe came into being and how creation took place. The seer-scientists help and guide us to discover these truths for *ourselves*, indicating that human beings have an *enormous untapped potential* to* realise this Truth* or Ultimate Reality *for ourselves*.
> 
> ...





> At the ultimate beginning, the energy was so high and dense that all known physical laws broke down. However, the not-so-ultimate beginning can be explored by simple extrapolations of results obtained at the frontiers of quantum physics. Although the vast majority of particle physicists consider Quantum Field Theory as the best theory to date, it is still far from scientifically proven to be correct in all its details. According to this Quantum Field Theory model, a small fraction of a second after the 'beginning', many kinds of particles and their anti-particles roamed about in equal amounts and collided with each other, immersed in tremendous heat.
> 
> Scientific cosmology can contain no hint of the idea that the world was constructed by some being who is not a part of it. When we come upon something beautifully or intricately structured, it is our most natural impulse to ask, "Who made it?" Scientific cosmology demands that we learn to give up this impulse if we are to follow its path. Since by definition there can be nothing outside the universe, a scientific cosmology must be based on the notion that the universe made itself. Western religious beliefs envisage the beginning of creation and the coming into being of the cosmos at a particular moment. They were events. However, *quantum cosmology has upset this apple-cart with the important implication that there was no beginning.* Rather, there were increasingly large 'Big Bangs', and the multiverse - that is, *the existence of numerous universes - goes on forever.* This removes the necessity of grappling with the question of what existed, if anything, before the Bang. The multiverse has just been here all along, according to quantum cosmologists.


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> 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.



Here is the link with 3 translations, if you have time then do read.
Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement

The three translators are the most widely known and revered.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marmaduke Pickthall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Muhammad Habib Shakir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further to extend your knowledge, don't forget to read Hadiths and Sunnahs. Esp Shahi Bukhari
Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement


----------



## ico (Aug 21, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> This is kinda arrogant. In an argument either you have something to say or you don't. None asked you to flaunt your knowledge. If you are talking about Mediator's posts...his post is valid and relevant. He established his point with proper facts and reference.


"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.

What's there for me to argue anyway? I'm not a proselytiser. I'm only concerned with my actions and actions of people. Nothing else.


----------



## way2jatin (Aug 21, 2012)

ico said:


> People arguing about hilarious texts are as foolish as people who take them seriously.


i completely agree with this.

  some particular texts no matter what noble intentions they were written with... were then (misinterpreted and) used to create a class divide. there is no justification for this and we can see where all our problems arose from... actions.


----------



## Hrishi (Aug 21, 2012)

Before going into any debate competition or any GD , I am definately going to read this topic once.

IMHO , when we are in trouble the answer will be "GOD" for sure. Science for rest of the situation. 

Do we have a third option too ...hmmm say neither Science nor GOd , only Human. ??

Science :- Term coined by human.
God :- Term coined by human.

We made both of them ,so why not we put ourselves in the equation ? 

haha I know , its crazy. o.0 newz ignore it.


----------



## ico (Aug 21, 2012)

One way of looking at India - more people than Africa, bit over one-tenth size by land, less resources and equal poverty. And... we suck at sports.

Hilarious texts aren't helping us out and won't help out apart from a personal level. Action is what has influence over everyone. May be people think bigotry will. Sadly any level of bigotry is also of no help to the community/country.


----------



## rishitells (Aug 21, 2012)

ico said:


> One way of looking at India - more people than Africa, bit over one-tenth size by land, less resources and equal poverty. And... we suck at sports.
> 
> Hilarious texts aren't helping us out and won't help out apart from a personal level. Action is what has influence over everyone. May be people think bigotry will. Sadly any level of bigotry is also of no help to the community/country.



This thread is for Science vs God discussion. Not for the discussion the condition of India, or looking at the actions of the people.
Debate about Texts, Scriptures and everything related to Science, Spirituality, Religion is bound to happen here. There are other threads for discussing National topics, as long as they are not deleted.

Sometimes people don't realize they are making a mockery of themselves by repeating their arroagancy again and again, which is certainly a sign of unablility to keep up with the Wise Guys like Mediator.


----------



## way2jatin (Aug 21, 2012)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> This thread is for Science vs God discussion. Not for the discussion the condition of India, or looking at the actions of the people.
> Debate about Texts, Scriptures and everything related to Science, Spirituality, Religion is bound to happen here. There are other threads for discussing National topics, as long as they are not deleted.
> 
> Sometimes people don't realize they are making a mockery of themselves by repeating their arroagancy again and again, which is certainly a sign of unablility to keep up with the Wise Guys like Mediator.


   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.


----------



## rishitells (Aug 21, 2012)

way2jatin said:


> 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.



Yes, yelling 'Yindoos' again and again and calling the debaters 'Foolish' isn't offensive, but I am, right?

As for 'karma', spirituality and study of Indian Texts only helps me out in refining and improving my 'Karma' for good, if not more. At least they don't teach me to demean and make fun of those who do not have the same viewpoint as mine.

If you have a problem with Texts, no one here is telling you to read them. But try to avoid unwanted replies, which do not concern you at all.

And at last, I can only say *'Sorry'* if I mistakenly offended anyone. I am here for a healthy discussion, not for pot-shots.


----------



## way2jatin (Aug 21, 2012)

lol.. he used that word only once in this topic. why are you considering yourself a 'yindu'?  may be he touched a painful nerve.


----------



## ico (Aug 21, 2012)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> As for 'karma', spirituality and study of Indian Texts only helps me out in refining and improving my 'Karma' for good, if not more. At least they don't teach me to demean and make fun of those who do not have the same viewpoint as mine.
> 
> If you have a problem with Texts, no one here is telling you to read them. But try to avoid unwanted replies, which do not concern you at all.


The 'texts' don't matter in the end. Actions and only actions do.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 21, 2012)

^You just defined Karma. 
Science is not that against God, some recent stupid texts prolly give that impression (eg: Prabhupada). 95% or whatever of all people are theists, includes scientists as well. Nikola Tesla wrote in his autobiography that his life was continuous rapture. The process of invention was spiritual. Einstein said he wants to know God's thoughts, the rest are details.

all of you stop believing pls, want my mind to be God's last sanctuary


----------



## rishitells (Aug 21, 2012)

ico said:


> The 'texts' don't matter in the end. Actions and only actions do.



Complete agree. And 'This' is the whole philosophy of Bhagwat Gita, the 'Karma Yoga', or the 'Path of Action'. And that's why I believe in Gita. Texts can sometimes, or many times, change your life for good. What if Patanjali would not have written the Yoga Sutras? We would have no access to the great science of Yoga, which the world is going mad over.

And India is not just about it's texts bro, there are huge branches of practical importance such as anatomy and medicine, architecture and town planning, meteorology and astronomy, language and linguistics, music and dance, statecraft and economy, social engineering and jurisprudence, psychology and physiology etc. And all these sciences have their *Roots in Vedas*, which are *not texts*, but *Shrutis* (Please undergo a study about what are Shrutis and Smritis, to understand the essence, before commenting). Indian science is Way Different from Modern Science (Read The Excerpts from the 'Cosmic Matrix' I posted on this page).

And I do agree on the point of Nationalism. Only it can sort thing out in a country like ours.


----------



## ico (Aug 21, 2012)

No one actually understood my posts #1640 and #1642 before jumping to conclusions. I know what I defined. I read one particular book every morning.

But still, what I do, what I see other people doing - I don't relate and "link" that to any text. I don't relate/link myself to anything.

If someone burns/insults the book, it won't matter to me, I won't get offended one bit. It again won't matter to me if someone burns it because another hilarious text is 'telling' him to. Being attached or detached from the essence is also not my point. Understanding the essence doesn't mean you need to be attached. It depends on the other person how he chooses to perceive third person.

If you want to and choose to judge/perceive people, the only way is through their actions and *one person at a time or exactly same type of persons at a time*. The bold bit is most important.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 21, 2012)

nobody gets offended anymore for any reasons what so ever. getting offended = getting trolled
cudnt really get the bold bit, but let's say if at all we judge nihilists, that includes the little bit of nihilists in ourselves, and the extent to which anyone may be nihilist 
yeah we rushed through loads of interesting offshoots there focus seemed to be the texts 

how do we even form morals without a religion? should laws be the reference point for our morals? so like we have to base on morals on 150 year old ideas? like those are not messed up... or what.... these texts are a reference point, a start, not an end. Should we look at video games and form our morals? or movies? 

let's forget about texts, let's look at things before texts also, oral traditions only, think this is an important part of our culture. 



don't think those people are morally and culturally corrupt 

so there you go, the benefit of repeating the same old thing in diff ways (repeating a mantra over and over again)... a superstitious ritual... is to make sure that the specific sounds don't drift across generations, so people have the same accents across time. Compare that to our modern society, you cant even understand books from a hundred years ago, no wonder nobody is interested in em. The Queen's English: changes through the years - Telegraph No, that's not about the language, it's about the Queen. 

the benefit of the Shiva cutting Ganesha's head story is a way to introduce jealousy, anger, irrational actions, remorse and maybe surgical procedures to little children, it does not need to have actually happened to be relevant


----------



## Faun (Aug 21, 2012)

Lord of the Rings is a good moral lesson 

But I'd say morality gets supplemented from the surrounding you are in during your childhood but the main impetus is from within your self.  The drive is in your hands. I watched a movie a month back "The Last House on the Left" and pretty much it summed up that even living with murderers and molesters will not make you the same. There is a choice which you and only you can make.

The more you read, listen and watch, and then cogitate, the more you get wiser.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 21, 2012)

Anorion said:


> how do we even form morals without a religion?


I still don't understand why do you think a religion is necessary to form a moral?



> should laws be the reference point for our morals? so like we have to base on morals on 150 year old ideas? like those are not messed up... or what.... these texts are a reference point, a start, not an end.


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. 



> Should we look at video games and form our morals? or movies?


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? 



> let's forget about texts, let's look at things before texts also, oral traditions only, think this is an important part of our culture.
> don't think those people are morally and culturally corrupt
> 
> so there you go, the benefit of repeating the same old thing in diff ways (repeating a mantra over and over again)... a superstitious ritual... is to make sure that the specific sounds don't drift across generations, so people have the same accents across time. Compare that to our modern society, you cant even understand books from a hundred years ago, no wonder nobody is interested in em.


And that IS your logic to prove what?

If you agree with evolution theory then I can tell you that our ancestors could only make some basic sounds and signals to communicate with each other. According to you they should consider the mantras a deformation to their practiced language.

A language goes through various changes through time. Our hindi vocabulary embraced so many Urdu, Portuguese, English words that you no more look at 'em differently. The changes keep it alive.



> the benefit of the Shiva cutting Ganesha's head story is a way to introduce jealousy, anger, irrational actions, remorse and maybe surgical procedures to little children, it does not need to have actually happened to be relevant


What you've just told, is what you've imagined right now. What if I say that is just a story, nothing else.

About ancient scripts, IMO, the scholars then tried to explain the world with their limited knowledge and understanding. Hindu scriptures thus has such vivid imagination and description of events. I think things described there might just be exaggerated version of actual events. 

Neither you can prove who actually wrote them or under what circumstances or why...nor you can just claim they are all true. What if I say they all are just stories? How can you prove me wrong?

And a few lines on language,


> *Linguistic evolution*
> 
> The ongoing struggle between languages is a process very similar to evolution. A word, like a gene, will travel and prevail according to its usefulness. A word's fitness to survive may derive from being attached to a desirable new invention or substance, or simply from being an amusing or useful concept.
> 
> ...


If interested try to read the Source


----------



## ico (Aug 21, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> 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.


and that's exactly how I roll. Don't judge/link actions with hilarious texts.

If someone asks me to use an adjective for these texts, I won't hesitate to use the word 'hilarious'. Despite the fact people may say I "believe" in them or whatever. And no, this doesn't make me a hypocrite.

I also find this interesting - *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_rate_of_growth


----------



## Anorion (Aug 21, 2012)

^it's like birdsong, maybe anthropologists and linguists may get some clues if they study these chants
this particular language evolved with a set of rules for speaking that included preserving the exact sound's across thousands of years, not something every language set out to do
it's very healthy for languages to evolve and change, that is one of the reasons they survive

not saying religion is necessary to form morals. religion is a wealthy bank of morals tho, some solid pointers over there. no, you do not need to refer to a book to do good. but it helps to figure out how much lying is too much, how much stealing is too much. There are good ways to do bad things, and bad ways to do good things, if you have a guide, or even better a guru, you can constantly do more than good, you can participate in some form of ulterior good along with other followers of the guide or the guru. at least some people have figured out how to do this without getting into anyone else's way.   

religion should totally be private



rhitwick said:


> What you've just told, is what you've imagined right now. What if I say that is just a story, nothing else.


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. 

really like games, it's one place where people of all ages still interact, not so much movies, think it has become too fashionable to explore negative aspects of humans recently. 

these texts are not irrelevant. no text is in fact, you can trace the same flow of ideas from modern writers, to classical ionian scholars, and to arab, chinese and indian writings. Those irrelevant texts are the ground on which modern ideas stand. 
Nothing more relevant than the Ramayan and Mahabharat here, and nothing ever will be. You may say the works of Tulsidas are not important, but him and other devotees like him across the ages sang Ram's name up and down the country elevating him to the status of God. His works are may not be directly relevant to us, but has influences artisans, painters, stoneworkers across the ages. 

yeah we can exist in a state of hivemind without a religion, or a belief in god, totally agreed on that. that seems like an ideal situation, where there is no different religions, no belief in god, but everyone is working toward's the same goal. donno how to argue with this, thinking about why humans need to continue with individual different religious beliefs.
all I can think of is that we may have a vestigial part of our brain that forces us to acknowledge god, again, wud say there is a natural aspect of belief. scientists should get together and ask people of different religions to pray and see if the same parts in their brains get activated. Perhaps it is some form of mental exercises, a part of the process that gives us creativity and allows us to invent things. maybe we have become so advanced that we already think god is not powerful enough.


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 21, 2012)

Woops! went on a 3 day vacation and I have no idea where this thread went to and where I left. Too fast!!!

Enjoy~!


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 21, 2012)

Anorion said:


> scientists should get together and ask people of different religions to pray and see if the same parts in their brains get activated. Perhaps it is some form of mental exercises, a part of the process that gives us creativity and allows us to invent things. maybe we have become so advanced that we already think god is not powerful enough.



I actually have something for you, I really should not do this 'cause you would be anyway use it against me 

Here you go,
Noetic Science 

In simple exaggerated words "Distant healing power of prayers" 


> The Institute of Noetic Sciences proposes noetic sciences as an alternative theory of "how beliefs, thoughts, and intentions affect the physical world.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 21, 2012)

^looks interesting, will check out
was thinking of something closer to Information on the power of prayer on MedicineNet.com, always suspected that prayer was a natural way for humans to get out of trouble 
check out 



> Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly.
> 
> 
> Heart patients were 14 times more likely to die following surgery if they did not participate in a religion.
> ...



another meaningless statistic? what's weird is this does not depend on the patient, but depend's on the surgeons as well... also, perhaps there is no study yet to see which particular religion's prayers are more effective, but I guess they should more or less be as effective

and, as an example of progress vs culture, here is an indian studies on how many babies live

Ceck out The puzzle of Muslim advantage in child survival in India, pdf is also here 


> The results of this study contribute to a recent literature that debates the importance of socioeconomic status (SES) in determining health and survival. They augment a growing literature on the role of religion or culture as encapsulating important unobservable behaviours or endowments that influence health, indeed, enough to reverse the SES gradient that is commonly observed.



basically, religion is sooo good, that it makes economically backward people catch up and get ahead of these educated people in terms of health


----------



## vkl (Aug 21, 2012)

Anorion said:


> ^looks interesting, will check out
> was thinking of something closer to Information on the power of prayer on MedicineNet.com, always suspected that prayer was a natural way for humans to get out of trouble
> check out
> 
> ...



Your statement makes no sense.Try reading it once again and figure out the meaning of your sentence.
Oh do you mean to say that all the followers of a particular religion are backward and others are superior in terms of social status.
Why can't people be just people.Most people have got their religion by birth.Maybe there are some who convert from one to another.
Is following a religion something of a credit to take of?No because most get their religion by birth not by choice.
Just do your 'karma'.

Topic is "science and god" not "science and religions" or "religions".


----------



## Anorion (Aug 21, 2012)

^no man not all that at all, it's simpler
it's a demographic study on how religion affects survival rates. 
just read this pls was talking about that >> The puzzle of Muslim advantage in child survival in India here 
at the end of the paper, the conclusion is that there can be no other factor for such a predicted affect except that they follow the faith

you do not have to believe it, or agree with it, or it may not even make sense to you at all, but it was puzzling enough deviation from the expected for the study to note

quoting religious texts - questioning the relevance of religion and traditions - because god is traditional - as against technology and science where there is supposedly no place for god - that is the thread I think ok... you need to get here to say why you need god
the first bit is about prayer, and worshiping god 


Also, that Hindu growth rate chart is revealing, if only because it is getting pointed out when predicting future growth rates

anyway this about sums all of it up: *theoatmeal.com/comics/religion especially the * at the end


----------



## mediator (Aug 22, 2012)

rhitwick said:
			
		

> *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 know your reply is regarding Religion in context of @Anorion's understanding. 


But regarding the shrutis and a general discussion on if we need texts -: You may or you may not. 


One cannot always assume about the world and conclude on the way he looks at it through his senses all the time or how it is functioning presently forgetting all the past. Vedas only echo the highest wisdom embedded in one's heart. You may achieve that wisdom by getting closer to that inner audience inside of you, the speech behind your speech, the eyes behind your eye, the mind behind your mind, that part within you, the world which one experiences even when he thinks he sleeps. 


If reading a book was of no use, then why would they even send you to schools? A child may not know what is good or bad in this world, let alone what is dharmic or adharmic (terms which are beyond good or bad). He may not know whether eating too much chocolate or Uncle Chips is doing good or bad. Who tells him if he shoud not eat so much and what not? A person may not know how to play a guitar. How does he learns guitar? Many people think that they view the world in present. But the 'hilarious texts' tell us that we are always viewing the external world in the past. The light of the sun reaches 8 minutes to reach us. Even when you are talking to your friend you may be viewing him some nanoseconds in the past. There are people who are full of "I" telling their achievements as to how many books they read per day, whereas their "actions" tell they only judge without reading. But other 'hilarious texts' and our own wisdom which tells that physically, we are growing daily. The change is very slow as per our perception and it is unobservable. We are not the same person who existed some ten years ago. The physical image of our face, weight, shape, size, height etc have all changed. Chemically, we are losing millions of molecules per second in the form of breath (exhale), perspiration, excreta, urination, farts and intaking other molecules in the form of breath (inhale), drinking, eating etc. In brief, a person does not have the same set of molecules or atoms that he had a second ago. Mentally, our thoughts are changing too. What we were thinking a second ago is not the same. Mentally we evolve and our knowledge increases every passing second. So how can we be the same even in a seconds differentiation? Are our eyes decieving us when we look into the mirror? How can one even prove his her own existence, when object to prove has become the past, in this constantly unfolding space and time, the very instant of your calculations, let alone conclusions?






			
				bhagvada-gita said:
			
		

> Fearlessness, purity of temperament, steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge, giving, self-control, sacrifice, the study of Scripture, askesis, candour and straightforwardness, harmlessness, truth, absence of wrath, self-denial, calm, absence of fault-finding, compassion to all beings, absence of greed, gentleness, modesty, freedom from restlessness, energy, forgiveness, patience, cleanness, absence of envy and pride - these are the wealth of the man born into the Deva nature. (BG-16.1-3)




Even the siblings fight amongst each other. History is a witness how the great nations were divided over cousins trying to fight over a piece of land where one of the clans didn't even want to provide an inch of land and wanted to kill the other clan. It is the innate nature of the humans to get attached to name, fame, greed, lust and lose control and take actions under anger which they may regret most of their life. If everyone was capable of wise actions, if everyone was born with divine qualities, if everyone was born knowledeable then what was the need of parents giving advices, guidance that is received from many stories and the ideals of living which reflect the deepest standards of the wisdom embedded in one's heart which most are unable to experience? If that was the case, then there would have been no terrorism, violence, rapes, crimes etc in the first place, let alone getting influenced by any of the external phenomenons! Maya is not only an external phenomenon, but also a world which manifests because of our own blindedness and ignorance, because of attachment and our inability to do our objective duties. Therefore, the external environment can be understood better, if their is peace and hygene in our inner environment.


Many people think that the shrutis tell you what to do. But there is a difference between "guiding and telling" one what to do. Even a kid might be told as to what to do forcefully, even when he has not asked for help. It may be for his own good. He may not understand it at that point of time and may abuse and curse his own parents like everyone does in their childhood at some point thinking their parents are their enemies and continues to demean them in front of their "perceived friends" at that point of time. Whereas, guidance is usually given when sought. There is a part in all of us which usually reveals a glimpse of himself/itself/herself in most terrible situations in life when our mind stops working and we want a desperate guidance. The voice that comes usually surpasses any logic of the mind. The mental conditioning may still make him believe that he is still a child, whereas the vibrations from the infinite echoed from that deeper voice may tell him something else. As a result, a child may suddenly become an adult when responsibilities become heavy on him, an arrogant kid may become a loving son towards his old parents and perhaps the society and a person living in the world of lower intellect identified with divisions, may rise beyond the world of mind living in true bliss which is beyond any divisions. 


If one thinks that it is logic that changes the person, then why don't the people who drink and smoke even after knowing that it is injurious to health, change their habits? If one thinks that it is logic that makes an affect, then why don't criminals and rapists change their behaviour even after perceiving that some harm is being caused?




Some other "hilarious texts" state that "Fools make their own experience". If a person grows up without the understanding of 'hilarious texts' or guidance from elders, which is often for your own benefit, the highest which is based on the science of detachment and responsibilities, then one may come to that wisdom through his own experience at a later stage/age in his life or he may never. Whereas, if one listens to the elders who have seen life or listen to those ideals of shrutis, he may understand the working of the world at a younger age only. 


The shrutis speak of detachment, yet the people who ignore it, drink excessively, smoke and take drugs. As a result, money is wasted on these materialistic activites, the definition of "entertainment" which is often borrowed from the west or the herd they were influenced from and then the money is wasted again after these people with the "I don't care" attitude lose their liver, kidneys, brains etc. Therefore, it is also not guaranteed that shrutis or any advice of the elders will definitely make a person wise.


This transformation from an ignorant to wise depends, if one is really looking for guidance. The person who has chosen to ignore that love of the parents mistaken as "force" or the shrutis, will obviously continue to drink and smoke. But a person who will seek and listen will remember what his parents told him or what he read in that "hilarious text". This constant listening and seeking is called as "bhakti" or devotion as per the shrutis and perfecting the connection via bhakti without assuming and judging is called bhakti-yog. (Bhakti is not the same as they show us on the TV shows)


IMO, it is not the guru who choses the disciple, but the disciple who choses the teacher. The teacher can only measure his willingness and if he is really seeking and then only reveal him the knowledge/technique/art etc. That teacher, can be in the form of shrutis compiled in written form by VedVyas, random wisdom from Paulo Coelho , one's own parents, the teacher in the school etc.




			
				Upanishad said:
			
		

> This Self is not won by exegesis, nor by brain-power, nor by much learning of Scripture. Only by him whom It chooses can It be won; to him this Self unveils its own body. (manduka Upanishad 3.2.3, Page 145)






Anyways, shrutis unlike abrahamic texts that we recently discussed do not have any criteria tests. It is a science of consciousness promoting an understanding of self, art of detachment, objective duties (the yoga of karma) etc which only promotes the path towards the highest consciousness not in form of mechanical knowledge, but mostly in the form of metaphors and riddles i.e the knowledge presented in the form of creativity i.e poetry (Vedic poetry), stories (shrutis presented in the form of stories in some puranas, where smritis are meant to be remembered and compared to the ideals of the shrutis) and idols where Vishnu (the binding force of the ideal ocean) dreams in this ocean of infinity i.e Ananta, where the Nataraja (from sanskrit nrtraj) presents the supreme consciousness manifesting and dissolving while dancing over the personified demons of the human psyche. 






			
				Anorion said:
			
		

> basically, religion is sooo good, that it makes economically backward people catch up and get ahead of these educated people in terms of health


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 .


A wonderful read : The Max Muller Syndrome: Deceiving Hindus (Part 2) | The Chakra News


Regarding the distortion done by the corrupted brahmins (i.e brahmins only for namesake) : Aurobindo's, The Secret of the Vedas : *www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=30


There are even more serious cases who will ignore the history under the pretext of their theory of "hilarious texts" and plethora of assumptions and then continue thinking that the shrutis force something upon you. There are many people who continue to divide, ignore, assume etc. It doesn't matter whether they label themselves as scientific, atheist, theist etc. Its the essence that matters, not the tag or any ism, no matter how pleasing it may sound to a subjective mind.


----------



## Hrishi (Aug 22, 2012)

One question - How do we define GOD and Science ? 

Thousands of years ago , people considered several scientific phenomenon like Thundering , Earthquakes , etc as supernatural. Now since we have logical explanation for them and its no more "Supernatural".

Similiarily , there are many other questions that have not yet been answered , and are considered supernatural till now.When we will have answers for them , it will no longer be supernatural. 

Its all about logic. When we can't put correct logic , they call it supernatural.

My 2 $nts.


----------



## speedyguy (Aug 22, 2012)

I really wish I lived in a world where all humans were called just "Humans" and not Hindu, Christian, Muslim etc. In that case I would look at any one as just another person like me and not a follower of mine or "rival" religion (Yes I call it rival, nobody obeys other religions). I would have no reason to hate that person. If a muslim is killed in some place, the whole nation will suffer riots as muslim retaliate and same the other way around, ie. vice versa (just an ex.). 

Also, we wouldn't have had these last 2-3 pages of discussion then.

Enjoy~!


----------



## rohit32407 (Aug 23, 2012)

I still don't understand why there has to be either science or god. Why can't they just exist together, peacefully. Actually they do, but people are just too ignorant to accept it. What I believe is that yes science does provide answers to some of the most sought after questions but I also believe that there was someone above everyone who put those questions in place in the first place. I accept science for the answers it has given to me for some of the most mysterious questions in my mind but I also accept an almighty which has placed those questions in the first place.

You may call it faith, belief whatever you may like. But the fact of the matter is that it won't change my beliefs or faith. It isn't doing me any harm, if not benefiting. I was born in a wonderful home with a great family and everything one needs for a satisfactory life. What should i call it? fate or probability? Even if i call it probability, i was lucky enough to be born in such great circumstances, which again leads my argument to fate. What is fate? Who decides what my fate would be? Can science ever answer these questions? Can science prove that some of the sperms, which go on to form a baby, are luckier than the others? There will always be some questions which science can not answer, and for me that is fate or god or whatever you may like to call it.

I believe in my dharma i.e. Hinduism but more than that I believe in karma. From whatever little knowledge i have about my religion it stresses completely upon karma. If you don't follow your karma then in no way can you follow your dharma. It is completely against violence of any manner whether to promote religion or for any other reason whatsoever. I too dream of a world where every one will be just a human being and not a hindu, muslim, christian, sikh etc. But even if the presence of various religions is causing communal problems then whose fault it is? Is it religion's fault? Coz I never heard of a religion which promotes violence for a religious propaganda. Instead of blaming religions why don't we start blaming ourselves and our conscience for such regretful events?

What would be ideal is if the people who believe in science but do not believe in god will also respect the beliefs of people who believe in god but also look forward to some of the explanations provided by science for some of the most mysterious questions on this earth and this universe.

One more point, you can call veda's explanations all the funny names you want but the fact of the matter is that the people i those times believed in them just like you believe in theories like big bang etc etc. I am sure someone would be laughing at us in the future for the theories that have been put today in the future. Coz then there will be some new inventions, obeservations and theories and theories of today(some if not all) will become obsolete and laughable. So instead of asking for proof at every point of argument for the existence of god, its better to accept the belief and faiths of the others and still be happy with the beliefs of yourselves.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 23, 2012)

Do you think our constitution would have been better if "Bed" and "Upanishad" were referred while preparing it? (Considering that our constitution was not made referring these texts)


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2012)

Looks like we are going in circles.



rohit32407 said:


> But even if the presence of various religions is causing communal problems then whose fault it is? Is it religion's fault? Coz I never heard of a religion which promotes violence for a religious propaganda. Instead of blaming religions why don't we start blaming ourselves and our conscience for such regretful events?



You must be new on Earth.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 23, 2012)

^He did not read last two pages...leave alone the thread


----------



## Anorion (Aug 23, 2012)

respectfully agree with most of the points raised by forum members here, was just arguing for no reason
dont really believe in god myself, but find traditions cute
think we may find answers to our questions here itself, and our way of life is totally worth preserving
think god serves a useful role as a fantasy of what all is possible for man to do, something to aspire to, maybe other animals also have such a concept

science. there is faith and belief in science too. you guys have heard of conjectures? they are things that appear to be true, intuitively, but there are no proofs
taking example of collatz conjecture



> Take any natural number n. If n is even, divide it by 2 to get n / 2. If n is odd, multiply it by 3 and add 1 to obtain 3n + 1. Repeat the process (which has been called "Half Or Triple Plus One", or HOTPO) indefinitely. The conjecture is that no matter what number you start with, you will always eventually reach 1. The property has also been called *oneness*.



there you go, they bruteforced it to a few gazillion digits, and they didn't find any exceptions so far. there is no proof of this tho. apparently scientists all over the world, and atheists too, "just know" that this is true.
now you have to believe it's true, that's a little piece of science that works on faith alone.


----------



## rohit32407 (Aug 24, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> ^He did not read last two pages...leave alone the thread


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.

@*Faun* Pretty old actually . All I meant to say was its us who distort religion for our own benefits. No religion at its core promotes violence.


----------



## Faun (Aug 24, 2012)

rohit32407 said:


> @*Faun* Pretty old actually . All I meant to say was its us who distort religion for our own benefits. No religion at its core promotes violence.



May be you should do your research before saying that. It's a gross generalization that you have there.

You know there are some practicing satanists too. And then some more mainstream religions where you can explicitly see a very handsome number of instances where the torture methods were worse than your worst nightmares, innocents bore the brunt of unsolicited conquests and the sole reason of their existence is to prove their point that they are the best religion out there.


----------



## eggman (Aug 25, 2012)

Anorion said:


> :
> there you go, they bruteforced it to a few gazillion digits, and they didn't find any exceptions so far. there is no proof of this tho. apparently scientists all over the world, and atheists too, "just know" that this is true.
> now you have to believe it's true, that's a little piece of science that works on faith alone.


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.
No one 'knows' this for sure, if this happens for ALL n numbers.
There are examples where such conjectures are often proven false for a very high number.
For example take a look at Pólya conjecture :



> Pólya's conjecture was disproven by C. B. Haselgrove in 1958. He showed that the conjecture has a counterexample, which he estimated to be around 1.845 × 10361.
> An explicit counterexample, of n = 906,180,359 was given by R. Sherman Lehman in 1960;[3] the smallest counterexample is n = 906,150,257, found by Minoru Tanaka in 1980.
> The Pólya conjecture fails to hold for most values of n in the region of 906,150,257 ≤ n ≤ 906,488,079. In this region, the Liouville function reaches a maximum value of 829 at n = 906,316,571.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 25, 2012)

^collatz is considered more or less true, as against say slightly more ambiguous problems such as PvsNP which may or may not be true but most are leaning towards p not equal to np, but there is no proof yet
yeah some conjectures are disproven with counter egs knew of the one above, and that is a tiny number btw, solved before the advent of computing, or cloud computing, if an exception exists to collatz, it's gonna be bigger than very large. conjectures are considered mostly true till proven false (which is rare), consider why some statements are conjectures and others are prolems... , like the p vs np problem (although most scientists are fairly certain that p not equal to np or like ur passwords wudnt be safe)... and conjectures are a step ahead of this... the fact that we have conjectures at all shows bits of science works on belief too, that not all of science is proven

One more thing that prolly shows that there are forces outside the universe affecting ours is quantum entanglement. Basically some particles are tied together across space, so changes to one affect the other instantly. This looks like some information is travelling faster than light.

Science is clumsy, god is not clumsy. Best science can do is smash something against the wall, look at all the pieces and figure out how it works. This is what particle accelerators do.

Right now think our energy, resource and water prolems are not being solved by science. We have to look elsewhere for answers.


----------



## Faun (Aug 26, 2012)

Anorion said:


> Right now think our energy, resource and water prolems are not being solved by science. We have to look elsewhere for answers.



I am looking at your replies.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Aug 26, 2012)

> Right now think our energy, resource and water prolems are not being solved by science. We have to look elsewhere for answers.


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"*.


----------



## VivekRM (Oct 27, 2012)

My Personal Opinion:

When an equation will prove that god exists; we would have reached the pinnacle of scientific progress. No other truth can be greater than that. In the end, both science and religion are attempts to explore the truth, and there can only be one universal truth. 

The opinions of science and scientific community are 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 ". This was a "flawed scientific practice" until new developments proved it wrong. 

My point is, we are only limited by our current knowledge. Who knows what developments in science may take place in the future. These new developments 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 and underlying meanings in the original text to suit their needs and ignore a few rules for their own greed.

EDIT: Proof of the above is, there are 1000's of editions of the Holy Bible, 100's of editions of the Bhagvad Gita etc etc. So which one can you completely rely on?


----------



## CommanderShawnzer (Oct 29, 2012)

VivekRM said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Amen.


> 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

one fine day people will find out that the Lord is infact an "alien" from an alternate dimension(heaven etc) who is a proficient Bio-engineer and has "technology" to control the world


----------



## Anorion (Oct 29, 2012)

^that concept is called a demiurge - where god is a physical being and a colossal architect/craftsman


----------



## ajaymailed (Nov 14, 2012)

and then we may find that there are more alternate worlds/universes (heavens) and more aliens races who can do same thing and finally find out thats it not all that impossible to bio-engineer & control world. then we may find that those aliens also worship a god. 

religion, gods question are not gonna go away or be solved with crossing universes, discovering super alien races or no matter how much progress one makes in field of science. they exist right in our minds, thoughts. same may be with any intelligent far-superior alien race.

Human Being requires peace, calm, good/bad, purpose/objective of their, lives answers to questions which science cannot answer and for that they always need a supreme supernatural entity to exist in their minds.


----------



## Makx (Nov 15, 2012)

What If Humans Were Twice as Intelligent? | What If We Were All as Smart as Isaac Newton? | Human Intelligence | LifesLittleMysteries.com
If humans were twice as intelligent, they would be less religious and more spiritual.


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 15, 2012)

I'd like to sign up for the 2xBrain Zinger thingy.

Where do I sign?


----------



## nikufellow (Nov 15, 2012)

Lol there is no science nor god all there exist is Illusion  


So what do you guys thing everything came into being from nothingness through big bang (old theory ) or collision between parallel universes (new one) ? 
As of now god wins science can't prove itself ! By the time science comes even close to finding our origin we will be near doomsday and the whole cycle will start again - here or anywhere else in this (or other ) universe or dimension whatever they call it and god wins again


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 15, 2012)

how can collision betwen parallel univeres create ours, lol?

what? science cant prove itself? well, fyki, THEOREMS. dodge that, Mr. Anderson.

and god loses, as we cant prove him!!



> we will be near doomsday


100 billion years are long enough, dont you think?


----------



## nikufellow (Nov 15, 2012)

doomgiver said:


> how can collision betwen parallel univeres create ours, lol?


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 .


----------



## Makx (Nov 15, 2012)

doomgiver said:


> I'd like to sign up for the 2xBrain Zinger thingy.
> 
> Where do I sign?



Did you write this for my 'What If Humans Were Twice as Intelligent?' comment...
because I wrote that regarding ajaymailed's comment stating, 'questions which science cannot answer and for that they always need a supreme supernatural entity to exist in their minds'


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 16, 2012)

twice as intelligent... notice the 2x"brain" zinger


----------



## Makx (Nov 16, 2012)

ya, I got it, but didn't get if it was intended as a pun or sarcasm or question.


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 16, 2012)

thats for me to know and you to find out 

(YES!!! Always wanted to use that line, now I can die happy)


----------



## Drumminggeek (Nov 18, 2012)

I think the concept of God was created to simplify the scientific knowledge that the guys of the past (as in ancient times) had, for the common man. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't be able to use the benefits of this knowledge for leading a proper life... I mean look at the way the Universe functions....it would be highly improbable that all this was just chance. I think the concept of God refers to the 'programmer' (I saw that in the mag) or entity controlling the timing and placement of the events happening in the Universe.


----------



## nikufellow (Nov 18, 2012)

That- do we need religions thread- was more interesting to read  than this one


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## axes2t2 (Nov 19, 2012)

*i.imgur.com/CGGoF.jpg


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 19, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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.



what events cannot occur by accident?
i can precipitate destruction of this world by just nudging an orbiting body (asteroid/comet/meteor) a tiny bit out of orbit.

i can devastate the entire east-west internet backbone with one carefully planted bomb.

the most complex problems can have the simplest of explanations.

i'd love to hear of a WELL DOCUMENTED problem which has no solution till now.


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 19, 2012)

u can solve problems but cannot build/rebuild anything. many car accidents occur and pieces of glasses and metals are being made by those accidents. can u find a single piece of glass as spectacle or a single piece metal as screw ???
don't u get surprized by these human body to be a product of an accident? this earth to be a result of a mere accident???? think..... u might get answers


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 19, 2012)

er, so what? in accident no one comes back, WHICH IS ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE WORLD.
if someone had "magically" come back from life, then it'd be strange.

lol, your own reply devastates your previous post. epic.

im not surprised about he human body, its the product of hundreds of millions (about 50,00,00,000) years of evolution. and you cant call evolution "accident". its just that the best species survives.

the earth is nothing. the solar system is nothing. our sun is a small, non-descript yellow main stage star at almost the edge of the galaxy. our sun is not big, neither is it bright. it does not have any "wow" characteristics, other than it has a piece of rock orbiting it that has life crawling on its surface.

there are billions of stars, millions of planets. who gave you the right to assume we are the only life in this galaxy (leave alone the universe)? how dare you presume that we were "favored" by some "power" that chose a mediocre, ordinary area to "settle" life. thats terribly megalomaniac, egoistical and narrow minded.

if i wanted to start a colony of intelligent beings, i'd put them in a more interesting place in the galaxy, like somewhere in the vicinity of arcturus, which, incidentally, is famous of its mega-freighters, and mega-donkeys.


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 20, 2012)

how am i devastating my previous post??
please donot take things in another direction. i asked u that the products of an accident....... are they usable for any perpose. it was just an example. actually u are contradicting urself. why no people come back after death by accident, if the hole start of us was an accident?
where did i say we are the only int. species in universe?
just do a research on human body, then u will realise is it possible to make this stucture from a result of accident+evolution

and u are singing the same crap mr.darwin had song??????? unbeliveable. even he said that he felt embarassed when he sees so  much definite sophisticated  paterns in the nature like male peacock tail.
please just think in a different way.


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 20, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> *how am i devastating my previous post??*
> --------
> _let me lay it out to you :
> 
> ...



*please think in a logical way*

seriously, if that does not make sense to you, then you are a stupid person, incapable of logic, reasoning and all sorts of higher thoughts.
as such, i'll consider you a troll, unless you give me solid proof which is against what i've written here.


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 20, 2012)

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.


----------



## CommanderShawnzer (Nov 20, 2012)

us "religioned" people still have a majority  
*according to poll*


----------



## Makx (Nov 20, 2012)

What is science and known facts today was attributed to god and mystical powers in the past, as science evolves, all the questions you raised will be answered.

Science might not have the answers to many questions but neither has anyone else, so just attributing anything unknown to god is ...



CommanderShawnzer said:


> us "religioned" people still have a majority
> *according to poll*



168+131 > 176


----------



## Faun (Nov 20, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Looks like the veil of faith is too dense. I hope you get to see your almighty some day.


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 20, 2012)

but i donot hope, i know . and it would not only me, but also all living things he created.


----------



## rhitwick (Nov 20, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


It was a good decision that you took medicine. 


> 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.


I've something for you.
Craig Venter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Synthetic biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Synthetic life experiments attempt to either probe the origins of life, study some of the properties of life, or more ambitiously to recreate life from non-alive (abiotic) substances. For example, in 2010, Craig Venter's group announced they had been able to assemble a complete genome of millions of base pairs, insert it into a cell, and cause that cell to start replicating.[22] To create this cell, the DNA code was transcribed as a computer file, edited with new code, sequenced by the Blue Heron Bio Company, put together by yeast and other cells, and finally transplanted into a cell from which all genetic material was removed.[23] The cell divided and was "entirely controlled by (the) new genome".[23] This cell has been referred to by Venter as the "first synthetic cell", and was created at a cost of over $40 million dollars.[23]


----------



## Faun (Nov 20, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> but i donot hope, i know . and it would not only me, but also all living things he created.



cool...


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 20, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> It was a good decision that you took medicine.
> 
> I've something for you.
> Craig Venter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



why u did not quoted the part that is just after ur quoted part?? read it. lol even if they can create self replicating haploid cell, than what? what u want to indicate??


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 20, 2012)

EVERYONE, this guy is a troll.

forget about him, last month i wasted my time on a similar troll on reddit. 3 of my precious hours wasted. i gave him links, exposed logical loopholes, still he stuck to his idiotic beliefs.

let me enlighten you :



> oh, please, calling darwin crap. do you even know what he wrote? can you describe it in 10 short sentences? if not, then get the hell out, you dont know anything. how the eff can you comment on some subject which you know zero about?





> No, *i didn't read what darwin had written*. Have u read?
> 
> 
> > *i didn't read what darwin had written*
> ...



obvious fail troll is obvious.
you, sir, have the IQ of a small, stunted piglet.

is there any option to "ignore" a user's posts on tfd? if yes, then i wanna ignore this troll's posts. thanks.


----------



## sygeek (Nov 20, 2012)

The point of a debate is to put forth your opinions, not arguing until the other person agrees. Just saying..


----------



## pratyush997 (Nov 20, 2012)

50-50 ..


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 20, 2012)

sygeek said:


> The point of a debate is to put forth your opinions, not arguing until the other person agrees. Just saying..



while throwing logic right out of the window???

i welcome debate, but when the other guy is an obstinate mule brained orthodoxist, there can never be debate. it then devolves into dogma vs logic. guess which one wins?

and then there is the case when the very basic framework of your ideas/opinions is wrong, then in that case, its not a debate, its a shitstorm. like in this case.


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 20, 2012)

how come i am troll?? please read my posts more carefully. no, i did not waste my time reading darwin's hypothesis , but watched about him on tv. that was the basis of what i said. and please give answers to what i asked. please just don't attack personally that will ultimately force the thread to be closed.


----------



## ico (Nov 20, 2012)

doomgiver said:


> EVERYONE, this guy is a troll.


No potshots.


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 20, 2012)

and please, if i am miising something please elaborate it, please.


----------



## Piyush (Nov 20, 2012)

Thread subscribed


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 20, 2012)

ico said:


> No potshots.



*prepares bombers for indiscriminate carpet-bombing*

as you say, Your Divine Excellency.


----------



## pratyush997 (Nov 20, 2012)

nikufellow said:


> Lol there is no science nor god all there exist is Illusion


Just saw on Discovery Science!!
They guy told "Time is illusion"


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 22, 2012)

@doomgiver, u didnot give answers . If u think i am a moron with a peanut size brain, no problem. Please elaborate it then.


----------



## Anorion (Nov 22, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



this is the argument from implausibility, if evolution is true, then what is the use of half a wing or one tenth of an eye... this addressed very well in the Dawkin's book, "climbing mount improbable", basically instead of creating everything in one go, it breaks the problem down into many many tiny pieces, and solves them bit by bit, over many random perturbations, across incredibly long periods of time. science can answer how the eye came about, but it does not even dare to answer why. this is where science has no answers..

one of the best thing about science is that it is willing to accept that it is all wrong, and will only get it right in the future, at least we are headed in the right direction, without newton's laws to debunk, einstein may not have gone further into this dark territory. 

the last example you gave is cool though, 


> " this large animal planet with human race had been made just from some dust an fumes"


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,


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2012)

Anorion said:


> 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,



I guess the vastness of universe tames down the complexity we see around. 

And how do the God supporters defend the vestigial organs which are no more than useless ? Why God failed to create perfect human in first try ? Why will God give free will and then lead people astray at will ?


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 23, 2012)

@anorion,  in simple , u are trying to tell that this human being is created slowly ,like, monkey> semi-monkey> 3/4th-monkey > 1/2-a-monkey>1/4th-monkey> manyother unstable monkeys> human ? 
1.And this too much complex human body ( i would rather say a world) and its reproduction process , passing of genetic materials in such a delicate way, the whole development process of zygote to a man/woman ....
Too much to be done ay evolution, for me .

 how? How it is believable to u guys? 

2.How first rna was made?
How first dna was made?

3.ok,i guess evolution took us here in humanbeing. But why  so rare. (only earth among  all planets we have ever discovered)
evolution sould have been occured in many planets. isn't it? 'Water and favourable condition' will be ur answer, isn't it?

4. Bigbang made universe . Ok, equilibriam was made naturally. But why this  too much complex equilibrial state has been achieved?

Give answers please.
Many more questions are there , of which, u have answers based of guess/theories or donot have answers atall.

Then isn't it more logical that the god exists? than these unclear, based-on-guess theories?


----------



## Anorion (Nov 23, 2012)

hmm
dna/rna - this stuff is complicated and we are tasked with unraveling millions of years of ruthless evolution, we cant even define what genes are, we haven't figured out what the bits do or how it really fits together. there are many cloud and grid computers dedicated to this, and this is one of the reasons supercomputers are even built. even then, there are a series of simple steps towards dna/rna... complex proteins, amino acids, carbon compounds. all of this stuff is not that uncommon. 
there may be some unexpected surprises. one of the cutting edge cosmological theories is that space dust = dormant bacteria. they are exactly of the same size, and interact with light in the exact same way. Journal of Cosmology. so no, it's just not water and favorable conditions anymore, it is every favorable condition on every star system's satellites that any extra-terrestrial object crashes into (think every meteor and comet on every moon and planet) 
but hey that's just a theory
there's a backup though, even if bacteria is not space dust, there is plenty of amino acid clouds in space >> Life Molecules in Space


----------



## rhitwick (Nov 23, 2012)

Actually you (mohiuddin) have a point. I wonder, if God has created human with a snap of a finger...where from did the DNA/RNA came. Did he first create RNA then DNA then put them in petri dish  and applied 'godly' magics and human baby formed? Eh, this sounds more like what our scientists are trying to do now-a-days.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2012)

^^What was before God ? And who created God ?


----------



## kneo (Nov 23, 2012)

God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> 1.And this too much complex human body ( i would rather say a world) and its reproduction process , passing of genetic materials in such a delicate way, the whole development process of zygote to a man/woman ....


Even though human body is complex but still it's way too inefficient. Not perfect in my opinion.


----------



## gopi_vbboy (Nov 23, 2012)

After watching zeitgeist , i believe on one god- Sun.


----------



## Makx (Nov 23, 2012)

Just because we don't know about the creator of a certain thing doesn't mean GOD created it, it's as good as ancient people thinking of lightening as god's anger etc etc...
What about Synthetic element - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and various compounds human's created, doesn't that make us god?
or if *life* is the secret ingredient or *patent *of god, will we be god's once we are able to create artificial life?
Is GOD good or bad?
Because who created evil, injustice or diseases, parasites?


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 23, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> @doomgiver, u didnot give answers . If u think i am a moron with a peanut size brain, no problem. Please elaborate it then.



so, you watched darwin on tv? did you know the people on tv make stuff thats meant to be watched by 5 year olds as well as 60 year olds? do you know how much they "dumb down" info, t=so that they can broadcast it for a wide audience?

what you have done thats WRONG :

1. not given any sort of "proof". 
2. you dont know what you talked about (read darwin? no?)
3. you made fundamentally flawed assumptions.
4. you dont understand what i've written. the very same stuff that i wrote against you, you twist it into something else and make it as the basis of your next statement. example : the preson coming back from death thing. i meant it that because you dont see something like that in real life, that means that its not allowed in physics. you twisted it by saying that the coming back of a person is magical. after that, you leave it. no proof, nothing. just that.

i advise you to stop posting, as you obviously dont understand how a debate works. you need to PROVE to the other party that your point is right. using proof, examples, deduction and a bit of guess-work. you dont just say that "Yes, god exists" and finish. its not gonna help.


----------



## mohiuddin (Nov 24, 2012)

@doomgiver ,
i am polite here from the start. But u are attacking personally all the time.
First u came up with a retard idea of solving all problem with accident.
And 

u said ,"i can devastate the entire
east-west internet
backbone with one
carefully planted bomb."

>yea carefully planting bomb...is it an accident,if u carefully plant it??


You said,
"er, so what? in
accident no one comes
back, WHICH IS ACCORDING
TO THE RULES OF THE
WORLD.
if someone had
"magically" come back
from life, then it'd be
strange."

> read and realise carefully. again i am asking. if the coming-back-to-life  in a  natuarlly dead body (well formed) seems strange and breaks 'RULEs OF THE WORLD' of u , then   formation of a living human body from dust and fumes doesnot seem more strange and break more easily that  'rule of the world' of u?

And u said "it is not allowed in physics".

>what physics? How it is not allowed in physics? 
Explain.

I also have bonus question for you, your physics, your 'RULE OF THE WORLD'.
1. Physics once said, matter is not destructable. Now it says, no, it is transformable. Ok, will this basic law be consistant through out the future? 
U see, physics law changes with time. Why? Because, natural phenomenon is what testify the validity of a physics law.
Now, just if, a dead man become alive what would physics law do? Would it dare to say no ? Never. Rather it will redefine its law.

2. What was there, before the bigbang?

3. What was before the time started?

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.


----------



## Anorion (Nov 24, 2012)

What was there before big bang and time? Well nothing that we know of or can relate to in this universe, even if god created the universe and time, god exists independently of space and time, so he cannot fit into our scientific definition of reality, so whether or not big bang was intelligent has no real consequence for us because we can never escape the confines of our universe


----------



## Piyush (Nov 24, 2012)

A must read for all of us:

HowStuffWorks "Can God and science co-exist?"


----------



## rhitwick (Nov 25, 2012)

So, on the same line...what was before God?!


----------



## Faun (Nov 25, 2012)

rhitwick said:


> So, on the same line...what was before God?!



Don't try to break the faith


----------



## sygeek (Nov 25, 2012)

mohiuddin said:


> > read and realise carefully. again i am asking. if the coming-back-to-life  in a  natuarlly dead body (well formed) seems strange and breaks 'RULEs OF THE WORLD' of u , then   formation of a living human body from dust and fumes doesnot seem more strange and break more easily that  'rule of the world' of u?
> 
> And u said "it is not allowed in physics".
> 
> ...


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.




mohiuddin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Evolution is not an automagical process, google it up a bit.

I'm going to go super sci-fi and say and maybe in a trillion or trillion-trillion years, we (actually, not we) may be able to bend and warp space and time itself and indeed solve the answers for the questions you asked.


----------



## Anorion (Jan 15, 2013)

science tends to believe there are too many people, have a prolem with that


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 15, 2013)

i think your old title of lvl 80 troll was better, coz i have no idea what you mean by that post ^


----------



## Anorion (Jan 15, 2013)

population is not a problem, it is an incredible, untapped resource

think it was like 12, and that was an incredibly stupid title, trolls can twink at any level

structure of the universe is a problem. there are a bunch of theories. it's finite and expanding, it curves back into itself like the surface of the sphere... and the rarely explored one is that it is infinite and static
the last option is not commonly believed by science, but that is the theory that appeals to imagination, but it has several problems... for example what is outside the universe, or who made the universe etc... these questions are also problems, and there are elegant mathematical solutions for these, such as the universe that curves into itself 
but one look at the night sky is enough to convince that they got it wrong... some future intergalactic columbus cannot undertake a voyage where he goes around the universe and comes back to earth. if that acutally happens, it's incredible. and intuitively, the universe is infinite 
one of the basic ones is that stuff from far away is further back in time, so we can never see beyond a certain point 
but... if the universe were really infinite, our skies would be filled with the light of too many distant stars, so there is an intervening factor, dark matter, or something that just sucks out light over vast distances


----------



## rhitwick (Jan 20, 2013)

Its a very thin line between reading religious texts for knowledge so that you can fight the believers in their own ground and reading those for/and believing them.
Most of the time, its like the story of rishi Valmiki...he couldn't say "Ram" at first so he started with "M-ra" and eventually turned to "Ram"

Its not easy to not get influenced by few particular books which gives proper logic (in its own language and within its ground) on things that rationalists disagree. At such moments, one who is weak-willed (may be) should be ignorant of such texts, verses to have his faith so that his beliefs in rational explanations stay unaffected.


----------



## ratul (Jan 20, 2013)

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.. , 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.. 

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.. ), *we label these things are "natural" or "act of god", which no one of us can ever explain"*..


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 20, 2013)

ratul said:


> 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..



that, friends, is the really, really deep stuff. the stuff archimedes and ptolemy were made of.


----------



## hellscream666 (Jan 21, 2013)

we are just teeny tiny organisms teeming around in a bunch of rocks created by another race.
We were created as samples for them to study the following :

1. Adaptability 
2. Evolutionary capability
3. Potential to grow and create life 
4. To see whether we can think beyond what we can see

so far I think they are getting wonderful results. 

As to the their origins, they themselves are the samples of an even higher species which then goes on like the reflections in two parallel mirrors.


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jan 21, 2013)

Simple thing:
God created and adjusted and also in a way organised everything,
now, the humans , 
they discover things by things,
they go like : 

:eeksign:

and call it science
so, what is the point of discussion ??
 who's better?? or who's more powerful ???

Being a science student , i may say, science is better, cuz god made it,but science showed us that it exists and how it is..

but hey, just imagine, if nothing ever existed:
i mean none of these existed:
the universe, the planets, the space, us. etc..
??



ratul said:


> 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..
> ...



i am agreee   


and the big bang theory is like, 
"as the entropy of the universe is ever increasing, at that time also, the entropy would have increased., so lets call it like a bang. and since it was a big scale bang, call it BIGBANG"

and that energy that came from unknown sources has to be the total energy of the whole universe... 
hehehe
it was some really big  which i wrote above..


----------



## ratul (Jan 21, 2013)

hellscream666 said:


> we are just teeny tiny organisms teeming around in a bunch of rocks created by another race.
> We were created as samples for them to study the following :
> 
> 1. Adaptability
> ...



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.. ), life on earth started with some meteorite with some living samples striking the earth, and that sample evolved to live in this climate..
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..


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2013)

-snip-


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 21, 2013)

mastercool8695 said:


> Simple thing:
> God created and adjusted and also in a way organised everything,
> 
> 
> and that energy that came from unknown sources has to be the total energy of the whole universe...


total energy of the universe has to be zero.
example :
in an isolated system, there are 2 balls.
you(outside source) move one ball away from the other. you have "created" energy in the system. however, the energy of the system which INCLUDES you, is still zero.

so, in order for this god "theory" to be correct, this must mean that there must be something other than this universe (system). who governs that?



ratul said:


> 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.. ), life on earth started with some meteorite with some living samples striking the earth, and that sample evolved to live in this climate..
> 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..



i dont think organisms can survive the re-entry heat of the meteorites, which can reach 3000 K.


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jan 21, 2013)

^^. 
i dont think so..
it should be like. "energy change" for the system that includes me has to be zero since no extra energy has been added..
please correct me if i'm wrong..

hell , this thread is being converted to "thermodynamics" discussion..


anyways, any of you tried the imagine thingy ?


----------



## ratul (Jan 21, 2013)

doomgiver said:


> *i dont think organisms can survive the re-entry heat of the meteorites, which can reach 3000 K.*



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???


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 22, 2013)

ratul said:


> 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???



if something seeded our planet from outer space, something that could easily survive 3000 K, then we too, by default(evolution), should be able to survive 3000 K, coz fire resistance is a very cool thing.

but we dont have fire resistance, so, our ancestors cannot be from outer space.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2013)

^^what if we lost that fire resistance ? Deep inside oceans, organisms live in high temperature, eat sulfur and produce sulfuric acid. 

It might have been that the live cells got transferred in a cyst over meteorite.


----------



## Anorion (Jan 22, 2013)

late heavy bombardment, lot of material exchange between planetary bodies
without a load of comets smashing into earth in this phase, we wouldn't have enough water for a water cycle. also, apart from the whole space rocks got minerals rich for life from space theory, there is another one, where the bombardment dislodged life bearing material from other bodies that were then in the habitable zone (say mars), to the planets that were later in the habitable zone (earth) 
while it is true that no lifeform can survive such extreme temperatures, only the surface of rocks get heated so much, the material can remain safe beyond the hot melting rock outside, in the cold, not heated rock inside


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jan 22, 2013)

^^ that is what we believe,
what if on a distant planet, organisms cannot live below 1000 K ?
as we cannot live below a certain temperature ???


----------



## rhitwick (Jan 22, 2013)

Am I even informed enough to comment on this?
There are so many things I don't know. My education and knowledge is limited to text books and few links to certain websites. Be it scientific or religious. I, even know less about our religion leave alone others.

My other arguments were nothing but my arrogance talking, I knew a headline and made a post on base of that knowledge. I read the gist only to be on safe side so that I can handle counter auguments. It was to win the debate, not to gain knowledge.

I denied our religion and the practices ( I still do) but I never went deep in them to know what is their explanation for what they do? And, I asked people who were blind followers and got some bullsh1t as answers. (Maybe) Unfortunately I did not get in contact with seers who know deep about our religion and philosophy around them. People around me were too busy to make me believe in God rather explaining the philosophy around him/her/it.

For past 15-20 days I'm reading biography of Vivekanada. B4 you start presuming on the reason, let me say it has two reasons.
1>Couple of years back I confronted one of my friend who was bad mouthing about Vivekananda. When I asked him not to he challanged me why couldn't he do so, what Vivekandanda had done for us apart from giving some lectures. I knew, I knew less about him to made a comment. And, then I made sure to know more about him.
2>He was an atheist in his early life. He denied religion, hated brahmins, idol worshipping etc. In short a true blue atheist. But, something happened and he turned a face of hindu religion in world. I just had to why he changed, what made him change.

While reading his bio, I came to know about a lot of things...basically questions that we ask to religious people now he was asked even then. (If the answers of believers have not changed for ages, I can see our questions also have not changed)
He read. He read about all things. Science, religion, philosophy all.

He told,
>Eating beef was allowed in Hindu religion long ago
>He explained about idol worshipping
>He had an explanation for time and space. And explained why both of them can't be infinite at the same time.

etc.

Basically, at his time, he still was a norm breaker for conventional hinduism.

Am I inspired by him or am I influenced by him? I'm still not sure.
But, I can say one thing, I know very little to argue on this. 

Two things can be done now: either I can stop pursuing the truth and 'just' accept either religion or science without question and stay happy or gather more knowledge.
First one is a very easy solution, suitable for lazy people like me, second one is very tough and tiresome. 

IDK, can I be blessed with the power of ignorance?


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jan 22, 2013)

when talking about veg or nonveg, i must say :
"If you cant create a new one, don't kill it"

@rhitwick : man !!!.. you are such a writer...
perfect for a book on the subject..


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2013)

I read through the texts too, but after a point this all seems moot when your life is like less than 100 years. Just live as you want but don't be an ******* to other.

Simple enough philosophy.


----------



## ico (Jan 22, 2013)

rhitwick said:


> >Eating beef was allowed in Hindu religion long ago


It is still allowed.

Only disallowed in Yindooism. That's the religion most Yindians follow today.

If one doesn't eat non-veg out of his own will, that's the best thing.

I don't eat pork. Pigs in India are unclean.

But people often choose to be stupid to cite a loltext or a lolreligion.


----------



## ratul (Jan 22, 2013)

Ok, the topic was science and god, but has turned "too" religious now.. 
well, i am like rhitwick's friend was, atheist, and i don't give a damn on what our or any other religion preaches, coz what i have seen is religion just divides people, nothing else, we say india mei saare religions baste hai and live in unity, and numerous times i have witnessed in real life how this concept is burned into ashes..
heck, even on fb, just one post if a muslim did something, and i have seen not one, but hundreds of people posting "bhej do saale muslims ko pakistan" or somethings too offensive i could'nt post here, all those are mindsick, i know that, but yahi hota hai humari country mei.. 
I have had a conversation with this "douchebag" who claimed himself to be a master of hinduism, he told me that "hinduism is the best religion, and i can prove that", and i asked "any other guy of any other religion would say the same for his religion" and he was numb.. 
religion divides people in my opinion and i just see everyone as humans and nothing else..


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 23, 2013)

ico said:


> It is still allowed.
> 
> Only disallowed in Yindooism. That's the religion most Yindians follow today.
> 
> ...



i eat meat... because it is delicious. 

i dislike eating veggies... because i dont like the flavor/texture. for example, i cannot eat dal with "chowk", you know the bits of fried onions and tomatoes, it actually makes me physically nauseous. mom makes separate food for me, or removes a portion of the food before putting the vegetables in.

for the same reason, i dont usually eat indian cuisine at resturants. who knows what veggies they might have put in.


----------



## logout20 (Feb 19, 2013)

There is only one link between god and a creature and that is faith.


----------



## guru_urug (Feb 19, 2013)

logout20 said:


> There is only one link between god and a creature and that is faith.



How convenient.

I guess I missed the orientation lecture


----------



## theserpent (Feb 19, 2013)

In my city due to this so called moral police..
Pork is not served in any huge restaurant expect those marriage caterers


----------



## Makx (Feb 19, 2013)

Faith is a strong or unshakeable belief in something, without proof or strong evidence.
Furthermore their is just one creature(species) with faith.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epikouros (341 - 270 BC)


----------



## logout20 (Mar 6, 2013)

i do believe in science but i believe in god/ghosts/evil/satan/narak/yamraj so i can exploit people by using there faith in god/ghosts/evil/satan/narak/yamraj....


for me if by saying "god/ghosts/evil/satan/narak/yamraj/whatever" fulfill my interest/to avoid a useless discussion yes god/ghosts/evil/satan/narak/yamraj/whatever exists..


----------



## doomgiver (Mar 10, 2013)

logout20 said:


> i do believe in science but i believe in god/ghosts/evil/satan/narak/yamraj so i can exploit people by using there faith in god/ghosts/evil/satan/narak/yamraj....



wtf is this , i dont even....

you dont have to "believe" in science. science does not need your agarbattis and devotion. it is pure and exists because it is the unchallengable and unshakable truth. 
can you say the same about your "god/ghosts/evil/satan/narak/yamraj"?

faith is an imaginary veil that humans use to hide their guilt, fear, shame and other negative emotions. it is about as useful as a wall of ice against hot lava.


----------



## mediator (Mar 30, 2013)

A must watch video

Shraddhalu Ranade's Inspiring Lecture on The Indian Genius - YouTube

Please don't ignore just because the guy is sporting a beard.


----------



## atifkhan9462 (Apr 16, 2013)

tell me, from where these books came from(bible,torah,vedas,quran, etc...)and the people who had the distance of ceenturies but thought the same thing.(jesus pbuh, moses pbuh, gautam buddha, etc...)


----------



## Inceptionist (Apr 16, 2013)

atifkhan9462 said:


> tell me, from where these books came from(bible,torah,vedas,quran, etc...)


Human imagination.


----------



## Makx (Apr 16, 2013)

People wrote then, of course 
Do you know how many religions have been there in the world?
Religion is a tool for the rich to control the masses.
*
thought the same thing, *well all the religious people wouldn't fight among themselves if they thought the same thing, moreover Buddhism doesn't even believe in a creator god, so I don't know how they thought the same thing except for morals, which is common sense.


----------



## Anorion (Apr 17, 2013)

this is Arthur C Clarke quoting a broadcast by professor Derek Lawden in voices from the sky


> I think man will see himself as one agent by which the whole universe of matter is slowly becoming conscious of itself. He will cease to feel an alien creature in an indifferent world, but will sense within himself the pulse of the cosmos. He'll become familiar with the marvelous and varied form which can be assumed by matter . . . and he's certain to develop a feeling of reverence for the awe-inspiring whole of which he's a very small part. I suggest to you that his reaction to these impressive experiences will find its expression in a pantheism which will at last provide a philosophy of life and an attitude to existence which is in harmony with science. . . . It may be objected that the physical universe could never become the object of worship. I ask anyone who denies this possibility to turn his eyes skyward on a clear night. . . . Others may object that such a religion would possess little moral content. I would reply that this is by no means self-evident, but that, in any case, the conjunction of religion and ethics . . . is certainly not invariable; in fact, there's an excellent case for keeping the two separate.


----------



## ratul (Apr 18, 2013)

mediator said:


> A must watch video
> 
> Shraddhalu Ranade's Inspiring Lecture on The Indian Genius - YouTube
> 
> Please don't ignore just because the guy is sporting a beard.



did'nt watch the whole video, just half hour of it, but whatever i concluded from it was how our vedas and puranas depict certain methodologies and elements, that are very difficult for modern science to understand, but hey this is not something new, we all know that our ancestors (not only indian) were much more advanced than we are..
Example: Pyramids in egypt, still no technology exist that can create such marvels, each pyramid was created with some relation to the position of stars and constellations, The Greek Mythologies, depicting almost the same thoughts as our vedas do, with different means, those mummies stored in the pyramids, scientists still have'nt fully understood the composition of material used, by which those bodies are preserved till today after thousands of years and the list goes on, what i mean to say is that our vedas or puranas are'nt anything special or god-created, they are just written by the person as you and me are, it's just that they have poured in their centuries of research and analysis into those vedas, but still it's just what they concluded, it still does'nt explain the natural laws of universe, i loved how he said in video that science just say there was a big-bang and universe was born, but how it occurred, they can't explain it, and in vedas it's depicted as timeless, spaceless, masless thing that has that energy to hold the contents of universe together, but still he did'nt explained how it's timeless??? they definitely researched much more than modern science, but still they were humans too, and they also have to stop to a point where things just can't be explained by humans...


----------



## Anorion (Apr 18, 2013)

more advanced is misleading. more adept at living in the wild is more like it. many of these traditions survive by default. something as basic as using only 1/2 of the body, which automatically makes sure another 1/2 survives if anything goes wrong. there is no science saying we only have to use left hand or right hand.


----------



## rishitells (Apr 18, 2013)

ratul said:


> did'nt watch the whole video, just half hour of it, but whatever i concluded from it was how our vedas and puranas depict certain methodologies and elements, that are very difficult for modern science to understand, but hey this is not something new, we all know that our ancestors (not only indian) were much more advanced than we are..
> Example: Pyramids in egypt, still no technology exist that can create such marvels, each pyramid was created with some relation to the position of stars and constellations, The Greek Mythologies, depicting almost the same thoughts as our vedas do, with different means, those mummies stored in the pyramids, scientists still have'nt fully understood the composition of material used, by which those bodies are preserved till today after thousands of years and the list goes on, what i mean to say is that our vedas or puranas are'nt anything special or god-created, they are just written by the person as you and me are, it's just that they have poured in their centuries of research and analysis into those vedas, but still it's just what they concluded, it still does'nt explain the natural laws of universe, i loved how he said in video that science just say there was a big-bang and universe was born, but how it occurred, they can't explain it, and in vedas it's depicted as timeless, spaceless, masless thing that has that energy to hold the contents of universe together, but still he did'nt explained how it's timeless??? they definitely researched much more than modern science, but still they were humans too, and they also have to stop to a point where things just can't be explained by humans...



You just watched half an hour of the video, took 2-3 concepts out of many he presented, and you think you've understood it all, to reach to a 'conclusion'?? Is that how you pursue 'Science'? He talked about Sanskrit. He talked about why it is the 'only' natural language, and why it is the most suitable language for Artificial Intelligence. He talked about the 'Vimana Shastra' (Science of Aircraft), and how detailed and comprehensive explanation of the parts and machines used in Vimanas, and 'Dresses' that a pilot should wear to protect himself from the radiation on various levels, even in the outer space. He explained the difficulties of replicating 'Vimanas' depicted in the Shastra. About the domain of 'Meta-Materials'. He talked about Ayurveda, and how it is a 'Science of Life'. Being a scientist himself, he presented a very comprehensive overview of the essence of Indian Science. 
But you seem to be ignoring everything to reach to your narrow conclusion. Please, this is not how 'Science' works.

Listen, Indian Science is not about explanation, it's all about 'Experience', and 'Realization'. Experience which is not pursued by external objective means i.e. machines, but by internal subjective means, by penetrating the layers of your own individual 'consciousness', which is a part of the whole, 'Universal Consciousness'. By the means of Yoga, or 'Union' with the Ultimate Cosmic Energy. The Energy which is Sat-Chit-Aanand, Sat means it is the Ultimate Truth. Chit means it is Self-Conscious, and Aananda means it is pure 'Bliss'. Every Indian Science, whether it is Indian Classical Music or Indian Classical Dance, is based on this concept of experience only. Great Indian Classical Musicians, in their Interviews, have repeated this concept only. Take for example Ustad Amjad Ali Khan, the most renowned Sarod Player of world today. He says it is the union with the God, the ultimate truth, which makes his music. Sarod playing is a means for him, to reach God. And this applies to every single Classical Musician and Dancer of India, without exception.

And at last, how can you explain something which is 'Timeless'? Tell me! Grow up man. If it is Timeless, means it is beyond the scope of our intellect, since our intellect works in Time and Space. In order to understand something which is Timeless, you will have to go beyond the time. How can you explain the method of going beyond the time, when you are just stuck in time bound intellect itself! This is where Indian Science 'Begins'. You may or may not agree with this, but you can't just simply 'deny' it because you are a Rationalist. You will find it hard to incorporate the more subtle aspects of consciousness and experience that is unique to our ancient world with its many planes of existence. But it doesn't mean you will 'conclude' it.


----------



## Inceptionist (Apr 18, 2013)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will just leave these links here : 
*wellwishersofsaa.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/sraddhalu-ranades-deceptive-ways-exposed/
*integralyogaimpostor.wordpress.com/sraddhalu-ranade/
*wellwishersofsaa.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/proof-to-expose-sraddhalus-lie.pdf
*mirrorofdayaftertomorrow.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/how-does-sraddhalu-ranade-get-his-funding/
Savitri Era Open Forum: Holy war between Peter Heehs and Sraddhalu Ranade


----------



## rishitells (Apr 18, 2013)

Inceptionist said:


> I will just leave these links here :
> *wellwishersofsaa.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/sraddhalu-ranades-deceptive-ways-exposed/
> *integralyogaimpostor.wordpress.com/sraddhalu-ranade/
> *wellwishersofsaa.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/proof-to-expose-sraddhalus-lie.pdf
> ...



Do you know what is this all about? Who is Peter Heehs, and what's the matter in Sri Aurobindo Ashram about Peter Heehs? Do you know about the book 'The Lives of Sri Aurobindo?' authored by Peter Heehs, and the outrage after it? Do you know about the worldwide protests of people against Peter Heehs's book? Do you know the interfere of people like Ramchandra Guha, Sagarika Ghose, and media like CNN-IBN? Then how dare you put these *selective* random links from random websites?? With no official authenticity? Sraddhalu Ranade is a scientist in Sri Aurobindo Ashram. He is a part of Global Oneness Project.. He is a prominent figure among Sri Aurobindo Society. Don't dare question his authority. And provide official records if you attempt to do so.

Listen, the matter is- Peter Heehs, a so called 'researcher' in the Ashram, wrote a book- 'The Lives of Sri Aurobindo'. He left no stone unturned to defame Sri Aurobindo, and to label him as some psycho, or mad, whose spiritual experiences were lies. He called him 'A Coward and a Liar'. He said that the mother of Sri Aurobindo had bipolar disorder, which Sri Aurobindo inherited. A big storm took place after the publication of his book. Peter Heehs is charged with criminal offenses and copyright infringements like Editing the writings of Sri Aurobindo. Peter Heehs is said to have edited his works as he edited a line of Savitri in the chapter The Return to Earth which reads, ‘Our bodies need each other in same last’ to ‘Our bodies need each other in same lust’. A massive outrage is there to expel him from the Ashram. Odisha Government 'proscribed' this book via an Gazette notification. But still, due to strange reasons, some people are letting him stay in the Ashram. The matter is far more complex.

Now, there are people like Sraddhalu Ranade who are strongly against Peter Heehs, and his book. Ranade's talk on Peter Heehs' obnoxious book on Sri Aurobindo, was cancelled deliberately by Bharat Nivas Authorities. The lecture was supposed to be held at SAWCHU in Auroville on Friday 11th of May, 2012 at the invitation of a small group of Aurovillians who dared to stand up for the freedom of expression of Mr. Ranade. Mark the hypocrisy of the WC and BN who have fought tooth and nail for the freedom of expression of Peter Heehs but flex their muscles and even threaten to use police force in order to bar the same freedom of speech to Mr. Ranade.

Now my only advice to you is- Don't poke your nose in affairs you are unaware about. I have personally met Ranade in Pondicherry, as he stays in the Ashram, and I know who he is. He doesn't need any Certificate from anyone. And No 'Expose' can defame him. Because people like me love him. Ranade is being attacked again and again since he stands against Peter Heehs, who is being protected by International Vested Interests, CNN-IBN being one of them.

*And PLEASE, don't DIVERT the topic. PLEASE. If anyone, including you, wants to reply. Reply to my first post. Don't drag the discussion in unknown direction by 'SELECTIVE URL MINING' . It's sad, what a pathetic turn this debate has taken.*


----------



## Inceptionist (Apr 18, 2013)

Even if that is true, it doesn't invalidate his other activities.
Ashram authorities have expelled him. He is a self proclaimed scientist. No different that other god-men in India who keep talking how advanced our ancestors were and how everything being researched or discovered is already in the ancient scriptures. Funny how these people can't predict the next big discovery based on those scriptures.


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 18, 2013)

There are two ways to reach the truth.

One is science and another is Philosophy.

Science is a slow process. It takes time to verify everything, Even after verifying it tries to reproduce the same result under different environments. If the result changes, it tries to put it into a logic. So, after a long time may be a truth worth of 1 penny was established. This truth is based on statistics, formulaes, proper guidelines to reproduce and a list of conditions on doing what the deisred output might get changed. Even teh exceptions are known.

Whereas Philosophy does not care about statistics rather work on faith and belief. It too has its own logic which are very strong but almmost all the times based on some non-verifiable allegedly fact. 
Taking the road of Philosophy too we can reach the same truth but it depends on you what road you want to take. 


The journey in the way of science is too long and too tough. Question, counter question, experiments, what not. You might get tired and on your weaker time tend to look for answers by other means. And having a logical and open mind you have the risk of liking the philosophical explanations of the same issue you are working on. 

You know what is important? Its important for science guys to stick to science and philosophers to Philosophy only. May be then, by taking two different ways and not looking into other's notebook we one day would land in same goal.


----------



## rishitells (Apr 18, 2013)

Inceptionist said:


> Even if that is true, it doesn't invalidate his other activities.
> Ashram authorities have expelled him. He is a self proclaimed scientist. No different that other god-men in India who keep talking how advanced our ancestors were and how everything being researched or discovered is already in the ancient scriptures. Funny how these people can't predict the next big discovery based on those scriptures.



Who The Hell told you that Ashram Authorities have expelled him???? Who the hell are you to make such comment, that he is a self proclaimed scientist?? Dare to show any official record which says Sraddhalu Ranade is expelled! Dare to show any record which disapproves his Authority and Eligibility! Otherwise don't show how dumb you are! *He stays in the Ashram, and will continue to do so till the end of his life!* It's Peter Heehs who was going to be expelled. Just get off if you can't put facts and proofs. *He is a scientist, and a part of Global Oneness Project* (see my previous post). Now don't argue with me unless you come up with facts, not with allegations and defamation acts. And Don't come back with more silly allegations!

And for those who want to know about Sraddhalu Ranade, here it is, from Global Oneness Project.

_
"..Sraddhalu Ranade is a scientist, educator and scholar at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram where he grew up in the care of the late Sri M. P. Pandit. He is presently involved in the production of video programs based on India's cultural roots, and conducts teacher-training programs based on a soul-centered approach to education. He has conducted numerous intensive teacher-training workshops on Integral and value-based education all over India. Over 4,500 teachers from more than 200 schools and colleges have benefited from these programs. He has been involved in various research projects including artificial intelligence based on neural networks, multimedia search and retrieval, and educational tools. He is a frequent speaker at international conferences on science and spirituality and lectures around the world on the yoga teachings of Sri Aurobindo..."_


----------



## Nerevarine (Apr 18, 2013)

Im kinda surprised to see results of the poll on a technology forum like TDF


----------



## rishitells (Apr 18, 2013)

rhitwick said:


> There are two ways to reach the truth.
> 
> One is science and another is Philosophy.
> 
> ...



Though I may not fully agree with you. But I admire your views, and a kind of 'unconditioned' thought. What we need, is a constructive, receptive approach to the views of each other, instead of deny and abuse approach. 

I think there are not two, but many ways to reach the 'Truth'. I gave the example of classical musicians and dancers of India. That' one of them. And it's their own, inner experience which they share. We can't just verify this with external tools, but then we can't just deny it. It is that experience and realization of 'higher consciousness' in their own being, that such people get by following different methods. Something which gives them a glimpse of that 'Truth'. Anyone may argue that it is just 'human imagination', or 'dream', or anything like that. But then they are imagining, too. They try to put everything into the framework of rationality. And anything which seems 'irrational' to them, is an imagination, or lie. And going by that logic, millions of people in the world, following the path of Spirituality, Yoga, Meditation, are liars. This isn't a scientific approach. Just because something is beyond the domain of modern scientific understanding, we can't call it 'imagination', as many people do.


----------



## ratul (Apr 18, 2013)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> You just watched half an hour of the video, took 2-3 concepts out of many he presented, and you think you've understood it all, to reach to a 'conclusion'?? Is that how you pursue 'Science'? He talked about Sanskrit. He talked about why it is the 'only' natural language, and why it is the most suitable language for Artificial Intelligence. He talked about the 'Vimana Shastra' (Science of Aircraft), and how detailed and comprehensive explanation of the parts and machines used in Vimanas, and 'Dresses' that a pilot should wear to protect himself from the radiation on various levels, even in the outer space. He explained the difficulties of replicating 'Vimanas' depicted in the Shastra. About the domain of 'Meta-Materials'. He talked about Ayurveda, and how it is a 'Science of Life'. Being a scientist himself, he presented a very comprehensive overview of the essence of Indian Science.
> But you seem to be ignoring everything to reach to your narrow conclusion. Please, this is not how 'Science' works.
> 
> Listen, Indian Science is not about explanation, it's all about 'Experience', and 'Realization'. Experience which is not pursued by external objective means i.e. machines, but by internal subjective means, by penetrating the layers of your own individual 'consciousness', which is a part of the whole, 'Universal Consciousness'. By the means of Yoga, or 'Union' with the Ultimate Cosmic Energy. The Energy which is Sat-Chit-Aanand, Sat means it is the Ultimate Truth. Chit means it is Self-Conscious, and Aananda means it is pure 'Bliss'. Every Indian Science, whether it is Indian Classical Music or Indian Classical Dance, is based on this concept of experience only. Great Indian Classical Musicians, in their Interviews, have repeated this concept only. Take for example Ustad Amjad Ali Khan, the most renowned Sarod Player of world today. He says it is the union with the God, the ultimate truth, which makes his music. Sarod playing is a means for him, to reach God. And this applies to every single Classical Musician and Dancer of India, without exception.
> ...



yes i watched just half an hour of it, but it had all the material in it which you spoke about here, the vimana-shastra and all that, that's why i gave the examples of pyramids of egypt, just like there existed a metal that never corroded even in thousands of years during that time, same goes with the pyramids, though they used to be white as milk that time, but still they are standing strong and a marvelous example of engineering, i am not trying to say that ranade is wrong, what i am trying to say that he showed our "indian" ancestors to be the leaders of the world, knowing everything in the deep and analysing everything layer by layer, but actually the whole world at that time was like that, not only indians, but every other race at that time used to research using their methods and they are right according to them, we humans are hardwired to think that what we know is right, you personally know ranade, so you won't hear a word against him, it's natural, but we all others are independent viewers analysing him just on his presentation and giving a perspective of what we make out of him, neither we are right, nor you are, only ranade himself know what's right, whether he got expelled or something..
And yes, timeless things cannot be defined, and that's where ranade's thoughts are contradicting, our ancestors just said that it's timeless, so there's no point of understanding it further coz you can't define what's timeless, philosophy stops there, i don't know (and don't think so) that if science can find out how universe was born, but atleast they are motivated to find out to the extent of their limits, not just sitting around saying: "This is timeless, there's no use of proceeding further". Till you don't try, you won't find out the details of it..


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 18, 2013)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> I think there are not two, but many ways to reach the 'Truth'. I gave the example of classical musicians and dancers of India. That' one of them. And it's their own, inner experience which they share. We can't just verify this with external tools, but then we can't just deny it. It is that experience and realization of 'higher consciousness' in their own being, that such people get by following different methods. Something which gives them a glimpse of that 'Truth'. Anyone may argue that it is just 'human imagination', or 'dream', or anything like that. But then they are imagining, too. They try to put everything into the framework of rationality. And anything which seems 'irrational' to them, is an imagination, or lie. And going by that logic, millions of people in the world, following the path of Spirituality, Yoga, Meditation, are liars. This isn't a scientific approach. Just because something is beyond the domain of modern scientific understanding, we can't call it 'imagination', as many people do.



First Spirituality, Yoga and Meditation do not fall in same category. Yoga is a form of physical exercise including meditation.  And I would not call them liars just cause their views differ with mine. They would be liar if they knew that they are lying. They are experiencing a trance state which they are referring to "being with God". How are you being sure its God they are feeling in that state? 

Secondly there are drugs which causes the same effect i.e being in trance state, hallucinating. Now, you may argue they are/were not under the effect of drugs at that time. But, let me tell you too much dedication, love and wanting to believe something would show you the thing everywhere you would look.
Romantic Love Affects Your Brain Like a Drug
Let me google that for you


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 18, 2013)

@Rishabh_sharma1990,exaggerating claims about Indian traditional sciences is not new.now don't think that i don't value traditional Indian science.i appreciate the contributions of Aryabhatta,Brahmagupta & Bhaskara because their contributions are fact not some hypothesis which can't be analyzed.what irritates me is when someone start claiming that vedas have quantum physics,space travel,missiles,aircrafts etc which i don't believe.the hard truth is that we are at present much more advanced than 5000 years ago.ayurveda can not compare to advances in modern medical sciences & how can it when people in those times couldn't even dream of Scanning Tunneling Microscope.*if you really want people to take seriously the contributions of ancient Indian sciences give example of Aryabhatta,Brahmagupta & Bhaskara not vimanas/"meta-materials" in vedas.*


----------



## mediator (Apr 18, 2013)

@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?


----------



## Anorion (Apr 18, 2013)

universe is torus shaped, it bends on itself, just like walking in a straight line on the surface of the earth will get you back where you started, spaceshipping in a straight line through the universe should get you back where you started. so no start, no end, and no boundries, but still finite. 
Doughnut theory of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rishitells (Apr 18, 2013)

ratul said:


> yes i watched just half an hour of it, but it had all the material in it which you spoke about here, the vimana-shastra and all that, that's why i gave the examples of pyramids of egypt, just like there existed a metal that never corroded even in thousands of years during that time, same goes with the pyramids, though they used to be white as milk that time, but still they are standing strong and a marvelous example of engineering, i am not trying to say that ranade is wrong, what i am trying to say that he showed our "indian" ancestors to be the leaders of the world, knowing everything in the deep and analysing everything layer by layer, but actually the whole world at that time was like that, not only indians, but every other race at that time used to research using their methods and they are right according to them, we humans are hardwired to think that what we know is right, you personally know ranade, so you won't hear a word against him, it's natural, but we all others are independent viewers analysing him just on his presentation and giving a perspective of what we make out of him, neither we are right, nor you are, only ranade himself know what's right, whether he got expelled or something..
> And yes, timeless things cannot be defined, and that's where ranade's thoughts are contradicting, our ancestors just said that it's timeless, so there's no point of understanding it further coz you can't define what's timeless, philosophy stops there, i don't know (and don't think so) that if science can find out how universe was born, but atleast they are motivated to find out to the extent of their limits, not just sitting around saying: "This is timeless, there's no use of proceeding further". Till you don't try, you won't find out the details of it..



At first you are saying 'Yes, timeless things cannot be defined', and then at last you say 'Till you don't try, you won't find details of it". It's your thoughts which seem to be contradicting, not Ranade's.

Now, try to just speculate a place, which is timeless, and space-less. The statement itself is inconsistent in itself. First, how can you 'speculate' if there is no time? You can't, you know it! Because it's a state of No-Motion! Any kind of speculation is not possible there. And second, if there is a 'place', there is space. How can a place be space-less? Getting it? The very question of 'trying to find the details of timeless and space-less' is faulty. How can anything, which operates in time and space, whether it's mind or machine, can know something beyond time and space? This is a fundamental error.

Ranade said what Upanishads say, that the ultimate reality is formless, timeless and space-less. And yet from it, everything including time, space and forms emerge. So the essence of Indian Science is, as said by Sri Aurobindo is- 

_"Behind the appearances of the universe there is the Reality of a Being and Consciousness, a Self of all things, one and eternal. All beings are united in that One Self and Spirit but divided by a certain separativity of consciousness, an ignorance of their true Self and Reality in the mind, life and body. It is possible by a certain psychological discipline to remove this veil of separative consciousness and become aware of the true Self, the Divinity within us and all. "_

The Rishis didn't try to explain that Reality. This is where you are getting it completely wrong. They 'experienced' the reality. They became 'one' with the reality, through the practice of Yoga, which translates nearly in English as 'Union'. They actually 'saw' the truth. By 'saw', doesn't mean by eyes, but by a total vision that is beyond the senses. A vision that itself is timeless and space-less. 
This is something not I am telling. This is what every single Yogi has said till date, without exception.



rhitwick said:


> First Spirituality, Yoga and Meditation do not fall in same category. Yoga is a form of physical exercise including meditation.  And I would not call them liars just cause their views differ with mine. They would be liar if they knew that they are lying. They are experiencing a trance state which they are referring to "being with God". How are you being sure its God they are feeling in that state?
> 
> Secondly there are drugs which causes the same effect i.e being in trance state, hallucinating. Now, you may argue they are/were not under the effect of drugs at that time. But, let me tell you too much dedication, love and wanting to believe something would show you the thing everywhere you would look.
> Romantic Love Affects Your Brain Like a Drug
> Let me google that for you



Yoga is a form of physical exercise? What makes you say this? The word itself translates (though incompletely), as 'Union'. No real Yogi will ever say that Yoga is physical exercise. Sri Aurobindo puts it in right terms- 

_"The first process of Yoga is therefore to open the ranges of this inner being and to live from there outward, governing his outward life by an inner light and force. In doing so he discovers in himself his true soul which is not this outer mixture of mental, vital and physical elements but something of the Reality behind them, a spark from the one Divine Fire."_

The problem is the superimposition of 'western' understanding of Yoga upon the real, which is by authentic Indian Yogis themselves.


----------



## ratul (Apr 18, 2013)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> At first you are saying 'Yes, timeless things cannot be defined', and then at last you say 'Till you don't try, you won't find details of it". It's your thoughts which seem to be contradicting, not Ranade's.
> 
> Now, try to just speculate a place, which is timeless, and space-less. The statement itself is inconsistent in itself. First, how can you 'speculate' if there is no time? You can't, you know it! Because it's a state of No-Motion! Any kind of speculation is not possible there. And second, if there is a 'place', there is space. How can a place be space-less? Getting it? The very question of 'trying to find the details of timeless and space-less' is faulty. How can anything, which operates in time and space, whether it's mind or machine, can know something beyond time and space? This is a fundamental error.
> 
> ...



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 ), 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...
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...


----------



## mediator (Apr 18, 2013)

@Anorion - There is something I debated long back, when I was judged as "science opposer"/"religious" by the science fanatics who didn't have the tolerance to understand what I stated.

Q1 - Is it 'perfectly' torus shaped?
Q2 - How did they observe it, for the universe that is analyzed basically 'includes' something called 'observable universe'.
Q3 - What is beyond that finite? Is that finite like panet earth rotating, revolving around something higher?

Please read my post holistically. Dissecting what one says demeans its essence. Anyways, the more our microsopes and telesopes grow stronger, the more will be the divisibility and amplification. Today, microscopes will yield 1/10 th of an image, tomorow 1/100000000000000000000000 and so on. But again "something" remains and the material science will eternally keep going on a wild goose chase trying to find smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest! Like I stated, we need to experience and know infinity. Half of the problems and questions will synchronize there only.


----------



## rishitells (Apr 18, 2013)

ratul said:


> 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 ), 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...
> 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...



A kid could easily understand what I actually wanted to convey, regarding time and space. That was nothing related to Ranade's views, or Upanishadic views, but that was a simple example, based on sheer common sense. Just broaden your dimensions of thought, only advice I can give you. Better know about Indian Science from original sources like Sri Aurobindo's writings. Read about Indian concepts of Existence, Consciousness, Shruti, Smriti etc. instead of senselessly judging and assuming silly things about it. Many genuine debaters on the forum have done that research, instead of wasting others' time repeating same narrow ideas all over again. Good luck, have fun.


----------



## ico (Apr 19, 2013)

Puranas are rubbish. Weird stories.


----------



## darkv0id (Apr 19, 2013)

ico said:


> Puranas are rubbish. Weird stories.


You've read them?


----------



## ico (Apr 19, 2013)

darkv0id said:


> You've read them?


Wouldn't comment otherwise. Gave up after a while.

Stories are okay though. People think of them as reality. I've got problem with that. Source of many present day misconceptions i.e. Yindooism.


----------



## darkv0id (Apr 19, 2013)

ico said:


> Wouldn't comment otherwise. Gave up after a while.
> 
> Stories are okay though. People think of them as reality. I've got problem with that. Source of many present day misconceptions i.e. Yindooism.



Fair enough. I agree that people always take the relatively insignificant stories, which are metaphorical at best, and blow them out of proportion, while completely ignoring the broader metaphysical questions the Purans pose.

To brand as Purans are outright _rubbish_, though, seems to me a bit, idk... extreme?


----------



## ratul (Apr 19, 2013)

Rishabh_sharma1990 said:


> A kid could easily understand what I actually wanted to convey, regarding time and space. That was nothing related to Ranade's views, or Upanishadic views, but that was a simple example, based on sheer common sense. Just broaden your dimensions of thought, only advice I can give you. Better know about Indian Science from original sources like Sri Aurobindo's writings. Read about Indian concepts of Existence, Consciousness, Shruti, Smriti etc. instead of senselessly judging and assuming silly things about it. Many genuine debaters on the forum have done that research, instead of wasting others' time repeating same narrow ideas all over again. Good luck, have fun.



haha, if a kid could have understood this, then we all are mind****ed bro..  what i understood from your thoughts had been conveyed in my previous posts..
your common sense was based on puranas bro, coz this was what you said:


			
				Rishabh_sharma1990 said:
			
		

> Ranade said what Upanishads say, that the ultimate reality is formless, timeless and space-less.



all your post was surrounding this idea, my post was that put this thing into crap, let us start from scratch, taking the opposite, assuming it to have some form, in a particular time and in a space, and now start research on it (coz researching on something formless or timeless would be inappropriate, as our ancestors were'nt able to describe it further, they gave this statement so further research could never be carried), and let's see where it leads us to, upnishads or puranas conveys nothing special, they just give you another view to see things, that's it..
and thanks, i don't have any interest in aurobindo or any other's writings on indian science (or any other science that bores me.. ), better luck reading our history bro, you like that it's cool, hope you'll be the next big ranade for our country.. .



mediator said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wow bro, you got some skills in writing, such a long post.. 
i can understand what you mean to say, but i don't think that way bro, i don't know what universe is, infinite, timeless or something i don't know, but i do know that it has to have boundaries somewhere, coz something that was'nt present at some time and then at some point something happens and all these stars, planets are born, there has to be some boundaries to it, else universe was always there and never born, which anyhow does'nt make sense in itself..  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..


----------



## Anish (Apr 19, 2013)

I think this is not going to stop unless TDF closes. The one known super power (god or evil) is human (_Homo sapiens_) - (ofcourse to our perspective).
They try to manupulate thoughts, convince fellow mates, create things, talk philosophies more than fictional gods etc. etc., evident from this very thread itself.


----------



## Makx (Apr 19, 2013)

Our ancestors really had some advanced knowledge but so had people from other civilizations that made pyramids, puma punku and other megaliths around the world. Our babas might be good at reciting that knowledge but what else?
Where are the vimanas? Even Leonardo Da Vinci designed and wrote about things not at his time like planes.
What about kundalini jagran, where are the people with chakras? Where are the floating sadhus?
What about the rest of the world? Our ancestors went to sun, moon, Jupiter,  heaven, hell, Saptrishi but didn't venture outside of India on earth?
So should we just sit and chant and praise the knowledge of our ancestors or research and find out more about the universe, no matter how finite or infinite it might be.


----------



## Anorion (Apr 19, 2013)

^are those cultures still around? 
Why not chant prayers and research about the universe, the conflict is manufactured.


----------



## Makx (Apr 19, 2013)

^ duh!
Some of them sure are.
Chinese, they made great wall of china, have acupuncture and numerous other things.
The mayan people are still here and so might be others.



Anorion said:


> Why not chant prayers and research about the universe, the conflict is manufactured.


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.
And rather than chanting prayers we should learn things from our traditional knowledge and implement it to help the millions of poor and needy, like some do.
Why not make things from veda/puranas/upnishads like vimanas and other stuff, rather than just sit in awe at how our ancestors did it and praise them?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 19, 2013)

> *Why not make things from veda/puranas/upnishads like vimanas and other stuff, rather than just sit in awe at how our ancestors did it and praise them?*


 this is not gonna happen even in next 1000 years simply because it is beyond any mere mortal human being.


----------



## Anorion (Apr 19, 2013)

^still not continuous for 4000 years+
So many monks were scientists

Knowledge in vedas, puranas, upanishads is encoded in song and dance and art. Panchatantra is for kids, these were stories for adults.
Many of these casual statements have better meanings. Sanskrit is good for programming they say, but its not about the coding language. Sanskrit has some unique features which makes it valuable. One of these is the pronounciation is very specific, and does not change from region to region or across periods of time. If you could speaks to machines in sanskrit then they could understand at every syllable, just as text input, instead of processing the whole string at once. 
Some of these prayers and mantras had practical applications of just recitation, for example making sure sounds of vowels dont change across generations. 

Abt vimanas, nuclear weapons, and whatever tech was supposed to exist, that is all fantasy obviously, its not like anyone really believes that stuff. The imagination was there, for seeing or hearing things from far, flying crafts, robots, wmds.... Science has still to invent shapeshifting, voice input for arms, everlasting materials, head transplants, mind controlled zombies...


----------



## Makx (Apr 19, 2013)

whitestar_999 said:


> 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?
I am sure we can 



Anorion said:


> ^still not continuous for 4000 years+


??? elaborate please.

The concept of Sanskrit being the perfect programming language came in 1985 I think, I dunno what has happened since.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 19, 2013)

then why is it that after so many years there is no significant effort/result towards developing sanskrit as a programming language.like i said before it is simply beyond any mere mortal to actually materialize any such knowledge in vedas etc.as for monks being scientists name one which can match the contributions of aryabhatta,bhaskara or modern day compatriots like chandrashekhar & c.v.raman.



> are you saying those things were never there or were godly?


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.


----------



## Anorion (Apr 19, 2013)

whitestar_999 said:


> as for monks being scientists name one which can match the contributions of aryabhatta,bhaskara or modern day compatriots like chandrashekhar & c.v.raman.



Gregor Mendel


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 19, 2013)

he was a christian in a post-renaissance era & as you know this was quite an advantage in having access to modern education at that time.by monk i meant religious people who never got modern education(the kind like mendel got) & yet came up with some significant discovery.accounting may be for 1-2 exceptions(not even sure) there is none.no matter whether one believe in god or not without modern education in relevant discipline there is no chance for such a person to come up with scientific discovery.monks/sadhus/... by definition mean those people who have abandoned the material world & by extension modern knowledge as well.they can't be both a monk/sadhu practicing meditation/yoga in morning & conducting experiments in evening in a lab.


----------



## Makx (Apr 19, 2013)

those might be fantasy stuff for sure, but I am sure we can make some of them like scientists are working on/made invisibility cloak from Harry Potter 
But it is another thing that it reaches the general public or not like we have enough renewable energy technology eg. PowerDish but still the people pay through their noses for energy.

according to religious texts brahma is mortal and dies the end of cycle of the universe when universe comes to an end


----------



## Anorion (Apr 19, 2013)

ah. there's a whole hierarchy. practical end is at trimurti, brahma-vishnu-shiva, but brahma is rarely worshiped directly, at the same level, there is devi or shakti, then there is parabrahma (lasts for a cycle) then above that there is adi-parashakti (transcendent in all cycles). wikipedia is in confusion about all of this. 

yes, forest dwellers were far more environmentally friendly than forest cutters


----------



## ico (Apr 19, 2013)

Anorion said:


> Sanskrit is good for programming they say, but its not about the coding language. Sanskrit has some unique features which makes it valuable. One of these is the pronounciation is very specific, and does not change from region to region or across periods of time. If you could speaks to machines in sanskrit then *they could understand at every syllable, just as text input, instead of processing the whole string at once.*
> Some of these prayers and mantras had practical applications of just recitation, for example making sure sounds of vowels dont change across generations.


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.

Plus, it is not the 'only' natural language fit for computers like Rishabh_sharma1990 claimed. The current surviving form is fit because it was standardised. Otherwise it would not have been that fit.

The bold part is true because Sanskrit has very high inflection. btw, I know Bulgarian to some extent. It is also one highly inflected language. Much more than any of the daughter languages of Sanskrit.



Anorion said:


> ^are those cultures still around?


I don't even see the Vedic culture being still around tbh.

Everyone knows how today's Indian culture is like. eg, not eating non-veg on Tuesday. lol wth is this "Tuesday"? How did "Tuesday" become a "Tuesday"? Then eating everything except beef. Why beef is a taboo? I see no difference in a goat's/chicken's life or a cow's. All are animals. If so sympathetic rather avoid non-veg food at all. One weird logic is, "non-veg khayoge toh paap chadhega." That's bull$hit.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 19, 2013)

> according to religious texts brahma is mortal and dies the end of cycle of the universe when universe comes to an end


*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).*


----------



## Makx (Apr 19, 2013)

whitestar_999 said:


> 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


----------



## mediator (Apr 19, 2013)

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/attachments/fight-club/10075d1366379425-science-god-connections.jpg 


*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/attachments/fight-club/10076d1366379426-science-god-baksei-chamkrong-connection.jpg

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/attachments/fight-club/10077d1366379427-science-god-coincidence.jpg

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/attachments/fight-club/10078d1366379429-science-god-goa-gajah-hindu-cave-temple.jpg



For the interested souls who genuinely like to explore , an interesting compilation by someone : *www.facebook.com/BharatiyaVastukala

*Please tell me why its not coming as a proper image* 

Myths about Indian economy (a must watch) : *www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRloJjKQa70

Analysis : Agamas and Science and Art of Temple Construction


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 19, 2013)

Makx said:


> 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.


----------



## Anorion (Apr 19, 2013)

What there are cycles, what are four yugas then


----------



## Inceptionist (Apr 19, 2013)

whitestar_999 said:


> 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.



It is a wiki. Anybody can edit it. Even though it is run by 'foreign' people, there are many Indian editors.
 And not a single reference is cited. Hence the message "*The neutrality of this article is disputed*".
Feel free to go ahead and add proper sources that support the article.


----------



## Makx (Apr 19, 2013)

Anorion said:


> What there are cycles, what are four yugas then


satyug, tretayug,dwaparyug,kaliyug subcycles?


whitestar_999 said:


> 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.


Wikipedia is a site run by data submitted from people, if you have a valid source go ahead and the changes will be made, 
trust indian tv serials over Wikipedia!!! I have seen lots of them and they too had different stories at various places.
You mean the religious people running websites for their devotees will not find time to get Wikipedia corrected regarding their religion? Great.

And as far as I remember Brahma came out of a lotus from vishnu's navel and it says same here Brahma : Hindu Gods trinity : Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva

and brahma dies says Indian Mythology: Tales, Symbols, and Rituals from the Heart of the Subcontinent - Devdutt Pattanaik - Google Books,A Brahma lives for one hundred such years and then dies. A Brahma, who is generally a great devotee of the Lord, attains liberation after such a downfall - Vaniquotes,Lord Brahma: The God of Creation and Sakthi Foundation


----------



## Inceptionist (Apr 19, 2013)

Makx said:


> And as far as I remember Brahma came out of a lotus from vishnu's navel and it says same here Brahma : Hindu Gods trinity : Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva



Since I was a kid, I couldn't figure out how is that possible.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 20, 2013)

@Makx,religious matters & mythology is not exact science where you can prove/disprove by presenting a Phd thesis of some standard text.if not going into details just use common sense.it is a well established fact that holy trinity in Indian mythology consists of Brahma,Vishnu & Shiva & is the manifestation of supreme being in 3 aspects of creation,caretaking & destruction.it is also established that asuras worshiped Brahma to get such powerful boons that vishnu has to take avatar to kill them.how can someone who is a part of eternal trinity & with such power be not immortal especially when he is considered the lord of creation?also i will take TV serials any day over wiki regarding matters concerning Indian mythology.*ever wonder why Brahma was never portrayed as mortal/not eternal in any TV serial?reason is there is no credible/widely accepted religious text & if someone dare do this i am sure there will be many filing cases in courts citing volumes of religious texts.*all of the links you gave rely solely on a single interpretation of a particular passage in Srimad-Bhagavatam while there are many more texts like vishnu puraan which differ not to mention the logic i gave above.

anyway i am ending this discussion because it is not relevant to the topic not to mention only those who undertook years of study in ancient indian religious/mythological texts are qualified enough to discuss such matters in detail.


----------



## Anorion (Apr 20, 2013)

there are n number of stories showing why any one of the trinity is better than the rest, and often these are the same stories with the remaining chars interchanged. 
there is no single passage, but there are schools of thought. some say no god, some say universe is made out of atoms, some say take care of yourself, that is only worship. some say smear ashes on yourself and celebrate cemeteries. there are as many schools of thought as gurus, and many of these traditions are still oral, waiting to be written down.

imagining vedic people to be very bored for a very long time. they simply figured all of it out and put it in a rhyme, just so it is easy to remember. you could choose any of the myriad vidya to follow. the puranas were the wikipedia of that time.


----------



## Faun (Apr 20, 2013)

I choose you, vidya games.


----------



## Makx (Apr 20, 2013)

> religious matters & mythology is not exact science where you can prove/disprove by presenting a Phd thesis of some standard text.





> there are n number of stories showing why any one of the trinity is better than the rest, and often these are the same stories with the remaining chars interchanged.


So religious texts like vedas,puranas,upnishads are useless in matters of religious mythology?
 I am sure the stories with interchanged characters can't be there in those texts and surely made up by people.


----------



## mediator (Apr 20, 2013)

whitestar said:
			
		

> also i will take TV serials any day over wiki regarding matters concerning Indian mythology.ever wonder why Brahma was never portrayed as mortal/not eternal in any TV serial?reason is there is no credible/widely accepted religious text & if someone dare do this i am sure there will be many filing cases in courts citing volumes of religious texts.all of the links you gave rely solely on a single interpretation of a particular passage in Srimad-Bhagavatam while there are many more texts like vishnu puraan which differ not to mention the logic i gave above.


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. 


In Devi Bhagwat Purana, the feminine aspect i.e Shakti is the given the supreme importance. In the Veda, it is the Aditi which is the mother of all the devas. But "what" exactly are these : Aditi, Shakti, Saraswati, Ela, Ushma, Usha? But are we really giving importance to feminine in Devi Purana or masculine in Shiva Purana etc? Is the individual mind really so low that it will stick to the name/pronoun and ignore the essence being delivered through that language construct?

If we keep going by "name", then we are bound to get confused and stuck to the lower realms of mind. Not all Puranas talk of the "holy Trinity". Even Brahma ariving from Vishnu's navel is metaphorical concept. But those who stick to names forget what the shrutis say, "ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti" (this is common sense IMO). How can we forget that in our argument then?

Just like many blind people can tell which known person is coming near them just by the sound of their foot steps, similarly it is the essence behind the "names" that a wiseman should look after.

Krishna, the personification of supreme consciousness, in Gita delivers to the perturbed and depressed mind i.e Arjun through the riddle of I/Me : 

_*Of the twelve Adityas I am Visnu*, of all luminaries the radiant sun, of the seven Maruts I am Marici and of the constellations I am the moon. (Bg 10.21)

*Of the eleven Rudras I am Siva* and of Yaksas and Raksasas I am Kuvera the treasurer of the demigods, of the eight Vasus I am Agni the fire god and of mountains Meru (BG 10.23)

Of the many headed non-poisonous serpents I am the divine serpent Ananta, of all aquatics I am Varuna the demigod ruling the inhabitants of water, of diefied anscestors I am Aryama and of administrators of justice I am Yamaraja the judge of all beings at the time of death. (BG 10.29)

__*Of the Daityas* I am Prahlada, of measurements I am time, of all the animals the lion and of birds I am Garuda. (10.30)_

_Of letters I am the first letter A, and of compound words the dual word,* I am eternal ever flowing time and the four-faced Brahma*. (BG 10.33)
_
So where is the "holy trinity" seen as supreme in the Bhagvad-Gita? Remember, there is nothing supreme or inferior like a hierarchy as in corporate jobs. Agni is not inferior to Indra, nor Indra to Vishnu! Neither form is inferior to formless nor vice versa. 



If you go by TV serials, then Devo Ke dev Mahadev is based on Devdutt Patnaik's works who is worshipper of Wendy Doniger who has reduced Indian works to sex. Moreover, not everything is true or researched there. Similarly, Amish Triparthi's work has reduced Shiva, the epitome of detachment, yoga, consciousness and knowledge, to a human playboy who runs afer girls hiding behind trees, ogling them, doing drugs, aggressively and arrogantly speaking like teenagers in American Slang. Tomorrow a TV serial can be made out of that as well. 


Just like rear/rare, their/there, here/hare sound similar or the same, but the listener can distinguish by its usage and hence transcending beyond the sound to know the meaning or the essence, similarly we need to go beyond the language limitations to know the depths of consciousness studies.

Here's a great read : Quantum Physics came from the Vedas: Schrödinger, Einstein and Tesla were all Vedantists. | Krishna Path

An intersting line : 

“*There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals*, but it is a false construction… The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.”
(Source: Mein Leben, Meine Weltansicht [My Life, My World View] (1961) Chapter 4)


The above speaks of infinity or the brahman only! 

He is indivisible and the One, but seems to divide himself in forms and creatures and appears as all the separate existences. All things are eternally born from him, upborne in his eternity, taken eternally back into his oneness. (BG 13.17)

PS - This oneness does not refer to "one god"/monotheism. Similarly, divisibility does not refer to multiple gods or polytheism! :'(


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 20, 2013)

Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda


----------



## atifkhan9462 (Apr 20, 2013)

I don't understand why everyone is talking about scientific theories(doughnot theory or whatever), while the only subject which is true is "mathematics". No other scientific theory has a rigoruous proof, they are just hypothesis(even conservation principles). if anyone has a rigorous mathematical proof of there scientific theories, post it and we will accept it as it is not going to change forever, untill then i will trust the words of god.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Apr 20, 2013)

*imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png


----------



## Faun (Apr 20, 2013)

atifkhan9462 said:


> I don't understand why everyone is talking about scientific theories(doughnot theory or whatever), while the only subject which is true is "mathematics". No other scientific theory has a rigoruous proof, they are just hypothesis(even conservation principles). if anyone has a rigorous mathematical proof of there scientific theories, post it and we will accept it as it is not going to change forever, untill then i will trust the words of god.



Buy my God is better than yours.


----------



## atifkhan9462 (Apr 21, 2013)

Faun said:


> Buy my God is better than yours.


Oooo!!!, then all the gods might be fighting with eachother.....

OMG!! who's running the universe!!!.


----------



## Makx (Apr 21, 2013)

the universe runs itself!!!


----------



## nikufellow (Apr 21, 2013)

^^^not true 
The multiverse runs itself


----------



## icebags (Apr 21, 2013)

DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> 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.



god(s) may be playing universe version of simcity. source :
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/random-news/172784-physicists-test-if-universe-computer-simulation.html


----------



## ratul (Apr 21, 2013)

atifkhan9462 said:


> Oooo!!!, then all the gods might be fighting with eachother.....
> 
> OMG!! who's running the universe!!!.



then Indra might be fighting with Zeus, or Ganga with Amphitrite.. 
btw, universe indeed runs itself..


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2013)

atifkhan9462 said:


> Oooo!!!, then all the gods might be fighting with eachother.....
> 
> OMG!! who's running the universe!!!.



Naah, he is just too awesome to fight with anyone. Just be good is all what my God asks. No subservience or other zealotry.


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 21, 2013)

Comeon if superheroes can hight each other, Gods too can.


----------



## Anorion (Apr 22, 2013)

Titans vs olympians, puranic gods vs vedic gods, these fights have played out


----------



## rajatGod512 (Apr 22, 2013)

ratul said:


> then Indra might be fighting with Zeus, or Ganga with Amphitrite..
> btw, universe indeed runs itself..



they do , havent you seen Clash/ Wrath of the Titans . LOL


----------



## atifkhan9462 (Apr 22, 2013)

Those are fake. 
If all gods want the good of human being and are the smartest, but still fight with each other then they are not the gods.


In my view if god exist he is only one orelse he doesn't exist.


----------



## icebags (Apr 22, 2013)

atifkhan9462 said:


> Those are fake.
> If all gods want the good of human being and are the smartest, but still *fight with each other* then they are not the gods.
> 
> 
> In my view if god exist he is only one orelse he doesn't exist.



gods may or may not fight each other, but their/his/her creations sure fight with each other.  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


----------



## aaruni (Apr 22, 2013)

icebags said:


> gods may or may not fight each other, but their/his/her *creations sure fight with each other*.



As is evident by this thread...


----------



## doomgiver (Apr 23, 2013)

this thread deserves allmywat.png


----------



## ico (Apr 30, 2013)

*India is Drowning in its Own Excreta-Can Science and Engineering Come to the Rescue?*


----------



## rhitwick (Apr 30, 2013)

ico said:


> *India is Drowning in its Own Excreta-Can Science and Engineering Come to the Rescue?*


Hey, I just read that. How is this related to this thread?


----------



## ico (Apr 30, 2013)

rhitwick said:


> Hey, I just read that. How is this related to this thread?


Can the formless and timeless come to the rescue?


----------



## Chetan1991 (Apr 30, 2013)

ico said:


> Can the formless and timeless come to the rescue?





> God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.


 -Machiavelli, Niccolo

I believe in God. But he is beyond the grasp of human understanding and thus unverifiable and unprovable (cannot be observed and hence proven existing) through science. Realizing him ain't that easy.


----------



## doomgiver (May 2, 2013)

whats the use of realizing something which doesnt even affect us.


----------



## Anorion (May 2, 2013)

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.


----------



## Neuron (May 2, 2013)

Chetan1991 said:


> -Machiavelli, Niccolo
> 
> I believe in God. But he is beyond the grasp of human understanding and thus unverifiable and unprovable (cannot be observed and hence proven existing) through science. Realizing him ain't that easy.



If god is beyond the grasp of human understanding how can you say that he is a good guy? He is beyond our grasp. His motives and characteristics cannot be determined.



Anorion said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Chetan1991 (May 2, 2013)

doomgiver said:


> whats the use of realizing something which doesnt even affect us.



What are people searching forever in their life? happiness, right? Everything is in pursuit of happiness.
But you can never have absolute happiness in life. There are always ups and downs, like a roller coaster. God, in Hinduism has been called Satcitananda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; sat-chit-ananda.
From the Wiki article:


> "Sat-Chit-Ananda" or "Saccidānanda" is the Sanskrit compound form of the word, which can be translated in various ways:
> 
> "Eternal Bliss Consciousness"
> "Absolute Bliss Consciousness"
> "Consisting of existence and thought and joy"



God is the cause and means of it all. Not everyone can see this because its quite elusive and takes some amount of insight, intellect and wisdom to realize, which most people lack (Proof: *developmentalobserver.blog.com/2010/06/09/an-overview-of-constructive-developmental-theory-cdt/)


----------



## Anorion (May 2, 2013)

Neuron said:


> 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.



Not my own wisdom, a purohita explained to me. Ppl notmaly pray to god to take away their prolems. God gives humans those prolems for a reason, better to pray for the strength to overcome those prolems instead of directly asking them to go away.


----------



## Neuron (May 2, 2013)

Anorion said:


> Not my own wisdom, a purohita explained to me. Ppl notmaly pray to god to take away their prolems. God gives humans those prolems for a reason, better to pray for the strength to overcome those prolems instead of directly asking them to go away.



How can he be so sure? Isn't he human?


----------



## Chetan1991 (May 2, 2013)

Neuron said:


> If god is beyond the grasp of human understanding how can you say that he is a good guy? He is beyond our grasp. His motives and characteristics cannot be determined.
> 
> 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.



"Guy" would be a wrong term. God is not a human being or anything remotely near to that. Moreover Hinduism is like the Linux ecosystem. Too much hodge-podge has buried the truth.
Good or bad doesn't come into picture at all, because nothing is inherently good or bad (not people, not situations, nothing), it is just our perception.
I'm not satisfied with Answers I gave you. I'll get back to you later in this thread.


----------



## Anorion (May 2, 2013)

Oh god, why cannot you see the sense in that simple statement. Let's just remove god and prayer or anything religious from the equation. Its better to wish for the strength to tackle problems rather than wishing the problems away.. Don't you agree?


----------



## Chetan1991 (May 2, 2013)

Anorion said:


> Oh god, why cannot you see the sense in that simple statement. Let's just remove god and prayer or anything religious from the equation. Its better to wish for the strength to tackle problems rather than wishing the problems away.. Don't you agree?



Agree. We need to take this into account:
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/fight-club/154557-religion-do-we-really-need-8.html#post1894307

Masses aren't that intelligent. They can easily be led astray by demagogues since they are slaves of social conditioning and are not freethinkers. Religions are organized institutions based upon true wisdom (compassion, letting go of ego etc.) which guide the masses. Completely discarding religion will result in chaos. Don't believe me? Go study the culture of US.


----------



## Neuron (May 2, 2013)

Anorion said:


> Oh god, why cannot you see the sense in that simple statement. Let's just remove god and prayer or anything religious from the equation. Its better to wish for the strength to tackle problems rather than wishing the problems away.. Don't you agree?



Maybe. But why pray to god if you don't know what he is going to do?



Chetan1991 said:


> Agree. We need to take this into account:
> *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/fight-club/154557-religion-do-we-really-need-8.html#post1894307
> 
> Masses aren't that intelligent. They can easily be led astray by demagogues since they are slaves of social conditioning and are not freethinkers. Religions are organized institutions based upon true wisdom (compassion, letting go of ego etc.) which guide the masses. Completely discarding religion will result in chaos. Don't believe me? Go study the culture of US.



See this list[*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism]. The countries where religious people are low are one of the most peaceful countries in the world.


----------



## mastercool8695 (May 2, 2013)

Neuron said:


> Maybe. But why pray to god if you don't know what he is going to do?
> 
> 
> 
> See this list[*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism]. The countries where religious people are low are one of the most peaceful countries in the world.



but the two attributes are not correlated


----------



## Makx (May 3, 2013)

Chetan1991 said:


> Masses aren't that intelligent. They can easily be led astray by demagogues since they are slaves of social conditioning and are not freethinkers. Religions are organized institutions based upon true wisdom (compassion, letting go of ego etc.) which guide the masses. Completely discarding religion will result in chaos. Don't believe me? Go study the culture of US.


wow, people aren't intelligent so give them religion to make them even more ignorant.
 US education system is on a decline and so its resulting in the decline in culture.
Proper education is required to make masses intelligent and not religion.


----------



## Chetan1991 (May 3, 2013)

Makx said:


> wow, people aren't intelligent so give them religion to make them even more ignorant.
> US education system is on a decline and so its resulting in the decline in culture.
> Proper education is required to make masses intelligent and not religion.



Education does not make people smart / intelligent. It only helps them realize their own potential. You seem to be the kind of person who thinks everyone is born equal. That's not true. 
Read this: *developmentalobserver.blog.com/2010/06/09/an-overview-of-constructive-developmental-theory-cdt/. 

I found wisdom and clarity in religion. It didn't make me ignorant. Religion is not a demagogue brainwashing people, it is their own attitudes and interpretation of it that makes them what they are. It's like blaming the TV for wasting time. Unless religion is shoved down down their throats, it is their own responsibility what they do with the knowledge. Religions have existed for thousands, obviously not everything in it right, but one needs to have a filter and follow only what they agree with and ignore the rest.

How does religion make people ignorant BTW?


----------



## Neuron (May 3, 2013)

Chetan1991 said:


> Education does not make people smart / intelligent.



lol, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Open your eyes, countries with non-religious majority are doing just fine. What are your thoughts on that?


----------



## Anorion (May 3, 2013)

Education is same as this. There needs to be spiritual education also. 50 years ago, when rahu time comes in the day was part of curriculum. Studying educative texts, reading books of knowledge is one of the basic tenets of Islam. Churches and temples open many educational institutions.


----------



## Neuron (May 3, 2013)

Anorion said:


> 50 years ago, when rahu time comes in the day was part of curriculum.


I think you forgot to grammar 

Anyone have a reason why non-religious countries are doing pretty well? According to the posts above , these countries should be full of dumb people.


----------



## Makx (May 3, 2013)

Chetan1991 said:


> How does religion make people ignorant BTW?


Killing, fighting in the name of religion. How many people can you count.



Chetan1991 said:


> Masses aren't that intelligent. They can easily be led astray by demagogues since they are slaves of social conditioning and are not freethinkers.


Religion is just a tool to control the masses, which is evident even from your comment, if you could see it.

Opening educational institutions is not enough, quality education should be provided, everyone knows what is the motive of christian missionaries in India, and the quality of education provided in madarsas.


----------



## Nerevarine (May 3, 2013)

> How does religion make people ignorant BTW?



*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/random-ne...mit-suicide-believing-they-will-meet-god.html

Im not gonna take part in this discussion.. I just stated the fact as i saw.. So dont try to counter me


----------



## rst (May 3, 2013)

Nerevarine said:


> *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/random-ne...mit-suicide-believing-they-will-meet-god.html
> 
> Im not gonna take part in this discussion.. I just stated the fact as i saw.. So dont try to counter me



We should have scientific thinking.
With education ,we can avoid such incident


----------



## mastercool8695 (May 3, 2013)

^^ exactly..


----------



## Chetan1991 (May 4, 2013)

rst said:


> We should have scientific thinking.
> With education ,we can avoid such incident



Religion or no religion, stupid people are going to stupid stuff anyway. Hilarious incident BTW; reminds me of 'Andher nagri chaupat raja' story.


----------



## whitestar_999 (May 4, 2013)

here is what i have to say about recent posts & to remind about the title of this topic:
*god is not same as religion*.you can believe in god without being limited to any religion.*discuss god against science not religion against science here.for that open another thread.*


----------



## Chetan1991 (May 4, 2013)

Makx said:


> 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.
> 
> Opening educational institutions is not enough, quality education should be provided, everyone knows what is the motive of christian missionaries in India, and the quality of education provided in madarsas.



I'd say "guide" rather than "control." It is extremism which we must keep in control. I'm an advocate of complete freedom; let people choose what's best for them.

As for people's actions, they bear complete responsibility for their actions. You can't blame books and ideas for such heinous acts. Its like blaming Shaktiman for children's deaths, when they tried to imitate him a lot a decade ago.

If there are people with malicious motives working under guise of religion, they need to be brought to justice. Please don't give all religions a bad name just because some followers have done stupid things. During the course of thousand of years they are bound to be filled with a little bit of wrong ideas. Religious ideas should be taken as suggestions to enhance life and not something to be strictly abide by at any cost.



whitestar_999 said:


> here is what i have to say about recent posts & to remind about the title of this topic:
> *god is not same as religion*.you can believe in god without being limited to any religion.*discuss god against science not religion against science here.for that open another thread.*



 Got sidetracked...


----------



## mastercool8695 (May 4, 2013)

^^^ hehehe  chaupat janta ..

@ whitestar : i agree to a sense..
but when someone starts discussing something and is into the depth of the topic, many more interrelated topics start dancing in their mind, cant stop it..


----------



## Makx (May 4, 2013)

Chetan1991 said:


> I'd say "guide" rather than "control." It is extremism which we must keep in control. I'm an advocate of complete freedom; let people choose what's best for them.
> 
> As for people's actions, they bear complete responsibility for their actions. You can't blame books and ideas for such heinous acts. Its like blaming Shaktiman for children's deaths, when they tried to imitate him a lot a decade ago.



Should'nt we educate the masses so they too can become freethinkers rather than bringing them under a social conditioning tool.

So if something good happens god/books/texts can be thanked but if something bad happens they are not responsible?


----------



## theserpent (May 27, 2013)

So what do you all think about sepding in thousands for poojas?


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jun 13, 2013)

Christians will always vouch for God... Science is for the faithless


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jun 13, 2013)

theserpent said:


> So what do you all think about sepding in thousands for poojas?



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.


----------



## theserpent (Jun 14, 2013)

mastercool8695 said:


> 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.
> ...



Exactly,But my mom an all don't understand, I said instead of all this why not feed the POOR,they are like Don't say like this god will curse you.
Now tell me,How would pooja benfit? By spending money? 
If they are so intrested PRAY FROM Heart not VIA 2nd mouth(pandits mouth) praying for you
NO OFFENSE TO ANY ONE HERE


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jun 14, 2013)

theserpent said:


> Exactly,But my mom an all don't understand, I said instead of all this why not feed the POOR,they are like Don't say like this god will curse you.
> Now tell me,How would pooja benfit? By spending money?
> If they are so intrested PRAY FROM Heart not VIA 2nd mouth(pandits mouth) praying for you
> NO OFFENSE TO ANY ONE HERE



IMO, making them work and earn and them feed themselves with the earned money is better than feeding them (not for those who are physically challenged and/or Senior citizens)

but then..
who's listening to kids ???


----------



## harshilsharma63 (Jun 14, 2013)

^ true. They feel like they are the pros of all heavenly stuff (sh*t imo) and are the true "followers of the principles of god".


----------



## Anorion (Jun 14, 2013)

> Astrologer and social activitst, Pandit Purushotam Gaur, has turned the religious practice of offering water and milk in temples into a unique method of water conservation.


Shiva Temples in Rajasthan Helping to Conserve Water | www.reset.org

And this is from friend's blog contrasting two types of belief. 


> A small comparative study done in a comic way, between the Norse and Greek traditions at times of similar calamity, can probably explain things in a better perspective.
> 
> Scenario 1: Hurricane and storm in the middle of the ocean.
> Norse sailors: "Njord is angry! Well, we'll have a grand feast in his name if we manage to get past this storm".
> ...


Don't follow through, posting link only for src The misplaced.


----------



## theserpent (Jun 14, 2013)

Another Example,Vijay Malya donated some statue to a temple in Udupi I guess,the Statue Costed like 80 lakhs
 This was somewhere around April Last year.
Instead he could have payed his employes right

*www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=147480


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jun 17, 2013)

maybe he donated so much so that God will keep those raging employees off his back.
Btw 80 lakh will pay off only a handfull of his employees. If those lucky ones get payed the remaining hundreds of employees will get more furious. 
Either pay em all or dont pay anyone.
 Thats the problem of corporate human resource management


----------



## Anorion (Jun 26, 2013)

word for option 3 in poll... ignosticism, not to be confus with agnosticism
think it is under represented, bundled along with science


----------



## Renny (Jun 26, 2013)

Indians would rather pour milk/ghee and offer food to idols than help their starving countrymen. 

Science FTW!


----------



## Chetan1991 (Jun 27, 2013)

Renny said:


> Indians would rather pour milk/ghee and offer food to idols than help their starving countrymen.
> 
> Science FTW!



+1. What would be greater good than to help those in need. My theory is idol worship was introduced for the simple minded just as children are initially taught maths with objects such as apples rather than symbols because they cannot grasp the abstract ideas yet. The difference is that children gradually start understanding the more complex ideas whereas most people are adamant to question and look past their beliefs.


----------



## doomgiver (Jun 27, 2013)

Do you know, the hockey team has donated 1M bucks for the flood hit people?
Where is the national cricket team? Busy stuffing their shamed faces with cash, I bet.


----------



## ratul (Jun 27, 2013)

doomgiver said:


> Do you know, the hockey team has donated 1M bucks for the flood hit people?
> Where is the national cricket team? Busy stuffing their shamed faces with cash, I bet.



don't bet, Shikhar Dhawan donated his entire prize money of ICC CT2013, harbhajan is to donate 10lakhs, and many more are donating..
I'm just wondering about where are those padmanabhaswami, tirupati or sai baba mandirs whose yearly turnover is in billions?? Haven't heard of any news them donating these huge amounts for help, Hungry Greedy Fake Inhuman Evil, so called "Priests"..


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Jun 27, 2013)

What about baba Ramdev and that BS?

BTW, I read an article in morning newpaper "The Statesman" today that some sadhus stole ~Rs. 8.6 million from a bank. Locals saw them acting suspiciously and notified the cops. So much for being "godmen."


----------



## ratul (Jun 27, 2013)

Extreme Gamer said:


> What about baba Ramdev and that BS?
> 
> BTW, I read an article in morning newpaper "The Statesman" today that some sadhus stole ~Rs. 8.6 million from a bank. Locals saw them acting suspiciously and notified the cops. So much for being "godmen."



this reminds me of a great and true dialogue from a latest bollywood film (Raanjhanaa): "Yahaan ganga ke kinaare saadhu jo aaye hai, koi murderer hai, koi rapist, chhuppte hue yahaan aa gye, aur pehan liya saadhu ka jhola paap dhone ke lie".. (Most of the saints, priests here are murderers, rapists who just came here hiding, and wore the mask of these "holy" people, trying to wash out their past deeds"..
So it's no surprise that these sadhus were caught doing what they had be doing their whole life.. 

As for Ramdev, i heard that they are helping the victims, sending the aides to the areas affected: *in.screen.yahoo.com/monsoon-fury-ramdev-sends-aide-121500199.html


----------



## Renny (Jun 29, 2013)

If I remember right, that cheat Vijay Mallya donated gold/crores of rupees to Tirumala right? Couldn't the courts pull him up for not paying his KF employees instead!?

And WTH are all these temples doing with the crores of rupees they have? 
I just don't understand the mindset of people - They'd rather donate gold and money to temples than provide real help to the poor and underprivileged! India is one of the worst countries when it comes to compassion and charity.


----------



## Hrishi (Jul 3, 2013)

1.Is there any form of GOD , that exists for other sentient being except humans ??? 
2.Has the meaning of GOD changed from what it used to be ??


----------



## theserpent (Jul 3, 2013)

Renny said:


> If I remember right, that cheat Vijay Mallya donated gold/crores of rupees to Tirumala right? Couldn't the courts pull him up for not paying his KF employees instead!?
> 
> And WTH are all these temples doing with the crores of rupees they have?
> I just don't understand the mindset of people - They'd rather donate gold and money to temples than provide real help to the poor and underprivileged! India is one of the worst countries when it comes to compassion and charity.



Thats what I posted few post's back.
I really don't get the idea,OF some POOJA's costing more than 1000 bucks, I have once seen one costing like 75k.
It's all rubish, I don't wana hurt anyones sentiments here.


----------



## CommanderShawnzer (Jul 3, 2013)

^You should seriously watch Oh My God(OMG)
It stars Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar.


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jul 3, 2013)

have alook here too : Mera Bhagwan toh bah gaya paani me! | hTe osLt


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 4, 2013)

theserpent said:


> I don't wana hurt anyones sentiments here.


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.


----------



## theserpent (Jul 4, 2013)

CommanderShawnzer said:


> ^You should seriously watch Oh My God(OMG)
> It stars Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar.



I did see it .


----------



## RohanM (Jul 9, 2013)

GOD.....

Science can't explain every thing .. like paranormal activities..

Can any buddy explain the bridge between shrilanka & India [ Build by Lord Ram ] 
NASA published these pics & it exists.. 

Things like satyayuga, dwapar yuga, kal yuga... the cycle of these ends with kalyuga..we are in it now... 

If u r saying GOD does not exists then prove it... 

Supernatural powers do exists...


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 9, 2013)

Post of another ignorant...


RohanM said:


> GOD.....
> 
> Science can't explain every thing .. like paranormal activities..


What paranormal activities? Are you talking about the movie?



> Can any buddy explain the bridge between shrilanka & India [ Build by Lord Ram ]


And who said Lord Ram built it?! Did you see him building it? 
Go observe world map for last few thousand years. You would get to see how the nations formed and how the division started and finally how the modern time nation boundaries were created.



> NASA published these pics & it exists...


What pics? If any valid links are available, please post them here? We can then discuss further on them.



> Things like satyayuga, dwapar yuga, kal yuga... the cycle of these ends with kalyuga..we are in it now...


Again, how are you so sure of this? 



> If u r saying GOD does not exists then prove it...


We are doing that for past 64 pages of this thread. Go read that first.



> Supernatural powers do exists...


Yeah, sure. Spiderman and Goku too.


----------



## RohanM (Jul 9, 2013)

rhitwick said:


> Post of another ignorant...
> 
> What paranormal activities? Are you talking about the movie?
> 
> ...



^^^^

With such language & rudeness I will prefer not to talk with you. Go learn to be polite first.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 9, 2013)

You seem to ignore the section where this thread is....its "Fight Club"! And we fight dirty.

And I was polite, I mentioned 'please' once.


----------



## RohanM (Jul 9, 2013)

rhitwick said:


> You seem to ignore the section where this thread is....its "Fight Club"! And we fight dirty.
> 
> And I was polite, I mentioned 'please' once.



Yaa may be thats y i was away from this dark side of TDF......


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jul 9, 2013)

rhitwick said:


> You seem to ignore the section where this thread is....its "Fight Club"! And we fight *dirty.*
> 
> And I was polite, I mentioned 'please' once.



really ?
and are you expecting some award for mentioning 'please' once ? 


and @ all : Dont you guys think you are thinking for just one winner. either science or god.
why dont you think about God creating all the things and Science trying to explain each of them bit by bit.
??

Comments will be appreciated more than Compliments (I dont hope i'll get any Compliments though.)



RohanM said:


> Yaa may be thats y i was away from this dark side of TDF......



Dont get angry buddy.


RohanM said:


> Science can't explain every thing .. like paranormal activities..


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 





> an accumulation of Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Fields



did you forget all about "will-o-the-wisps" ??

BTW, who first termed it as "Paranormal activity" ??


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 11, 2013)

Its paranormal coz we cant explain it with our current level of technology.

Come back in a few decades and you will be laughing at the poor sods who thought that you could summon ghosts and stuff just by drawing shapes in the ground.


----------



## mastercool8695 (Jul 11, 2013)

doomgiver said:


> Its paranormal coz we cant explain it with our current level of technology.
> 
> Come back in a few decades and you will be laughing at the poor sods who thought that you could summon ghosts and stuff just by drawing shapes in the ground.



tell me you watched Supernatural just now ???


----------



## axes2t2 (Jul 11, 2013)

doomgiver said:


> Its paranormal coz we cant explain it with our current level of technology.
> 
> Come back in a few decades and you will be laughing at the poor sods who thought that you could summon ghosts and stuff just by drawing shapes in the ground.



There are more than one ways to summon *'them'*.


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 11, 2013)

RohanM said:


> GOD.....
> 
> Science can't explain every thing .. like paranormal activities..
> 
> ...





rhitwick said:


> Post of another ignorant...
> _true dat._
> And who said Lord Ram built it?! Did you see him building it?
> Go observe world map for last few thousand years. You would get to see how the nations formed and how the division started and finally how the modern time nation boundaries were created.
> ...


Replies in blue italics, as always.



RohanM said:


> ^^^^
> 
> With such language & rudeness I will prefer not to talk with you. Go learn to be polite first.


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.


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jul 14, 2013)

To all the atheists---

Does your family and society know you are an atheist?

If not, why is it a secret,why haven't you told them?

Do you fear rejection? Do fear the social stigma that accompanies atheists?

and lastly, when did you become an atheist? what was the turning point?

(doing a little research)


----------



## ico (Jul 14, 2013)

mikael_schiffer said:


> To all the atheists---
> 
> Does your family and society know you are an atheist?
> 
> ...


yes, my family knows and even they have matching views. 

I'd also let you know that there's no social stigma as such that accompanies atheists. What kind of social stigma? The one which member of one cult holds against the other? I mean the one which a Wahabi holds against the 'Kafir' or a young new member of the 'Hindutva army' holds against the muslims on the Internet? I'm free from such feelings.

When I became an atheist? When I started reading objectively. I hope every starts doing it.

When I look at my country, its plight makes me cry. It is really amazing how the intelligence of the people of this country has only reduced since 2500 years ago. Still reducing.



mikael_schiffer said:


> Christians will always vouch for God... Science is for the faithless


I guess they should also vouch for this then: 6000-years

Earth being only 6000 years old? heh.


----------



## aaruni (Jul 14, 2013)

Funny : 

*fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/546768_366251413500673_255961081_n.jpg


----------



## Anorion (Jul 15, 2013)

This progress with time thing is an illusion. Otherwise everyone on the planet should be at least as smart as socrates or aryabhatta.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Jul 15, 2013)

progress=/=evolution.human race/society has certainly made a big progress but humans have not evolved much.also socrates & aryabhatta were geniuses who will always remain in minority no matter whether it is thousands of year old greek/indian civilization or somewhere in the future human space colony in another solar system.


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 15, 2013)

mikael_schiffer said:


> To all the atheists---
> 
> Does your family and society know you are an atheist?
> 
> ...


yes

-

er, i've publicly stated that i wish to find whatever "god" is there, and punish him/her/them for injustice and negligence. 

i guess it just happened gradually over the years.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Jul 15, 2013)

^^how can you find something which in the first place you don't even believe exist?


----------



## doomgiver (Jul 18, 2013)

whitestar_999 said:


> ^^how can you find something which in the first place you don't even believe exist?


The condition is that iff the entity exists. "If it bleeds, it can die".

The Imperial Creed:



FOR THE EMPEROR!


----------



## ratul (Jul 18, 2013)

mikael_schiffer said:


> To all the atheists---
> 
> Does your family and society know you are an atheist?



yes..


mikael_schiffer said:


> Do you fear rejection? Do fear the social stigma that accompanies atheists?


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..


mikael_schiffer said:


> and lastly, when did you become an atheist? what was the turning point?
> 
> (doing a little research)



as with most of the atheists, it was a gradual change, it started with analyzing small superstitions (no onion or chicken on tuesday, no nail cutting @ night, no hair cutting on thursday and 1000's more), and then gradually seeped to these godly phenomenons in the society, why temples are here, why when there are billions of planets out there, we see descriptions about earth only, if these tulsidas, kalidas, valmiki (whatever, don't know) knows and can write about gods and mahabharata, krishna and all, why didn't they wrote about what gods do on other planets, if they knew in such detail about these gods, why shiva, destroyer of everything in the universe, has just one river flowing from his head, and from billions of planets, it chose earth, india, does he only care about this planet??? why earth has these greek gods (zeus, poseidon etc.) and almost every counter god from india (indra etc.), does all the gods from the whole universe are just interested in earth???

All these questions gradually made me atheist, and believe me, my parents still don't understand why i became one, they just don't want to.. (and i can understand them as they are believing it for their whole life, i can't change that.. )


----------



## Anorion (Jul 19, 2013)

^buddhist texts mention thousands of other worlds, and even alien buddhas

Vishwamitra was a mortal who gained powers of god through his merit alone. Gods had to pray to him to stop him from creating another universe, populated with it's own stars, planets and gods. He almost did it anyway. 

padma purana lists other universes, other solar systems, and other forms of life. hindu cosmology has parallels for cutting edge cosmological theories of big crunch, big rip, big bounce. Singularity (from where big bang happened in science) is known as bindu. 

Exposed to the other side, india has a rich tradition of atheism... At least three schools of it, plus we have celebrated communist atheist heroes (bhagat singh). There is no stigma with it, perhaps the stigma is actually with belief.

What made me think twice about being all scientific and rational and atheist was Richard Dawkin's forums (he wrote the blind watchmaker, the god delusion and river out of eden, all influential populist science atheist books, plus coined "meme"). It's the epicentre of militant atheism, and was kind if sad that they chose to ignore the wisdom in religious texts, take it in context, and trample people's beliefs.


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jul 23, 2013)

here is one for all of us posting here 




> An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
> 
> The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
> 
> ...


----------



## Chetan1991 (Jul 23, 2013)

^ 

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy



> It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of energy because of the many forms it may take, but the most common definition is that it is the capacity of a system to perform work.





> The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be changed into different forms.



Explain to me, what is energy? Not in terms of charactristics, what it actually is?


----------



## Faun (Jul 23, 2013)

@#1936

I pooped a little.


----------



## rhitwick (Jul 23, 2013)

Chetan1991 said:


> Explain to me, what is energy? Not in terms of charactristics, what it actually is?


And that'll prove?


----------



## Chetan1991 (Jul 23, 2013)

rhitwick said:


> And that'll prove?



If you cannot prove something is true or fully explain it, that doesn't mean it does not exist.

No one has even seen an electron. It is impossible to see with any optical device because of its comparable weight to a photon, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## theterminator (Sep 3, 2013)

*Re: Indian Economy Going down*



ico said:


> Abrahamic religions believe in proselytising. (Jihadis are forcing others to "convert", eat beef et cetera.) The "Hindus" in this thread are the same. Just a bit more sophisticated. *Trying to find every answer in texts.*


 Because every answer (if not all) exists in those texts. 


ico said:


> I 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. " - nonsense but funny.


What was the point in bringing this up, I didn't understood. You added the word "nonsense" after a long time . 



ico said:


> I didn't even mock any "religion" in here, you think I'd mock Sardar Patel?


To quote you: 


ico said:


> There is nothing sacred in the universe.


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.


----------



## vijju6091 (Nov 5, 2013)

Both of them


----------



## srkmish (Nov 5, 2013)

I was a staunch atheist in my college days and used to furiously argue with others over the ridiculous concept that is God. Now i realize whether or not i believe in God doesn't relate to how well i live my life. This question is for idiots to ponder over to waste their mental energy. Smart people use their energy to be creative, not to venture on an endless quest of philosophical musings. Atheism is just an intellectual ego that some people cherish because it makes them feel intellectually superior to the 'believers'.


----------



## ico (Nov 5, 2013)

srkmish said:


> I was a staunch atheist in my college days and used to furiously argue with others over the ridiculous concept that is God. Now i realize whether or not i believe in God doesn't relate to how well i live my life. This question is for idiots to ponder over to waste their mental energy. Smart people use their energy to be creative, not to venture on an endless quest of philosophical musings. Atheism is just an intellectual ego that some people cherish because it makes them feel intellectually superior to the 'believers'.


yup. Completely true.


----------



## geek_rocker (Nov 7, 2013)

[IMGG]*i43.tinypic.com/oix0sw.jpg[/IMGG]


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 24, 2013)

lets bump this thread a little. lets not have it die a premature death (if it dies, will we have to post in heaven or hell?)


----------



## srkmish (Nov 24, 2013)

Sheldon: Leonard, where do you stand on the anthropic principle?

Leonard: Interesting question. On the one hand, I always thought…

Sheldon: You don’t even know what it is, do you? The anthropic principle states that if we wish to explain why our universe exists the way it does, the answer is that it must have qualities that allow intelligent creatures to arise who are capable of asking the question. As I am doing so eloquently right now.

Leonard: I know what the anthropic principle is.

Sheldon: Of course. I just explained it to you. Now, where do you stand on it?

Leonard: Where do you stand on it?

Sheldon: Strongly pro.

Leonard: Then I believe that God created the world in six days, and on the seventh he made you to annoy me.


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 24, 2013)

^anthromorphic


----------



## bssunilreddy (Nov 24, 2013)

If the Universe is created 6 billion years ago out of Big bang which has about 1 million galaxies containing some 30 billion star systems then there might be planets like ours which satisfies the goldy locks theory. So there must be at least 10000 planets existing right as we speak supporting some form of life then should we assume that GOD is only for us or for also them.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 24, 2013)

big bang happened ~13.8 billion years ago.


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 25, 2013)

bavusani said:


> If the Universe is created 6 billion years ago out of Big bang which has about 1 million galaxies containing some 30 billion star systems then there might be planets like ours which satisfies the goldy locks theory. So there must be at least 10000 planets existing right as we speak supporting some form of life then should we assume that GOD is only for us or for also them.


  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.


----------



## bssunilreddy (Nov 25, 2013)

doomgiver said:


> 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.



OK.I was wrong but look what I found out buddy.

*Facts about the Universe:*

The universe is currently estimated at roughly *13.7 billion years old*, give or take 130 million years. In comparison, the solar system is only about *4.6 billion years old*. 

Our Sun is part of a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way, and lies about two-thirds of the way out from the centre to the edge. 

For the Milky Way, the sun lies at a distance of 28,000 light years and has an orbital speed of 220 km/s.  

When we add the portion of the Milky Way that lies outside the sun’s  orbit, we get approximately 200 billion stars.*

How many stars and galaxies in the universe?*

  The best estimates suggest that there are at least 70 thousand million million million (70 sextillion or 7 × 10[SUP]22[/SUP]) stars in the Universe. The Universe probably contains more than 100 thousand million (100 billion or 10[SUP]11[/SUP]) galaxies.

*How many Planets might exist that satisfy Goldilocks theory? *

Astronomers estimate 100 million habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way.


----------



## harshilsharma63 (Nov 25, 2013)

^ the sample space is simply way too big for Earth to be only planet with habitual conditions. Aliens definitely exist and so do non-human intelligent lifer. Also, although number of combinations of molecules are theoretically infinite, stable organic molecules stable enough to form DNA are finite (same reason why we have finite elements while more than 16k elements are found in nature). For these finite DNA,s there will be millions which are our own copy. In other words, mathematically, the probability of millions of our own copies existing and some living the exact same life as ours and some exhibiting one of several choices we would have made is very high.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 25, 2013)

^^no offense but please post proven scientific facts only when arguing on behalf of science in a science/god thread & leave faith based arguments for religious side.aliens existence is not proven yet.elements refer to basic elements in periodic table & are finite in no. & less than 120 with some man-made.there is a valid reason why elements with very large atomic numbers are not possible because of certain limits(atomic theory).human DNA has 4 amino acids(A,T,C,G) & over 3 billion base pairs(AT & CG) so that total no. of possible combinations is over 4^3000000000 which is equal to 64*(10^9).this does not even include the minor differences in DNA like length of dna strand etc.chances of a same dna occuring in nature is infinitely small.


----------



## doomgiver (Dec 11, 2013)

bavusani said:


> *-snip- some correct facts were stated -snip-
> How many stars and galaxies in the universe?*
> 
> (100 billion or 10[SUP]11[/SUP]) galaxies.
> ...



1. thats similar to what i said.
i said there were roughly 100 billion OBSERVABLE galaxies. there are many more out there, we cant see them yet (their light/information has not yet reached us)

2. lolwut? 100 billion HABITABLE EARTH-LIKE PLANETS? what weed are you smoking? i want some too.
where are your sources? which astronomer has said this? i'd like to know so that i can send their name to the Darwin Awards (which they so highly deserve)

there are ~200 billion stars in the milky way. 1/3 of them are too old to have planets 1/3 of them are too young to have planets (im assuming each star population is distributed evenly, this is just a logical asusmption)
this leaves us with ~66 billion stars that can have planets.

so, you wanna say, that, if we randomly pick ANY star that can support planets, we can find a habiltable eathlike planet orbiting it? thats BULL-EFFING-$HIT.

let me re-iterate, incase you donot understand :

you say 100 billion earth-planets exist (imma just call them earths coz typing that **** is too long) in this galaxy.
i say (its a proven fact) that only 33% of the current stellar population can have planets orbiting them.
then, accroding to your theorry, EVERY one of the stars that can support planets has an earth orbiting it.
do you see the huge flaw in your reasoning?
i mean, if you cant even logically thing before posting, just keep away.

oh wait, this is the internet. all are allowed.



harshilsharma63 said:


> ^ the sample space is simply way too big for Earth to be only planet with habitual conditions. Aliens definitely exist and so do non-human intelligent lifer.


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)
out of those, maybe 100 may have advanced life (like plants, insects)
out of those, maybe ~10 have sentient life
out of those, maybe ~2-3 may reach spaceflight.
out of those, only humanity will prevail (HUMANITY FVCK YEAH!!!)
(sorry, couldnt resist)

ok, so basically, what i wanna say is, extra-solar life is possible, but you wont be flirting iwth blue girls anytime too soon.




whitestar_999 said:


> -polite snip-




(i think me meant 16k MOLECULES, not elements)


----------



## whitestar_999 (Dec 11, 2013)

^^i am from older generation & when talking/reading about science i assume the talk to be in standard scientific notation.elements mean periodic table elements,only few elements exist in nature in free state & rest exist in compounds & mixtures(air is also a mixture containing molecules of oxygen,nitrogen etc).16k can only mean compounds & mixtures not molecules or elements in nature.


----------



## RohanM (Dec 14, 2013)

Please also watch all "Ancient Aliens" season in hindi or english on you tube.. Superb....
Ancient Aliens Season 5


----------



## Skyh3ck (Dec 15, 2013)

Yes I watch ancient aliens


----------



## Skyh3ck (Dec 15, 2013)

And yes I believe there is possibility of aliens. Not necessariry they need water. Air or anything like we do on earth. Who knows they have some other elements to support life


----------



## ratul (Dec 16, 2013)

Skyh3ck said:


> And yes I believe there is possibility of aliens. Not necessariry they need water. Air or anything like we do on earth. Who knows they have some other elements to support life



^^^ 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.. :


----------



## RohanM (Dec 16, 2013)

ratul said:


> ^^^ 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.. :



& my point is why the hell we think that we are alone, there are billions of planets.. so many must have life on it, even more advanced that we are...


----------



## vijju6091 (Dec 16, 2013)

^^Your point is quite genuine IMO


----------



## Skyh3ck (Dec 17, 2013)

we are not alone, even our ancient texts confirms that there is life on other Graha (planets), i do watch ancient aliens, but belive me they give lots of bullshit and focus more on Pharoas, kings and etc.. the show could have been more intersting if they apply more sientific approach


----------



## rishitells (Dec 23, 2013)

Sharing a profound and thought-provoking article on 'Natural Intelligence' to ponder.

The Unsung Intelligence of Life's Web | Reality Sandwich

*Excerpts:*


> Engineering prowess of Nature can loosely be called 'natural intelligence' and is part and parcel of all living things along with the selective forces of Nature that have engineered all living things. However, given that natural intelligence is basically unheard of, trying to talk about it is difficult and usually leads to head scratching or, worse, to accusations of Intelligent Design creationism. This is probably because as soon as one suggests that Nature is imbued with intelligence, or that life is a kind of intelligence, or that natural selection is a kind of intelligence, one immediately thinks that it would have to be a *conscious intelligence* -- which would be hard to swallow given what we know about the Darwinian mechanisms of evolution.
> 
> The closer one examines life the more apparent does natural intelligence become. Like brilliant ideas and hypotheses made literal flesh in space and time, natural intelligence is what you see when you look down a microscope at a cell. All those busy chemical cycles and all that frenetic protein manipulation -- that is natural intelligence. The cyclical networks of molecules and enzymes, communicating with one another, sustaining themselves and repairing themselves -- that is natural intelligence. The myriad exquisite nanotechnological machines known as ribosomes that effectively convert DNA code into long strings of amino acids that subsequently fold up into the Lego-like building blocks of life -- that is natural intelligence. Indeed, the genetic code is itself an expression of natural intelligence. A code. Think about it. Codes are usually associated with us -- machine code, binary code, Morse code, video/audio codecs, sign language and such. Codes -- language-like systems in which one sort of information is transcribed into another -- are the hallmark of intelligent purposeful activity. Yet Nature got there first. To be sure, the genetic code is so subtle and sophisticated that it took the human race hundreds of years to figure it out.


----------



## Anorion (Dec 24, 2013)

even god cannot change some of science 
numbers supersede any god, in a way they are more permanent, unchangeable and eternal, in every conceivable universe, and numbers would still exist if nothing else existed
numbers deserve your worship most


----------



## Hrishi (Dec 24, 2013)

I wonder why do people always percieve god to be someone in human or some form which is alive . ? God could be most possibly something which is not a form of life.
Sometimes I even think maybe we need to redefine what life actually means ?? Maybe we are confined within our defined terms so we only see what we want to see. ?
---------------------------------------


----------



## CommanderShawnzer (Dec 24, 2013)

rishitells said:


> Sharing a profound and thought-provoking article on 'Natural Intelligence' to ponder.
> 
> The Unsung Intelligence of Life's Web | Reality Sandwich
> 
> *Excerpts:*



Zerg.



Skyh3ck said:


> And yes I believe there is possibility of aliens. Not necessariry they need water. Air or anything like we do on earth. Who knows they have some other elements to support life



Protoss


----------



## dude1 (Jan 27, 2014)

doomgiver said:


> 1. thats similar to what i said.
> i said there were roughly 100 billion OBSERVABLE galaxies. there are many more out there, we cant see them yet (their light/information has not yet reached us)


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


----------



## Anorion (Jan 27, 2014)

^
Could Some Alien Worlds Be More Habitable Than Earth?
and
Habitable zones around stars ten times wider than we thought


----------



## speedyguy (Jan 27, 2014)

Reading only the last few posts, I could not relate it back to the original discussion . But glad to see the war is still ON. 

Enjoy~!


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Jan 27, 2014)

god is science!!


----------



## dude1 (Jan 27, 2014)

a_k_s_h_a_y said:


> god is science!!



As the principles of physics are so elegant and perfect, and If  HE created the world then...*GOD IS A GEEK*!!


----------



## bssunilreddy (Jan 28, 2014)

GOD is there but are there 1 GOD or 100 GODS is the million dollar question here...


----------



## rhitwick (Feb 8, 2014)

*Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham*
This is also available in Torrent.


----------



## ico (Feb 8, 2014)

bavusani said:


> GOD is there but are there 1 GOD or 100 GODS is the million dollar question here...


God is certainly not there to answer your million dollar question.


----------



## Faun (Feb 9, 2014)

rhitwick said:


> *Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham*
> This is also available in Torrent.



The only thing good was Bill Nye emphasizing that young people try to find out the answer and challenge the already existing theories instead of bashing Ken Ham. Because, you know, an idiot is an idiot.


----------



## soumya_ch (Apr 14, 2014)

Read it all here Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ankush28 (May 26, 2014)

Science!!!
God is just imaginary thing invented by humans to apply science to masses! This is what I know, This is what I believe.(Yes, another atheist)


----------



## ankush28 (May 26, 2014)

whitestar_999 said:


> ^^no offense but please post proven scientific facts only when arguing on behalf of science in a science/god thread & leave faith based arguments for religious side.aliens existence is not proven yet.elements refer to basic elements in periodic table & are finite in no. & less than 120 with some man-made.there is a valid reason why elements with very large atomic numbers are not possible because of certain limits(atomic theory).human DNA has 4 amino acids(A,T,C,G) & over 3 billion base pairs(AT & CG) so that total no. of possible combinations is over 4^3000000000 which is equal to 64*(10^9).this does not even include the minor differences in DNA like length of dna strand etc.chances of a same dna occuring in nature is infinitely small.


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! 
Everything is possible, but can't be proven scientifically right now. Remember every scientific discovery was just curiosity+faith initially.



bavusani said:


> OK.I was wrong but look what I found out buddy.
> 
> *Facts about the Universe:*
> 
> ...



Consider 1 star at 200 light year apart from earth. So when we saw that star it was already 200 year old!!! Now in our universe there are lots of the stars/planets which are millions of light year away from us! Considering that there are many stars/galaxies which aren't yet visible to us due to this "LIGHT BARRIER"


----------



## arnabbiswasalsodeep (May 26, 2014)

Another atheist here

I believe in the theory of the movie Prometheus(not fully) but I consider that we are in loop

A study for how humans may look like in future estimates that in more than 1000 years later (if we could survive that long) then due to space radiation and low light our pupil will grow and our eyes will become fully black and our skin will be grey in color

This made me think that we'll look exactly like grey aliens and will be very scientific advanced

So we'll create perfect living organism capable of living in primordial earth and time travel and send it into past which will evolve in humans but then we'll come again to give knowledge and when those homo-erectus will see our technology and control over universe they will consider as humans


----------



## ratul (May 26, 2014)

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)..


----------



## ico (May 27, 2014)

ratul said:


> 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)..


I'll give you another chance.


----------



## srkmish (May 27, 2014)

ratul said:


> 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)..



Good plot. Use this to write a short story or novel. Insert more interesting ideas.


----------



## moniker (May 27, 2014)

I'm agnostic. If being a theist is not scientific, so is being an atheist. Neither theists nor atheists have empirical evidence to corroborate their claims on the existence or non existence of a supernatural power, all they have is a belief. A true man of science should never "believe", even atheists do that by bluntly saying "god doesn't exist". How do you know? Logic dictates me to be an agnost.


----------



## Webwriter_D (Jul 15, 2014)

ratul said:


> 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)..




“Brain in a Vat” Argument, The [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

May help


----------



## dude1 (Jul 16, 2014)

Do we live in the Matrix? Scientists believe they may have answered the question - Telegraph
experiment to check if universe is a simulation


----------



## Chetan1991 (Jul 16, 2014)

This Futurama episode has a unique take on the subject: "Futurama" A Clockwork Origin (TV Episode 2010) - IMDb


----------



## ico (Jul 17, 2014)

^ interesting.


----------



## TechnoBOY (Jul 17, 2014)

how was universe created ???


----------



## Anorion (Jul 17, 2014)

ratul said:


> 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.

- - - Updated - - -



TechnoBOY said:


> how was universe created ???



ok.



> Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened - the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the greatest mystery we know. That it happened is reasonably clear. All the matter and energy now ain the universe was concentrated at extremely high density - a kind of cosmic egg, reminiscent of the creation myths of many cultures - perhaps into a mathematical point with no dimensions at all. It was not that all the matter and energy were squeezed into a minor corner of the present universe; rather. the entire universe, matter and energy and the space they fill, occupied a very small volume. There was not much room for events to happen in.
> In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased. It is misleading to describe the expansion of the universe as a sort of distending bubble viewed from the outside. It is better to think of it from the inside, perhaps expanding uniformly in all directions. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which then as now, filled the universe, moved though the spectrum - from gamma rays to x-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colours of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated. As time passed, the fabric of space continued to expand, the radiation cooled and, in ordinary visible light, for the first time space became dark, as it is today.


In cosmos, by Carl Sagan



> In our time, we have a creation myth also. but it is based on hard scientific evidence. It goes something like this . . .
> We live in an expanding Universe, vast and ancient beyond ordinary human understanding. The galaxies it contains are rushing away from one another, the remnants of an immense explosion, the Big Bang. Some scientists think the Universe may be one of a vast number - perhaps an infinite number of other, closed-off universes. Some may grow and then collapse, live and die, in an instant. Others may expand forever. Some may be poised delicately and undergo a large number - perhaps an infinite number - of expansions and contractions. Our own Universe is about 15 billion years past its origin, or at least its present incarnation, the Big Bang.


Billions and Billions by Carl Sagan



> The idea that the universe had been born at some time in the past, and had not existed forever, was a consequene of two sensational discoveries made in the 1920s by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble. Using the world's biggest telescope, on Mount Wilson in California, Hubble had found that the Milky Way - the great island of stars which includes the sun - was merely one "galaxy" among countless billions of others suspended in the ocean of space. In 1929, Hubble followed up his discovery of galaxies - the fundamental building blocks of the universe - with the discovery that the universe was expanding, its galaxies flying apart from each other like pieces of cosmic shrapnel.
> If the universe was expanding, one conclusion appeared inescapable, it must have been smaller in the past. There must have been a moment when all of creation occupied a minuscule volume of space : the moments of the universe's Birth. By imagining the expansion running backwards, like a movie in reverse, it was possible to deduce that the universe had exploded from this super-dense state many billions of years ago.


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. 

now the creation Myths

Egyptian - Ra gave birth to himself and spat out the rest of the universe
Serbian - God slept, god dreamt, awoke, and his gaze created the universe wherever he went
Norse - Cool Air and Warm Air met over the ice and thawed out Ymir from the ice, and his sweat created the first gods who slew Ymir and made the universe from his remains
Chinese - Yin and Yang fought within a cosmic egg till the fighting energies rent it apart creating the universe
Japanese - Kamui does it and uses a big fish to make the tides
Australian Aboriginal - Eternal Ancestors formed it from a barren plain
Iranian - Ahura Mazda lives in Light, Ahriman in Dark, then Ahura Mazda creates time and the universe starts. 
Siberian - Ulgan rises the earth from empty oceans, using goose to dive down and scoop up the mud from the bottom of the ocean 
Novajo - Ancestors lived in another world, made a hole in their sky and escaped to this one (wormhole?)


----------



## nomad47 (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't know. I am torn between theories. I believe in the theories that say all our ancient characters from religious texts were aliens. On the other hand I also believe there is a supreme power an energy that governs us all


----------



## Inceptionist (Jul 18, 2014)

TechnoBOY said:


> how was universe created ???



Universe isn't created. 

It came into existence. 

But it isn't created.


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Jul 18, 2014)

I have been thinking about this, like if people can change religion, can we select *Science* as our religion, or can we chose to be religion free in India?


----------



## Chetan1991 (Jul 19, 2014)

SaiyanGoku said:


> I have been thinking about this, like if people can change religion, can we select *Science* as our religion, or can we chose to be religion free in India?



Sure. India as a country is religiously very tolerant; the people, not so much.



To the atheists here, you would be naive to believe people can live without a religion. They may not call it religion (e.g. feminism and political correctness in USA), but masses always have a need to rally behind an ideology, and, sadly, cry bloody murder if it is threatened even a little bit. A life without passion is no life at all. An even temperament is the characteristic of the wise, not everyone.

Here's something you ought to watch:

[YOUTUBE]cOyUBtJFJvk[/YOUTUBE]

*Especially this one:
*

[YOUTUBE]Dqe_feNbPRY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## piyush2202 (Aug 1, 2014)

You know, the question "Who created the universe?" is redundant. Why do you have this undying urge to show that everything has been "created"? I could ask "Who created God?", and you would say "God simply exists". Well, this same theory stands for the universe, "The universe simply exists".

There are theories which explain how the universe may have come into existence, but they haven't yet been proven.

By the way, I am an atheist BECAUSE I have read religious books, heard religious stories, and attempted to find reason in it. God is a man made entity used for one purpose and one purpose only: control. It is a technique used to control your behaviour, control your thoughts and control your life. The earlier you accept this, the easier life will be for you. You believe you are restricted to behave and act in a particular way because God is watching you. You have been told that if you do not obey, you will be punished for it. This is control.

The entire plot is so ingenious, that people have been believing it for thousands of years without question or doubt. The concept of God was created by the Church, the temples, the synagogues. The most learned of men would live here and study science. Common folk didn't understand science, so they were made to believe in the supernatural to ensure that their lives would be better. But, like all men of power, they wanted more! So, they used this power to dictate terms and control the people. They drove the fear of God into them and used this fear to their advantage. The people being uneducated, believed everything these learned men would say and obeyed everything. This lead to the mass distortion of the original concept of God. God became a supernatural being who would smite you for being "bad".

I'm surprised that people living in a learned society, still believe in this concept.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Aug 1, 2014)

I would suggest you watch the videos in the previous post.

- - - Updated - - -



piyush2202 said:


> By the way, I am an atheist BECAUSE I have read religious books, heard religious stories, and attempted to find *reason* in it.



Reason isn't everything. Neither can it explain everything, especially about subjects we ourselves know little of.  e.g. Bravery isn't rational, it saves lives nonetheless.


----------



## piyush2202 (Aug 1, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> I would suggest you watch the videos in the previous post.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...



Again, bravery is a feeling. It has a reason. Reason for bravery is to feel superior. I'm speaking in a pure psychological sense here. You save someone's life due to bravery. But you do it because you want to feel good about yourself. You like feeling that you are superior.

 I would recommend you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Aug 1, 2014)

piyush2202 said:


> Again, bravery is a feeling. It has a reason. *Reason for bravery is to feel superior.* I'm speaking in a pure psychological sense here. You save someone's life due to bravery. But you do it because you want to feel good about yourself. You like feeling that you are superior.



ROFL. When a soldier is defending a position from hostiles, you think he's doing it to feel superior? No, he is doing it to protect his homeland. Even when rationality dictates he withdraws to save his life, he does irrational acts to put his countrymen's safety over his. If reason were everything, computers would be far superior to us irrational beings. Imagination isn't rational, yet it is our greatest asset.




piyush2202 said:


> I would recommend you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.


I have. She is known to push logic too far, making her writing dry and boring.

PS. You didn't watch the videos, did you?


----------



## piyush2202 (Aug 1, 2014)

Computers don't know reason my friend, computers know logic.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 2, 2014)

it's not as simplistic as being a tool for control. It could have been before the information age, but not any more
another thing, where it matters, people just do what they want anyway, there are limits to how much they allow religion to dictate their choices. One example where such conflict happens and religion loses is use of contraceptives. 
there are those who follow god and other spiritual matters without belonging to a particular framework. Hinduism is good example, it is made up of terribly conflicting beliefs. Im sure all these world views have their own unique uses. This includes atheism, where there is no need for a creator god, and another belief system where the reality of this existence is argued to be ultimately unreal (with nothingness or the void being the only natural form of reality). There are schools of belief where there is skepticism of god or any kind of supernatural powers, and these are not needed for individual spiritual advancement. There might be others, but these are the two most divergent I could think of, and they have also been around for ever.


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Aug 16, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> ROFL. When a soldier is defending a position from hostiles, you think he's doing it to feel superior? No, he is doing it to protect his homeland. Even when rationality dictates he withdraws to save his life, he does irrational acts to put his countrymen's safety over his.


Rationality dictates he fight on for his country,  even if he flees now, he will eventually die. That what keeps him fighting
you would call it an "irrational act" if he went charging one man army Sunny Deol style..

- - - Updated - - -



Chetan1991 said:


> Reason isn't everything. Neither can it explain everything, especially about subjects we ourselves know little of.


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!! "


----------



## Gen.Libeb (Aug 16, 2014)

Is there anyone who believes in God but does not believe in praying , meditation, thanking/respecting god  and things like that ?


----------



## Nue (Aug 17, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> To the atheists here, you would be naive to believe people can live without a religion.



I don't particularly agree with this notion. It's akin to saying people would starve without potatoes. Yes, most people think it necessary to have a sense of purpose so as to give meaning to their existence. That, however, does not mean that subscribing to religion is the only - or even the most desirable option. Note that by religion, I exclusively mean the belief in a supernatural or divine power.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Aug 18, 2014)

Nue said:


> Note that by religion, I exclusively mean the belief in a supernatural or divine power.



I was referring to more than theology : *www.digit.in/forum/fight-club/39882-science-god-post2139873.html#post2139873

- - - Updated - - -



piyush2202 said:


> Computers don't know reason my friend, computers know logic.



Poor choice of words. Replace reason with logic.


----------



## rish1 (Aug 19, 2014)

as per my experience i have realized 

Spirituality , religion and science are *totally* *3 different* things

the actual reality is composed of both Spirituality and Science .. you cant separate 1 from another.. 1 is the objective and the other is the subjective .. reality is both subjective and objective and both affect one another 

religion is partly truth and partly BS which is hyped up and manipulated by People in power and then blindly followed by billions of people due to social conditioning , fear etc without ever questioning  it  !!

- - - Updated - - -



piyush2202 said:


> Again, bravery is a feeling. It has a reason. Reason for bravery is to feel superior. I'm speaking in a pure psychological sense here. You save someone's life due to bravery. But you do it because you want to feel good about yourself. You like feeling that you are superior.
> 
> I would recommend you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.



in the very basic terms everything in this world you do is to make you feel good that's why you do anything in the first place and dont think making yourself feel good is bad, its bad when it is mixed with other forms of ego,hate,revenge, etc ,   but feeling superior is totally a different thing and is more related to EGO .. !! sure there are reasons for feelings but that reasons can be different for different people. 2 people can feel totally different feelings in same situation..


----------



## piyush2202 (Aug 19, 2014)

> Poor choice of words. Replace reason with logic.



if(<statement is true>) then
{ execute }
else
{execute }

That is logic. A computer makes logical decisions. It doesn't know why the hell it's doing it (reason), but it can make a decision.


----------



## Raziel (Aug 22, 2014)

I stand with science...at the same time I don't think there's any kind of purpose to life.


----------



## Faun (Aug 22, 2014)

Raziel said:


> I stand with science...at the same time I don't think there's any kind of purpose to life.



We carry the genes.


----------



## Raziel (Aug 23, 2014)

Faun said:


> We carry the genes.


..but does that makes us invincible ? the fate of everyone seems the same in the end..birth-death..repeat.
and still there's no god in sight.


----------



## Esoteric Eric (Aug 23, 2014)

I didn't try checking multiple options but was it just a single choice or what ? Because  [MENTION=22610]hsr[/MENTION] voted twice ?


----------



## Faun (Aug 23, 2014)

Raziel said:


> ..but does that makes us invincible ? the fate of everyone seems the same in the end..birth-death..repeat.
> and still there's no god in sight.



We are conditioned to view death as some absolutely horrible consequence.

We are just matter and energy bound in a beautiful complex symbiosis of cells all working together. God will be of no relevance as we move further into future.


----------



## rish1 (Aug 23, 2014)

go god goo..

go science goo..

while we enjoy

 *mycotek.org/images/smilies/th_male29-male-theater-cinema-smiley-e.gif


----------



## hsr (Aug 25, 2014)

Esoteric Eric said:


> I didn't try checking multiple options but was it just a single choice or what ? Because  [MENTION=22610]hsr[/MENTION] voted twice ?



wrong forum buddy, you don't want a fight here


----------



## Esoteric Eric (Aug 26, 2014)

No buddy, I'm on the right forum. Could be that there are no rules for mods/admins. That fight is pointless IMO  _(Unsubscribed)_


----------



## hsr (Aug 26, 2014)

Hmm, interesting that I wasn't even subbed to the thread in the first place. If you could PM me what exactly is it you mean (I don't want to derail the thread), we can get into it asap. Still no clue what you're accusing me of


----------



## snap (Aug 26, 2014)

lol [MENTION=22610]hsr[/MENTION] there is poll in this thread, he was thinking if we can choose two options or not cause apparently you voted twice


----------



## hsr (Aug 26, 2014)

hehe I get it now, he must have not seen "multiple choice poll". I have no clue as to how I ended up voting and not subbing btw


----------



## ico (Aug 26, 2014)

Esoteric Eric said:


> No buddy, I'm on the right forum. Could be that there are no rules for mods/admins. That fight is pointless IMO  _(Unsubscribed)_


lol, if somebody re-started NOTW - n00b of the week, we have a winner here.  (just joking)

This is a checkbox poll. Not a radio button poll. You can choose multiple options. But vote only once.


----------



## snap (Aug 26, 2014)

Nah NOTW are those ppl who cant remove ads while logged in


----------



## abhigeek (Oct 17, 2014)

I always get doubtful of god existence.....

I think God is created by Smart people to control masses with fear.
Coz there wasn't a civilized society back then, no police, no morals .... Anybody murdering anybody, raping anybody sort of Game of thrones, i guess.

Most of superstitions were imposed by them in name of fear......
 without explaining any logic behind it, coz people were illiterate and stupid back then.


----------



## Makx (Oct 17, 2014)

rish said:


> 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..
> 
> ...


You didn't mean the"god paritcle" or the higgs boson, in any way. Did you?


----------



## snap (Oct 17, 2014)

I hate these kind of explanations ie: Everything is already explained by religions/god etc but "western" science will need many years to agree/confirm that :\


----------



## amjath (Oct 17, 2014)

The so called no God only science discussing people, please tell me whether you believe in soul??


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Oct 17, 2014)

amjath said:


> The so called no God only science discussing people, please tell me whether you believe in soul??



soul: no
consciousness: yes


----------



## amjath (Oct 17, 2014)

SaiyanGoku said:


> soul: no
> consciousness: yes



Soul-searching doctors find life after death - Telegraph


----------



## snap (Oct 17, 2014)

Don't these kinda articles keep claiming HiV/Cancer etc cure available every few weeks?


----------



## Makx (Oct 17, 2014)

amjath said:


> Soul-searching doctors find life after death - Telegraph


load of crap
quacks  
No, this study is not evidence for "life after death"


----------



## Anorion (Oct 17, 2014)

Donno about life after death, but there is new evidence of continued awareness after clinical death
Largest study on resuscitated patients hints at consciousness after death


----------



## Inceptionist (Oct 17, 2014)

Daily Mail link? No thank you.


----------



## rish1 (Oct 18, 2014)

Inceptionist said:


> Daily Mail link? No thank you.



i know it sucks but it had excerpts from the book so that's why posted it.. medical literature is full of these cases ...


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 18, 2014)

*in this post : some weenies will get roasted.*

Specialized Burn Centers



rish said:


> we are not invincible but we are definitely immortal..


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.







rish said:


> no I didn't mean that at all..
> 
> by god particle I meant to say - the immortal soul or consciousnesses  ,  which exists in all living things ... from animals , to humans to  higher deities.. that's why you still live after you die in this  physical world ...
> anybody interested in life after death can Google it more on the wealth  of scientific research already done on this subject... with the amount  of evidence pilling up it will most probably become a scientific fact in  the next 50 years or so ... once mainstream scientists come up with  theories ( there are already many with positive results ) and  experiments to account for all the phenomenon like remote viewing,   telepathy etc...


What is this immortal soul? What proof is there that we "live" after "death"?
There has been ZERO, yes, ZERO proper scientific studies that have even hinted at a "life beyond death".

Any other study that claims so without revealing full details, AND WITHOUT BEING REPEATABLE *IS A HOAX.*
Simple rule : if you cant replicate it, its false.

All these telepathy, remote viewing etc are all fringe sciences. There;s always the odd person who says he can do that. Can you list how many people HAVE telepathy?

I can list over 6 billion people who DONOT HAVE telepathy. So, same rule applies : if its not repeatable, its a hoax.



rish said:


> western science will need many years because it is still very very new  when it comes to explaining things like consciousness and subjectivity , 50 years ago they didn't even think hypnosis was real ... what they excel in is material world .. our indian scientists were masters of subjectivity ..


Indian scientists were masters of subjectivity? How? 



Spoiler



*Subjectivity* is the condition of being a subject: i.e., the  quality of possessing perspectives, experiences, feelings, beliefs,  desires, and/or power. *Subjectivity* is used as an explanation for what influences and informs people's judgments about truth or reality.


 straight from wikipedia.

in short, subjectivity is EVERYTHING objectivity/real science is not. so, calling indian scientists subjective is actually insulting them. yeah, zero, calculation of earth;'s circumference, surgery etc were all subjective achievements? OH PLEASE. stop insulting those people. they worked hard and in an OBJECTIVE MANNER. they didnt say "rahu ketu and saturn are in the sky today, so the radius of earth is 50 km today"

indian science was advanced FOR ITS CONTEMPORARY PERIOD, and is as backward today as a bullock cart.
how many nobel prizes have we won? even norway has more nobels than us.

you know whats awesome about real science? it actually puts forward REAL PROOF, so you can try it out for yourself without relying on baba or maharishis or some other random cr@p.



rish said:


> and that is why subjectivity and objectivity both are important ..  please do not bring religious bullcrap in the discussions if we are discussing from a scientific point of view .. although all the religions have some truth but most of it has been polluted , faked , manipulated by people and organisations in power.. things like heaven and hell/ swarg narak ( true to certain extent ) etc , satan were brought into religion to maintain good moral behaviour out of fear...  skepticism is as necessary as faith to distinguish between whats truth and fake..


^ subjectivity is almost equal to religion. please take a moment and read up on the definitions, kty.




rish said:


> i said modern science as a community will take thousands of years to come to the same conclusion , it doesn't mean that you / me / or anybody cannot test or experiment out for ourself right now provided you actually are willing to put the effort..


ahahaa, lol, do you know how funny that sounds?
if you have something that can be PROVEN RIGHT NOW, AND IN A RIGID AND REPEATABLE WAY, then its an experiment, and you can make a scientific theory.

your statement proves 2 things :

1. you have ZERO idea how science/experiments/theory works
2. you have a hidden agenda which you want people to "put in effort"

as i said again, you common people have literally no idea what is right or wrong. you just blindly believe in any random stuff. and YES, it makes you a quack. 






rish said:


> the science is called yoga .. you don''t need to have any kind of belief to test whether its real or not..  a lot of things have been demonstrated objectively already with scientific studies you can look it up ..  things like stopping heart beat / brain wave ( which is called "death" in medical science ) activity for many days and still living and many more things... living without food and water without harming health 1 bit etc..


your last part is completely false.
you cannot remain completely healthy without food or water for more than 4 days.
your kidneys will start failing in 1 week and you'll be too weak to move (if given water) by the 10th day.



rish said:


> there have been countless studies on Esp, telepathy , remote viewing with statically positive results enough to shatter everything what the current science believes regarding the "workings of the strict Materialistic modern world"..
> 
> i like your quote
> "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge
> One must explore and explain but not advocate or condemn"


ok, so "western science" is "strict materialistic"? then what is psychology? psychiatry? philosophy? humanity sciences?
you, my friend, need EDUCATION, not this random bullcr@p from dodgy, suspicious baba-types.




rish said:


> 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  without training oneself all the way from class 5th to class 12 to university degree ?


god isnt like a phd. its more like a nursery pass.

will you stop insulting the people who have worked hard so you could sit on your lazy chair and type this on your PC?

what have YOUR precious indian scientists done? NOTHING. thats right. they did NOTHING for us. do you know why we dont learn indian science? because its shitty and useless. there is literally no use or worth in indian science. these old scientists just sat around smoking chillums and leering at women all day. pathetic.

if you;re so proud of "indian" science, please tell us ONE thing they did thats worth knowing in today's world. no, yoga doesnt count, its just a way of relaxing, even the freaking CHINESE/JAPANESE had their own methods of doing that, so no, its not as special as you think.



rish said:


> 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   and have developed proper schooling and training schedule to reach PHD degrees ..
> 
> who is the real authority then ?



wrong again. indian scientists are still playing in the mud while western science has put a man on the moon.

real authority is someone who can PROVE his ideas in a logical fashion, AND repeat it on demand. your indian science is not logical, nor is it repeatable, so its totally worthless. if you;re so awesome, why dont YOU show us what to do? or maybe it comes thru "inner peace" *snickers*

Specialized Burn Centers


----------



## abhigeek (Oct 18, 2014)

[MENTION=102842]doomgiver[/MENTION] I think life after Death exist .... Bcoz we're matter and have energy ...
And energy cannot be created or destroyed but transformed to one form to another....


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 18, 2014)

abhigeek said:


> @doomgiver  I think life after Death exist .... Bcoz we're matter and have energy ...
> And energy cannot be created or destroyed but transformed to one form to another....



... and? i can argue that my farts are immortal. that doenst make it a valid statement. as soon as the fart escapes from my bum, it just becomes air. so what we have a soul, after death, its GONE, DEAD, FINISHED, BACK TO ENERGY. see? even if we had a soul, it;d not be worth anything.

you;re confusing religious soul with something else. conservation of energy is not related to that. stop mixing science with pseudobull$hit please.

ok, a VERY simple question : 100 years ago, earth's population was 1 billion, roughly.
today, its over 7 billion.

WHERE DID THESE 6 BILLION *SENTIENT *HUMANS COME FROM?

where was their "soul" uptil now?

Fast forward to 100 years into the future, humans control over 50 planets, each with over 3 billion people.... where did all these "souls" come from?

as for "re-incarnation", who decides what will be their next incarnation?

There is no such thing as a soul or incarnation. Its just a fiction made up by humans so they can safely ignore the fact that one day they'll die and nothing will remain of them.

If you keep believing in a soul, you;re just being a child who doesnt want to face the morbid reality that one day they may die and there wont be a single trace of them left in the universe other than a pile of decaying bones.

due to this, mankind has caused incomprehensible suffering onto his fellow man, trying to decide what kind of "afterlife" is best. heaven or jannat or 72 virgins? it'd be in the best interests of everyone involved that they STOP believing in this nonsense.

there;s no soul, there;s no heaven, and the best way to be "immortal" is to do amazing things so that everyone remembers you forever. think alexander, socrates, galileo, einstien etc.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 18, 2014)

[MENTION=102842]doomgiver[/MENTION],Indian scientists did some great things,from Aryabhatta to C.V.Raman(nobel prize winner),Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar(Chandrashekhar limit),Satyendra Nath Bose(Bose–Einstein condensate) & usb/plug & play creator Ajay Bhatt.It's just that modern indian education system simply can not accommodate geniuses.Given opportunity & conducive environment(like those in developed nations) Indians have proved their mettle.


----------



## snap (Oct 18, 2014)

*Re: in this post : some weenies will get roasted.*



Spoiler






doomgiver said:


> Specialized Burn Centers
> 
> 
> 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.
> ...






Telepathy is real, you just read my mind


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 18, 2014)

whitestar_999 said:


> @doomgiver ,Indian scientists did some great things,from Aryabhatta to C.V.Raman(nobel prize winner),Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar(Chandrashekhar limit),Satyendra Nath Bose(Bose–Einstein condensate) & usb/plug & play creator Ajay Bhatt.It's just that modern indian education system simply can not accommodate geniuses.Given opportunity & conducive environment(like those in developed nations) Indians have proved their mettle.



sorry, i meant ANCIENT indian "scientists", in this case, i use the term scientists very loosely. ofc, everyone knows the immense contribution that modern indian scientists have given the world, the discussion was about modern science vs ancient one.

rishi thinks that these ancient guys were awesome and amazing... if they were so awesome and amazing then why arent WE ruling the world today?


----------



## Anorion (Oct 18, 2014)

^Agree with most of your posts, actually all of it. But having no interest to rule the world in the first place is something we are proud of, and part of our ethos. 
And probably Ancient India's contribution to science was really more than our contribution in recent times

We invented Wootz steel, making suger crystals from sugercane, and that Iron Pillar that does not rust 
Sushratha was there who invented cataract surgery and plastic surgery
then Aryabhatta, Brahmagupta were famous mathematicians. Ancient India already knew of Binary and Fibonacci sequence, and of course, Zero. 

They were awesome and amazing, but it's not like they invented time travel or astral projection, it was all still cold, hard, science.


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 19, 2014)

*Re: in this post : some weenies will get roasted.*



rish said:


> First - i am not here to prove anything , and i am not claiming anything  .. this thread didn't even mentioned anything like it so i mentioned few things which i knew for discussion, there is a good amount of personal attack you did.. i'll simply ignore it  ..
> 
> 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


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.

there's a huge difference between "being clinically dead for 3 minutes" and afterlife. its not even counted as similar things. 
you say 3 minutes? PAH! a little 5 year old girl fell in an ice cold stream for 2+ hours and survived after being resuscitated.  

people have literally "died", clinically and were "brought back to life". you see? science has done much more than faith or your ancient indian scientists ever could. anorion actually posted it to support the notion that modern science was superior.



rish said:


> even if 1 person genuinely can do it doesn't that invalidate everything science believes in ?


i dont even know how to properly respond..... what the ****? give me an example how it'll "invalidate everything science believes in"?




rish said:


> germans did their research ..  Americans did their research for 20 years and told they found stastically positive results .. if everything was fake why did it took them 20 years and why did they award the highest honour medal to their main psychics ? since then FBI continues to use great psychics for their investigation till today , do you think fbi is stupid ? . Sony a private company did their research and told ESP was real .. please google it you will find appropriate links
> do you think all of them are fake  then why do they still continue to use then ? there are many other case studies as well .. its definitely repeatable thats why it is still being researched it hasn't stopped ..
> 
> ofcourse there is a whole industry of fakes robbing out money out of people beliefs out there...


you totally forget the point : science looks forward. it'll change its theories to match new evidence, or make new ones.

one day will come when we'll be so advanced that we'll be able to create life of our own and then THEY will start calling us gods and believing they have souls, while we'll laugh at them because none of us coded a soul into them at all.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke.

dont pin your hopes on having a "soul", or there being a god. whatever you do in this life is all that counts, so be good, do good onto others, so you may atleast live in our memories.


----------



## Anorion (Oct 19, 2014)

I think we are all Gods or at least our technology already makes us more powerful


----------



## Anorion (Oct 19, 2014)

In video form
[YOUTUBE]ssf7P-Sgcrk[/YOUTUBE]
same thing as text



> Do you see in a way, how that is saying the most real state is the state of nothing? That’s what it’s all going to come to. With these physicists who think of the energy of the universe as running down dissipating into radiation, and gradually and gradually, and gradually, gradually, until there is nothing left.
> And for some reason, we are suppose to find that depressing. But if somebody is going to argue that the basic reality is nothingness. Where does all this come from? Obviously from nothingness. Once again you get how this looks behind your eyes. So cheer up you see, this is what is meant in Buddhist philosophy by saying ‘we are all basically nothing.’
> When the Six Patriarch says “the essence of your mind is intrinsically pure”. The pure doesn’t mean a ‘non dirty story state of mind’ as is it apt to mean in the word Puritan. Pure means “clear “ void. So you know the story when the Six Patriarch was given his office to his successor. Because he was truly enlightened. There was a Poetry contest. And the losing one wrote the idea that the mind, the consciousness was like a mirror.
> So I’m detached, calm, and pure headed. Buddha-ed. But the one who won the contest said there is no mirror, and the nature of mind is intrinsically void. So where is there anywhere for dust to collect? See so in this way, by seeing that nothingness is the fundamental reality, and you see it’s your reality. Then how can anything contaminate you? All the idea of being scared, and it’s nothing it just a dream. Because you're really nothing. But this is most incredible nothing. All the Six Patriarch went on to contrast that emptiness of indifference. Which is sort of blind emptiness. See if you think of this idea of nothingness as blankness, and you hold onto this idea of blankness then kind of grizzly about it, you haven’t understood it. Nothingness is really like the nothingness of space, which contains the whole universe. All the sun and the stars and mountains, and rivers, and goodmen and bad men, and the animals, and insects, and the whole bit. All are contained in void. So out of this void comes everything and you it. What else could you be?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 22, 2014)

What you are saying is somewhat true but what you are doing is linking objectivity with subjectivity which is never a good idea & that's where many don't agree with you.This example should make it clear:
Person A today says there are various state of minds & a few decades later some scientist B discover that based on emf differences between certain parts of brain we can classify particular states of mind.
Q1.Can person A be considered as somewhat correct today?
Ans.Yes(he has the idea)
*Q2.Can person A be compared to Person B on same footing?
Ans.Absolutely not.There is a difference between saying "various states of minds" & saying"x/y*10^-5.exp(3)=state 1"*


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 23, 2014)

whitestar_999 said:


> What you are saying is* somewhat true but what you are doing is linking objectivity with subjectivity which is never a good idea* & that's where many don't agree with you.



^ this, exactly this.

People think they have discovered the holy grail of the universe and run wild with it.

ok, what rish posted in his "EVERYTHING IS A HOLOGRAM, STARFLEET, HERE I COME" post, people reading it will believe that hologram = something like the star trek/star wars/scifi holograms, you know the kind.
BUT, WHAT they DONT know, or dont wanna know, is how hologram works, a hologram is a REFLECTION, they are using the word hologram in the loosest sense. They meant that the universe changes how it looks based on HOW you look at it, similar thing as quantum physics.

I'd HIGHLY suggest actually reading up on science before starting up random stuff.

What you are doing is exactly the same as what these charlatan babas/maharishis do, they just put forward a postulate without providing proof and say BS like "god has given me inner knowledge, let me tell you what the knowledge is". Its such kind of people who have contributed to what a shitty world we live in.

You keep saying "different realms", etc... what do you think? That it'll be like a game, like skyrim, borderlands, etc? Do you know time is a dimension? Its exciting to know how time is a dimension, right? Like, you can do so many amazing things with it, like watching time just ly by and wasting time.

No, pure science is not glamorous, its MIND NUMBINGLY BORING followed by a short period of immense breakthrough. This isnt a 80's movies, where the "scientist" had flasks full of colorful liquids. Today's science is mostly going through tons of data generated by experiments.

Nobody is gonna find a new dimension and go off exploring, or suddenly find a magical cure for cancer in the books of ancient indians. Partially intelligent posts like these make me angry. I dont mind idiots posting BS, but as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... you must learn more before understanding all this.

I hope one day one of us will look back on this thread and see how wrong the other was.

- - - Updated - - -



rish said:


> either there are other dimensions which we cant perceive or their aren't
> either this world is simulation of some kind or it isn't .. either consciousness is inside our physical body or it isn't



why should it be a simulation? why is it related to soul or consciousness or wahtever pseudometaphysical BS you wanna connect it to?

Tell me one thing, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THERE IS A SOUL? No proof, no admission, sorry. Go get proof first before making tall claims please. I can claim that I'm the ruler of this world, it doest make the claim right. Why the hell should we take your claim at face value?

And whatever you have to say about random amateur quacks speaking about souls or some nonsense, please, i dont listen to idiots like them, they are always fake. as long as the experiment/proof is not repeatable, its a fluke, and flukes should be tossed out of the window.



rish said:


> OK let's assume after 100 years we invent technology that allows us to measure the effects of other dimensions .. would you consider that as a partial validity of what ancients said or full validity of their claim  ?



What did the ancients say? did they say that time is a dimension? WHERE IS IT EXPLICITLY WRITTEN THAT THERE ARE MORE DIMENSION IN INDIAN LITERATURE? Do they describe it? Does it mean that someone who writes science fiction novels will be taken as a very learned man, just because he wrote about something similar? (take the modern tablets and Star Trek's padds for eg).

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, one last thing, it appears this thread has been taken over by pseudo-scientific nonsense, so I'll just unsub from this before I get banned.

See you in hell.


----------



## ico (Oct 23, 2014)

There's a word - *Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

You could go on and on and give any number of meanings to duality or come up with N number of metaphysical phenomenons to explain anything. But that really doesn't come close to explaining anything.


rish said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## snap (Oct 23, 2014)

Not the pyramids BS again :\


----------



## Inceptionist (Oct 23, 2014)

I think I found a new signature.



doomgiver said:


> ... and? i can argue that my farts are immortal.


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 28, 2014)

Inceptionist said:


> I think I found a new signature.




[YOUTUBE]-NzCC9Es6As[/YOUTUBE]
Hey, its actually true!!


The breaking wind can never be called back. Forever it wanders the earth, doomed to tingle the nose of some unsuspecting mortal. Someday, in the distant future, one of my descendents will sniff the air and go "Hmm, smells like TEEN SPIRIT".

BTW, fix the siggy, its coming all wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



rish said:


> 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.*
> 
> ...



mate, you gotta realize you are severely lacking in several critical areas, and you have several facts wrong/incorrect. i'd like you to atleast have a basic understanding of stuff before i;d try and debate you. 

btw, if you dont like modern tech so much, why are you siting on a PC typing this out?  
if its so much of a curse, maybe a life of a hermit is better, no?

anyway, i tried not tbe so aggressive this time. hope no offense was taken....

*to save time, i replied in bold green*


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 28, 2014)

*From a neutral viewpoint let's settle it with quote:
"those who believe no proof is necessary,those who don't no evidence is sufficient".*
btw both of you will have to wait for a being resembling hybrid of Einstein & prophet(moses,jesus,muhammad take your pick) to conclusively settle this debate.


----------



## ico (Oct 28, 2014)

[MENTION=102842]doomgiver[/MENTION]
Reply properly man. No "replies in green" nonsense. This is detrimental to the debate as it makes tough for the other guy to reply. You have saved your time, but I can't save mine if I have to quote you. Next what? "replies in red". 



			
				name said:
			
		

> text


reply.


^^ this is how it should be.


----------



## snap (Oct 29, 2014)

Did we figure out how to recreate greek fire yet? 

man, this zen/yoga seems like BS to me. Why don't they bring world peace,end world hunger,cure all them diseases yet :'( not enough yoga/zen power eh...


Just posting random thoughts now


----------



## Inceptionist (Oct 29, 2014)

I wish I had popcorns when reading this thread.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Oct 29, 2014)

Here's something atheists ought to watch:

[YOUTUBE]cNtz5wgnopQ[/YOUTUBE]

Remove the concept of God from society and watch as people turn hedonistic, nihilistic, narcissists and selfish and it all slowly spirals down like the US is doing right now...

Don't believe me? Watch this:

[YOUTUBE]dJaM8IOev7E[/YOUTUBE]
They rejected God, now their religion is poisonous ideologies like feminism and communism.


----------



## amjath (Oct 29, 2014)

^+100


----------



## Chetan1991 (Oct 29, 2014)

Belief and rationality

[YOUTUBE]ryA8PafooQ4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## abhigeek (Oct 29, 2014)

[h=1]*Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'*[/h]





> The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.
> Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.
> 
> The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.


----------



## ico (Oct 29, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> Here's something atheists ought to watch:
> 
> [YOUTUBE]cNtz5wgnopQ[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> ...


okay. thanx 4 sharing.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Oct 29, 2014)

Peter Krefft, Professor of philosophy at Boston College says theism is more rational than atheism, and is consistent with logic:

[YOUTUBE]4T_P14JjMcM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 31, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> Peter Krefft, Professor of philosophy at Boston College says theism is more rational than atheism, and is consistent with logic:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


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).



> "belief in god far more rational than atheism,


doenst give a SINGLE reason to support his argument.


> has to be an unmoved mover


what are natural resonant frequencies? but wait, this guy isnt even properly educated lol!! who authorized him to make such far-reaching decisions?


> radioactivity no cause aka, there has to be a "first cause", aka "things which dont have to exist must have a cause"


pure and unadulterated nonsense. tell me this : what was the first cause of computers? 
he basically relies on pseudo science and religious mumbo jumbo to hide his own lack of knowledge.



> "no empirical evidence exists".


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.
BUT WAIT!!! we're talking religion here. religous people do absolutely appaling things to defend their illogical actions. 
They include : 
1. not using logic (everything that has a cause must have a mover)
2. appealing to emotions (
3. asking ambigious questions
4. using backwards logic, like, instead of putting forward an argument and defending it, they just state their point and rely on there not being any wrong evidence to say that their point is correct. eg : religious guy claims that jesus exists because we DONT HAVE A WAY TO DISPROVE IT. this isnt science. you cant claim that just because something CANNOT be DISPROVEN, that it is right. thats just not how reasoning works, ergo, all people (read "religious types") who use this kind of tactic are wrong.

TL;DR : stop listening to fakes. this man is no better than a roadside baba whose parrot "reads your fortune".





Chetan1991 said:


> Here's something atheists ought to watch:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^ this is the worst thing you could've posted. you;ve just undermined your entire argument.
Religion  has cause WAAAAAY more suffering, wars, pain and chaos than a godless  society ever could. The spanish inquisition, south american tribes  sacrificing living people, islam, christianity, just a few examples.  (and look at hindu-muslim riots in the indian sub-continent, lol. you  conviniently forgot that, didnt you?)



> About 16% of the world population (1.1 billion people) are estimated to be nonreligious.


^Irreligion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
its very dangerous to go outside, one out of every 6 people is a murderous atheist.




Chetan1991 said:


> Don't believe me? Watch this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


feminism and communism are misguided attempts to right the wrongs of THE MASSIVE CLUSTERFK that has been the last 4000 years.
its thanks to RELIGION, yes, RELIGION, that women are in such a sorry state. 
every bad thing can be traced back to religion. seriously, if there was no religion, people would be 10x better.


I wanted to write a short post, but what the hell, its not like people are gonna change their minds even though they are wrong.


and before you start : yes, god does not exist, i hate the concept of god, since it has bought nothing but misery for all of mankind. yes, i take great pleasure in ripping apart the pathetic lies put forward by those who believe in god.

i'll just leave these few words here :




> Can [an omnipotent being] create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?





> Is [an omnipotent being] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?



just on the basis of these few lines, EACH AND EVERY SINGLE thing a religious guy may say can be refuted.


*TL;DR : i just won this debate. *

edit : i have no problems with switching to god's side, PROVIDED you provide irrefutable proof. till date, NOTHING anyone has ever posted can be taken for proof. only bad/invalid arguments and illogical rants.


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Oct 31, 2014)

just a question, if there is a "god" why didn't he prevent from the himalayan tsunami from happening and killing all his "followers"?


----------



## abhigeek (Oct 31, 2014)

^^ Give that man a medal....


----------



## moniker (Oct 31, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> Peter Krefft, Professor of philosophy at Boston College says theism is more rational than atheism, and is consistent with logic:
> 
> [YOUTUBE]4T_P14JjMcM[/YOUTUBE]



Sorry, but I feel this is silly rhetoric in the name of logic. The "professor" conveniently fails to mention the most rational line of thought - agnosticism. 

The very fact that theists "believe" in god means that they are being subjective rather than objective. Belief in something is not a logical deduction of any hitherto unexplained event.

Same is the case with atheists. They also "believe", they believe that god doesn't exist.

Both theists and atheists don't know for sure whether god exists or not. They believe, and their beliefs should be respected.

Pure logic states that unless the existence of god is proved/disproved, we don't know for sure. We can only hold beliefs. And people who don't hold any beliefs are the rational agnostics. I'm agnostic and science supports agnosticism, not atheism.


----------



## doomgiver (Oct 31, 2014)

SaiyanGoku said:


> just a question, if there is a "god" why didn't he prevent from the himalayan tsunami from happening and killing all his "followers"?



I am SORRY, my Faith-o-Meter(TM) has just issued an urgent alert warning me of incoming Logical Questions(TM). Since I am allergic to logic and reason, I must not answer that question.



moniker said:


> Sorry, but I feel this is silly rhetoric in the name of logic. The "professor" conveniently fails to mention the most rational line of thought - agnosticism.
> 
> The very fact that theists "believe" in god means that they are being subjective rather than objective. Belief in something is not a logical deduction of any hitherto unexplained event.
> 
> ...



moniker, i found this awesome video, just listen to him and see him rip apart that "professor" :

[YOUTUBE]fvg3mRZXut4[/YOUTUBE]

just listen to the first 2 minutes at minimum, he demolishes the entire video in that part. thats how fragile mr kreeft's arguments are.

i'll do it in text form :



Spoiler






> Most pseudoscientific arguments are [logical fallacies.](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/)
> 
> 1. Prime mover argument, which uses the [special pleading](*yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading) fallacy - Everything that moves has a mover... except god.  he's special.  It's also the [god of the gaps](God of the gaps - RationalWiki) argument.  This one is fun to laugh at with the term goddidit.
> 
> ...





^ thanks to reddit.

Truth is, people who keep faith will conveniently ignore ALL EVIDENCE. Just try it. Even when faced with a mountain of counter-evidence, they'll stick to their dumb gods.


----------



## ico (Nov 3, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]h8MdhSpDZD4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2014)

^ Somebody translate please..


----------



## Anorion (Nov 3, 2014)

^omg that is really bad. Totally ashamed. That is not representative of our culture and Hinduism. Or even theists for that matter. Entire crowd is brainwashed, illiterate. Education will really help. 



> and you put your children in a convent school, do you know what is taught there? They teach that Adam was born and he ate a fruit because he was hungry or they are taught the definition of Darwin. They teach that first the water was born and then insects were born in the water then the insect got a tail and became a fish and then the tail of the fish fell down and became a frog. Then the frog grew a tail and became a monkey and then the monkey lost a tail and became man.
> I am very surprised, if this is possible, go to Ahmedabad where you will find many swimming fish in the sabarmati, why haven't all these fish turned into frogs yet? And if frogs grow tails and become monkeys, then what about the frogs in Vadodara's drains that keep going TRRRRR TRRRRR, eating our ears, why haven't these become monkeys yet? (laughter and applause) And if by cutting the tails of monkeys and female monkeys you get men, then what about the red faced monkeys jumping about the terraces of Vadodara? These should be taking part in beauty contests.
> (applause)
> (Other learned person smiles and goes wow)
> ...


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2014)

^ Thanks, [MENTION=56202]Anorion[/MENTION]. People like this, some day become as Jim Jones.


----------



## Anorion (Nov 3, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]GPogg9mcQKs[/YOUTUBE]

much better


----------



## abhigeek (Nov 3, 2014)

> _and you put your children in a convent school, do you know what is taught there? They teach that Adam was born and he ate a fruit because he was hungry or they are taught the definition of Darwin. They teach that first the water was born and then insects were born in the water then the insect got a tail and became a fish and then the tail of the fish fell down and became a frog. Then the frog grew a tail and became a monkey and then the monkey lost a tail and became man. _
> _I am very surprised, if this is possible, go to Ahmedabad where you will find many swimming fish in the sabarmati, why haven't all these fish turned into frogs yet? And if frogs grow tails and become monkeys, then what about the frogs in Vadodara's drains that keep going TRRRRR TRRRRR, eating our ears, why haven't these become monkeys yet? (laughter and applause) And if by cutting the tails of monkeys and female monkeys you get men, then what about the red faced monkeys jumping about the terraces of Vadodara? These should be taking part in beauty contests. _
> _(applause) _
> _(Other learned person smiles and goes wow)_
> ...


WTF did I just read ....
I wanna burn my eyes out.....


----------



## ASHISH65 (Nov 4, 2014)

ico said:


> [YOUTUBE]h8MdhSpDZD4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 5, 2014)

It will take much more than that to conclusively prove telepathy.Assuming that it does relate to increased mental capacity if telepathy exist it should certainly not be found in those who are willing to demonstrate it publicly.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Nov 6, 2014)

SaiyanGoku said:


> just a question, if there is a "god" why didn't he prevent from the himalayan tsunami from happening and killing all his "followers"?



This and these



> Is [an omnipotent being] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?



 are very ignorant question asked by atheists because they have a ridiculous notion of God. 
Do they assume God is a puppet master constantly pulling strings on the world, or like a SIMS player who is looking down upon the world, and going "Oh ****! Fire! I have to send help there."  LOL.

We have been given free will to do as we please. We can question our actions and our thought process and decide what to do, and must accept the consequences of our actions. If God was to intervene in every aspect of our life, what would be the point of our free will?

As for the not preventing evil argument, here a story:

A wealthy man is watching a football match with his young daughter, who is watching a game of football for the first time. 
She sees the players chasing a ball on the field, and asks her father,"All those men are chasing after one ball. Daddy, you're so rich, why don't you give everyone of them a ball each, so that they won't fight anymore?"
The man laughs at his daughter's innocence, and tells her if every one of them had their own ball, there would be no game to watch.

While the parable is used as analogy for explaining why all our wants can never be fulfilled, it can explain good and evil as well. 
*To create a line you need two points in a plane. Similarly, there is a need of both good and evil to create this dimension of our nature.* 
Our base animal nature is narcissistic, cruel, selfish and self centered (just observe young children.) while we learn values such as compassion and kindness as we grow up. Movies and TV shows often depict this conflict of different aspects of our nature.

The idea of a God, who should intervene in our destiny, and change the course of our life is ridiculous. 
I might be having problems articulating my thought process. I'll explain properly once I have assimilated the information.


----------



## ico (Nov 6, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> *Do they assume God is a puppet master constantly pulling strings on the world, or like a SIMS player who is looking down upon the world,* and going "Oh ****! Fire! I have to send help there."  LOL.


Atheists don't. 99% theists do.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Nov 6, 2014)

@ doomgiver



doomgiver said:


> ^ this is the worst thing you could've posted. you;ve just undermined your entire argument.
> Religion  has cause WAAAAAY more suffering, wars, pain and chaos than a godless  society ever could. The spanish inquisition, south american tribes  sacrificing living people, islam, christianity, just a few examples.  (and look at hindu-muslim riots in the indian sub-continent, lol. you  conviniently forgot that, didnt you?)
> 
> 
> ...



Why filled with so much hate buddy?

You're putting all religions in one basket. 
I will not discuss abrahamic religions since they explicitly say their followers are superior to others, their belief is the only one that is right and any other belief is wrong, and they must show other ignorant people the right path, much like "the white man's burden". That is enough to show they are somewhat misguided. I can't discuss it further because I haven't studied these religions much.

*Tell me about religion fueled violence started by Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists before the 1940s. * Its a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.

If Hindu-Muslim communal riots are a result of only religious differences, why weren't they as prevalent before the country's partition? The Muslims have been here for over a millennium.

I have mentioned it before, majority of humans NEED to believe in something. If they don't have religion, they'll make another one by some other name.



doomgiver said:


> if there was no religion, people would be 10x better.



*NO.* 
Not unless every single human becomes capable of deep introspection, self discovery, criticizing oneself, taking responsibility for one's own actions, thought *AND emotions*, being independent of external validation, sticking by their values.....the list goes on...
You know that's not happening any time soon.

It is not the truth of God's existence that matters so much for the sake of majority of humans, but the idea of God, an ideal they can look up to and believe in, that matters. Do not give comments on this yet. I will expand on this.



doomgiver said:


> *TL;DR : i just won this debate. *



XD. and I proclaim myself the ruler of the whole universe! Everyone bow down to me!! 



doomgiver said:


> edit : i have no problems with switching to god's side, PROVIDED you provide irrefutable proof. till date, NOTHING anyone has ever posted can be taken for proof. only bad/invalid arguments and illogical rants.


Good to know. BTW I'm not scared of atheists. They're just people with different beliefs. Its the fanatics that are dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -



ico said:


> Atheists don't. 99% theists do.



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. 

I know religions are followed by lots of idiots with ridiculous beliefs, but that doesn't discredit the whole ideology.


----------



## abhigeek (Nov 6, 2014)

[MENTION=22157]Chetan1991[/MENTION]
If God doesn't determine our actions? Then what is use of worshiping him/her/them (whatever).....
And what is role of God? Sit back enjoying world show? Killings, Wars , Rapes etc.....

What if God is just imagination of mankind? 
Created by ancient smart people to civilized the mankind (as there were no police and laws) in name of fear..


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 6, 2014)

You can quote my sig with my name,i won't mind.My sig is there for a reason & not because it is an indication of my affiliation(theist or atheist,i leave it to your imagination).As for that good & evil analogy,it was week.You can not say that Nazism,Fascism & various other genocides were necessary "to create this dimension of our nature".*As for free will since you claim to be following non-abrahamic religions you seems to be forgetting the destiny/karma concept.*Bhishma had no choice but to fight for kauravas just like his death was also pre-destined by a woman's wraith,same is the case with almost every major character in Mahabharata.Free will is not absolute just like almost any other thing in Hinduism.Even all knowing trinity can not circumvent this karma/destiny concept.


----------



## ico (Nov 6, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> 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.


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?


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 7, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> I have mentioned it before, majority of humans NEED to believe in something. If they don't have religion, they'll make another one by some other name.


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.



Chetan1991 said:


> *NO.*
> Not unless every single human becomes capable of deep introspection, self discovery, criticizing oneself, taking responsibility for one's own actions, thought *AND emotions*, being independent of external validation, sticking by their values.....the list goes on...
> You know that's not happening any time soon.
> 
> It is not the truth of God's existence that matters so much for the sake of majority of humans, but the idea of God, an ideal they can look up to and believe in, that matters. Do not give comments on this yet. I will expand on this.


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 :

1. deep introspection : never done, actively discouraged. every religious book tries to force people to follow certain rules. those rules ARE NOT GOOD for the people. your entire religion depends on brainwashed people blindly following one another.
2. self discovery : never done, actively discouraged. tell me, how many religions try to describe the human mind, soul and body? none. thats right.
3. criticizing oneself : ok, everyone does it, theists more so. 
4. taking responsiblity : LOL. theists NEVER TAKE ANY RESPONSIBLITY. "bhagwaan karega", "bhagwaan ne kiya", "bhagwaan tune aisa kyu kiya" (god will do it, its the will of god, oh god why ddi you do this)
5. independent of external validation : YOU are the ones seeking validation, not us. YOU are the one who wants there to be a god, not us. we can do just fine without a god, thank you very much. 
6. atheists arent the ones who go to a temple and burn crores of rupees and tons of gold in donations. we ACTUALLY help people in need. 

i dont know where you;re gettting all this BS from, but thank you very much, you;re undermining your own arguments. 




Chetan1991 said:


> XD. and I proclaim myself the ruler of the whole universe! Everyone bow down to me!!



see? this is how silly it sounds. you just say "there is x and y", and dont give proof. there has been no evidence till now of a god or something.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 7, 2014)

There is something called credibility in scientific world like peer reviewed journals published in top scientific magazines/papers etc & telepathy certainly doesn't qualify on this account.*type theory of relativity in google search & hit enter,now type telepathy in google search & enter,see the difference.The day you get similar results for both searches will be the day you claim it to be scientifically proven but until then you can only call it "a fascinating concept with some potential".*


----------



## amjath (Nov 8, 2014)

An apt movie is released for this thread topic, just go and watch it.


----------



## snap (Nov 8, 2014)

amjath said:


> An apt movie is released for this thread topic, just go and watch it.



which one?


----------



## Anorion (Nov 8, 2014)

interstellar


----------



## amjath (Nov 8, 2014)

Anorion said:


> interstellar


He knew it, his post has a razz smiley


----------



## snap (Nov 8, 2014)

amjath said:


> He knew it, his post has a razz smiley



No i didn't D:


----------



## amjath (Nov 8, 2014)

snap said:


> No i didn't D:


Oh my mistake then. Apologies


----------



## snap (Nov 8, 2014)

amjath said:


> Oh my mistake then. Apologies



No need to be so formal


----------



## rajatGod512 (Nov 9, 2014)

how do you guys dont know about Interstellar , I talked to many guys and they were like : What ?


----------



## snap (Nov 9, 2014)

I mean i know about the movie was releasing and it was about wormholes etc, i don't follow movies that much...


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 9, 2014)

abhigeek said:


> [MENTION=22157]Chetan1991[/MENTION]
> If God doesn't determine our actions? Then what is use of worshiping him/her/them (whatever).....
> And what is role of God? Sit back enjoying world show? Killings, Wars , Rapes etc.....
> 
> ...


Agree. 

Look at probabilities, understand the human psyche, and then tell me what's more likely mathematically:

A. Some super-duper-being had a brain fart and decided "Let there be light" (or whatever phrase or action is suggested in whatever religion you want to apply this argument for) and created the entire universe. (for some, he didn't create it but still runs it, or  ... )

Or

B. Early humans with an increased capacity for thinking started using their brains and were mindf**ked by the amount of things they didn't understand... 

Where does the sun go? Why are there stars? Why did my mate die young? Why does it get cold for a few months a year? 
Thus they started considering the Sun a god, who gave them blessing by warming them and letting them see. Etc. 
And once the momentum of treating everything one doesn't understand immediately as a God takes over, it will continue for thousands of years, because only a few people in every generation get the luxury of thinking these things out. Most people have a job, a life, and daily struggles, and thus couldn't be bothered to take a hard, time-consuming mental journey of discovery, when all religions give you an easy out. 

It was always rich men who got the luxury of thinking and experimenting, and the poor were easy targets for control by religious leaders. 

Power is what humans struggle for, so do animals - to try and head their herd, get mating rights, etc - and all religions bestow power on a few, as leaders, isn't that an indication enough for people as to what's happening here? 

If I saw Neil deGrasse Tyson at a cafe, I'm sure I could walk up to him and say hi. It may be rude, but I wouldn't get shot trying to approach him. 

Would you be able to do that with any significant religious leaders? How strange that they're as unapproachable as politicians, and yet we hate politicians and love our religious leaders?


----------



## abhigeek (Nov 9, 2014)

Good to know [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION]

Instead to teaching, leaders just forced their opinions on masses.
As masses were gullible and illiterate people, who can't think as smart people.

If scientist in ancient period, told people that earth is round. He was labeled as madman or a crazy person.

Let me give you a truth behind a popular superstition "Fear of Cat crossing path, Something bad will happen"
In the ancient time, there was just jungle and few little town. So if people saw cat running, they assume that it may running seeing a big animal like lion or a tiger.

So is with god, God was created to simplify the complicated things and control masses. And this system became so complicated over centuries (like different religions, beliefs, faction, tradition). 
As computer started with binary (1 and 0).


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 11, 2014)

[MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] if the summary of what you're saying is: "We still don't know s**t, we're still learning, and anything is still possible, but ALL religions today are just utter cr*p". Then I agree with you.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 11, 2014)

> nikolas tesla was basically a mind god all his experiments were created in his mind with utmost precision ,*he was telepathic , he could listen to thunderstorm from thousands of miles away* and he always believed he was not the true creator of any of his experiments that is why he worked selflessly..


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.


----------



## abhigeek (Nov 11, 2014)

[MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] Finally somebody gave a right explaination, keeping his head straight.

I guess conclusion is "Science can't denies the existence of God and Religion can't prove God's existence.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 12, 2014)

People expect "faith" for religion, and "proof" from science. That's where the problem lies.

Take for example a dead body fished out from the water. Investigations reveal that the person went walking alone on a bridge. His shoes were found near the railing of the bridge. His last call was to his mother to tell her he loved her. Suicide or accident? 

Religion will find deeper meanings and call it a divine intervention that caused this man to jump, and find meaning in his death, saying god must have a plan. Some will get creative and outline a plan so great that it will basically involve this guy jumping off a bridge = 20,000 lives saved in Sudan...

The everyday atheist will rubbish the religious dogma and say look at the fu**ing evidence, it's obvious he committed suicide. Nothing more. 

A scientist will dig deeper and say it's probably suicide, but we can't be sure unless we have like CCTV footage or something to prove it 100% without doubt. He could have just fallen too. It's more probable that he killed himself, but accident also has a probability of 3.86527 per cent. 

Then the religious will quote the scientist to say, see, it's possible be didn't kill himself and it's also possible that god called him to heaven... science can't say for sure... almost 4% margin for error is as good as not knowing! 

Apply logic to things, and you will get the correct answer more often than not. Just don't take leaps of faith. 

For example Tesla.

Think of a person who's expecting someone to die. His mental state will give him dreams or nightmares about death. It's normal. 

What's also normal is humans trying to validate feelings. 1000 times you will feel something, but it only has to be right once for you to remember that and forget the 999 false positives. 

Say, you are a cautious chap, and you look 6 times before crossing a road. Every single time you look, and nothing happens, you just look and forget. However, the one time in thousands that you see a speeding car that you wouldn't have noticed if you had looked only 5 times. The car comes pretty close also, and you shake your fist and abuse him, but you take pride in yourself that you knew it, you could "feel" that car approach. Thus you have experienced something unexplained. 

In Tesla's case, he only remembered a dream when it was vivid and also happened to coincide with his mother dying. Maybe he had the same or similar dream many times before but went to find her alive and just forgot the dreams as "fears", and not premonitions. 

The same feeling is displayed when you suddenly look somewhere and catch someone looking at you. It's as if a sixth sense tells us that someone is watching. 

Brilliant, cry the religious, we don't understand things fully, and science is all rubbish, ergo a god must exist.

Though it's also possible that the human brain causes us to look around, and only fixate or jump from subconscious to conscious when we spot another set of human eyes who perhaps want to communicate with us. So although you're looking around subconsciously, only certain images jerk you into reality. 

Want to experiment. Look at someone who's walking ahead of you. Stare at him hard, think nasty thoughts, about how he's going to get crushed by a falling piano, and how ironic it will be... etc. Imagine how you will try not to laugh at the irony while his broken body quivers as the life leaves it... morbid, yes. But see how often people turn to look at you as if they "knew" you were watching. How many turn and look at you angrily, as if they know you were thinking nasty thoughts. Don't stare at women, they have to put up with enough nasty thoughts, and thus may be on higher mental alert anyway. Do it to guys. 

We just tend to notice when it confirms something we already feel. It's like confirmation bias. Your brain is looking for an answer it wants to fit everything together, and gives preference to noticing only some things. Thus we have optimism and pessimism, and a depressed person actively searches out misery in life, noticing what's bad or finding flaws in everything, while a happy person might ignore everything bad and focus on the good. 

In the end, we're just slaves to chemistry.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 12, 2014)

Wow! 
Now I neither believe in science nor in God, I believe in Raaabo..


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 12, 2014)

I think Raaabo truly won this thread.

EDIT : BTW, where is Chetan1991? Please dont stay silent bro, say something to support your view!! (even though its wrong)


----------



## Anorion (Nov 12, 2014)

Tesla didn't believe in telepathy.


----------



## snap (Nov 12, 2014)

Too much history channel, as someone said half knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  Tesla went cuckoo later in life right?


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 12, 2014)

rish said:


> hi buddy you still think this is a fighting debate ?



i said it in a funny way!

you;re confusing god with random feats of humans. why dont you associate Einstein's huge intellect with something spiritual? go ahead, say that Einstein got his brainpower from aliens or "god". just like Einstein was highly intelligent, some people are highly flexible or highly resistant to pain.


----------



## singleindian (Nov 13, 2014)

rish said:


> [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 ...
> ...



i am really confused reading ur post,which u side r u in?

- - - Updated - - -

even medical tourism existed in ancient india
*www.mumbaimirror.com/photo/45029715.cms


----------



## abhigeek (Nov 13, 2014)

singleindian said:


> i am really confused reading ur post,which u side r u in?


Yeah, I'm also getting confused....

- - - Updated - - -



doomgiver said:


> you;re confusing god with random feats of humans. why dont you associate Einstein's huge intellect with something spiritual? go ahead, say that Einstein got his brainpower from aliens or "god". just like Einstein was highly intelligent, some people are highly flexible or highly resistant to pain.


 [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] dude you are mixing God with telepathy and all other thing ...
It seems like you watched "_SuperHumans_" on discovery.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 13, 2014)

[MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] 

I haven't read previous posts no. However I've had years of experience talking about this with many people so I've heard all the usual arguments. 

"Millions" is an extrapolation or exaggeration usually. And easily countered with billions who don't experience what people claim. 

Stuff like "telepathy" may very well turn out to be something the subconscious mind is capable of. It's still science. However, it's still better to use logic and science to allow testing and confirmation of such things. As you say it yourself, being repeatable in a controlled environment is essential, and it's not happening thus far. As for "mainstream" science, that's kind of a misnomer. It has to be accepted with tests for it to be scientific. You make science sound like some cult. 

How does confirmation bias become an invalid argument with near death experiences? The term is "near death" and not after death experiences. The phrase you're using itself is invalid by suggesting the brain is dead during a near death experience. Resuscitations have happened hours after the heart has stopped, but the person was considered still alive, not dead, thus the attempt to resuscitate. 

Most near death experiences are probably the brain continuing to receive stimulus when in a subconscious or coma state, thus bringing images together a little randomly to form surreal images. 

You actually do this all the time, it's called dreaming. The few times you're awakened during REM sleep and have a vivid recollection of a dream, you will see that it's usually fantastic or improbable or weird. Dreams are almost NEVER in tune with reality. You will dream of your mum, at breakfast, but the house isn't your own. Sometimes it can be weird. You get all the same feelings as you would if it was your mum, but it's your second grade teacher, or your dad in a dress, if you happened to watch Mrs Doubtfire, for example, before sleeping. 

This happens DAILY to most people, and yet we marvel at someone saying "I saw a white light" or "I was floating above watching the scene of my dead body"? Surely we should have more respect for the brain than that... 

As for slaves to chemistry, every example you've given as a counter is a chemistry example. Your mistake is not looking at the human body and brain as a chemical process. Sadness is a change in chemistry, as is happiness. You get hyper aware when scared, that's chemistry. I quit smoking without medications because my doctor told me I'd die if I didn't, in as little as a year. I went from 40 a day to nothing, and that was a chemical change in my body brought about by fear. 

The atheists believing in God bit was weird and didn't make sense to me, please clarify. 

The placebo effect is exactly that, the use of brain chemistry to heal minor ailments especially pain and other brain controlled ailments. 

The same for the self mutilating people. Chemistry. The same effects as anaesthesia are possible by internal chemistry. This bloodless piercing I have not seen, unless you mean inserting into cavities such as the nose or sword swallowing. Give links to reputed sites for such claims please. 


Whether you like it or not, Buddhism, hinduism, Chinese whatever are religions now. I see enough people dancing on the streets and also killing over them to prove that they're religions and not some health manual. 

The probability of a person continuing to follow the religion he is brainwashed into from birth is actually very high. Way higher than people converting or becoming atheists. 

As for thousands of years, most religions are thousands of years old, and ridiculous. Look at the religions you criticise themselves, they're also thousands of years old and contain talking burning bushes and whatnot, and they survived thousands of years, in fact they're way bigger than Buddhism or other fringe religions and GROWING in popularity. The statement you made is a wrong assumption as you underestimate human stupidity. And please don't start a new stupid religion, there are enough as it is. 

Also, please don't be selective, you take yoga, and make that out to be the entire religion. That's just a bunch of exercises, and everyone's known for thousands of years that getting fat and not exercising kills you faster. Yoga is great, so is running, jogging, cycling, swimming, etc. 


As for ancient batteries, you're watching too many ancient aliens episodes or reading von daniken or something. Most of these "theories" don't stand the test of scientific scrutiny and have been disproven already. 

There are people who are crazy enough to recreate the slabs of stones using tools only available back then in Egypt. What we don't have is their patience or all powerful kings who can behead you for not complying. 

"describes fine scenery in its details that no fiction tale of modern day writers can match or write up a similar story"

You're kidding, right? Have you read science fiction from Asimov and Clarke, have you read Dune? 

Please quote in original sanskrit where the nuclear wars are described and radiation, etc. Next you'll tell me there are equations in it that help you build your own reactor at home...

Just as you can sit around and find shapes in clouds, people find what they want to see in things they don't truly understand. 

"The vedas know all the secrets of the universe." - I have heard this many times. 

A religion you may not be able to start, but I guarantee you, if you set your mind to it, and write out passages with a lot of complex teems and a creative license that almost sounds like gibberish, eventually someone will start finding "meaning" in it. 

Think about it logically, if you're saying that there were nuclear wars back then, wouldn't there be remnants of it to show? Wouldn't there be ONE warhead lying somewhere, perhaps buried under a city that was destroyed, and thus show up now? Shouldn't there be knowhow of making such warheads passed on from generation to generation. I would assume this talent would be way more prestigious than, say, making sandals. Wouldn't the ancient cities revel in victory and carve out mushroom clouds on their walls?

As for flight imagination. Surely you jest. Every single ancient civilisation "imagined" flight in some fantastic form or the other. Some imagined eagle-men hybrids, some humans with wings, Icarus and whatnot, and some imagined flying "vimana" which are everything from flying palaces, to chariots and even just a bird on whom a god rides. 

Ever sat around a village gathering, and seen how word spreads? Take something simple, and tell them that in London, a man was arrested for killing and eating his girlfriend. Come back after a week and you will hear someone tell a story of how the zombie apocalypse has begun in England and everyone is eating everyone. Fantasy and exaggeration is as human as greed and desire. 

Is it not possible that what started as one story teller talking about a god that rides a pigeon was retold as riding a hawk, then a chariot that flies, and eventually became a god who's whole army flies about in flying palaces? Knowing human tendency you really argue against that being a very real possibility, and in fact, the most probable and logical explanation?

I seriously hope you will post again and soon, because I am fascinated by why so many people believe in either science or god or both, and are willing to just ignore logic. And yes, there are a lot of science believers who ignore logic too... if it's science, and some smart guy said it, it must be true, and unquestionable, when in fact all that science is, is questioning everything.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 13, 2014)

Happiness lowers blood pressure

*btw just to make it interesting,those who say mahabharat happened here in earlier times must also accept that our Sun(aka surya) is eternal which we know for a fact is not.It is just like any other star & will die after around 5 billion years from now or much sooner than that if humanity develops star destroying weapons.*


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 13, 2014)

Slave to chemistry is just my way of saying we misinterpret chemical reactions in our brains, and instead of trying to understand those reactions, we fall prey to fears and start believing things by taking leaps of "faith" which our brains allow us to, which is again, just more chemistry, and then argue about it being reality, when in fact it's fiction based on even more fiction!

Sorry if I've confused you further... I hope not though. Right now I'm a slave to my son's brain chemistry, and perhaps not thinking as clearly as I'd like


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 14, 2014)

rish said:


> so are  you assuming that the part of you that "falls or interprets or not thinking clearly" is not a chemistry ? and if it is then why call it slavery ? drop of water cannot drown in sea , electricity cannot get shock by electricity and so on...



Do you know when you see a hot girl, its your hormones that cause it. Hormones = chemistry. 

Brain impulses are transmitted via small electric shocks thru axons. How do these impulses move? Sodium (Na) ion are pumped thru the axons, thus creating a negative/positive charge disbalance, effectively "pushing" or "pulling" forward the impulse. Thats chemistry.

Everything around us is, at the cellular/molecular level, all due to chemistry. Thats why he says, we're all slaves to chemistry.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 14, 2014)

rish said:


> ahh good that i asked, your passage indicates that "falling prey to fears" and word "slave" and "we misinterpret" you are seperating that conscious part ( the experiencer, the interpreter ) of your brain from other things  like fears , faith , belief etc...  right ?
> 
> so are  you assuming that the part of you that "falls or interprets or not thinking clearly" is not a chemistry ? and if it is then why call it slavery ? drop of water cannot drown in sea , electricity cannot get shock by electricity and so on...



It's all chemistry. Some is in moderate control - exercise and you create a feeling, do something you know you like and you get pleasure, etc. - but most isn't.

Logic and mathematics and the sciences in general bring more explanations for the world, and thus reduce irrationality. Whilst our ancestors would be terrified of something, today we accept it, this is how we rely less on the subconscious and more on the conscious brain. It's all just chemistry still, but more controlled reactions rather than chaos. The more you learn, the more controlled the chemistry - at least that's my theory. 

And before you try and disprove it, first consider this: I could make you anything from manic depressed, ecstatically happy and even extremely horny. Using just pills, I could modify conscious and also sub-conscious you. If that's not proof of chemistry, what is?


----------



## rish1 (Nov 14, 2014)

> why so many people believe in either science or god or both, and are willing to just ignore logic. And yes, there are a lot of science believers who ignore logic too... if it's science, and some smart guy said it, it must be true, and unquestionable, when in fact all that science is, is questioning everything.


 Bingo ... we are on the same page

very well replied sir without resorting to any personal attacks so kudos for that .. i'll try to tell as i understand it but before discussing let me again repeat i am not debating and most of the stuff i write could make me look like believer but actually i try to keep out of any sort of belief or faith stuff and have written it in my previous posts as well..



> I haven't read previous posts no. However I've had years of experience talking about this with many people so I've heard all the usual arguments.
> 
> "Millions" is an extrapolation or exaggeration usually. And easily countered with billions who don't experience what people claim.





> Stuff like "telepathy" may very well turn out to be something the subconscious mind is capable of. It's still science. However, it's still better to use logic and science to allow testing and confirmation of such things. As you say it yourself, being repeatable in a controlled environment is essential, and it's not happening thus far. As for "mainstream" science, that's kind of a misnomer. It has to be accepted with tests for it to be scientific. You make science sound like some cult.



i am not speaking out of logic infact after reading your last statement i feel we are on the same page.. 
ok  1st point .. if you assume it exists then you have to bring in a possibility of a universal field or some sort of quantum entanglement  .. because the electric charges produced by brain aren't powerful enough to be able to broadcast that signal and even if it were created by brain it would be limited to very small and very close ranges.. 
it isn't in mainstream science yet  that is why it isn't well accepted .. you can read up the research done by dean radin , tom campbell, Pear institute , rhine institute , rupert sheldrake , Stargate Project , Research done by Sony and many more.. but they aren't well accepted in mainstream yet like i said before due to repeatability issues and hard to control ability , not accurate everytime.. but that doesn't mean there aren't any positive results..


> How does confirmation bias become an invalid argument with near death experiences? The term is "near death" and not after death experiences. The phrase you're using itself is invalid by suggesting the brain is dead during a near death experience. Resuscitations have happened hours after the heart has stopped, but the person was considered still alive, not dead, thus the attempt to resuscitate.
> 
> Most near death experiences are probably the brain continuing to receive stimulus when in a subconscious or coma state, thus bringing images together a little randomly to form surreal images.
> 
> ...



ahh now i see.. you are having totally wrong understanding here..

when the heart stops .. there is no more oxygen going to brain .. the instant after heart stops the brain is able to display some activity for only upto 10-30 sec ( simple analogy  like when you switch off tv.. pixels remain activated for a few seconds after electricity has stopped and we see the prints of image left for few secs )  and then it goes flatlined with 0 brain activity.. the person is actually in a death state .. if you leave that person like that he is dead and not alive .. and that is why it is called 
"Clinical Death" 
 when they perform resuscitation they jumpstart the heart again and the brain gets oxygen and start to function again .. that is why resuscitation has only limits of some hours before the individual cells starts dying .. you can't leave a person in that state and do resuscitation after days.. if he was alive in that state even with some activity there would be no problem in actually performing resuscitation after days and months..  its actually bringing person to life from death.. 

the argument of dream / coma state is totally invalid  as even in those states brain is functioning and displaying activity and hence possible to create illusions , imagery , 

while in a 0 brain function state it is not possible to create any imagery or have any sort of unconscious experience  as per brain = consciousness theory

so those people who used to say i saw light , i am over my body .. it was *assumed* that those images were illusions created by brain in that 10-30 sec period before brain stops functioning.. but but but it has been objectively proven in many cases that at the time when the brain function was 0 most people had awareness and not only *that they were actually able to see and listen and describe every event that was happening in that room accurately .. the eyes were closed and ears not functioning and the details were later confirmed by doctors and nurses present in the room *.. please give an explanation for this .. ohh and also remember these people are heavily drugged before so even a normal person when he is drugged, senses have a hard time in functioning properly let alone a drugged person ..

then these people report that they were more "ALIVE" in this state and totally change their lives and personality around after having those experiences.. any dream or illusion cannot move this person this much that they become totally different person.. a smoker or drinker due to fear of death  might change habits to live more but total personality changes like donating up wealth, while earlier some of them used to be mean people afterwards they start helping other , do more public service and become compassionate people , totally atheist and materialist people start becoming religious etc ..  and the best part these people loose the "Fear of death" and become much more peaceful and happy.. 

as for the term "Near death" yes its a wrong term , its an old term coined quite earlier and many have told to change it as well.. more appropriate is out of body experience .. the near death experiences causes one to have an out of body experience



> As for slaves to chemistry, every example you've given as a counter is a chemistry example. Your mistake is not looking at the human body and brain as a chemical process. Sadness is a change in chemistry, as is happiness. You get hyper aware when scared, that's chemistry. I quit smoking without medications because my doctor told me I'd die if I didn't, in as little as a year. I went from 40 a day to nothing, and that was a chemical change in my body brought about by fear.



wow thats great you have been through that experience and i can understand why you hold on to that notion of slavery..

sadness is a chemical process but what causes sadness ? but what allowed you to have fear to begin the chemical process of FEAR ?



doomgiver said:


> Do you know when you see a hot girl,



i was deliberately trying to come up to this point 
leave out the rest explanation tell me which chemical  "decides or makes that decision" to see or imagine that hot girl ?

when i raise up my hand , certain part of the brain stimulates and  sends an electrical charge to my hand to move muscles and that makes it rise up

when i cut and open the brain and stimulate the same part of brain through an electrode  my muscles move and my hand rises up but still i am not the one raising it up .. why ?

if i was a chemical slave wouldn't giving the same chemical or electrical charge to my brain externally *make me* raise up my hand ? 

yet it does not make me do it.. 

you claim that you are a chemical slave .. where is your proof ? its just a theory 

consciousness inside the brain is just a theory without any proof !!!  and yes scientists have explored all the parts of brain for so many years and tried stimulating every part of it yet they are unable to find the one who is controlling the brain ?

and all the NDE evidence is *AGAINST that theory *



Raaabo said:


> It's all chemistry. Some is in moderate control - exercise and you create a feeling, do something you know you like and you get pleasure, etc. - but most isn't.
> 
> Logic and mathematics and the sciences in general bring more explanations for the world, and thus reduce irrationality. Whilst our ancestors would be terrified of something, today we accept it, this is how we rely less on the subconscious and more on the conscious brain. It's all just chemistry still, but more controlled reactions rather than chaos. The more you learn, the more controlled the chemistry - at least that's my theory.
> 
> And before you try and disprove it, first consider this: I could make you anything from manic depressed, ecstatically happy and even extremely horny. Using just pills, I could modify conscious and also sub-conscious you. If that's not proof of chemistry, what is?



yes you can make me depressed happy or any feeling by giving pills and drugs.. BUT BUT BUT you cannot make me choose anything i don't want .. even in case of torture / fear or drugging me with anything i would still have to consciously at some level choose myself ..  you can't do it .. not at all.. 

point a gun at me .. i may choose it to do it for you because i value life more than whatever you are asking me to do or i can choose to die .. 
drug me with pills and make me fearful and depressed .. i might commit suicide but i will still choose that decision myself to get away from the feelings of depressions and fearfullness
give electric stimulation to my brain and you can raise my hand but i didn't raise it .. and you didn't made me do it
you cannot control consciousness .. you can distort it , influence it , fool it , but you can't control it..

even in cases of schizophrenia or any other mental diseases
these people have consciousness but they are so blinded by their hallucinations , distorted experience, they are out of touch with reality and are in their own world ..


> The placebo effect is exactly that, the use of brain chemistry to heal minor ailments especially pain and other brain controlled ailments.



Minor treatments ? really ? what about the guy who needed to have an arthritis surgery .. doctors try to run an experiment with him, gave him fake surgery ( made a cut and stitch it back without performing any surgery )
fooled that guy, that he was being given a real surgery and surprisingly the guy magically heals ? and what above those Countless "Miracles" where people were supposed to die due to cancer , tumors and those stage 4 cancers magically just disappear ?

Most people were given up by Science in many incurable diseases and when they try out accupunture or any other alternate healing they healed .. 

you can google it up if you want to all of them are in medical literature...



> The same for the self mutilating people. Chemistry. The same effects as anaesthesia are possible by internal chemistry. This bloodless piercing I have not seen, unless you mean inserting into cavities such as the nose or sword swallowing. Give links to reputed sites for such claims please.



watch it on superhumans for demonstration   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 

again are we slaves of chemistry ? 



> Whether you like it or not, Buddhism, hinduism, Chinese whatever are religions now. I see enough people dancing on the streets and also killing over them to prove that they're religions and not some health manual.
> 
> The probability of a person continuing to follow the religion he is brainwashed into from birth is actually very high. Way higher than people converting or becoming atheists.
> 
> ...



you are totally misinformed here what do you think yoga is ? a bunch of exercises to reduce weight ?

its hardly physical and almost all of it is mental ... 

you should read this 

*www.swamij.com/pdf/swami-rama-beyond-biofeedback.pdf



> As for ancient batteries, you're watching too many ancient aliens episodes or reading von daniken or something. Most of these "theories" don't stand the test of scientific scrutiny and have been disproven already.
> 
> There are people who are crazy enough to recreate the slabs of stones using tools only available back then in Egypt. What we don't have is their patience or all powerful kings who can behead you for not complying.
> 
> ...



sir you are mistaking me as some kind of "blind faith religious fanboy" and i can assure you i am anything but that ..  did i even say anywhere that i believe in Mahabharat and it knows all secrets ? 

look at the replies 
"too much ancient aliens" "von daniken" 

did i mention anything about aliens ? how has it been disproven ? were those discovery of ancient batteries fake or made up story ? if those batteries are real doesn't that imply they knew a good amount of stuff ? whats not logical about it ?

have they figured out how did they create egyptian pyramids with precise precision with only simple tools ? i am assuming you will be mistaking me on this part as well

no i am not saying aliens did it , neither a god did it.. 

i am saying its simple  magnetism and other laws which we don't understand today which they had knowledge...

How do i know that "because around 80 years ago 1 guy claimed he knew how they built it and it was due to magnetism and as a proof he built 1"

its logical to assume what he said was right until further evidence is found that disproves it

this one is for you @whitestar999 buddy if that post was pointed at me if not then apologies please ignore it..

the only point i was making that* "not all ancient people were dumb and stupid" .. * thats all.. imagining all of that in that time period would have been a great intellectual accomplishment .. i don't even believe in stuff that i am writing until i get further proofs/evidence for myself and why do you think i will believe a story which although has good evidence that it could have been real.. things like discovery of dwaraka remains and saraswati river which were considered myths 20-30 years ago.. 
that gives it a good probability of using real places but it doesn't gives any proof or *certainity in what is written in it was true or not* , it could be that they used real places and  made up a fiction story  and if it is not even provable then why waste time believing in whether its real or not.. however the moral of that story , does interest me, because its something practical and usable ...



> A religion you may not be able to start, but I guarantee you, if you set your mind to it, and write out passages with a lot of complex teems and a creative license that almost sounds like gibberish, eventually someone will start finding "meaning" in it.



yes but you did not answer my question if i write a bunch of *fake practical exercises* with some creative theory that why those exercises will work and make claims that "if you follow these exercises they will give you X result"

would that religion last ? whole buddhism , chi gong , yoga is like that .. do you know what buddhism is ? they have not renounced everything just to pray to some imaginary being or a statue  and are driven by chemical locha.. its a bunch of exercises to expand your mind and consciousness to give you proof your conscious Mind and Body are seperate..

how long would that religion last ? tell me if those exercises were not working for people ? if you think that somehow that religion or tradition might still hold up for centuries thats not based on any sort of chemical fear/theory/need to believe/fooling people then i am sorry that's not logical in my books.. 

i would suggest please go through my previous posts as i have repeated the same things which i raised in my previous posts..*and sincere apologies sir to you or doomgiver or whitestar if any of you felt any sort of personal attack in my posts .. that wasn't my intention at all*



singleindian said:


> i am really confused reading ur post,which u side r u in?



if you read my posts i am on neither side.. because there are major holes in religions , as we all know it and there are enough holes in  current mainstream scientific model of reality as well .. 

so lets just say i am an open minded outsider  , wherever that leads me .. 



- - - Updated - - -

Chinese called it chi
indians called it prana
in year 2050 it will be as widely accepted as quantum physics is today and will be called orgone ..  

Chi Life Force Energy - Wilhelm Reich ****** MUST SEE ****** - YouTube

WILHELM REICH'S BION-BIOGENESIS DISCOVERIES - EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION - YouTube



> In December 1940 Reich wrote to Albert Einstein saying he had a scientific discovery he wanted to discuss, and in January 1941 visited Einstein at his home in Princeton, where they talked for nearly five hours. He told Einstein that he had discovered a "specific biologically effective energy which behaves in many respects differently to all that is known about electromagnetic energy." He said it could be used against disease, and as a weapon "in the fight against the Fascist pestilence." (Einstein had signed a letter to President Roosevelt in August 1939 to warn of the danger of Nazi Germany building an atom bomb, and had urged the United States to set up its own research project.) Einstein agreed that if an object's temperature could be raised without an apparent heating source, as Reich was suggesting, it would be "a bomb."[96]
> 
> Reich was much encouraged by the meeting and hoped he would be invited to join Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study.[96] During their next meeting he gave Einstein a small accumulator, and over the next 10 days Einstein performed experiments with it in his basement, which involved taking the temperature above, inside and near the device, and stripping it down to its Faraday cage to compare temperatures. He observed a rise in temperature, which Reich argued was caused by orgone.[97] One of Einstein's assistants pointed out that the temperature was lower on the floor than on the ceiling.[98] Einstein concluded that the effect was simply due to the temperature gradient inside the room. "Through these experiments I regard the matter as completely solved," he wrote to Reich on 7 February 1941.[99]
> 
> Reich responded with a 25-page letter in which he tried to change Einstein's mind.[100] To rule out the influence of convection he told Einstein he had introduced a horizontal plate above the accumulator, wrapped it in a blanket, suspended it freely in the room, buried it underground and placed it outside. He wrote that in all these circumstances the temperature difference remained, and was in fact more marked in the open air.[101] Einstein did not respond to this or to Reich's future correspondence – Reich would write regularly reporting the results of his experiments – until Reich threatened three years later to publish their previous exchange. Einstein replied that he could not devote any further time to the matter and asked that his name not be misused for advertising purposes. Reich believed that Einstein's change of heart was part of a conspiracy of some kind, perhaps related to the communists, or prompted by the rumours that Reich was ill. Reich published the correspondence in 1953 as The Einstein Affair



An introduction to Measuring Orgone Energy - YouTube

anyways looks like i wrote a mahabharata myself in this post .. its consuming my time too much , wasted 5 hours on this .. can we delete our ids


----------



## abhigeek (Nov 14, 2014)

Reincarnation incidents
[h=1]3-Year-Old Remembers Past Life, Identifies Murderer and Location of Body[/h]Link

- - - Updated - - -

"I Have Lived Before": The Reincarnation of Shanti Devi
Link


> Shanti Devi wouldn't give up. She talked about her former family to anyone who would listen. One of her teachers at school sent a letter to the address Shanti Devi gave as her "real home" in Mathura, inquiring if a woman who had died there not too many years ago. To his astonishment, he soon received a reply from Shanti Devi's previous husband, admitting that his young wife Lugdi Devi had passed away some years previously, after giving birth to their son. The details Shanti Devi had given about her old house and members of her previous family were all confirmed.


----------



## Anorion (Nov 14, 2014)

^Scared Mother: Is there a ghost inside my child?” | WTKR.com



> Michele wanted to find out what were these memories - and Andrew gave her some very specific clues.
> 
> “He kept saying he lived at 860 Main Street in Sumter, Georgia,” Michele says.
> 
> ...


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 14, 2014)

This should put all pyramid super construction theories to rest:
Ancient Egyptians transported pyramid stones over wet sand

This should put anybody's fancy about returning from zero brain activity to rest.
Brain Death


> *There are no well-documented cases of a correct diagnosis of brain death in which the patient has had any meaningful recovery. While the media will sometimes report such a case, further investigation reveals a misstep in the diagnosis, meaning the patient should not have been declared brain dead at all.*



Clinical death


> Although loss of function is almost immediate, there is no specific duration of clinical death at which the non-functioning brain clearly dies. The most vulnerable cells in the brain, CA1 neurons of the hippocampus, are fatally injured by as little as 10 minutes without oxygen. However, the injured cells do not actually die until hours after resuscitation.[8] This delayed death can be prevented in vitro by a simple drug treatment even after 20 minutes without oxygen.[9] In other areas of the brain, viable human neurons have been recovered and grown in culture hours after clinical death.[10] Brain failure after clinical death is now known to be due to a complex series of processes (reperfusion injury) that occur after blood circulation is restored, especially processes that interfere with blood circulation during the recovery period.[11] Control of these processes is the subject of ongoing research.


*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.*
 [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION],your arguments,though fascinating, are just not good enough to stand any serious scientific scrutiny as you can see in above examples so my suggestion is either prove them by doing something yourself(like become a neurosurgeon to prove consciousness independent of brain chemistry) or just state your beliefs without giving weak statements in support.*It is better to be known as a believer without arguments compared to a believer with false/weak arguments.*


----------



## snap (Nov 14, 2014)

There was a pretty funny comment i found on reddit about the people who spew random pseudo-science BS and cherry picking to validate their beliefs;



Spoiler



"No, you do not understand the meta-relativistic cognitive understanding of psuedo-quantum parallel entanglements that manifest as the inherent phenomena of neuronal processing vis-a-vis the hyper-consciousness of sentience. Scientists have shown that the underlying matrices of unilateral sixth-dimensional omni-strings are vibrating in sympathetic connections with the oscillating wave function that is the soul's chakra output, correlating directly with the chi expulsion of each person's tantric whosiwhatits, and culminating with the somethingorother of quantumhypermetaprefixaffixsuffixfractalmathwordssciencejargontechnobabble. So you see, that's why whatever bullshit I'm arguing in favor of is completely true."


----------



## Anorion (Nov 14, 2014)

[MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] found something for you
Human thoughts used to switch on genes - life - 11 November 2014 - New Scientist



> It's not as out there as it sounds, now the technical foundations have been laid. Researchers have created a link between thoughts and cells, allowing people to switch on genes in mice using just their thoughts.



Im guessing that if scientists do not discover telepathy, they will just invent it


----------



## rish1 (Nov 14, 2014)

you are misunderstanding what i am saying...



whitestar_999 said:


> This should put all pyramid super construction theories to rest:
> Ancient Egyptians transported pyramid stones over wet sand
> 
> sorry i have read it before it proves nothing .. it only proves how they might have moved it .. please how did they cut the stones with precise laser like precision with simple tools and how did they put it all together with perfect harmony and this does not explain how did coral castle was built by edward alone who was so thin.. he alone himself cut those giant blocks of stones , and put it all together with great precision .. it was 80 years ago and he wouldn't have been able to do it with any modern tech .. so this proves nothing it only explains how they might have moved it..
> ...



what serious scientific scrutiny are you talking about ?  you didn't explained or refuted anything .. what weak/ false arguments ? you are giving weak/false arguments with wrong understanding .. you are holding on to a belief in" scientific dogma " not science , science is the study of patterns   .. science will never stay the same ..  100 years from now the whole philosophy will be different and there will be a new understanding and a new dogma based on findings and experimentation 

like i said before i am outsider out of any belief .. explain the points raised by me and i will have no problem in accepting your explanation if it sounds logical .. even the egyptian theory i am talking about i specifically stated i will hold on to that explanation * until further evidence is found to disprove it* .. i never said i am a believer in that theory and that is the only explanation...

*as for proving , i have said it before i am not here to prove anyone anything , i am not debating here just discussing and that too believe it or not was for my own understanding as it got me involved in researching these topics more ..  you are free to have your beliefs as you like .. if you consider me a believer/ religious baba / pseudoscientific or any other term you are free to do as you like, i really don't care... anyways i am sensing some uneasiness here so don't worry  won't be posting here it was only due to rabooo sir beautiful written post that i thought discussing with him would be nice.. you are free to delete posts/my id   

good luck

take care *

- - - Updated - - -



Anorion said:


> [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] found something for you
> Human thoughts used to switch on genes - life - 11 November 2014 - New Scientist
> 
> Im guessing that if scientists do not discover telepathy, they will just invent it



thanks buddy .. i think its already possible with current technology 

*www.vox.com/2014/11/9/7181029/telepathy-brain-communication .. i think this will become very big in the near future ..

multiplayer gaming with telepathy in a virtual reality environment would be SUPER EPIC !!


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 14, 2014)

*What more do you want,Stephen Hawking to personally give you a written proof?*I gave you links(mainstream science & not some fringe para research) contradicting several of your claims(pyramid,zero brain function recovery).*Neither you nor anyone here is a MS nureosurgeon or Phd Quantum Mechanics so both you & others can only give arguments based on work of others & clearly you don't have the advantage in that area(in your own words mainstream science outweigh fringe science).Science will never stay the same does not mean you can say everything science teaches today is wrong.*



> like i said before i am outsider out of any belief .. explain the points raised by me and i will have no problem in accepting your explanation if *it sounds logical*





> even the egyptian theory i am talking about i specifically stated i will hold on to that explanation until further evidence is found to disprove it .. i never said i am a believer in that theory and that is the only explanation...


*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.*.

*I don't have any issue with your beliefs but i prefer a human who believes in God/spirituality/soul/consciousness... to a man who tries to prove God/spirituality/soul/consciousness...,based on your arguments & your persistence you sound like latter.* [MENTION=102842]doomgiver[/MENTION] is also persistent but he has the advantage of mainstream science which you don't so you should have either gracefully withdraw or simply finished off with "time will tell or something like that argument".Instead you chose to stretching it out resulting in this post as well as the impression of a not so rational person being left on myself & quite a few others here.


----------



## ico (Nov 14, 2014)

I think Raaabo nailed it when he said this:


Raaabo said:


> People expect "faith" for religion, and "proof" from science. That's where the problem lies.



Actually the most powerful and correct statement I've ever read.


----------



## rish1 (Nov 14, 2014)

whitestar_999 said:


> *What more do you want,Stephen Hawking to personally give you a written proof?*I gave you links(mainstream science & not some fringe para research) contradicting several of your claims(pyramid,zero brain function recovery).*Neither you nor anyone here is a MS nureosurgeon or Phd Quantum Mechanics so both you & others can only give arguments based on work of others & clearly you don't have the advantage in that area(in your own words mainstream science outweigh fringe science).Science will never stay the same does not mean you can say everything science teaches today is wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



trust me on this one i wasn't going to reply when i said i wouldn't because i felt myself that it was being stretched a lot and i wanted to end it at that point, it was raboo sir request to me that i decided ....

you didn't give me anything ,.. ( your brain part is totally wrong and i countered it with wikipedia quotes not some fringe para) 
your pyramid only explained 1 piece of the puzzle .. so what did you give ? no i never said i am a neurosurgen but what i am telling you based on the research of these people only,   .. 

first doomgiver and snap came and started discussing .. then i started discussing it with you , and then raboo sir came and started discussing ..  

so its really ok and i understand that it may seem like i am having some sort of proving or pushing agenda, because i am common in all 3 discussions  .. but thats not my intention..

anyways if i sound pushy to you ( i understand this and thats why i wrote everytime just because i am saying please don;t assume i fully believe in this stuff until i get evidence for myself) 

*anyways if you think i pushed or was trying to prove... let me edit all my posts ... i'll delete it myself *.. thats the maximum assurance i can give from my side to tell you it wasn't my intention and i wasn't trying to rule the thread or prove anyone anything as you think..   anyways it won't matter now as all of posts of mine will be deleted .. what will be left in quotes of other people .. so you can delete that as well .. i still have no issues with any person or anyone .. and if you have been reading my posts you can see i have not tried to resort any personal attacks despite snap and doomgiver  doing so.. 

anyways it does not matter now .. you can have your thread with no trace of me ever having written anything here ..


----------



## ico (Nov 14, 2014)

rish said:


> *anyways if you think i pushed or was trying to prove... let me edit all my posts ... i'll delete it myself *.. thats the maximum assurance i can give from my side to tell you it wasn't my intention and i wasn't trying to rule the thread or prove anyone anything as you think..   anyways it won't matter now as all of posts of mine will be deleted .. what will be left in quotes of other people .. so you can delete that as well .. i still have no issues with any person or anyone .. and if you have been reading my posts you can see i have not tried to resort any personal attacks despite snap and doomgiver  doing so..


well, you shouldn't do that. Why are you getting so emotional?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 14, 2014)

[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.


> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"--Evelyn Beatrice Hall


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).


----------



## rish1 (Nov 14, 2014)

- - - Updated - - -



whitestar_999 said:


> [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).



i know buddy  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  .. 

lets end it .. most of the posts have been already been deleted unfortunately , i'll leave whatever its left .. 



ico said:


> well, you shouldn't do that. Why are you getting so emotional?



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


----------



## Anorion (Nov 15, 2014)

ow why you did that, it was an interesting conversation


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 15, 2014)

rish said:


> Bingo ... we are on the same page


I love how you say that then go on to try and refute everything I say  
Also, I don't remember a knighthood, so no more sir business please, I'm just another thinker like everyone else here. 




rish said:


> ...but actually i try to keep out of any sort of belief or faith stuff and have written it in my previous posts as well..


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.




rish said:


> ok  1st point .. if you assume it exists


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. 



rish said:


> it isn't in mainstream science yet  that is why it isn't well accepted .. you can read up the research done by dean radin , tom campbell, Pear institute , rhine institute , rupert sheldrake , Stargate Project , Research done by Sony and many more.. but they aren't well accepted in mainstream yet like i said before due to repeatability issues and hard to control ability , not accurate everytime.. but that doesn't mean there aren't any positive results..


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... 




rish said:


> ahh now i see.. you are having totally wrong understanding here..


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.

Now think about it, how many times have you woken up from a dream that took a weird twist. Like chatting with your mum in a dream and suddenly your mum grows a siren on her head and her face morphs into a speaker and she starts sounding like an alarm... and then you wake up, and realise your alarm is ringing. I exaggerate, but basically incorporating what your conscious brain was unaware of into a dream.

Now, how about regular morning people (I used to be one, not anymore). How many times have you woken up, started at your alarm, and it starts to ring 10/20 seconds later. You weren't sitting about counting minutes, yet you woke up just BEFORE your alarm could go off? Weird right? Yet happens to people ALL the time. 

The problem is you're being wowed by some fancy schmancy terms for really everyday things. We don't understand the human brain well enough yet. Actually we don't understand an ant's brain perfectly yet, and can't build a replica of even that still, not even in software... thus, yes we have a long way to go in that department, and nothing should surprise us. So yes, you may think that the brain dies when the heart stops, or stops functioning, or whatever, but the fact is, it doesn't. What's more likely, quantum waves of magic or science just learnt that the brain doesn't need bloodflow to keep firing and stays alive for longer than we thought, with feebler currents than our equipment can measure...




rish said:


> while in a 0 brain function state it is not possible to create any imagery or have any sort of unconscious experience  as per brain = consciousness theory



I think someone posted after your post explaining the difference between brain and respiratory death. Loss of consciousness occurs when the heart stops as that's a higher oxygen need, but subconscious stays active for as long as the brain is not "dead", no doubt in diminishing capacity. I don't have the time unfortunately to do a lot of research, and yes my replies are just off the cuff remarks, so excuse any mistakes that arise from not Googling and rechecking everything, but I remember reading the brain stays "alive" for upto 8/10 minutes after the respiration and heartbeat stop, and then after that 10-15 minutes there is sure to be brain damage, and after 25 minutes or so there's only vegetative state remaining... or something like that. But I'm sure the times given were longer than 3/5 minutes which is what most of those links to NDE were citing. 

Since the experiments are not being repeated by 100 more people around the globe with success and scientists aren't jumping up and down making press statements about it, I assume this was another study that perhaps was dubiously funded with less than perfect test procedures. I know if I'd just "discovered" a soul or the afterlife, or new quantum magic waves, I'd be making a noise and trying to get my Nobel prize and global recognition, not quietly sitting in a lab happy with some random churches and bishops quoting me...



rish said:


> *that they were actually able to see and listen and describe every event that was happening in that room accurately .. the eyes were closed and ears not functioning and the details were later confirmed by doctors and nurses present in the room *.. please give an explanation for this .. ohh and also remember these people are heavily drugged before so even a normal person when he is drugged, senses have a hard time in functioning properly let alone a drugged person ..



For one, the statements made by people in such cases as I've read in the past (and never in scientific journals but only in tabloids) are very generic, "I could smell medicines, I could hear clinking of metal equipment, I felt my body jerk and tighten (electric shock), etc" No one says, I heard the nurse talk to the doctor cutting me open about how she "finally got laid last night, and it was with a homeless, transvestite...but still better than being alone..." 

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...




rish said:


> then these people report that they were more "ALIVE" in this state and totally change their lives and personality around after having those experiences..


Of course, it takes something drastic...




rish said:


> any dream or illusion cannot move this person this much that they become totally different person..


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...



rish said:


> total personality changes like donating up wealth, while earlier some of them used to be mean people afterwards they start helping other , do more public service and become compassionate people , totally atheist and materialist people start becoming religious etc ..  and the best part these people loose the "Fear of death" and become much more peaceful and happy..



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. 




rish said:


> wow thats great you have been through that experience and i can understand why you hold on to that notion of slavery..
> 
> sadness is a chemical process but what causes sadness ? but what allowed you to have fear to begin the chemical process of FEAR ?



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... 




rish said:


> when i raise up my hand , certain part of the brain stimulates and  sends an electrical charge to my hand to move muscles and that makes it rise up
> 
> when i cut and open the brain and stimulate the same part of brain through an electrode  my muscles move and my hand rises up but still i am not the one raising it up .. why ?
> 
> ...



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.



rish said:


> you claim that you are a chemical slave .. where is your proof ? its just a theory
> consciousness inside the brain is just a theory without any proof !!!  and yes scientists have explored all the parts of brain for so many years and tried stimulating every part of it yet they are unable to find the one who is controlling the brain ?



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.





rish said:


> yes you can make me depressed happy or any feeling by giving pills and drugs.. BUT BUT BUT you cannot make me choose anything i don't want .. even in case of torture / fear or drugging me with anything i would still have to consciously at some level choose myself ..  you can't do it .. not at all..



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. 

Of course there are things you choose, but that's based again on your subconscious, your nature. Some people are greedy, others aren't. Whatever external forces went into influencing them that way, it resulted in this "personality". Some is also genetic (again chemical). 

You're short and fat, (hypothetically; you could use 8 foot circus freak if you prefer!) because the gene mix you inherited from your parents is short and fat, and thus your world view is from the eyes of a person who grew up being short and fat. Then it's another set called India, part of a larger global set called male, then a city sub-set, a religious set, an education set, a language set... all of this is different experiences causing different chemical reactions to make a compound (a collection of compounds? A compound, compound of compounds?) called "you" which is unique in some ways and kind of ordinary in many more ways. 

So it's all out of control, and truly we are "slaves" who cannot be blamed for our actions... NO, I did not mean slave in that way. I meant that chemistry runs us and our "consciousness". The "I think therefore I am" is made possible because of chemistry. And brain chemistry is brilliant, because people can alter it by thinking!



rish said:


> Minor treatments ? really ? what about the guy who needed to have an arthritis surgery .. doctors try to run an experiment with him, gave him fake surgery ( made a cut and stitch it back without performing any surgery )
> fooled that guy, that he was being given a real surgery and surprisingly the guy magically heals ? and what above those Countless "Miracles" where people were supposed to die due to cancer , tumors and those stage 4 cancers magically just disappear ?



I hear about these a lot, and no proof ever. It's always tabloids, never scientific journals. Minor and mind-related ailments, yes. For example I've read of people who insisted on pains in their joints and needing surgery, being fooled by methods you described. I am yet to find a credible source that runs a study of people being cured of cancer using faith (monitored by medicine). I would be grateful if people would give inks to actual medical studies if this is happening everywhere suddenly and I'm behind the times (very probable). 




rish said:


> you can google it up if you want to all of them are in medical literature...



I did a little before, no credible sources.




rish said:


> watch it on superhumans for demonstration   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
> 
> again are we slaves of chemistry ?



Hearsay. Proof needed please. And yes, living things are a slave to chemistry. I have no doubt that there are intelligent people and people who practise and hone skills to gain better control of aspects of their brain. However, it will take an evolution change to make humans stop being slaves to chemistry. 

Why look at monks? There are coders out there who see code in ways most cannot. There's only 1 Messi and 1 Cristiano Ronaldo. Einsteins are scarce too, Newtons even more so... Ever seen strongmen challenges? Hot dog eating competitions where the little Asian guy wins? Humans can do all sorts of stuff with their bodies and minds. Non-buddhists, pork-eating, beer-guzzling, atheist, rednecks can dislocate joints at will and lie on nails and walk on coals, and Brazilian people crucify themselves in the name of Christ, and his "power" makes them not feel pain... Muslims do it for Muharram... explain all that then...

Should we all just believe that the ancients knew everything and thus each will believe that his religion or dogma teaches the only right path, and we stay in status quo... or we accept that it's not religious, and there's no one fixed method or mental state or path to get to that point, but more a chemical state, which is achieved by the brain feeling a certain something, and try and figure that out. Wouldn't it be great for science for you to walk into an operating theatre, put on headphones, and hear a tone that automatically sedates and makes you immune to pain?  Chemical reactions using catalysts... sight, sound, touch, etc to cause chemical changes in your brain and body? Feeling acidity? Here watch this video ad for sneakers that also cures acidity!




rish said:


> you are totally misinformed here what do you think yoga is ? a bunch of exercises to reduce weight ?
> 
> its hardly physical and almost all of it is mental ...
> 
> ...



I've not read this but read about Yoga before. It's a nice physical and mental exercise that tries and finds common ways in which to alter the chemistry of your body for beneficial outcomes. Some get the same results from playing with their kids in a park. Others need to run 5 km, some swim, others can achieve the mental state by reading, thinking absolutely nothing, or trying to solve complex math equations... it's all relative.  




rish said:


> sir you are mistaking me as some kind of "blind faith religious fanboy" and i can assure you i am anything but that ..  did i even say anywhere that i believe in Mahabharat and it knows all secrets ?



Your subconscious adds tones and other markers to what you say, and it suggests that you believe that "your" heritage and history is superior to others. It's OK. That's the case for 99.999% of the world, it's actually very, very normal. However, your conscious mind perhaps believes it is unbiased, which isn't the case and seems to make conflicting statements at times.



rish said:


> were those discovery of ancient batteries fake or made up story ? if those batteries are real doesn't that imply they knew a good amount of stuff ? whats not logical about it ?



Fake, yes, they weren't batteries at all. 



rish said:


> have they figured out how did they create egyptian pyramids with precise precision with only simple tools ?


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. 




rish said:


> i am saying its simple  magnetism and other laws which we don't understand today which they had knowledge...



It's nice and fantastical to believe that "they" knew and understood things we didn't, but the fact is they knew NOTHING compared to what we know. Look at the proof around you. It will take much more than 2000 years to wipe us clean from the planet. How on earth can you subscribe to an old civilisation knowing about radioactivity and magnetism, and yet leaving no proof of it behind. Where are all the metal structures, why stone? Where are the man-made radioactive pits caused by explosions or bomb creation. Where are the plans engraved. If you were to engrave in stone (bothersome and hard), would you describe your society as cows walking on the streets or Mangalyaan? 




rish said:


> the only point i was making that* "not all ancient people were dumb and stupid" .. * thats all.. imagining all of that in that time period would have been a great intellectual accomplishment ..


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. 



rish said:


> it could be that they used real places and  made up a fiction story...



Exactly. You have the right understanding now. Think of ALL the movies set in New York and Washington, and how many times the damn White House and Statue of Liberty have been smashed... Until the explosions, those are actually shot in the real cities... then imagination kicks in... it's been that way for as long as we have had language... from cave paintings to the latest Hollywood big budget blockbuster.




rish said:


> ..."if you follow these exercises they will give you X result"... would that religion last ? ...expand your mind and consciousness to give you proof your conscious Mind and Body are seperate...not based on any sort of chemical fear/theory/need to believe/fooling people then i am sorry that's not logical in my books....



There's a chemical reaction that causes you to believe in something. It happens when you are convinced. Every magician on earth right now preys on this. Misdirection, making you feel smart, and then poof, making you feel astounded. That's the way to blow people's minds. Distort reality with tricks. However, it becomes obvious that it's a trick, and that's not someone you believe or follow, that's someone you distrust.

So who or what do you follow? Someone who doesn't make you believe that they're better than you. Not someone who fools you, but someone who makes you believe that others are the fools. Or if not that, then someone who makes you believe that you are improving, you are seeing something that others cannot. The fact that the utter rubbish book, The Secret sold so many million copies is testament to this. 

Higher consciousness, as I've been told by yogis and babas and Buddhists from India and Nepal, is more often what I'd describe as a heightened state of awareness. Yes some states have been described to me as what I can only equate to as being stoned out of your mind. And interestingly, many of them smoke pot to achieve this state of mind... this also makes them super-cool to the current gen, and thus I can see why Yoga and stuff catches on in the West. It's not that it's manifold better than, say jogging and doing mental exercises yourself, but it certainly is cooler, and easier, and also a socially accepted pastime. 

So what causes people to live in mountains and beg for alms. The need to be different, a little special, impractical? No offense to anyone's beliefs, I'm not saying this choice is a conscious one, just as some kids are obviously doing bad things for attention, some go overboard with good deeds, trying to be always right, overtly honest (to the point of being tattle tails)...

Adults are also as varied: Some do things for others to notice because they feel the need to seem important to the world, while some do things to feel important themselves, and couldn't be bothered what the world thinks. 



rish said:


> so lets just say i am an open minded outsider  , wherever that leads me ..


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...  

And what's this about deleting posts? As you've been told. IN the fight club we expect arguments, but you're as entitled to your point of view as I am to mine. Please don't delete things, and especially not out of fear of being banned or whatever, because that will never happen. The only reason I banned Mediator was because of his constant and vocal hatred for some religions, which was causing complaints. 

You can say you don't agree with something and why... but calling a religion names and it's followers evil, etc will earn people a ban. Fight, but with respect for one another, that's all


----------



## Anorion (Nov 15, 2014)

Raaabo said:


> For one, the statements made by people in such cases as I've read in the past (and never in scientific journals but only in tabloids) are very generic, "I could smell medicines, I could hear clinking of metal equipment, I felt my body jerk and tighten (electric shock), etc" No one says, I heard the nurse talk to the doctor cutting me open about how she "finally got laid last night, and it was with a homeless, transvestite...but still better than being alone..."



This is derived from a study published in a journal called Resuscitation, but it was a Tabloid that highlighted the interesting bits



> “But in this case conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
> 
> “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three-minute intervals.
> 
> ...



Largest study into near-death experiences discovers awareness may continue even after the brain shuts down | National Post

sciency-y version here > Near-death experiences? Results of the world's largest medical study of the human mind and consciousness at time of death -- ScienceDaily


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 15, 2014)

^^read post#2112 by me above,that should clear it.There is no such thing as recovery from a 100% dead brain cells(brain can shut down long before that).


----------



## Anorion (Nov 15, 2014)

^oh yes read that. Im just pointing out there are specific experiences reported, and maybe there would be more if the patients were not so heavily medicated. Perhaps that is the study from which [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] is quoting the red bits that Raaabo responded to. 
Skeptical of the term "near death experience" itself. It's just speculation on my part, but maybe the machines used to measure brain activity can show a flatline or whatever they use to graphically show zero brain activity, but these don't record the activity in the entire nervous system, and there may be some residual activity in say the auditory cortex that is still taking feedback from the sense organs, but not at a threshold measurable by the machines.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 15, 2014)

correct,present machines are not advanced enough to detect minutest brain activity(it will take advanced nanotechnology for that) & that is why no such experience can be termed as credible.this entire idea can be dismissed for now with no exception(or specific experience).


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 15, 2014)

I just love the differences in the way the two links you posted cover this. "Life after death"? Like are you kidding me?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 15, 2014)

Thanks,I always try to give some credible rational source to support my arguments & if i can't then i simply don't post,that is my policy.


----------



## rish1 (Nov 15, 2014)

> I love how you say that then go on to try and refute everything I say


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..

sir your posts reflected great politeness and since you are quite elder than me that came automatically ..



> 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...



you are thinking i am talking about some internet viral based news sites.. whatever i am talking comes from doctors and scientists .. and it is in the medical literature.. 
when i say the word mainstream - i mean its not accepted universally* yet* but that doesn't mean its not there or some B.S

stargate project was a U.S funded military operation which ran for 25 years.. there were statistically positive results and both scientists that did experiments confirmed this.. 
sony did the research for 8 years and basically came out and said it was Real
Fbi still uses pyschics for investigations
rupert sheldrake did experimentation on dogs and cats 
Pear institute , rhine institute and others that i am not aware of.. 

it isn't in the mainstream yet because it is a very low level hard to detect subconscious human ability, it isn't something like you see in movies like xmen.. 8 times out of 10 it fails ( just like when you go out to hit a 6 in cricket you end up getting a run or two most times , )   and nothing conclusive comes out but 2 times the hit is massive and beyond any statistical chance or doubt .. plus there are 99 frauds out of 100 people only 1 or 2  out of 100 people are genuine who have a great ability of control

plus its a taboo in scientific world ( and a career destroying field for most scientists, look at the criticism against sheldrake and radin and all those 20 other researchers  of the past 50 years ) and there is not much funding into these projects..
and then there is observer effect as well.. ( if you assume it exists then this is a valid concern  if a psychic is trying to  send a thought and all those nose hard skeptics in the room are believing he is fake and its a magic trick   and it won't work .. then even if the pyschic does have the ability it simply won't work because the collective thinking of the skeptics subconscious is far more powerful to not make it work and will be blocking it out ) 

and hence when its tried by peer reviewed skeptic scientists it does not work and is termed as pseudoscience .. if it was all bullshit all along why would it still persist and why would fbi continue to use it ? anyway i am not here to convince just telling you what i am saying is not based on some viral news sites ..


> 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.



sorry totally wrong example given .. under anesthesia .. the brain is still functioning and hence it is not surprising to wake up from that..


> Now think about it, how many times have you woken up from a dream that took a weird twist. Like chatting with your mum in a dream and suddenly your mum grows a siren on her head and her face morphs into a speaker and she starts sounding like an alarm... and then you wake up, and realise your alarm is ringing. I exaggerate, but basically incorporating what your conscious brain was unaware of into a dream.



dreaming is happening in a functioning brain... and not surprising at all that the brain is between a subconscious and conscious state ..



> Now, how about regular morning people (I used to be one, not anymore). How many times have you woken up, started at your alarm, and it starts to ring 10/20 seconds later. You weren't sitting about counting minutes, yet you woke up just BEFORE your alarm could go off? Weird right? Yet happens to people ALL the time.



there is nothing weird about it.. your subconscious has an internal clock .. and if you train it can be as Precise to even seconds as you want .. that is why most people can wake up at precise time everyday without any need of clocks


> The problem is you're being wowed by some fancy schmancy terms for really everyday things. We don't understand the human brain well enough yet. Actually we don't understand an ant's brain perfectly yet, and can't build a replica of even that still, not even in software... thus, yes we have a long way to go in that department, and nothing should surprise us. So yes, you may think that the brain dies when the heart stops, or stops functioning, or whatever, but the fact is, it doesn't. What's more likely, quantum waves of magic or science just learnt that the brain doesn't need bloodflow to keep firing and stays alive for longer than we thought, with feebler currents than our equipment can measure...



yes possible and i covered it in previous post ,  even in that case , you cannot account for super high imagery , and sound experience .. for that you need higher detectable currents and different parts of the brain lighting up.. anyways it does not account how were they able to accurately describe the events happening in the room with their eyes closed and their ears not functioning .. what you are assuming ( wrong analogy but still )here is akin to .. 
a dead battery of laptop might still be able to switch on the light of power button of laptop or flash a few pixels of screen for a second but it won't allow you to watch a OS load up and watch a movie ..

and hence even if their is some low level current , say undetectable by our current tech today it isn't enough to generate higher illusions and imagery that people report
because even in REM sleep and in cases of illusions the brain activity is much much higher and we use as much as 40-50 % of brain ( not sure about statistics ) 



> I think someone posted after your post explaining the difference between brain and respiratory death. Loss of consciousness occurs when the heart stops as that's a higher oxygen need, but subconscious stays active for as long as the brain is not "dead", no doubt in diminishing capacity. I don't have the time unfortunately to do a lot of research, and yes my replies are just off the cuff remarks, so excuse any mistakes that arise from not Googling and rechecking everything, but I remember reading the brain stays "alive" for upto 8/10 minutes after the respiration and heartbeat stop, and then after that 10-15 minutes there is sure to be brain damage, and after 25 minutes or so there's only vegetative state remaining... or something like that. But I'm sure the times given were longer than 3/5 minutes which is what most of those links to NDE were citing.



no 
no what whitestar99 said was totally invalid and i refuted him with wikipedia quotes .. i am not talking about brain death at all .. i am talking about clinical death .. there is a big difference and you can read up my subsequent post about it..

full recovery of the brain after more than 3 minutes of clinical death at normal body temperature is rare .. that is at normal temperature . under cold temperatures these times can be more than doubled, after that people can return from resuscitation but in almost all cases after that ,there is brain injury .. 


> This state is called deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. At such low temperatures most patients can tolerate the clinically dead state for up to 30 minutes without incurring significant brain injury.[27] Longer durations are possible at lower temperatures, but the usefulness of longer procedures has not been established yet.[28]



even when you are unconscious you  have some electrical activity in the brain..


> Since the experiments are not being repeated by 100 more people around the globe with success and scientists aren't jumping up and down making press statements about it, I assume this was another study that perhaps was dubiously funded with less than perfect test procedures. I know if I'd just "discovered" a soul or the afterlife, or new quantum magic waves, I'd be making a noise and trying to get my Nobel prize and global recognition, not quietly sitting in a lab happy with some random churches and bishops quoting me...



same things reported all over the world by all doctors .. you just aren't aware



> For one, the statements made by people in such cases as I've read in the past (and never in scientific journals but only in tabloids) are very generic, "I could smell medicines, I could hear clinking of metal equipment, I felt my body jerk and tighten (electric shock), etc" No one says, I heard the nurse talk to the doctor cutting me open about how she "finally got laid last night, and it was with a homeless, transvestite...but still better than being alone..."



lol that's precisely whats told by patients..

some recall the whole conversation that was going in between doctors and nurses at the time .. 



> 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...
> 
> ...



yes i said you can make me kill myself by severely drugging me but i will make that decision myself .. the conscious part decides .. it can go with the influence of subconscious or resist it.. you can't control me not at all ... those nazi camp survivors are a great example .. despite so much pain and drugging them and torturing them they still didn't give up .. those who commit suicide will only do it because they want to end that pain.. ( its still a conscious decision ) you are controlling me indirectly .. you can't control consciousness .. you did not read the brain electrode experiment i gave .. even by giving direct electrical signal to my brain you cannot *make me* raise up my hand .. hand will rise up but you didn't make me do it..





> I hear about these a lot, and no proof ever. It's always tabloids, never scientific journals. Minor and mind-related ailments, yes. For example I've read of people who insisted on pains in their joints and needing surgery, being fooled by methods you described. I am yet to find a credible source that runs a study of people being cured of cancer using faith (monitored by medicine). I would be grateful if people would give inks to actual medical studies if this is happening everywhere suddenly and I'm behind the times (very probable).
> I did a little before, no credible sources.
> 
> Hearsay. Proof needed please. And yes, living things are a slave to chemistry. I have no doubt that there are intelligent people and people who practise and hone skills to gain better control of aspects of their brain. However, it will take an evolution change to make humans stop being slaves to chemistry.



this is not some viral site or tabloid 
here is a great documentary involving interviews from surgeons,doctors, hospital staff and patients  .. its quite an old one 

*"Placebo: Cracking the Code" - YouTube*



> Why look at monks? There are coders out there who see code in ways most cannot. There's only 1 Messi and 1 Cristiano Ronaldo. Einsteins are scarce too, Newtons even more so... Ever seen strongmen challenges? Hot dog eating competitions where the little Asian guy wins? Humans can do all sorts of stuff with their bodies and minds. Non-buddhists, pork-eating, beer-guzzling, atheist, rednecks can dislocate joints at will and lie on nails and walk on coals, and Brazilian people crucify themselves in the name of Christ, and his "power" makes them not feel pain... Muslims do it for Muharram... explain all that then...



i wasn't talking only look at buddhist monks , these effects can be shown by yogis ,chinese qi gongs masters as well.. 
look at them because they are professionals and understand more about mind and energy than current science..



> Should we all just believe that the ancients knew everything and thus each will believe that his religion or dogma tea
> ches the only right path, and we stay in status quo... or we accept that it's not religious, and there's no one fixed method or mental state or path to get to that point, but more a chemical state, which is achieved by the brain feeling a certain something, and try and figure that out. Wouldn't it be great for science for you to walk into an operating theatre, put on headphones, and hear a tone that automatically sedates and makes you immune to pain?  Chemical reactions using catalysts... sight, sound, touch, etc to cause chemical changes in your brain and body? Feeling acidity? Here watch this video ad for sneakers that also cures acidity!



i never said believe everything and that they are right about everything .. if you go to my past posts i have repeatedly bashed up those religious dogmas .. that is why i was never debating here because on 1 side i was bashing those religious dogmas and on other side i was bashing those science dogmas..  
 but investigate into yoga and Buddhism .. its not a religion  based on a made up story ..
its a practical science !!! you do the experiments you get the results end of story..  and science has been investigating this stuff for 50 years and with all these amazing results are all over the places .. you should read that research paper of beyond biofeedback



> I've not read this but read about Yoga before. It's a nice physical and mental exercise that tries and finds common ways in which to alter the chemistry of your body for beneficial outcomes. Some get the same results from playing with their kids in a park. Others need to run 5 km, some swim, others can achieve the mental state by reading, thinking absolutely nothing, or trying to solve complex math equations... it's all relative.



that physical exercise is only a part a tiny part of what yoga is .. and sadly the whole west is crazy about this tiny part only and its a widespread myth that yoga is "postures" tell me how can people get results like control their heart beat (fiblerate it and stop it from beating as well ) , stop their pulse from doing other things ?




> Your subconscious adds tones and other markers to what you say, and it suggests that you believe that "your" heritage and history is superior to others. It's OK. That's the case for 99.999% of the world, it's actually very, very normal. However, your conscious mind perhaps believes it is unbiased, which isn't the case and seems to make conflicting statements at times.


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  )  
for me whatever i am saying has only been a recent knowledge for me . if you had chatted with me 1 year ago i would have sounded like a lot more like doomgiver does now..




> Fake, yes, they weren't batteries at all.



apologies here this point wasn't well searched by me to check if there was any truth in it.. this was an error on my part , thanks for bringing it up ..  



> 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.
> 
> It's nice and fantastical to believe that "they" knew and understood things we didn't, but the fact is they knew NOTHING compared to what we know. Look at the proof around you. It will take much more than 2000 years to wipe us clean from the planet. How on earth can you subscribe to an old civilisation knowing about radioactivity and magnetism, and yet leaving no proof of it behind. Where are all the metal structures, why stone? Where are the man-made radioactive pits caused by explosions or bomb creation. Where are the plans engraved. If you were to engrave in stone (bothersome and hard), would you describe your society as cows walking on the streets or Mangalyaan?



yes but that does not explain coral castle,  its recent.. and it was build by 1 single man not millions..




> 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.


it is assumed everywhere.. yes they would be mentally overloaded now seeing all this development..
they were definitely ahead in some areas whereas we are ahead in other areas .. i have repeatedly said this .. we are much more advanced than them in material world and they were much more advanced than us mentally and physically ...




> Exactly. You have the right understanding now. Think of ALL the movies set in New York and Washington, and how many times the damn White House and Statue of Liberty have been smashed... Until the explosions, those are actually shot in the real cities... then imagination kicks in... it's been that way for as long as we have had language... from cave paintings to the latest Hollywood big budget blockbuster.p



i have always had this understanding from quite long that is why i never bothered to explore into it ever ,  ( have only watched it maybe twice and that too only parts of it ) 




> There's a chemical reaction that causes you to believe in something. It happens when you are convinced. Every magician on earth right now preys on this. Misdirection, making you feel smart, and then poof, making you feel astounded. That's the way to blow people's minds. Distort reality with tricks. However, it becomes obvious that it's a trick, and that's not someone you believe or follow, that's someone you distrust.
> 
> So who or what do you follow? Someone who doesn't make you believe that they're better than you. Not someone who fools you, but someone who makes you believe that others are the fools. Or if not that, then someone who makes you believe that you are improving, you are seeing something that others cannot. The fact that the utter rubbish book, The Secret sold so many million copies is testament to this.



its not at all rubbish in health aspects .. in some cases its far more powerful than drugs ( because when* nocebo* effect happens it reduces the effects of drugs and medications as well ) if applied successfully as it alters brain chemistry and if you have watched that documentary above regarding placebo effect , you should be coming to the same conclusion already..  if short on time watch the first 10-15 minutes


> Higher consciousness, as I've been told by yogis and babas and Buddhists from India and Nepal, is more often what I'd describe as a heightened state of awareness. Yes some states have been described to me as what I can only equate to as being stoned out of your mind. And interestingly, many of them smoke pot to achieve this state of mind... this also makes them super-cool to the current gen, and thus I can see why Yoga and stuff catches on in the West. It's not that it's manifold better than, say jogging and doing mental exercises yourself, but it certainly is cooler, and easier, and also a socially accepted pastime.



taking drugs is an easy way out.. same effects can be achieved but its not under control for normal people .. so they take it in addition to the exercises as a tool.. while others just enjoy the experience and depend on drugs
you should watch the documentary on DMT the spirit molecule...


> So what causes people to live in mountains and beg for alms. The need to be different, a little special, impractical? No offense to anyone's beliefs, I'm not saying this choice is a conscious one, just as some kids are obviously doing bad things for attention, some go overboard with good deeds, trying to be always right, overtly honest (to the point of being tattle tails)...
> 
> Adults are also as varied: Some do things for others to notice because they feel the need to seem important to the world, while some do things to feel important themselves, and couldn't be bothered what the world thinks.



well i accept that in some cases that's right explanation but i don't expect that for all cases .. plus if somebody is going out to live in mountains to think they are special  or different , its only a matter of time before their mind realizes that  they are not special, they are living among 1000s of those who think the same so they loose the speciality ..  because its all relative ... a movie star will feel special or different only when he is out with fans , when he is acting with other stars he won't feel special or different than other similar co stars because they are as famous and rich as they are... you don't feel different or special when you are with similar friends who are as rich as you are.. you only feel different when you see a poor boy .. same ways for poor people .. they don't feel that they are poor in villages .. its only when they see the big cities and rich people that they feel different or poor..      i respectfully disagree with you here that's the case for all cases 



> 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...



well i keep that as a moto .. its normal to fall out sometimes like i did with the battery part but since i am not a believer i have no problem in discarding that stuff and accepting error on my part .. if tomorrow i find something that contradicts what i am saying now i would be happy to discard this as well but until that i am all into exploring this stuff more and not regard as non sense which i do with all those made up religious crap .. and thats why i repeatedly said i am not believing until i have the experience myself.. 

yes i can understand it and i agree most atheist are actually better in religious knowledge than those believers because they have explored it but since it wasn't logical for them they now have a grudge against that ( for conditioning them ) and rightly so because most of it isn't logical and not even a good fantasy and have too many contradictions ..

*i understand you might be time crunched in your busy schedule , but before you reply, i would really really really hope that you just go through this 1 video ( it will save time than googling up and researching 1 case at a time )*

*"Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?" by Bruce Greyson - YouTube*



whitestar_999 said:


> others can only give arguments based on work of others & clearly you don't have the advantage in that area(in your own words mainstream science outweigh fringe science).Science will never stay the same does not mean you can say everything science teaches today is wrong.[/b]



i never said mainstream outweighs fringe science or it is any superior .. science is a process ...

einstein relativity theory was a fringe science at first
so was quantum physics a fringe science at first and einstein comment "God does not play dice"
50 years from now what i am talking will be mainstream science ... because all evidence is leading that way 

well it does not mean everything that science teaches us today is wrong , .. but this "total materialistic view" will totally change, which has been changed a lot by quantum physics but still..


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 15, 2014)

Until   [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION] has some free time i will hold down the fort.


> no what whitestar99 said was totally invalid and *i refuted him with wikipedia quotes* .. i am not talking about brain death at all .. i am talking about clinical death .. there is a big difference and you can read up my subsequent post about it..


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.

*Since you seems to have no problem giving pseudo scientific statements let me give some too.What you call NDE/consciousness is actually an evolutionary process hard coded into our DNA which only comes into action in extreme cases of NDE/clinical experience.it is a survival instinct that prompts few surviving neurons to fire in a pattern most deeply ingrained in memory(aka loved ones) along with any input from sensory organs to keep themselves in a processing state(or to avoid going them into an idle/death state) & since all humans are basically same at DNA level that means all NDE experiences will have some similarities.You will now say that what about those who have their eyes closed then i say Gestalt psychology,meaning brain can construct a full scenario without necessarily having all components(or in other words it can assume very well based on incomplete info from sensory organs).Do note all of these terms are established main stream science but what i am saying is just speculation.Now compare it with yours statements of speculation based on non-mainstream science,need i say more.*

P.S.The difference between you & me is that i refuse to believe what you say but 50 years from now if someone make a machine to measure soul power(& certified by main stream science,fringe science if correct can be accepted by it like you said) i will not even take a second to switch over,you on the other hand will say the same things if 50 years from now no one has been able to make that machine(aka wait another 50 years).


----------



## ico (Nov 15, 2014)

rish said:


> 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


What you did is something detrimental to what forums stand for. Wrong thing to do actually. Misuse of the right to edit and delete.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 15, 2014)

I'll watch the video tomorrow when I have time, but I think the short answer is that you prefer magical explanations to boring logical ones. Here's a boring answer to a question you're asking:
Coral Castle Busted -- Interesting but not Anti-Gravity

Magic is so much more fun, but the fact is we have been tricking others for hundreds of thousands of years now, because we all love a show! Watching, or putting on one, it doesn't matter.


----------



## singleindian (Nov 15, 2014)

whitestar_999 said:


> Until   [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION] has some free time i will hold down the fort.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...



i wonder why so called people who experienced it see similar or same things such as they see their own body from a distance or floating in space ,thy see flashes of light.all similar.why can't go other places? u r out of ur body,u can go anywhr u want?

- - - Updated - - -



rish said:


> i never said mainstream outweighs fringe science or it is any superior .. science is a process ...
> 
> einstein relativity theory was a fringe science at first
> so was quantum physics a fringe science at first and einstein comment "God does not play dice"
> ...



relativity theory is a "fringe science",thts disgrace to the brilliant scientist .

- - - Updated - - -
 [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION],is this coral castle u talking about?

*www.livescience.com/41075-coral-castle.html


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 15, 2014)

flashes of light,press the edge of your eye(one near to nose) & you will instantly see a light flash near the opposite edge of eye(don't do it often).as for going anywhere part *read my pseudo scientific explanation again*,your own image is the most basic visual input available to process as it is a part of your "self" & given very limited amount of neuron processing power available this & white space seems to be the only available options.


----------



## singleindian (Nov 15, 2014)

World First As Message Sent From Brain To Brain

may be we will be able to communicate through brain signal.if this goes mainstream,i wonder wht the possibilities r? no mobile and computer in future.


----------



## rish1 (Nov 15, 2014)

whitestar_999 said:


> Until   [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION] has some free time i will hold down the fort.
> 
> 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.



i am not countering any scientific study.. what i am countering is your wrong understanding of the subject

you didn't get it what i was trying to say.. please understand

its like this ..
you have a laptop which is made up of several parts like cpu , motherboard , ram etc..

ok now you have a laptop that is switched on and working fine
when you switch  off the laptop their is no display on the screen and nothing is working right ?

this is clinical death .. now laptop has stopped working, it has stopped functioning .. there is no electrical current running into it.. 
watching a movie on this non functioning , powered off laptop is not possible 

But does that mean that the laptop is broken ? does that mean the CPu is broken , does that mean the ram is broken/dead ?  No.....

this is clinical death .. the functioning of the system as a whole has stopped, individual cells ( ram, cpu,gpu ) are still alive... if i power it on again it will start working again as a system and i can watch movie on it ... and hence resuscitation is powering on the system again..

When these individual cells ( ram , cpu , gpu ) start dying or are malfunctioned then it is not possible to turn on the system.. this is brain death

after certain minutes of switching off the system ( clinical death )   the individual parts starts malfunctioning and die .. like if you had 2 x 4gb ram previously now 1 x 4gb has gone dead and malfunctioned .. if you power on the system now it will start working again but with reduced capacity than before ( this is brain injury )

still powering on the system after 1 ram has gone dead, is still possible .. as time passes by more and more individual cells start dying ( ram , gpu , hard disk all start to malfunction 1 by 1 ).. until in the end it is not at all possible to power on the system again ... this is brain death 

Now what you and rabooo sir are saying that it might be that the brain is still functioning that is not detectable by our current technology .. it is possible

so it might be true that when you have switched off your laptop there is some current or static charge left in the circuitry of gpu , cpu etc...
but that small charge won't allow you to watch the movie and after you have 

so at clinical death ( system switched off ) these people are reporting seeing images and  hearing sounds and that too larger than life like experience meaning they are even more powerful than the most powerful dreams they have had ) like difference between a 360p video and a 4k video 

this would require way too much brain power  ... its not possible to have a 4k movie run with some low level electricity that is not even measurable ... it would require way too much power...

Now when i said rabooo sir point was not valid because...

in dreams/ illusions the whole system is functioning and is powered on  ... and hence it is able to create these movies ..

i hope you understood it..



> *Since you seems to have no problem giving pseudo scientific statements let me give some too.*


 

i have no problem if your theory is reasonable, even i would stick with that one , since you will be giving a more logical theory , until then i am stuck with mine sorry.. but your theory is even more illogical than mine...



> What you call NDE/consciousness is actually an evolutionary process hard coded into our DNA which only comes into action in extreme cases of NDE/clinical experience.it is a *survival instinct* that prompts few surviving neurons to fire in a pattern most deeply ingrained in memory(aka loved ones) along with any input from sensory organs to keep themselves in a processing state(or to avoid going them into an idle/death state) & since all humans are basically same at DNA level that means all NDE experiences will have some similarities.



Let me understand this are you saying consciousness is in DNA and comes into action in survival time ? 
survival instinct ? then how can people have the same experience while they are in Sleep , take drugs , some can do it at will as well ?  if a survival instinct it should be accompanied by fight or flight response.. yet people are much calm ... so survival instinct is hereby not logical  .. 

if it is a part of dna .. what about those people that  don't have the whole cerebral cortex (virtually no brain ) , and have only brain stem and yet they are perfectly conscious with normal intelligence... , if it was in Dna then the consciousness of these people would be severely affected.. 
 what about the cases  where those people who have had dementia for so long , surprisingly on their last day , they regained perfect consciousness ( not at the last moment ) became peaceful, talked with their relatives and then  died

this is not even placebo , because this patient didn't take any dug or placebo or did anything at all.. and i think even dna doesn't spontaneously changes like this..

 and if it is a survival instinct it should be accompanied with fight or flight response , fear etc.. yet people are perfectly calm in those cases induced by drugs and in sleep and will.. so survival instinct part goes out of window



> You will now say that what about those who have their eyes closed then i say Gestalt psychology,meaning brain can construct a full scenario without necessarily having all components(or in other words it can assume very well based on incomplete info from sensory organs).Do note all of these terms are established main stream science but what i am saying is just speculation.Now compare it with yours statements of speculation based on non-mainstream science,need i say more.[/b]



yes you need to say more i have doubts regarding this explanation

sorry gestalt psychology needs a high functioning brain as well , if it accesses memory, constructs great visuals and sounds, and makes meaning out of those scenery it should light up in brain as well but it doesn't ..

had you watched the video i gave you to watch , you would yourself had discarded this dna + gestalt theory.. 




> P.S.The difference between you & me is that i refuse to believe what you say but 50 years from now if someone make a machine to measure soul power(& certified by main stream science,fringe science if correct can be accepted by it like you said) i will not even take a second to switch over,you on the other hand will say the same things if 50 years from now no one has been able to make that machine(aka wait another 50 years).



i have no problem , like i said before i am not convincing you at all .. 
but really the machine part disappointed me a lot since i had already given these links in my previous posts .. maybe you didn't read .. please atleast read what i am saying if you want to have a discussion here i'll post it again for you

Chi Life Force Energy - Wilhelm Reich ****** MUST SEE ****** - YouTube

WILHELM REICH'S BION-BIOGENESIS DISCOVERIES - EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION - YouTube



> In December 1940 Reich wrote to Albert Einstein saying he had a scientific discovery he wanted to discuss, and in January 1941 visited Einstein at his home in Princeton, where they talked for nearly five hours. He told Einstein that he had discovered a "specific biologically effective energy which behaves in many respects differently to all that is known about electromagnetic energy." He said it could be used against disease, and as a weapon "in the fight against the Fascist pestilence." (Einstein had signed a letter to President Roosevelt in August 1939 to warn of the danger of Nazi Germany building an atom bomb, and had urged the United States to set up its own research project.) Einstein agreed that if an object's temperature could be raised without an apparent heating source, as Reich was suggesting, it would be "a bomb."[96]
> 
> Reich was much encouraged by the meeting and hoped he would be invited to join Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study.[96] During their next meeting he gave Einstein a small accumulator, and over the next 10 days Einstein performed experiments with it in his basement, which involved taking the temperature above, inside and near the device, and stripping it down to its Faraday cage to compare temperatures. He observed a rise in temperature, which Reich argued was caused by orgone.[97] One of Einstein's assistants pointed out that the temperature was lower on the floor than on the ceiling.[98] Einstein concluded that the effect was simply due to the temperature gradient inside the room. "Through these experiments I regard the matter as completely solved," he wrote to Reich on 7 February 1941.[99]
> 
> Reich responded with a 25-page letter in which he tried to change Einstein's mind.[100] To rule out the influence of convection he told Einstein he had introduced a horizontal plate above the accumulator, wrapped it in a blanket, suspended it freely in the room, buried it underground and placed it outside. He wrote that in all these circumstances the temperature difference remained, and was in fact more marked in the open air.[101] Einstein did not respond to this or to Reich's future correspondence – Reich would write regularly reporting the results of his experiments – until Reich threatened three years later to publish their previous exchange. Einstein replied that he could not devote any further time to the matter and asked that his name not be misused for advertising purposes. Reich believed that Einstein's change of heart was part of a conspiracy of some kind, perhaps related to the communists, or prompted by the rumours that Reich was ill. Reich published the correspondence in 1953 as The Einstein Affair




See we are already 70 years Behind ( if his devices work ) ... this man did wonders for us to even built experimental devices to measure this soul power or energy whatever it is..  but yet he was back-lashed in that time period ,  watch the documentary first ... its really a sad tale.. 

*now i am not an electrical engineer and don't know much about electronics but can anybody explain is it possible to have any fake electrical device made up that can change readings on the needle when in contact with different objects, and have different readings for different objects  ? *

An introduction to Measuring Orgone Energy - YouTube

*I AM 100 % doubtful about this device and awaiting answer --  , totally clueless about this  *

- - - Updated - - -



singleindian said:


> i wonder why so called people who experienced it see similar or same things such as they see their own body from a distance or floating in space ,thy see flashes of light.all similar.why can't go other places? u r out of ur body,u can go anywhr u want?



good question i don't know ask them..



> relativity theory is a "fringe science",thts disgrace to the brilliant scientist .



did you even read the whole sentence you quoted ? .. didn't you read the part* "AT FIRST"*



> [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION],is this coral castle u talking about?
> 
> Mystery of the Coral Castle Explained



yes but there were valid complaints against that book which you can find in the comments as well.. and that offers no explanation at all.. 
all the guy of the book is saying he did it with hard work .. cashing on the name of that coral castle .. 

the door of the coral castle broke .. and the repair crew couldn't even fix it properly with new tech.. they fixed it but it does not work as good as it used to be earlier... let alone building a whole castle. ..


----------



## singleindian (Nov 15, 2014)

Not relating to this,people blindly take religion and natural medicine like ayurveda and chinese medicine that it will cure any disease

Eg: one of my relative who had joint pain went for ayurveda treatment inspite of everyone telling her to go to bone and joint hospital for treatment.her pain in joint remained the same.she thn went to chinese thing and some treatment with clay or mud.thn pain got worse,finally she went to hospital,thn thy found out was she have cancer and the chinese treatment whr thy inserted small metal rods caused serious damage and her leg is amputed and she is now in last stage of cancer.the doctors said had she came early all this wouldn't happen


----------



## rish1 (Nov 15, 2014)

Raaabo said:


> I'll watch the video tomorrow when I have time, but I think the short answer is that you prefer magical explanations to boring logical ones. Here's a boring answer to a question you're asking:
> Coral Castle Busted -- Interesting but not Anti-Gravity



you wouldn't have posted had you read the article or comments of that article , please read yourself,  i read it long ago .. you are doing the same mistake here i did with Baghdad battery .. 

and besides i don't prefer magical explanation at all .. it was his words.. "I understand the laws of weight and leverage and I know the secrets of the people who built the pyramids (being those at the site at Giza in Egypt)"

its his claim not mine .. 

 and he rolled out 4 papers on magnetism and electricity as well showing how the  standard model of electromagnetism was wrong..



> Magic is so much more fun, but the fact is we have been tricking others for hundreds of thousands of years now, because we all love a show! Watching, or putting on one, it doesn't matter.



magic is something we don't understand yet.. science is something we understand.. your PC/mobile is no less than Magic.. go back 200 years ago with that mobile or PC 
and people there will consider you an alien with magical stuff...  

everything is science.... imagine in future what could be the implications of orgone energy ( if true )... please watch that reich documentary first as well..

everyone lets not resort to personal attacks here ..


----------



## whitestar_999 (Nov 16, 2014)

> ok now you have a laptop that is switched on and working fine
> when you switch off the laptop their is no display on the screen and nothing is working right ?
> this is clinical death .. now laptop has stopped working, it has stopped functioning .. there is no electrical current running into it..
> watching a movie on this non functioning , powered off laptop is not possible


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.



> so at clinical death ( system switched off ) these people are reporting seeing images and hearing sounds and that too larger than life like experience meaning they are even more powerful than the most powerful dreams they have had ) like difference between a 360p video and a 4k video


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?



> how can people have the same experience while they are in Sleep , take drugs , some can do it at will as well


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.



> if it is a part of dna .. what about those people that don't have the whole cerebral cortex (virtually no brain ) , and have only brain stem and yet they are perfectly conscious with normal intelligence... , if it was in Dna then the consciousness of these people would be severely affected..


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.



> See we are already 70 years Behind ( if his devices work ) ... this man did wonders for us to even built experimental devices to measure this soul power or energy whatever it is.. but yet he was back-lashed in that time period , watch the documentary first ... its really a sad tale..


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 with that mobile or PC and people there will consider you an alien with magical stuff...


go back 200 years ago & you would still find people claiming to possess telepathy & soul power.

This is clearly pointless so no more stretching it from my side.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 16, 2014)

Mystery of the Coral Castle Explained

The Mysterious Coral Castle: A Fanciful Myth

See a pattern? This is obviously a tool to argue and try and put skeptics and logicians in their place, and thus an army of believers will attack any article about it. An election was Just won using those very techniques...  

The problem with science today is that no one wants to do any work that isn't funded. And getting the results that are expected are important to keep said funding going. 

It's easier for what you call mainstream science, because expectations are less wacky. The LHC can go years without finding anything, because so many have invested in it. 

That video you posted earlier, made me laugh a little at the beginning. I haven't seen the whole thing just the first 2 points, and I already caught him lying. Well, not lying, but definitely concealing the truth. He makes it sound like the girl with the missing cerebellum was just another normal human, when searching for it shows that about 8/9 cases of people without that have been found, all of them show varying levels of mental problems, and physical disabilities - needing support to walk, etc. But they are functional human beings, yes, they can understand languages, but have problem pronouncing etc. So yes. It's almost miraculous that their brains, as they developed from babies, were able to pick up some functions of the missing part, but it wasn't just a regular college girl who no one could tell apart from anyone else.. the way its described in that Video... 

Half truths are as good as lies. If he'd have shown her picture and shown a clip of her talking everyone wouldn't be as moved or startled, and it wouldn't be as good a "show". 

The problem is that when you're the head of a department that is doing studies in NDE and fringe stuff, you HAVE to find something soon, or else funding will get cut... this may not be what's happening here, and perhaps everything is genuine, but knowing human nature and seeing small clues like how something is presented... you should get the idea. 

Did you read the other NDE study that happened? The one you pointed to earlier? Of all 2060/whatever people, ONE, and Only ONE seemed a "credible" source, because he heard a machine that makes a noise only once every 3 minutes after his heart stopped. It didn't say that there were many pictures and things placed in the room specifically out of the view of the patient, like high on a shelf to see if the "out of body" typical looking down at yourself experience could spot those weird pictures that can only be seen from a height in the room... and nothing. Not one patient saw that... including the ones who claimed out of body experiences, not one actually passed their own test... so this hearing of a sound was just one person and it wasn't even what they were testing for... its like saying I'm looking for good Doctors but hey, i'll hire a fast food delivery boy while I'm waiting... 

Not only that, if you dig further, there is some confusion. Some people say that the same person who was used in a previous study is the one who is the only positive in this study. But the problem is he is interviewed a year later, or something, and that means 
There's bound to be dilution of the truth, and he may have visited a hospital several times later and heard that machine beep, and have clouded mixed memories. Ideally you interview them as soon as they wake up, and not a year later... 

Just saying, approach all such things as a skeptic just to be safe. 

Do that with Coral Castle, what's more likely, that it's a hoax that's used to wow everyday Americans, but isn't worth the trouble of debunking by real scientists. Who cannot demand to debunk either, since it's not government owned property. 

Or

Some guy who says, HIMSELF, in his notes about what he did and how he used pulleys is LYING, and the urban legend of him being able to levitate stones is true... because that's what is the better show...


----------



## Faun (Nov 16, 2014)

rish said:


> and he rolled out 4 papers on magnetism and electricity as well showing how the  standard model of electromagnetism was wrong..



Don't you think in this age of internet and cut throat competition in scientific communities it will be much easier for him to prove it on a global scale and get the nobel prize ? I am assuming that there are scientists on opposing side of standard model of electromagnetism. It's just that they need more convincing proof. And if the proof is not substantial then it equates to nothing more that just rolled out piece of 4 papers.

I know that you will probably not waver from your stance. Not when you are on defensive mode. May be one day on your own will, you will.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 17, 2014)

I missed out on reading the bits about people getting better before dying. Sorry, been busy and sick.

It's actually more common than you think. The problem is (again a huge complaint about science today), the psychologist is an "expert" only in psychology, and thus dare not make any statements out of his realm. Plus he doesn't want to share honours with anyone else, and certainly not a physician or surgeon, etc. So he won't ask them for advice or help. Plus his paper has to be vetted by other psychiatrists and not a general board of varied medical skills personnel.  

Thus his explanation is ONLY psychiatry based. Now if he happens to also be paid to find wacky things, then he will come up with a theory that the brain is imperfect, and towards death, the "consciousness" tells the brain to F.O. And takes things into its own hands and shows up with crystal clear memories. See. Here's an alzheimers patient who got better just before dying to prove it... 

OK, great. But is consciousness also in my kidneys? People suffering from all sorts of ailments such as final stage cancer, AIDS, and even Swine Flu, get better before they die. Not everyone, but it's common. And for many illnesses. So the consciousness awakens a person's kidney. And makes it function better? Now what about a cat? My cat passed away from kidney disease  in June, and she got better before she died too... what cosmic magic caused that? She was mentally the same cat throughout, only her physical activity levels indicated getting worse or better. 

Someone suggested a last ditch effort of the body to try and survive.. isn't that more probable than cosmic vibrations of magical auras? Maybe it's the body giving up... laying down its arms. WBCs and other defense mechanisms stopping the fighting. When wars are won in real life, there is peace, almost a kind of serenity. People emerge onto the streets again, there's no bombing or gunfire, it's quiet, but someone has won and it could be an invading power, and you could be slaves, but for now, it's peaceful...


----------



## rish1 (Nov 17, 2014)

Raaabo said:


> Mystery of the Coral Castle Explained
> 
> The Mysterious Coral Castle: A Fanciful Myth
> 
> See a pattern? This is obviously a tool to argue and try and put skeptics and logicians in their place, and thus an army of believers will attack any article about it. An election was Just won using those very techniques...



did you read the article and the comments below it ? someone already posted this link earlier ... i have been through all these articles already quite long ago 
after reading these articles itself i came to conclusion it remains unexplained till now... before this i used to think it was a hoax already solved ..



> Some guy who says, HIMSELF, in his notes about what he did and how he used pulleys is LYING, and the urban legend of him being able to levitate stones is true... because that's what is the better show...



you are mistaking the facts here ? he never explained how he did it .. and only gave clues ... that notes/book is not written by himself , it is written by his friend.. and its his description how he might have done it.. edward never told anyone 
use of pulleys is no secret it has been photographed .. its not without a reason those levitation theory exist .. he believed all matter is  magnet as mentioned in his paper .. if you assume thats true and you know how to change the polarity of those magnets inside the rocks , it will automatically repeal  from the ground as if levitating, or atleast make stones lighter enough to be able to allow it to move .. plus there were some eyewitness that saw levitating stones ( which amounts to nothing ) well thats the theory , whether true or not who knows until someone figures it out..




> The problem with science today is that no one wants to do any work that isn't funded. And getting the results that are expected are important to keep said funding going.
> 
> It's easier for what you call mainstream science, because expectations are less wacky. The LHC can go years without finding anything, because so many have invested in it.



yes that's very true , some of the researchers might skew or make up the data to get more funding ..


> That video you posted earlier, made me laugh a little at the beginning. I haven't seen the whole thing just the first 2 points, and I already caught him lying. Well, not lying, but definitely concealing the truth. He makes it sound like the girl with the missing cerebellum was just another normal human, when searching for it shows that about 8/9 cases of people without that have been found, all of them show varying levels of mental problems, and physical disabilities - needing support to walk, etc. But they are functional human beings, yes, they can understand languages, but have problem pronouncing etc. So yes. It's almost miraculous that their brains, as they developed from babies, were able to pick up some functions of the missing part, but it wasn't just a regular college girl who no one could tell apart from anyone else.. the way its described in that Video...



cerebellum ? He never talks about cerebellum

of course these are rare cases as he mentions beforehand

1st is of a girl without Cerebral cortex - is a high school Honors Student who was accepted in  College  .. and was in the hospital due to an automobile accident she had.. 



> The cerebral cortex plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness.



Cerebral cortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see the importance of cerebral cortex .. 




> Half truths are as good as lies. If he'd have shown her picture and shown a clip of her talking everyone wouldn't be as moved or startled, and it wouldn't be as good a "show".



how was she able to even get to college is a mystery.. 


> The problem is that when you're the head of a department that is doing studies in NDE and fringe stuff, you HAVE to find something soon, or else funding will get cut... this may not be what's happening here, and perhaps everything is genuine, but knowing human nature and seeing small clues like how something is presented... you should get the idea.



i 100 % agree with you on this , and i won't be surprised if he was maybe manipulating the data .. this is human nature .. under pressure one looks for various means to achieve the task .. ..  maybe he might have 4-5 genuine cases mixed with 4-5 made up exaggerated cases maybe not , but at least this wasn't in *these[b/] cases ..





			Did you read the other NDE study that happened? The one you pointed to earlier? Of all 2060/whatever people, ONE, and Only ONE seemed a "credible" source, because he heard a machine that makes a noise only once every 3 minutes after his heart stopped. It didn't say that there were many pictures and things placed in the room specifically out of the view of the patient, like high on a shelf to see if the "out of body" typical looking down at yourself experience could spot those weird pictures that can only be seen from a height in the room... and nothing. Not one patient saw that... including the ones who claimed out of body experiences, not one actually passed their own test... so this hearing of a sound was just one person and it wasn't even what they were testing for... its like saying I'm looking for good Doctors but hey, i'll hire a fast food delivery boy while I'm waiting...

Not only that, if you dig further, there is some confusion. Some people say that the same person who was used in a previous study is the one who is the only positive in this study. But the problem is he is interviewed a year later, or something, and that means 
There's bound to be dilution of the truth, and he may have visited a hospital several times later and heard that machine beep, and have clouded mixed memories. Ideally you interview them as soon as they wake up, and not a year later...
		
Click to expand...


ok i have read the discussions on both side that has happened after the study has conducted.. 

first out of 2000 only 146 patients survived .. and out of those 146 around 45% had some awareness , and out of those 45 % only some were able to remember the experience
second the experiment that you were talking about regarding objective verification, that experiment was not set up in this case... so this wasn't there

there were 2 cases who had visual and auditory collection during this time period ..  only 1 was objectively verifiable there.. 

in addition to the auditory part , he was able to describe a doctors face who was bald and behind curtain  , and instantly recognized when he met him the next day..

now the part where it gets doubtful is the interview happened after 1 year... this does not makes the case fake .. because in previous studies it has been shown that memories related to NDE has much less chance of getting distorted or subject to change in 7 or 8 years than normal dreams and memories.. this was still 1 year..  
the more intense the experience is the harder it is for someone to forget it or distort it ( ofcourse it can still be done).. and NDE experience being the most alive a person can ever have , its less likely..
this patient was not the one from the previous study 
but but but  i think it looses that full proof objectiveness that science demands , and i think this is the part where this case gets weakened due to time gap .. i guess we will have to wait for the second round of this study to either prove or disprove it..




			Just saying, approach all such things as a skeptic just to be safe.
Do that with Coral Castle, what's more likely, that it's a hoax that's used to wow everyday Americans, but isn't worth the trouble of debunking by real scientists. Who cannot demand to debunk either, since it's not government owned property.
		
Click to expand...


i approached it with skepticism only that's why i considered it as a hoax at first ...  but when i read those 2 articles explanation long ago along with some of the crazy youtube theories and there was none other i came to conclusion it doesn't explain much at all.. which you should be having the same conclusion as well.. at best you can say it remains unresolved if you don't want to accept his own clues and his theory on magnets and electricity ... if i was a magic believer i would have said that he did it with mumbo jumbo superpowers.. but i resorted to the explanation and clues given by him .. and like i have repeatedly said that i am sticking to that explanation only because there is none other..  

many have tried explaining but none have succeeded.. even if it is not a government property , its open to general public.. how hard it would be to have a visit by 2-3 scientists observe it as it is fully open to observation and end this mystery once and for all , and if they explain this then they can explain pyramids of giza as well ?  and yes they have visited the place , researchers, engineers, scientists , even government i think that is why they have the data regarding how much the weight is in it of individual stones and weight of whole castle.. ..  i seriously doubt it that castle was built for wowing people or earning money at all, he says he built it for his long lost love " sweet sixteen".. like taj mahal type love story.. 
there are youtubers replicating his stuff 1 device he used was an old perpetual motion holder this one ,

Ed's flywheel - YouTube

its only now that these guys are able to create these perpetual motion holder and are duplicating his work.. 

Emery Version - Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder - KeelyNet 06/05/03

- - - Updated - - -



Faun said:



			Don't you think in this age of internet and cut throat competition in scientific communities it will be much easier for him to prove it on a global scale and get the nobel prize ? I am assuming that there are scientists on opposing side of standard model of electromagnetism. It's just that they need more convincing proof. And if the proof is not substantial then it equates to nothing more that just rolled out piece of 4 papers.
		
Click to expand...


he died around 50-60 years ago..   but he has this coral castle built , and his perpetual motion holder being replicated  today by others doesn't that lends a bit credibility to him ? people are digging into his stuff whatever clues he gave.. 



			I know that you will probably not waver from your stance. Not when you are on defensive mode. May be one day on your own will, you will.
		
Click to expand...


why won't i waver from my stance ? maybe you didn't read all of my previous posts i always mentioned even though i am writing this stuff i don't believe in it until i get further proof ..  

i do recognize the possibility of this stuff being all wrong is far greater than being right .. and i know i might be dead wrong , i am just keeping an open mind as an outsider.. 

wrong/right doesn't matter reaching conclusion myself after researching every bit into it , does .. in the process i would have learned so much stuff, which otherwise i would have ignored .. 

P.s- looks like this discussion will never end like this... we will have to wait for some better objective proofs either to prove or disprove it..*


----------



## ico (Nov 17, 2014)

Woman born without a cerebellum baffles doctors | CTV News

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors - health - 20 July 2007 - New Scientist

Just tells you how great organic machines are and how adaptable the brain is.



rish said:


> why won't i waver from my stance ? maybe you didn't read all of my previous posts


who can read when you deleted it?


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 17, 2014)

Did anyone find a link other than a video of claims about a woman without a cerebral cortex, and functioning totally normally? Like scans of her brain and case study? I would think it'd be an I'm feeling lucky link... [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] could you point us to that link of a scientific site that covers such a sensational story?


----------



## Anorion (Nov 17, 2014)

She had broken motor control throughout her life


----------



## ico (Nov 17, 2014)

Posted wrong link in morning by mistake. (2nd link)


----------



## Anorion (Nov 17, 2014)

Oh found the link. She had problems. 



> The woman told doctors that she had had problems walking steadily for most of her life. Her mother reported the woman hadn't been able to stand without assistance until she was four, hadn't learned to walk until she was 7, and had never learned to run or jump. It has also been impossible to understand her speech until she was about six.
> 
> Read more: Woman born without a cerebellum baffles doctors | CTV News


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 17, 2014)

Also, [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] it's interesting. I had heard of Coral Castle, but not this perpetual motion thing. Of course I prefer videos over some text claiming it's being done... but the basic difference is in approach. 

I am not at all opposed to finding out that science as we know it today is wrong. In fact the thrill is to find something new and undiscovered. 

When I come across something unexplained, I prefer to explain it through logic and current science. If that fails or the information is insufficient, then a leap is required, and it's better to take a small logical leap rather than a large faith based one. 

For example, most videos about Coral Castle are for TV or preying on the "Believe it or not" type intrigue. Like I said before, it's far more entertaining to be wowed and think magic, than it is to accept a boring answer. When you make a TV show, you want entertaining not boring. People don't watch lectures, they like intrigue and wild speculation. 

It stands to reason then, that most of what you'd find is over the top. 

Even that revolving door. Of course it didn't work as well... it  was repaired. Almost nothing works as good as new after being repaired. No one ever asked for a NEW door to be made using a new coral stone, they just wanted the old one repaired. The wear and tear that caused the breakdown and damages done when it was still used while breaking down mean that it was not ideal to begin with, why and how would workmen fix a stone? They just attached new metal parts to replace the old one, which they may have had to improvise in because the exact old part would probably not be available... this is what I mean by being a skeptic. First reaction is to use known science and logic to explain something rather than dive into fiction / theories first. 

Maybe you have done that already, or maybe you haven't. However the guy himself said he used levers and pulleys. And even allowed himself to be photographed with them. What he didn't allow was people to see him cut stone ever. Or to make the final move. It's breathtaking the devotion he had for this, there's no denying that, and serious respect is deserved just for that. 

There's suppositions that he considered gravity to be a magnetic force, and even some linking it to stone henge, the pyramids and the vatican, suggesting that this is all christian in some way... how possible is that to you? It's about as big a leap of faith believing that as it is to believe in "chi".

As an aside, ever wondered why only older stories of a time gone by are the mysteries? Where are the mysteries from 20 years ago?


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 17, 2014)

singleindian said:


> i wonder why so called people who experienced it see similar or same things such as they see their own body from a distance or floating in space ,thy see flashes of light.all similar.why can't go other places? u r out of ur body,u can go anywhr u want?


you arent "out of your body". thats why all these things are false.



singleindian said:


> relativity theory is a "fringe science",thts disgrace to the brilliant scientist .



relativity is a solid, respected field of study. kindly stop posting wrong information. i'd post the proof right now, but i prefer you to dig yourself a deeper hole.

*EDIT *: I went back and re-read the original post. Please accept my apologies, since I made a mistake in reading what was intended. I'll leave this here un-edited to warn other people of the danger of posting before reading the whole damn post. Keep calm and carry on.


----------



## rish1 (Nov 17, 2014)

Raaabo said:


> Also, [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] it's interesting. I had heard of Coral Castle, but not this perpetual motion thing. Of course I prefer videos over some text claiming it's being done... but the basic difference is in approach.



here it is 
Scorch's Replication of Ed Leedskalnin's Perpetual Motion Holder - YouTube

and you can find similar replications done by others as well... just search it on youtube .. some comments i have seen referring to different concepts why this works but i am not sure that explains it .. remember before 2003 nobody was able to replicate this device  ..  and this was done by ed in 1940s .. maybe new theories have come up since 1940 that explains it .. but in his time thing like this was not possible .. so that gives him enough credibility.. 

and this is only a part of the puzzle .. as you can read these guys are now making other big devices as said by ed 

here are some of his theories 

LEEDSKALNIN.COM: MAGNETIC CURRENT RESEARCH



> I am not at all opposed to finding out that science as we know it today is wrong. In fact the thrill is to find something new and undiscovered.



yes definitely same thing here ..



> When I come across something unexplained, I prefer to explain it through logic and current science. If that fails or the information is insufficient, then a leap is required, and it's better to take a small logical leap rather than a large faith based one.



same here .. but i am not talking about faith based one .. its a very valid theory and explanation given by him 


> For example, most videos about Coral Castle are for TV or preying on the "Believe it or not" type intrigue. Like I said before, it's far more entertaining to be wowed and think magic, than it is to accept a boring answer. When you make a TV show, you want entertaining not boring. People don't watch lectures, they like intrigue and wild speculation.
> 
> It stands to reason then, that most of what you'd find is over the top.



yes i agree , most of these youtubers , tv shows will use it to wow people .. take for example that christian vatican crap theory, that is why i am sticking to his theory of magnets and electricity


> Even that revolving door. Of course it didn't work as well... it  was repaired. Almost nothing works as good as new after being repaired. No one ever asked for a NEW door to be made using a new coral stone, they just wanted the old one repaired. The wear and tear that caused the breakdown and damages done when it was still used while breaking down mean that it was not ideal to begin with, why and how would workmen fix a stone? They just attached new metal parts to replace the old one, which they may have had to improvise in because the exact old part would probably not be available... this is what I mean by being a skeptic. First reaction is to use known science and logic to explain something rather than dive into fiction / theories first.



the mysterious part about that door is that it weighs way too much and is too heavy.. and when it was working fine originally..

only a *slight finger push* was able to move that door very smoothly .. this indicates like a perfect balance of weight .. 


> Maybe you have done that already, or maybe you haven't. However the guy himself said he used levers and pulleys. And even allowed himself to be photographed with them. What he didn't allow was people to see him cut stone ever. Or to make the final move. It's breathtaking the devotion he had for this, there's no denying that, and serious respect is deserved just for that.



yes he himself said that but that was only a part of the puzzle .. here is the pic

*ancientaliensdebunked.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Castle_Tripod4-221x300.jpg

see the weight of the man how thin he is , he alone sighleandedly lifting and carving and placing those 20-30 ton stones through these pulleys *alone * is impossible , it takes crains to lift these heavy rocks.. and if it was that simple why would he be all secretive about it ? the main part happened at night .. moving and placing those stones in perfect harmony , and remember there is no cement or mortar or adhesive used to hold that castle ..


the craftsmanship detail is so skillful and the stones are connected with such precision that no light passes through the joints. 

and there was Category 5 hurricane in 1992 that caused major damage to  most of south florida 

Hurricane Andrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and not even 1 rock of this castle moved .. this is not just simple placement.. same is with pyramids of giza,  .. that is why they are standing erect today despite going through so many calamities .. shape of that pyramid helps  but there is definitely more to that..



> There's suppositions that he considered gravity to be a magnetic force, and even some linking it to stone henge, the pyramids and the vatican, suggesting that this is all christian in some way... how possible is that to you? It's about as big a leap of faith believing that as it is to believe in "chi".



i don't know about Stonehenges because i think alternatively that is explainable by wallington method.. as it is a simple structure

but it is definitely related to pyramids of giza .. he said it himself

"I understand the laws of weight and leverage and *I know the secrets of the people who built the pyramids (being those at the site at Giza in Egypt)"*

"I have discovered the secrets of the pyramids. I have found out how the Egyptians and the ancient builders in Peru, Yucatan, and Asia, with only primitive tools, raised and set in place blocks of stone weighing many tons"

and the famous mystery .. how he was able to move that castle to a different location.. even the truck driver,who's truck was used to shift those stones to another place was never allowed to see how edward was able to load  those heavy blocks of stones on trucks single handedly and later unload those stones ..  the truck driver was asked to go away.. 


> As an aside, ever wondered why only older stories of a time gone by are the mysteries? Where are the mysteries from 20 years ago?



coral castle was a mystery when it was building , when it was open for public , and when it was completed and has remained the same since then...
as it has been reported that government and scientist visited edward on explanations how he have done it but he did not tell anyone .. and left clues like some numbers

there is far more to this castle and pyramids of giza than simple explanations otherwise it would have already been replicated till now.. in the end it will have a simple explanation just like all science but it won't be explainable by our current understanding of laws..


----------



## doomgiver (Nov 17, 2014)

1. Yes, EVERYTHING has magnetism, its called Magnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia magnetism. Nothing "magic" about it.

2. That block and tackle can lift weights of ~20-30 TONS easily if made of metal. Wooden ones can lift around ~3-9 tons depending on wood, height, bracing and angle of the beams. source : dad has construction engineering experience.

3. No scientist has studied the Coral Castle. Its said right there in the article. 144 is square of 12. Do you wanna know why those things arent replicated in full? Its time consuming. People have INDIVIDUALLY proven how to move/lift/position/dress the stone, and yet you keep complaining that nobody has replicated? You'd have to be CRAZY to redo all that stuff, when you KNOW that you COULD do it (because the methods to do it have already been established).

This is called "not re-inventing the wheel".

I left this discussion because you were hell-bent on spouting nonsense like this. It actually hurts the discussion to keep sticking to a bad point, even though we've given ample evidence against it.

4. that guy who said "i know secrets" : he didnt tell anyone. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA. so, nobody knows if he;s right or wrong. and he took the secret to his grave. nobody benefited. this tells us that he didnt have jack **** to show. lies. all lies.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 17, 2014)

Now now doomgiver, have patience. I know in the fight club this is allowed, but exasperation (what you're displaying) often looks like frustration borne of losing an argument, and only prolongs things even further.
 [MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] if you believe in perpetual machines that youtubers can make but scientists refuse to, at the cost of a Nobel prize and world wide acclaim, then that's cool, it's your belief. There are people who believe the universe is 6000 years old, so be it. 

However you really have to let go of this "replicated" argument. No one wants to replicate the pyramids, nor do they want to Coral Castle. It's like saying, "In the olden days, Ram walked from Ayodhya to Lanka, why can't you walk 30 km to work?" 

You can, you just don't want to. Maybe you can't. I know I can't walk 30 KM! But that's not to say no one can, it's just not worth the effort. To prove what? That it's possible? 

Your argument is like saying if someone walked 6000 km in 20 years he was superhuman, and the proof of that is that no one else has walked 6000 km since! Only recently someone walked 1000 km in 1 year, and thus only now are we beginning to understand the magic... The truth, usually, is that people have better things to do than walk 6000 km. that's all.


----------



## rish1 (Nov 18, 2014)

i am not saying its only youtubers only that can make it.. these are being researched by scientists and ,professors in universities... (
its an interesting effect that needs to be addressed , at best all it does is raises some questions on electromagnetics..
but that alone cannot do anything
the explanation given by edward why this happens will be rejected by any scientist as it is totally different  than what is currently believed and it makes extraordinary claims.. he totally discards standard model 
and in order to prove his theories , one would require a far greater experiment .. and hence   nobody has been able to come up with 1 yet.. research is on .. someone will figure it out eventually ..



i understand your point regarding replication , by replication i didn't mean build a castle or a pyramid ..by replication i mean give a decent theory how he did it using primitive tools addressing all questions.. and demonstrate it by showing a piece of it experimentally
if this gets explained , pyramids will be explained automatically .. and as you might know researchers are still figuring how they did it... that is why there was that article of researchers find out using water under stones can make it move easily, and they showed a piece as a sample .. simply explain like this all questions related to it. 
thats how things are explained..

you don't have to walk 6000 kms in 20 years to show that yes you can .. you only have to walk a few kms in some fixed time taking reasonable assumptions and all variables in mind, to show how it can be done..

regarding that girls case .. i tried to search it but couldn't find any link on it.. so this wasn't covered anywhere in news.. might be in medical journal or could be a cooked up case as well.. the maths honors, boy's case which had a 126 IQ is here

*www.rifters.com/real/articles/Science_No-Brain.pdf 

nothing much conclusive here.. i think we will have to wait for a much better objectively verifiable case by AWARE study to prove or disprove .. till then i think its pointless to discuss it further ... till then it remains in the realm of anecdotes..
anyways thanks everybody for having a discussion..  bye


----------



## snap (Nov 18, 2014)

I thought it was common knowledge that pyramid was built with the use of thousands of slaves. Those history channel and 'what if's' shows are really giving some crazy beliefs to people :\


----------



## Hrishi (Nov 18, 2014)

ideally , how much time it should take to go through this page and understand everything said ? :cough: :cough: , or maybe I should just skip it....never mind.


----------



## Raaabo (Nov 18, 2014)

> the explanation given by edward why this happens will be rejected by any scientist as it is totally different than what is currently believed and it makes extraordinary claims.. he totally discards standard model
> and in order to prove his theories , one would require a far greater experiment .. and hence nobody has been able to come up with 1 yet.. research is on .. someone will figure it out eventually ..



Or, science has answered, and the person who even met Einstein and was rejected was just wrong. Science has given the explanations, the people who "believe" in EDL just don't want to listen, expecting an answer to "how could he levitate", and not believing that "He didn't levitate anything, those are school boys with active imaginations playing a prank and making up lies". Since when are schoolboys considered trustworthy witnesses? If schoolboys say they were out walking and were told by Jesus that the world should convert to Born Again Christians, or be prepared to burn in hell, even the Catholics wouldn't believe them...  but about Coral Castle, everyone suddenly thinks schoolboys are reliable as steel?






> i understand your point regarding replication , by replication i didn't mean build a castle or a pyramid ..by replication i mean give a decent theory how he did it using primitive tools addressing all questions.. and demonstrate it by showing a piece of it experimentally
> if this gets explained , pyramids will be explained automatically .. and as you might know researchers are still figuring how they did it... that is why there was that article of researchers find out using water under stones can make it move easily, and they showed a piece as a sample .. simply explain like this all questions related to it.
> thats how things are explained..



Egyptian pyramid construction techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hate quoting wikipedia because the assumption is always that everyone has already read what's on there and needs more info. However, if you read that you will see that the pyramids have already been explained. Not just theory, but practical tests, and with fewer people than is depicted in the egyptian paintings themselves... I mean they told us how, in pictures, inside the very pyramids we wonder about... we still can't believe it?

So, they've shown it for the pyramids, and they've said apply the same logic for everything like this. For coral castle they've said it's using pulleys and loads of spare time and determination, and yes, intricate knowledge of stone work, and even the man who built it said the same... why is it hard to believe then?





> you don't have to walk 6000 kms in 20 years to show that yes you can .. you only have to walk a few kms in some fixed time taking reasonable assumptions and all variables in mind, to show how it can be done..



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. 

Fact: No one could prove that he worked alone (He worked at night, he might have had an army, or 7 dwarves, or friends helping him, maybe the butler did it? And, yes maybe he worked alone.)

Fact: No one can prove that he could levitate stones (burden of proof lies with the maker of a fantastic claim) 
Levitate a pebble, and I will believe you can levitate a 4 ton stone. Otherwise it's party tricks, like magicians who hide how they do things. He met Einstein... he hungered for validation. Do you honestly believe if he could levitate 5 ton stones he wouldn't levitate them for Einstein and say "HAH! E= humble pie, explain this!"? Instead he'd take some weird metal thing that temperatures fluctuated very mildly with?

Think logically please... if he couldn't  display to Eistein (he himself wrote about not being accepted and trying again and again to contact Einstein with no luck), also didn't on his deathbed reveal his secret to anyone (except admit it was pulleys and levers), thus he didn't use levitation for the stones.

So searching for chi forces to levitate 5 ton stones is already out. He didn't. Some boys made it up as a fantastic tale, which he never denied.

If you start a rumour that I have superhuman powers, I'm not so sure I'd want to end that speculation either. I might quite enjoy the attention and mystique. 





> regarding that girls case .. i tried to search it but couldn't find any link on it.. so this wasn't covered anywhere in news.. might be in medical journal or could be a cooked up case as well.. the maths honors, boy's case which had a 126 IQ is here
> 
> 404 Not Found



Now I tried searching for this chap in other texts, and I can't find him, though I found another

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors - health - 20 July 2007 - New Scientist

It's not uncommon, it's a fact that we're only beginning to understand the brain. LIke I said, I wouldn't be totally shocked if we found out we didn't understand anything yet and the world is made up of only chi forces, but please someone prove it before claiming it. At least let it make mathematical sense... Let scientists and mathematicians argue over it for years like big bang or string theory or whatever, and try and punch holes in the math. Let the evidence at least point to part of a theory being right, and no, some rocks on a hill or in someone's backyard aren't evidence. Someone levitating a pebble is, no one seeing and everyonebelieving in a gimmick and a tourist attraction as the secret truth to the whole world reeks of religion and faith and non-science (or nonsense in short). 




> nothing much conclusive here.. i think we will have to wait for a much better objectively verifiable case by AWARE study to prove or disprove .. till then i think its pointless to discuss it further ... till then it remains in the realm of anecdotes..
> anyways thanks everybody for having a discussion.. bye



But that's what I've been saying for ages. It has to be proven, and it isn't, thus its mumbo-jumbo until proven. And please don't compare relativity to coral castle, because one is a "show" (quite literally, it charges an entrance fee) and the other is mathematics that awes even the greatest minds on the planet, even today.

And mathematics has no suppositions, if you work it out, it always leads somewhere, and logically.

Think about this, they both met, one made a castle of stone the other kind of explained the universe -- how the universe exists stably, how small amounts of matter can destroy a city, and how small amounts of matter can power a city... all this we owe him, good bad and ugly. If he said EDL was a quack, that's a leap of faith most people should take I think. 



> ideally , how much time it should take to go through this page and understand everything said ? :cough: :cough: , or maybe I should just skip it....never mind.


 [MENTION=140405]Hrishi[/MENTION] Do, there is no try.


----------



## Chetan1991 (Dec 3, 2014)

This thread really took off since I last posted. Here's possibly my last post on this thread. 

My stance is that validity of existence of a God isn't as important as the belief of people in Him, which must be maintained for a sustainable higher civilization.

I'd like the Atheists to watch this video:

[YOUTUBE]TK57RiMqTdk?list=UUZWlSUNDvCCS1hBiXV0zKcA[/YOUTUBE]​
Please watch till the end. If you have time and bandwidth, also the 10 short videos following it. Its about christianity, but explains the concept of God, and its importance in depth.

Its great that you can have moral values and live a virtuous life without any belief in a higher power, but do not presume that every other human can do the same.

I stress the idea of God (regardless of whether He exists or not) should exist because without it, a universal morality does not exist. 
The whole world isn't going to simply follow you beliefs, but it will follow a moral code if it's coming from an authority higher than the whole humankind. If the moral codes are fixed, there is minimal chance of someone manipulating them into forcing people into doing wrong things. That's what religion is.

Take for example all the people who follow all these false babas like Nirmal baba etc. They need to believe in something, period, and the world is filled with people like them. If you remove God, they will believe in something else, usually something that leads to evil.

That's why God is necessary for a sustained civilization, and I would like you to first try to understand the concept before trying to dismantle the idea of God.

Oh, and Science, B!tch! Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

Constructive criticism is welcome.


----------



## snap (Dec 3, 2014)

Din't the prager university guy got his replies by some other weird looking guy some pages back?


----------



## doomgiver (Dec 3, 2014)

Chetan1991 said:


> snip



one word for you : ignorant.
one word for the creator of this video : liar.
one word for people who think they "NEED" a god to keep them in cehck everyday else they will go apeshit and kill murder rape everything : mentally sick.

debate depends upon FACTS, you have given ZERO facts, hence, you've lost the debate.

nothing will happen until you provide proof. this thread is finished.

i really pity people who believe in stuff like that. it must be hard to live with such weird notions and ideas. 

i dont say this with malice.


----------



## Makx (Dec 3, 2014)

really? i have seen some thiests here are like whether god exists or not doesnt matter, but we need to have belief in god or religion to control us. Really? r u fking kidding me?


----------



## Anorion (Dec 3, 2014)

what is wrong with that, it is a pretty old idea
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - Voltaire
it is essentially what is shown in the movie Oh My God! also

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Atheism is a belief as much as theism. So chill out, use respectful language and get off that high horse.

Even Atheists must have an abstract conception of an ideally good human, in a position of power and potency that mankind will eventually reach through progress and development (say the omega point). That idea, what is attracting mankind towards that point, even with the science and rational approaches, is kind of a placeholder for god.


----------



## Makx (Dec 3, 2014)

really? just beacuse it is a very old idea makes it right?
I am not against someone believing in god/religion. What I am against is preaching god/religion when the one preaching it himself has no belief in it, just because they believe that the society is incapable of controlling itself, if not for the fear of a invisible man in the sky. Isn't that much like what dhongi babas do, preach religion and make money on blind faith of their followers? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And I might need to watch Oh my God! again because that's not the message I got from the film.
And for last I dont see how it is kind of a placeholder for god, Utopia maybe.


----------



## Anorion (Dec 3, 2014)

They people replace God with Paresh Rawal's char because they need someone to fill God's place. Towards the end also Akshay Kumar says God does not need religion, but people do. Also Mithun's char says these are God fearing people not God loving people. 

There are many examples from history, when a certain religion was oppressive to a particular section of society, they chose and converted to another religion instead of just doing away with it.

Yes, it is used for control. It's one of the strong motivations for people to do and be good, and keeping us from anarchy. It might not be altruistic, but it works. 

And yep, flying spaghetti monster is as good. People in Australia filled in the religion field in their census forms as "Jediism". Just because it is fictional in origin does not mean the people do not follow the code seriously, and use it for their personal spiritual growth.


----------



## Raaabo (Dec 3, 2014)

I agree with one thing, there's no need to be abusive  [MENTION=102842]doomgiver[/MENTION] it just weakens your argument, and even though you make valid points, people won't take you seriously.

That said, yes, he's right. We have no concrete studies that show how billions would live without the belief of God. For all we know people would stop being idiotic and start helping one another more. I don't know if you noticed, but the world isn't such a great place to live in _with_ religion anyway.

The supposition you make is to assume that since we have corruption, murders, rapes, etc, WITH religion, imagine what would happen WITHOUT it? The assumption is that there are even more people who want to rape murder and pillage, and only a belief in/fear of God stops them. Or the assumption is that being brought up without "fear" of punishment / "incentive" of reward in the after life might cause people to be greedy and totally self-centered.


Yes without Him, there may be uprisings of the poor demanding a better life "now" and the rich will have to shell out more, but that's what's called a first world economy, where people actually matter - and where is atheism most concentrated? First world economies.

Isn't it strange? Think about it. In countries where people are generally better off than the rest of the world and more content for sure, that's where God is less relevant. It's in countries with hardship where he prevails. Now it's easy (almost obvious) to assume that this happens because we only seek God when we do badly, but maybe, just maybe, we do badly _because_ we seek God.

Again I point to all the state of humanity now as proof that it doesn't work. The fear/incentive route is failing. Because those who are corrupt, self-centered, rapists and murderers, will be that with or without religion.

I dare say there will be less murder if there are no religious sentiments to upset, less rape because we will cease to have the teach-that-other-religion's-followers-a-lesson-by-raping-their-women instances, and yes, even less corruption, because there is a certain peace in knowing that all I have now I leave behind, and death is the end.

I don't know who named Atheists "Materialists", but I will assume it's theists. A stroke of genius, it makes all atheists look*_materialistic_, or basically greedy a$$holes. When the term is supposed to mean people who only believe in physical evidence and not suppositions, and thus live in a material world, and are a material girl (or boy). Sorry couldn't resist.

  [MENTION=56202]Anorion[/MENTION] you're thinking like a mediator (pun not intended) between theism and atheism, or applying theist logic to areas they don't apply. It happens often to most of us, because we're all brainwashed into believing some form of theism when growing up, by family or friends, and try and reason based on the goal being one that is ideal.

However, "ideal" is relative, based on where you are now. If 10,000 years from now the earth will be all desert, the ideal human would be one that doesn't need as much water to live. If the future is a water world, we need gills.

This concept of "ideal" is theist in itself, and trying to extrapolate into a "God" or basically just perfection that humans cannot achieve. It's not even a stationary target. Today God could be a 5th dimension being who time doesn't apply to -- why? Because that's what we want to be, or it's what we know we can never be. Then we discover a 5th dimension, and God becomes a 6th dimension being?

Science does that without needing God or idealism, just curiosity, and without shackling people with guilt. It's why it will win over eventually in an educated world... or so we can hope.

As for atheists, you're right, it's almost a belief now. As is science. I prefer logicians because they will think things through logically and question everything, including atheism and science.

I would venture that a world without religion overnight, might end in your apocalyptic nightmare. Like definitive proof finally that God doesn't exist - which isn't going to happen. However a slow and gradually shift to not caring as much is already underway, and that kind of a shift doesn't bring about the atheist-hordes-killing-one-another-for-no-reason that you fear.

I'm an atheist, and I don't have any murderous thoughts or desire to rape or even a desire to cheat, and not even an inordinately high desire to acquire material wealth - just the regular desires of most folk to have a comfortable enough life and the ability to provide my child with toys and stuff. Since I don't believe in the fear/incentive dogma, how do you explain why I don't feel overwhelmed with greed / lust to just do anything I want?

I'd put Jediism for fun too. Doesn't mean I'd take it seriously.


----------



## doomgiver (Dec 3, 2014)

*point 1: *im not insulting anyone out of malice, as i said in my post.

*point 2: *trying to act as if you need a threat of "divine" punishment to keep you in line just exposes you as a shitty human being. does it mean that if god wasnt there, they'd commit all sorts of heinous acts?

*point 3: *indoctrinating children is the most hideous thing that theists do. kids are forced to worship something they dont even understand from a very early age. give it 10-20 years, i bet most of the urban population wont consider religion to be important.

*point 4: *sure, there is absence of evidence, but theists are believing that just becasue there isnt any contrary evidence to disprove them, it gives them carte blanche to assert all sorts of nonsense. 

in my experience, theists will believe the most ridiculous things as long as it suits their view. they dont use any scientific principles and are doggedly dogmatic (yay alliteration!).

imho, this thread is dead. rish was giving some good points (among other things. hats off sir, for putting up a good fight), but sadly, all those posts are cleaned :/ but nobody seems to be interested in actually putting forward actual evidence or even facts. no, youtube videos of "fake" professors dont count.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Dec 3, 2014)

What actual evidence or facts?If it is science then there is no need & if it is god related then it is not evidence or fact(otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate).This thread is only suitable for philosophical arguments from those on religious side without posting any "evidence or fact".


----------



## Anorion (Dec 3, 2014)

I would agree only if atheists never interpret facts to suit their own belief systems and they also always are free from confirmation bias

Not all theists are irrational, delusional and have magical thinking. They can still be scientific. Quite a few scientists believe in God, and a few were even priests. One example I can think of is Mendel. 

Jedi believe in the force, and strangely enough, even karma. Sure for some it is a joke, not for others. 

There have been variants of Hinduism that put man in the center of religion, instead of god, and deny the existence of any supernatural forces. 

To me religion is more about the people on earth than any kind of guy in the sky.


----------



## Raaabo (Dec 6, 2014)

The problem is that religion IS more about the people on Earth - control, keep them in line; not keep them good, but keep them controlled. I wish it was just magic and a guy in the sky, then people wouldn't take it as seriously and we wouldn't have problems. 

Yes there have been scientists who don't dispute the existence of a God, or maybe even believe in a God and pray, but what's that got to do with anything? There are many more people who go through rituals to please their family and don't fight religion even though they don't believe in it at all. Yes there may be people who believe in Jediism truly, but more would list it as cool. Just as people are likely to list Eywa as a religion now.


----------



## moniker (Dec 7, 2014)

I suppose religion was just a set of principles to follow.. To inculcate moral values and to let people know what is good and what is bad and guiding them down the right path.

It is unfortunate how in certain parts of the world religion has mutated into this grotesque, hideous form where people are killing each other in the name of someone who's believed to be hiding behind the clouds. Religion is not even supposed to be about that elusive guy in the first place. There are atheist variants in dharmic religions - You don't necessarily believe in a supernatural power just because you are practicing a religion.

That's why religion is something that is "practiced", it helps in shaping you by guiding you to perform the right deeds. It isn't supposed to be something you just believe in. I might not be a believer, but I still haven't renounced my religion.


----------



## Raaabo (Dec 8, 2014)

Yoga and workouts? I guess you could technically call any belief system a religion, but that's not what's being debated here. By that definition even science is a religion, or even logical thinking. 

If Sachin Tendulkar used to "religiously" practice 8 hours a day, great for him, but it's not a "religion" in the sense were talking of... unless you mean something else, in which case please explain.


----------



## rish1 (Dec 8, 2014)

hello , hope you are doing good .. i have been busy and didn't visit digit since then ( apologies for this id as i changed id pass and my original email id pass ) so in order to reply i had to make this one .. 

Now this reply of yours is totally mixed up .. why ? 

because you have taken 2 different people and mixed them into 1 ... 
you have mixed up edl with reich.. it was not edl that had gone to einstein .. it was reich 



Raaabo said:


> Or, science has answered, and the person who even met Einstein and was rejected was just wrong. Science has given the explanations, the people who "believe" in EDL just don't want to listen, expecting an answer to "how could he levitate", and not believing that "He didn't levitate anything, those are school boys with active imaginations playing a prank and making up lies". Since when are schoolboys considered trustworthy witnesses? If schoolboys say they were out walking and were told by Jesus that the world should convert to Born Again Christians, or be prepared to burn in hell, even the Catholics wouldn't believe them...  but about Coral Castle, everyone suddenly thinks schoolboys are reliable as steel?
> 
> 
> Egyptian pyramid construction techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



no not all major things have been explained yet regarding pyramids , that is why the research is still on , and there is  mathematical accuracy to pyramids relating to pie as well , laser like precision placement of stones etc... that is why the theories still exist today and research is on ,  had all questions been explained , research would have ended already ...

straight from the wikipedia link you have given

"The logistics of construction at the Giza site are staggering when you think that the ancient Egyptians had no pulleys, no wheels, and no iron tools. Yet, the dimensions of the pyramid are extremely accurate and the site was leveled within a fraction of an inch over the entire 13.1-acre base. This is comparable to the accuracy possible with modern construction methods and laser leveling. That's astounding. With their 'rudimentary tools,' the pyramid builders of ancient Egypt were about as accurate as we are today with 20th-century technology"



> For coral castle they've said it's using pulleys and loads of spare time and determination, and yes, intricate knowledge of stone work, and even the man who built it said the same... why is it hard to believe then?


[/quote]

once again you are mixed up.. *no the man who built did not said that*.. he specifically said this 

"I understand the laws of weight and leverage and *I know the secrets of the people who built the pyramids"*

again its not possible with only pulleys ... yes pulleys and other basic tools were used but its only a part of the puzzle , it does not explain how he cut stones with precision ( same thing with pyramids ) , how he placed those super heavy stones perfectly that even a cat 5 hurricane wasn't able to move 1 stone.. and all done by 1 single man    ? why is it hard to believe  if the guy is genuine and has built this structure as a proof ? maybe benefit of doubt until further proof



> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## ico (Dec 8, 2014)

rish1 said:


> hello , hope you are doing good .. i have been busy and didn't visit digit since then ( apologies for this id as i changed id pass and my original email id pass ) so in order to reply i had to make this one ..


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.

10 minute e-mails like @trvbm.com are banned.

So, time to use a valid Gmail or Yahoo mail or anything else.


----------



## snap (Dec 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## rish1 (Dec 9, 2014)

snap said:


> 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.



hmm .. i don't know where are you getting that perception from

if i wasn't reading and hearing other people views then this discussion wouldn't have proceeded so long .. i have tried to reply every point in all my posts and have not been selective ... admit it where i was wrong ( take for example i was under an impression of that AWare case interview happened soon after so it was an iron clad test... but raaaboo pointed out it was after 1 year .. so i accepted right there it wasn't as 100 % objective as i thought , and that leaves open for criticism, doesn't mean it was a failed test.. , or the part where i wasn't able to find the girls case link .. so i stated it could be a cooked up case as well  ) 

the reason there is no debate possible and why i am avoiding as rightly pointed out by whitestar simply because there is no definitive answer to all of this .. and tell me in which side will you put me ? i am even in worst position than chetan if you consider it a debate

Religion ?  - in my past posts where i was bashing religion ..  i don't subscribe to chetans or any religious  views at all .. and no only theory/theism doesn't suit me .. i can make up a theory too.. its what the practical part ( chi gong and yoga ) of it that is of interest to  me.. otherwise why would i waste so much time in this stuff ?  

science ? - i am not supporting material science you know.. so i kinda have been bashing the material aspect of it 

i have given my reasons why i am being open minded about it .. hence the whole point of discussing it and not debating 

now lets turn the guns at you shall we..  i hate doing this but you are on and on constantly attacking .. i ignored you 2 times already

full respects to doomgiver and whitestar they are atleast attacking with valid points  to say .. you on the other hand ..

look at you replies 

-Did we figure out how to recreate greek fire yet
-man, this zen/yoga seems like BS to me. Why don't they bring world peace,end world hunger,cure all them diseases yet :'( not enough yoga/zen power eh...
- geez too much ancient aliens ..
- Those history channel and 'what if's' shows are really giving some crazy beliefs to people :\
- i thought ancient pyramids were built by slaves it was common knowledge 
- 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

thing is you don't even bother to read my replies .. how many times did i say this ( atleast 2-3 times ) just because i know this stuff and writing about i don't fully believe in it until i gain personal experience  .. and there is more chance of it being wrong than of it being right  ? 

there is still that skeptical side of me that doesn't let me fully believe in it , even if i want to..  

now you know why i want to leave .. i am not writing 1 liners like you .. it literally takes 4 hours to construct that big paragraph reply ( sorry this is the first time i am writing these lengthy replies) .. because all of this stuff i had previously seen .. i have to remember every time what i read about or where i watched that , what was the title of that and then google it up .. so many trial and errors .. just like when raaabo asked for show me evidence for placebo .. i had to literally think and  search to give where i saw that in which documentary and many others.. and it is frankly tiring me to the core .. it took me 4 days to frame that last reply i just posted with dozens of link.. the scientific journal link drove me nuts and i repeatedly gave up and couldn't find it all.. same with most of the previous replies

its not like i am searching 24x7 and posting it here.. i have read/watched these cases before and pulling out of my head what i can recall .. read replies of many skeptical claims first , have read 100's of personal anecdotes in the last 1 year.... can only write those stuff that i can recall.. and this time consumption has already caused so much trouble for me.. 

thats why i had to resort to that replies deleting and changing password stuff.. i think i deserve an infraction for that or maybe ban if i broke rules .. 
well it was for personal exploration and not to win an argument or to debate or to change anyone's mind.. 

second i think i have laid out most of  my points  already... its not like i won't be reading further replies at all ... in order to further reply i have to go into every case more deeper now and i don't have time to that at all i have my exams and i am eating up my time .. frankly i am trying to get rid of my addictive habit of whole accessing internet (planning to disconnect broadband as well ), already wasted a lot of time ..  

hope that clears your point 

maybe its all BS or maybe its not .. 

apologies from heart i had to resort into attacking mode .. good luck and have a nice time


----------



## snap (Dec 9, 2014)

If you don't believe in what you are posting then the debate is kinda invalid i guess.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

Kudos to you for atleast putting in efforts for your replies though, luckily am too lazy for this stuff.

And no need for disconnecting your net there is loads of info whether wrong or correct and how you interpret, spend time pondering over them is upto you.

Well i never intended to attack you personally rather your views, so apologies from my side if u got offended


----------



## rish1 (Dec 9, 2014)

snap said:


> If you don't believe in what you are posting then the debate is kinda invalid i guess.
> 
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"



precisely that's why there was never an intention to debate.. nobody can explain it , it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at it and try to understand it.. maybe chat section would have been a great place instead of fight club.. atleast be open minded about what the evidence is pointing at



> Kudos to you for atleast putting in efforts for your replies though, luckily am too lazy for this stuff.
> And no need for disconnecting your net there is loads of info whether wrong or correct and how you interpret, spend time pondering over them is upto you.


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



same here .. please accept my apologies as well for my last post  nice talking with you ..

see you later .. off for now take care


----------



## Makx (Dec 9, 2014)

RSS 're-converts' 200 Agra Muslims, says more in line


> AGRA: Members of at least 57 Muslim families were converted to Hinduism at a ceremony called 'Purkhon ki ghar vapsi', a mass conversion jointly organized by Dharma Jagran Samanvay Vibhag, an offshoot of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and Bajrang Dal in Agra on Monday.
> 
> RSS regional head Rajeshwar Singh said more than 200 Muslims were "brought back to Hinduism" in the mass event held in Madhunagar area of the city.
> 
> ...


----------



## doomgiver (Dec 10, 2014)

One thing that refutes everything that the creator of Coral Castle claims : Magnetic monopoles.

CONSPIRACY.CO

just LOOK at this ^. This is the biggest piece of BS I've found till date. You see that AMAZING 15* angle there? Well guess what? its totally unneccesary. With the projection they are using, Giza and that place are in the Same plane.

Also, 1 more LOL fact : they're using the wrong projection, meaning, their locations are off by around 100-200 kilometers. Maybe these sort of people should enrol in a university before creating such useless and BS pages.

I'll say it out loud : Edward Leedskalnin was a crank fringe theorist, NONE of his papers have ever been published in any respected journal. His writings are so crazy, he's featured here : The Flat Earth Society - Eccentric Lives And Peculiar Notions 

I'm willing to bet alarge amount that he cheated in his construction. You cant disprove or prove it.

Just go to that site, and listen to those guys speak... they;re CRAZY, no, WORSE THAN CRAZY. I dont have words to tell you how awful that is. Im tempted to make a troll acount just to screw with them.

- - - Updated - - -



> look at you replies
> 
> -Did we figure out how to recreate greek fire yet
> -man, this zen/yoga seems like BS to me. Why don't they bring world peace,end world hunger,cure all them diseases yet :'( not enough yoga/zen power eh...
> ...



1. we have far more potent and powerful weapons than Greek Fire. The chinese have reverse-engineered freaking intel CPU's, if greek fire was effective, it'd have been cracked open by now. Its not important, ie, no research is done.
2. People hail yoga as if its the best thing ever created, as if it'll do all those things mentioned above. screw those people.
3, 4. There, MIGHT have been ancient aliens, doesnt mean that they were responsible for everything.
5. Slave labor is only 2nd place in effectiveness to determined labor. Do you know how many laborers are required to make a 20 storey building? Around 100-150. Now imagine 40-60k such people working all year for 10-20 years.


----------



## Anorion (Dec 15, 2014)

*files.explosm.net/comics/Kris/behave.png

originally posted here


----------



## Faun (Dec 15, 2014)

Thats too shallow


----------



## Anorion (Jan 3, 2015)

Raaabo said:


> I would venture that a world without religion overnight, might end in your apocalyptic nightmare. Like definitive proof finally that God doesn't exist - which isn't going to happen. However a slow and gradually shift to not caring as much is already underway, and that kind of a shift doesn't bring about the atheist-hordes-killing-one-another-for-no-reason that you fear.



omg this seems to be happening Public Sees Religion?s Influence Waning | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project


----------



## Flash (Jan 3, 2015)

It's old, but just wanted to share. 
GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson, Moderated by Thomas A. Bass | Edge.org


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 6, 2015)

Is that person's name Natalie Angrier?


----------



## ico (Jan 7, 2015)

*Why I am an atheist*, by Bhagat Singh.


----------



## Raaabo (Feb 9, 2015)

[youtube]XJ8n_HU0vP0[/youtube]


----------



## Anorion (Feb 12, 2015)

Militant Atheist kills three Muslim college students


----------



## abhigeek (Feb 22, 2015)

*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 a_leetle_ 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?' 

*'that's like asking why would your species need cars and other forms of mechanical transport. The technology lets you carry heavier loads, faster and for greater distances than just relying on your own physical abilities.'*

*‘*OK, so what about our more famous "prophets"; Jesus of Nazareth, Moses, Mohammed…’

‘*hmmm… sadly misguided I’m afraid.  I am not here to act as a safety net or ethical dictator for evolving species. It is true that anyone capable of communicating with their own cells will dimly perceive a connection to me – and all other objects in this universe - through the quantum foam, but interpreting that vision as representing something supernatural and requiring obeisance is somewhat wide of the mark.  And their followers are all a bit too obsessive and religious for my liking. It's no fun being worshipped once you stop being an adolescent teenager. Having said that, it's not at all unusual for developing species to go through that phase. Until they begin to grasp how much they too can shape their small corner of the universe, they are in understandable awe of an individual dimly but correctly perceived to be responsible for the creation of the whole of that universe. Eventually, if they are to have any hope of attaining level two, they must grow out of it and begin to accept their own power and potential. It's very akin to a child’s relationship with its parents. The awe and worship must disappear before the child can become an adult. Respect is not so bad as long as it's not overdone. And I certainly respect all those species who make it that far. It’s a hard slog. I know. I've been there.’*

‘So, you’ve been taking more interest in us since the Montgolfiers, when was that? 1650s?’

‘*Close. 1783*’

‘Well, if you’ve been watching us closely since then, what your average citizen is going to want to know is why you haven’t intervened more often. Why, if you have the  power and omniscience that goes with being a god, have you sat back and allowed us to endure such incredible suffering and human misery in the past few centuries?’

‘*It seems to be necessary.*’

‘NECESSARY??!!’

‘*Without exception, intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators. There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate their planet. Like your dolphins and most of the intelligent flyers we were just talking about, they* *adapt* *perfectly to the environment rather than take your course, which is to* *manipulate* *the environment.Unfortunately for the dolphin, theirs is a dead end. They may outlive the human race but will never escape the bounds of planet earth, let alone your solar system - not without your help at any rate. Only those who can manipulate the world they live in can one day hope to leave it and spread their seed throughout the universe.*

*Unlike the adaptors, who learn the point of cooperation fairly early on, manipulators battle on. And, once all lesser species have been overcome, they are so competitive and predatory that they are compelled to turn in on themselves. This nearly always evolves into tribal competition in one form or another and becomes more and more destructive - exactly like your own history. However this competition is vital to promote the leap from biological to technological evolution.*

*You* *need* *an arms race in order to make progress.*

*Your desire to dominate fuels a search for knowledge which the adaptors never acquire. And although your initial desire for knowledge is selfish and destructive, it begins the development of an intellectual self awareness, a form of higher consciousness, which never emerges in any other species. Not even while they are experiencing it, for example, can the intelligent adaptors - your dolphins - express the concepts of Love or Time.*

*Militarisation and the development of weapons of mass destruction are your first serious test at level one. You're still not through that phase, though the signs are promising. There is no point whatsoever in my intervening to prevent your self-destruction. Your ability to survive these urges is a crucial test of your fitness to survive later stages. So I would not, never have and never will intervene to prevent a species from destroying itself. Most, in fact, do just that.’*

‘And what of pity for those have to live through this torment?’

‘*I can’t say this in any way that doesn’t sound callous, but how much time do you spend worrying about the ants you run over in your car? I know it sounds horrendous to you, but you have to see the bigger picture. At this stage in human development, you’re becoming interesting but not yet important.*’

'ah but I can't have an intelligent conversation with an ant'

*'precisely'*

‘hmm… as you know, most humans won’t like even to attempt to grasp that perspective. How can you make it more palatable?’

‘*Why should I?* *You* *don’t appear to have any trouble grasping it. You’re by no means unique. And in any case, once they begin to understand what's in it for them, they’ll be somewhat less inclined to moan. Eternal life compensates for most things.’*

‘So what are we supposed to do in order to qualify for membership of the universal intelligentsia?’

‘*Evolve. Survive’*

‘Yes, but how?’

‘*Oh, I thought you might have got the point by now. "How" is entirely up to you. If I have to help, then you’re a failure. All I will say is this. You’ve already passed a major hurdle in learning to live with nuclear weapons. It's depressing how many fail at that stage.’*

‘Is there worse to come?’

‘*Much’*

‘Genetic warfare for instance?

‘*Distinct Possibility’*

‘and the problem is… that we need to develop all these technologies, acquire all this dangerous knowledge in order to reach level two. But at any stage that knowledge could also cause our own destruction’

‘*If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering an algorithm, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species needs to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery. And if you don’t make it, you will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient species on level two.’*

’14 Million of them’

‘*Just under’*

'Will there be room for us?'

*'it’s a big place and level two species don't need much space'*

‘and, for now, how should we mere mortals regard you then?’

‘*like an older brother or sister. Of course I have acquired more knowledge and wisdom than you have. Of course I’m more powerful than you are. I’ve been evolving much longer and have picked up a few tricks along the way. But I’m not "better" than you. Just more developed. Just what you might become’*

‘so we’re not obliged to "please" you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?’

‘*absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me - or anyone else - to come and help you out.'*

*'I suppose that is a guideline of sorts, so there goes the habit of a lifetime! '*

*'Seriously though, species who hold on to religion past its sell-by date tend to be most likely to self destruct. They spend so much energy arguing about my true nature, and invest so much emotion in their wildly erroneous imagery that they end up killing each other over differences in definitions of something they clearly haven’t got a clue about. Ludicrous behaviour, but it does weed out the weaklings.’*

‘Why me? Why pick on an atheist of all people? Why are you telling me all this? And why Now?’

*‘Why You? Because you can accept my existence without your ego caving in and grovelling like a naughty child. '*

*'Can you seriously imagine how the Pope would react to the reality of my existence?! If he really understood how badly wrong he and his church have been, how much of the pain and suffering you mentioned earlier has been caused by his religion, I suspect he'd have an instant coronary! Or can you picture what it would be like if I appeared "live" simultaneously on half a dozen tele-evangelist propaganda shows. Pat Robertson wouldwet* *himself if he actually understood who he was talking to.*

*Conversely, your interest is purely academic. You've never swallowed the fairy tale but you've remained open to the possibility of a more advanced life form which could acquire godlike powers. You’ve correctly guessed that godhood is the destiny of life. You have shown you can and do cope with the concept. It seemed reasonable to confirm your suspicions and let you do what you will with that information.*

*I can see you're already thinking about publishing this conversation on the web where it could sow an important seed. Might take a couple of hundred years to germinate, but, eventually, it will germinate.*

*Why now? Well partly because both you and the web are ready now. But chiefly because the human race is reaching a critical phase. It goes back to what we were saying about the dangers of knowledge. Essentially your species is becoming aware of that danger. When that happens to any sapient species, the future can take three courses.*

*Many are tempted to avoid the danger by avoiding the knowledge. Like the adaptors, they are doomed to extinction. Often pleasantly enough in the confines of their own planet until either their will to live expires or their primary turns red giant and snuffs them out.*

*A large number go on blindly acquiring the knowledge and don't learn to restrain their abuse. Their fate is sealed somewhat more quickly of course, when Pandora’s box blows up in their faces.*

*The only ones who reach level two are those who learn to accept and to live with their most dangerous knowledge. Each and every individual in such a species must eventually become capable of destroying their entire species at any time. Yet they must learn to control themselves to the degree that they can survive even such deadly insight. And frankly, they’re the only ones we really want to see leaving their solar systems. Species that haven’t achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick’*

'Why can't there be a fourth option - selective research where we avoid investigating dangerous pathways?'

*'There is almost no knowledge which is completely "safe". As you can see from your own limited history, the most useful ideas are also, nearly always, the most dangerous. You have yet, for instance, to achieve the appropriate energy surpluses required to complete this phase of your social development. When you've mastered the relevant technology, it will eliminate material inequalities and poverty within a generation or two, an absolutely vital step for any maturing species. Your potential paths to this bonanza include the control of nuclear fusion - which you only began to explore in the context of potential mass extinction weapons and nano engineered solar energy harvesting or hydrogen cycling. And already your leading military scientists are looking for ways to develop equally dangersous weapons based on the same technology. And they will find them. You may not survive them.*

*Similarly, you will shortly be able to conquer biological diseases and even engineer yourselves to be virtually fault free. Your biological life spans will double or treble within the next hundred years and your digital lifespans will become potentially infinite within the same period:If* *you survive the potential threat that the same technology provides in the form of genetic timebombs, custom built viruses and the other wonders of genetic and digital warfare.*

*You simply can't have the benefits without taking the risks'.*

‘I’m not sure I understand my part in this exercise. I just publish this conversation on the web and everything will be alright?’

*‘Not necessarily. Not that easy I’m afraid. To start with, who’s going to take this seriously? It will just be seen as a mildly amusing work of fiction. In fact, your words and indeed most of your work will not be understood or appreciated until some much more advanced scholars develop the ideas you are struggling to express and explain them somewhat more competently. At which point some of those ideas will be taken up en masse and searches will be undertaken of the archives. They will find this work and be struck by its prescience. You won’t make the Einstein grade, but you might manage John the Baptist!*

*This piece will have no significance whatsoever if humanity doesn’t make certain key advances in the next couple of centuries. And this won’t help you make those advances. What it will do is help you recognise them’*

*'*can I ask what those advances may be?'

*'I think you know. But yes - although you are at level one, there are several distinct phases which evolving species pass through on their way to level two. The first, as we've discussed, is the invention of the flying machine. The next significant phase is the development of the thinking machine.*

*At your present rate of progress, you are within a few decades of achieving that goal. It marks your first step on the path of technological evolution. Mapping the human genome is another classic landmark, but merely mapping it is a bit like viewing the compiled code in a dos executable. It's just meaningless gibberish, although with a bit of hacking here and there, you might correctly deduce the function of certain stretches of code.*

*What you really need to do is 'reverse engineer' the dna code. You have to figure out the grammar and syntax of the language.* *Then**you will begin the task of designing yourselves biologically and digitally. But that task requires the thinking machine'*

‘You say you avoid intervention. But doesn’t this conversation itself constitute intervention – even if people alive now completely ignore it?’

*‘Yes. But it's as far as I’m prepared to go. Its only effect is to confirm, if you find it, that you are on the right path. It is still entirely up to you to navigate the dangers on that path and beyond.’*

'But why bother even with that much? Surely it's just another evolutionary hurdle. We're either fit enough or not…'

*'In many ways the transition to an information species is the most traumatic stage in evolution. Biological intelligences have a deeply rooted sense of consciousness only being conceivable from within an organic brain. Coming to terms with the realisation that you have created your successor, not just in the sense of mother and child, but in the collective sense of the species recognising it has become redundant, this paradigm shift is, for many species, a shift too far. They baulk at the challenge and run from this new knowledge. They fail and become extinct. Yet there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them - it is a failure of the imagination.*

*I hope that if I can get across the concept that* *I* *am a product of just such evolution, it may give them the confidence to try. I have discussed this with the level two species and the consensus is that this tiny prod is capable of increasing the contenders for level two without letting through any damaging traits. It has been tried in 312 cases. The jury is still out on its real benefits although it has produced a 12% increase in biological species embracing the transition to information species.*

‘Alright, so what if everyone suddenly took it seriously and believed every word I write? Wouldn’t that constitute a somewhat more drastic intervention?’

*‘Trust me. They wont’*

*'*and so it's still the case, that, should another asteroid happen to be heading our way, you will do nothing to impede it on our behalf?'

*'I'm confident you will pass that test. And now my friend, the interview is over, you have asked me a number of the right questions, and I’ve said what I came to say, so I’ll be going now. It has been very nice to meet you - you're quite bright. For an ant!’* He twinkled.

‘Just one final, trivial question, why do you appear to me in the form of a thirty something white male?’

*‘have I in any way intimidated or threatened you?’*

‘No’

‘*Do you find me sexually attractive?’*

‘er No!’

‘*So figure it out for yourself…’*


_Source:_ _RTP - Home Page_


----------



## Vyom (Jun 17, 2015)

Sorry for bumping this age old thread, but I wanted to know this.

A while ago I saw a signature of someone which said something like:
_"If god exist and it's capable, then why can't it do,
if god exist and it's not capable, then why it is God.".._

Something along those lines. Can someone share that again here! It was a good argument.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Jun 17, 2015)

i hope it is not my sig.


----------



## Faun (Jun 17, 2015)

whitestar_999 said:


> i hope it is not my sig.



Yours is a bit different


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jun 17, 2015)

Vyom said:


> Sorry for bumping this age old thread, but I wanted to know this.
> 
> A while ago I saw a signature of someone which said something like:
> _"If god exist and it's capable, then why can't it do,
> ...


Well being a Christian i'll give a Christian point of view.
 God exists and is capable,but he doesnt because of...reasons..reasons which we mere mortals cannot understand. Even if it is visible,we refuse to see it. When Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead,his disciples,his OWN disciple still doubted him. When we pray for mankind's good health,does God grants our prayers?? No. He doesnt because,well,think about overpopulation,and the breaking of the balance. God has a plan for everything. We r given the free will to work whithin his plans. We can be rapists,molesters,terrorists , whatever, full freedom,but all comes with consequences. Some consequence are instant (like court judging u guilty and xxx years in jail) while sometimes it happens behind the scene ( most corrupt IAS sons are drunkard drugaddict losers who bring shame upon his father)
God is not a computer where u input a command and get instant output. God does not work in simple ways. If i am lazy and i prayed  before exam and God gave me good results,will i be motivated to  study hard for the next exam?? Imagine if god granted all our wishes, the whole world will enter into a chaos. Female celebs will be molested by every fan every decond LoL...(my target is Kate Upton,and frankly speaking,i am happy God didnt grant my wish to get it on with her hehe)

Btw all those i wrote above is a religious person's perspective. To me whatever i wrote above is stupid and bullshit arguement.


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jun 17, 2015)

U maynask, why didnt God make us all perfect. You know why?? BECAUSE BEING PERFECT SUXXX. Surprised?? Perfection is a curse,perfection is like being dead,being non existent. The joy of life comes from striving forward,choosing an option(good or bad) being in a state of complete Enlightenment and All Knowingness is soooooo boring. There is no joy of curiosity,inquisitiveness,discovery,wonder,amazement. 
Eg. You have always been a good boy, you live a good life, and die,like meh kind of natural death. BORING
Now what if u were a drug addict,extremely poor, but then u reformed yourself and became a super duper person.Now thats something thats worthy of being a legend! You transformed urself,became something from nothing,and inspired millions of people by giving them hope and faith in humanity.

We should never be sad at the bad tragedies...they are the things that brings the balance. 

WILL U BE HAPPY IF U NEVER KNEW SADNESS??
WILL U FEEL RICH IF U NEVER FELT POOR??
WILL U FEEL AROUSED IF U WERE BORN HAVING SEX WITH A HOTCHICK PERPETUALLY??


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jun 17, 2015)

...
I should be a philosopher


----------



## REDHOTIRON2004 (Jun 17, 2015)

abhigeek said:


> *A Conversation with God
> *_Grab a cup of coffee, sit back and enjoy!
> Its long but worth your time _
> 
> ...



Very interesting. Good read... And if people don't beleive it and say that its a work of fiction. Then there own quoran, bible etc are can easily be termed as a work of fiction as well.


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jun 18, 2015)

Hey man, u actually read all of it... U deserve a medal.


----------



## REDHOTIRON2004 (Jun 18, 2015)

mikael_schiffer said:


> Hey man, u actually read all of it... U deserve a medal.



 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. 

It presents a very different point of view of the whole world. Which is so much more apart from what religion tells you. 

I don't beleive that we are alone in the universe. We are simply ignorant. We simply don't want to accept that earth Is simply a mere dust particle in our own milky way galaxy. And there are yet millions of other galaxies like that in the universe. There is simply no way we are alone. And yes religions are no more relevant in todays technological society.

By the way, if you like small inspiring stories. You must too read this.


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Jun 18, 2015)

damn its not even the complete story... Heading to their site.

- - - Updated - - -

*www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
FOr the lazy people who dont wanna search around


----------



## anirbandd (Jun 19, 2015)

i read that last night. 

extremely well written. its a true work of literature, science and philosophy. absolutely loved it.


----------



## sygeek (Jun 26, 2015)

anirbandd said:


> i read that last night.
> 
> extremely well written. its a true work of literature, science and philosophy. absolutely loved it.


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.

The Egg is another story similar to this but MUCH better (as a short story).


----------



## Karma (Jun 28, 2015)

The following 15 predictions, written 5,000 years ago by sage Vedavyasa are amazing because they appear so accurate 


Religion, truthfulness, cleanliness, tolerance, mercy, duration of life, physical strength and memory will all diminish day by day because of the powerful influence of the age of Kali.

-Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.1


In Kali Yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man’s good birth, proper behaviour and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one’s power.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.2


Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one’s expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brahmana just by his wearing a thread.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.3


A person’s spiritual position will be ascertained merely according to external symbols, and on that same basis people will change from one spiritual order to the next. A person’s propriety will be seriously questioned if he dos not earn a good living. And one who is very clever at juggling words will be considered a learned scholar.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.4


A person will be judged unholy if he does not have money, and hypocrisy will be accepted as virtue. Marriage will be arranged simply by verbal agreement, and a person will think he is fit to appear in public if he has merely taken a bath.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.5


A sacred place will be taken to consist of no more than a reservoir of water located at a distance, and beauty will be thought to depend on one’s hairstyle. Filling the belly will become the goal of life, and one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful. He who can maintain a family will be regarded as an expert man, and the principles of religion will be observed only for the sake of reputation.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.6


As the earth thus becomes crowded with a corrupt population, whoever among any of ther social classes shows himself to be the strongest will gain political power.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.7


Harassed by famine and excessive taxes, people will resort to eating leaves, roots, flesh, wild honey, fruits, flowers and seeds. Struck by drought, they will become completely ruined.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.9


The citizens will suffer greatly from cold, wind, heat, rain and snow. They will be further tormented by quarrels, hunger, thirst, disease and severe anxiety.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.10


The maximum duration of life for human beings in Kali Yuga will become 50 years.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.2.11


Men will no longer protect their elderly parents.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.42


In Kali-yuga men will develop hatred for each other even over a few coins. Giving up all friendly relations, they will be ready to lose their own lives and kill even their own relatives.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.41


Uncultured men will accept charity on behalf of the Lord and will earn their livelihood by making a show of austerity and wearing a mendicant’s dress. Those who know nothing about religion will mount a high seat and presume to speak on religious principles.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.38



Servants will abandon a master who has lost his wealth, even if that master is a saintly person of exemplary character. Masters will abandon an incapacitated servant, even if that servant has been in the family for generations. Cows will be abandoned or killed when they stop giving milk.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.36



Cities will be dominated by thieves, the Vedas will be contaminated by speculative interpretations of atheists, political leaders will virtually consume the citizens, and the so-called priests and intellectuals will be devotees of their bellies and genitals.

- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.32


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

^^haha...you know what I predict ? With time human race will become extinct.


----------



## Nerevarine (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> ^^haha...you know what I predict ? With time human race will become extinct.



praise thy prophet Faun, our saviour and lord of the seven continents


----------



## Karma (Jul 1, 2015)

*www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud1oEFfOrbQ&feature=youtu.be

Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge--Full Length ^


----------



## Karma (Jul 18, 2015)

Must Watch.Best explanation about four Yugas


----------



## ASHISH65 (Jul 24, 2015)

^ Thanks for sharing


----------



## isaac12345 (Jul 24, 2015)

As long as God and his people dont get in the way of Science making everyone's lives better, I dont mind them


----------



## chimera201 (Jul 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> ^^haha...you know what I predict ? With time human race will become extinct.



The Japanese will certainly become extinct. Their population growth rate is very negative as of now


----------



## Faun (Jul 25, 2015)

chimera201 said:


> The Japanese will certainly become extinct. Their population growth rate is very negative as of now



But then who will make anime ?


----------



## chimera201 (Jul 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> But then who will make anime ?



Anime is probably one of the causes of it
Anime and Japan's Population Crisis - Anime Articles | MMGN Australia
Everything you need to know about Japan's population crisis


----------



## Anorion (Aug 26, 2015)

is there any school of thought that allows you to free yourself from all influences and micromanagement by supernatural forces (like no influence of god, planets, actions of past lives, curses, blessings etc on your life) irrespective of whether these are benficial or not
it should not deny the existence of these things, but rather show how to be free of them


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Aug 26, 2015)

^ I don't think so. People won't like to cash in on being an outlaw and teaching it.


----------



## rhitwick (Aug 27, 2015)

Anorion said:


> is there any school of thought that allows you to free yourself from all influences and micromanagement by supernatural forces (like no influence of god, planets, actions of past lives, curses, blessings etc on your life) irrespective of whether these are benficial or not
> it should not deny the existence of these things, but rather show how to be free of them



Isn't that called "moksha" or "nirvana" in Hindu religion?

//offtopic am I mixing "moksha" and "nirvana"?


----------



## Anorion (Aug 27, 2015)

that is moksha or nirvana?
ah yeah, I see why. Hmm yep, that is liberation from samsara... in a way.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Aug 31, 2015)

moksha/nirvana(buddhist analogue of moksha) means freedom from the cycle of life & death,it essentially means returning of soul to "supreme consciousness". Liberation from "samsara" can be achieved without achieving moksha & can be achieved comparatively easily.As per mythology only a handful of people were able to achieve moksha in all previous three yugas.


----------



## Flash (Aug 31, 2015)

*a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/977/7134/original.jpg


----------



## Anorion (Aug 31, 2015)

Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta: To Vacchagotta on Fire



> "Vaccha, the position that [Use theory to better understand the universe] is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.


----------



## rhitwick (May 10, 2016)

If you can spare 18 minutes, watch this.

Ad wait for the "TODD talks"

[YOUTUBE]0Rnq1NpHdmw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Karma (Jun 30, 2016)

Dr. B M Hegde explained beautifully about  Sanatana Dharma and its relation with quantum physics and modern science & medicine


----------



## OverLord AbhiLash (Jul 6, 2016)

Come on peeps
*mod edit:use of offensive language is not allowed.*


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Jul 11, 2016)

science is my god. so god = science. 
i love god. thank god.


----------



## Randy_Marsh (Jul 18, 2016)

Universe, our existence, placement of sun planets and moon, consciousness etc etc. all cannot be just because of sheer luck.

for every creation, there must be a creator.


----------



## snap (Jul 18, 2016)

Who created the creator?


----------



## Karma (Jul 19, 2016)

snap said:


> Who created the creator?



You are playing with definition of Paramathma(GOD)

The Vedas says about definition of God: sarva karana karanam. *“GOD is the cause of all causes.” *
No one created God because God exists outside the chain of creator and created.God & souls are beginning less and endless, so they are eternal and exist forever, hence souls can never die nor born.Our consciousness is unborn and it is eternal

*Paramathma/Bramhan  is NOT a being nor is it HE or SHE
IT is a STATE of CONSCIOUSNESS !!*


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Jul 19, 2016)

Karma said:


> You are playing with definition of Paramathma(GOD)
> 
> The Vedas says about definition of God: sarva karana karanam. *“He is the cause of all causes.” *
> No one created God because God exists outside the chain of creator and created.God & souls are beginning less and endless, so they are eternal and exist forever, hence souls can never die nor born.Our consciousness is unborn and it is eternal
> ...




Or maybe its just TOAA.


----------



## Randy_Marsh (Jul 19, 2016)

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)


----------



## Desmond (Jul 19, 2016)

Vineet Sharma said:


> 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)



Makes sense.

Human beings are irrational creatures by default. They have to learn to be rational. Until then, they will always look at everything irrationally. 

Science is tangible, religion is not. Science is rational, religion is not.


----------



## arijitsinha (Jul 19, 2016)

Neither.. only dank memes.


----------



## sujoyp (Jul 19, 2016)

I belive in Darwin's theory



> Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.



its about survival...donno how god came into existence...everyone knows that now humans are getting weaker and probably need less water and food as per requirement of nature. 
Maybe after 2-3 generations our senses will not be as strong as it is now..maybe in next 1000 years we will loose the ability to run and work as robots will take over.. its the evolution and where is god in this?
God is a belief which gives hope at the time of hopelesness and scares/stop us to harm others.


----------



## Nanducob (Jul 8, 2017)

Karma said:


> *Paramathma/Bramhan  is NOT a being nor is it HE or SHE
> IT is a STATE of CONSCIOUSNESS !!*


Being drunk is another level of consciousness.
When you start throwing off '"vitality"/ imaginary and abstract terms like consciousness, mind, planets, chakras and whatnot ! to back up you claims , its already proven that the person is B.S ing 100%.


----------



## sygeek (Jul 9, 2017)

Here we go again


----------



## Nanducob (Jul 10, 2017)

sygeek said:


> Here we go again


Not much probability of a reply any time soon ;Deepak Chopra was last seen June 12.


----------



## Skyh3ck (Nov 7, 2017)

ask this question to a "peaceful", whether science or god you will get your head separated


----------



## Skyh3ck (Nov 7, 2017)

i believe you fall to the traps of Science or God, its all about Karma, what you do comes back to you, that is the real thing, call it a god or science, E = Mc2, i dont know exact, but an object can produce the energy equivalent to its mass, same way we get in life as per our current and past karma, that is the God

if anyone is looking for god as a separate entity its a chasing of mirage, our Karma is God, in vedic or ancient tradition there was no concept of god, it was all about Karma, thats it man


----------



## Skyh3ck (Nov 7, 2017)

Vineet Sharma said:


> 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)




you started again with hollywood movies


----------



## abhigeek (Nov 7, 2017)

Skyh3ck said:


> i believe you fall to the traps of Science or God, its all about Karma, what you do comes back to you, that is the real thing, call it a god or science, E = Mc2, i dont know exact, but an object can produce the energy equivalent to its mass, same way we get in life as per our current and past karma, that is the God
> 
> if anyone is looking for god as a separate entity its a chasing of mirage, our Karma is God, in vedic or ancient tradition there was no concept of god, it was all about Karma, thats it man


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.


----------



## Nanducob (Nov 11, 2017)

Skyh3ck said:


> E = Mc2, i dont know exact


I don't know, so "Karma", pretty much sums up.


----------



## deadnoun (Sep 17, 2018)

Science. 

Until god shows up in front of me.


----------



## chetansha (Sep 17, 2018)

Religion starts where science ends.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


----------



## Desmond (Sep 17, 2018)

And where does science end?


----------



## icebags (Sep 17, 2018)

Desmond David said:


> And where does science end?


at the event horizon.


----------



## Randy_Marsh (Sep 18, 2018)

icebags said:


> at the event horizon.



This answer is like saying "at the edge of flat earth" in 1200's. I hope you get my point.


----------



## Anorion (Sep 19, 2018)

Desmond David said:


> And where does science end?


where religion starts


----------



## Desmond (Sep 19, 2018)

Let me break this circle before it begins and re-phrase my point. If religion starts where science ends, does this mean that every religious human being knows everything there is to know about science?


----------



## Anorion (Sep 19, 2018)

no, it means science has a particular domain, and religion is beyond that domain
the two can co-exist, roughly like science can only do so much for the human experience, and so can religion, they do not fully serve the purpose of the other


----------



## Desmond (Sep 19, 2018)

Yeah, one is a domain of facts the other is a domain of delusions.


----------



## icebags (Sep 19, 2018)

Vineet Sharma said:


> This answer is like saying "at the edge of flat earth" in 1200's. I hope you get my point.


i hope you travel beyond event horizon like they did in that time.


----------



## deadnoun (Sep 19, 2018)

Desmond David said:


> And where does science end?


When humans become stupid.


----------



## Cyberghost (Sep 20, 2018)

There is no god only science exists


----------



## Nitishshah18 (Sep 20, 2018)

Who would you rather pay any heed to someone preaching about science or religion.
Religion is just tool to keep people in check and void them of any free will.

So many atrocities are committed in the name of religion, no doubt some questionable actions have been taken for science also. But the benefits of latter outweighs unimaginably.


----------



## chetansha (Sep 20, 2018)

So why the hunt for God particle.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Sep 20, 2018)

cheransha said:


> So why the hunt for God particle.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


The God in God particle is just for namesake. Research is being done to find the origin of everything.


----------



## chetansha (Sep 20, 2018)

They could have named it something else

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


----------



## Nitishshah18 (Sep 20, 2018)

Higgs Boson is sometimes referred as God particle.. Search for this particle is very important as they want to know the origin of everything.. As currently it's unknown, hence God's Particle...
It's the same as calling flood and earthquake an act of God... Even though we know why it happened..


----------



## chetansha (Sep 20, 2018)

Ergo...God exists.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Sep 20, 2018)

cheransha said:


> Ergo...God exists.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


Yes, in the same way comic book characters exist.


----------



## Nitishshah18 (Sep 20, 2018)

So does Saitama.. 

No where in my text I mentioned gods exist.. It an delusion created for the people by the people of the people.. Just like an honest government.. 



cheransha said:


> Ergo...God exists.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


----------



## Randy_Marsh (Sep 21, 2018)

icebags said:


> i hope you travel beyond event horizon like they did in that time.



My life, your life, their life or anybody's life is puny if compared to history & vastness of Science or religions. 
They didn't know what's beyond the edge of our world, but we know. 
We don't know what's beyond the event horizon, but our future generations would.

To add more:
Science weakens religion, that's a fact. Religion prevails only in those areas where there isn't Science. It's like a bleak of light in a dark room.
Take your gadgets, travel 500-600 years back in time, and people will consider you a god's sent in no time. lol


----------



## Stormbringer (Sep 21, 2018)

cheransha said:


> So why the hunt for God particle.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk


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".

Reference-  The God Particle (book) - Wikipedia


----------



## Nerevarine (Sep 21, 2018)

Vineet Sharma said:


> My life, your life, their life or anybody's life is puny if compared to history & vastness of Science or religions.
> They didn't know what's beyond the edge of our world, but we know.
> We don't know what's beyond the event horizon, but our future generations would.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Anorion (Sep 22, 2018)

my approach is be open to it, study it, and see if it helps
like pastafarianism teaches you to expose the biases in religion, fight fundamentalism from the inside, through argument by authority 
Jedi teaches you to consider random emo jeuvenile text strings seriously
Aetherius Society teaches you about the cosmic monsters


----------



## Desmond (Sep 22, 2018)

But why? What is the point? You won't die if you don't.


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Sep 22, 2018)

Anorion said:


> like pastafarianism teaches you to expose the biases in religion, fight fundamentalism from the inside, through argument by authority


I thought it is a religion worshiping Pasta.


----------



## Desmond (Sep 22, 2018)

Isn't Pastafarianism the people from the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?


----------



## Anorion (Oct 20, 2018)

^yes
Try this quiz, it is pretty good
belief-o-matic

I got Sikh, or Tao


----------



## Desmond (Oct 20, 2018)

11% Roman Catholic, despite being brought up as a Roman Catholic.
*screenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com/images/33eec3b2-6614-4785-8272-b2c3a166abd3.png


----------



## ico (Oct 21, 2018)

Over 11 years in this forum,  I never voted in this thread.


----------



## mikael_schiffer (Nov 2, 2018)

same here


ico said:


> Over 11 years in this forum,  I never voted in this thread.


----------



## icebags (Nov 24, 2018)

ico said:


> Over 11 years in this forum,  I never voted in this thread.


over 10 years in this forum, i never understood purpose of this thread.


----------



## Desmond (Nov 25, 2018)

The only purpose of this thread is to disturb the decorum of the forum.

Like seriously, the only purpose is to create strife. Though I am willing to throw down, so I guess I am a sucker for these kind of things.


----------



## bssunilreddy (Nov 27, 2018)

*i.imgur.com/RojqGOJ.png


----------



## Anorion (Nov 27, 2018)

Okay one good thing I learnt by reading Upanishads
A true Aryan never prays to destroy his enemy, he prays to destroy the animosity in their hearts

If I have to trudge through a pile of turd to find one thing like this, that you can remember and learn from, and apply it to your own life, IMO, it is worth it


----------



## bssunilreddy (Nov 27, 2018)

Anorion said:


> Okay one good thing I learnt by reading Upanishads
> *A true Aryan never prays to destroy his enemy, he prays to destroy the animosity in their hearts*
> 
> If I have to trudge through a pile of turd to find one thing like this, that you can remember and learn from, and apply it to your own life, IMO, it is worth it


+100 to this thought process...


----------



## Desmond (Nov 27, 2018)

Anorion said:


> Okay one good thing I learnt by reading Upanishads
> A true Aryan never prays to destroy his enemy, he prays to destroy the animosity in their hearts
> 
> If I have to trudge through a pile of turd to find one thing like this, that you can remember and learn from, and apply it to your own life, IMO, it is worth it


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.

Edit: Humans are pathetic creatures, basically.


----------



## ratul (Dec 9, 2018)

Anorion said:


> ^yes
> Try this quiz, it is pretty good
> belief-o-matic
> 
> I got Sikh, or Tao



Though I usually don't take these quizzes, I got Secular Humanism in this. 
*i.imgur.com/yTPCalQ.png


----------



## mastercool8695 (Dec 11, 2018)

I took the quiz as well. It's a stupid quiz. For all I know of myself, my beliefs should match with those of confused duckerism. *uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181211/fbde4424f2828a30dfb089c597ca678c.jpg

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## rhitwick (Dec 4, 2020)

digitalwaala said:


> Impression of Planet *Proxima Centauri* with New the stars, Centauri a and Centauri B - Information about  *Proxima Centauri* .


Were you supposed to post a hyperlink and forgot?
What happened here?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Dec 4, 2020)

rhitwick said:


> Were you supposed to post a hyperlink and forgot?
> What happened here?


Spammer now banned.


----------



## Desmond (Dec 5, 2020)

Lol and I was wondering why someone bumped this thread. This thread is a major source of flaming and rage.


----------

