|
The Scientists Bluff Exposed (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moti |
I'm sorry if some of you found the post a little long. It had some solid points don't you think? Today many scientists are propagating the doctrine that life originates from matter. However, they cannot provide proof, either experimentally or theoretically. In fact, they hold their stance essentially on faith, in the face of all sorts of scientific objections. Srila Prabhupada points out that this groundless dogma has done great damage to moral and spiritual standards worldwide and has thus caused incalculable suffering.
Prabhupada is not presenting dogma like the scientists, as he says:
Try to understand the science of God philosophically, intelligently, logically. There is no question of dogma. Everything is nicely explained in Bhagavad-gita As It Is, so you can try to understand. [Srila Prabhupada from Bhagavad-gita Lecture 4.11-18, Los Angeles, January 8, 1969]
Here's another little quote:
"The frog in the well" logic illustrates that a frog residing in the atmosphere and boundary of a well cannot imagine the length and breadth of the gigantic ocean. Such a frog, when informed of the gigantic length and breadth of the ocean, first of all does not believe that there is such an ocean, and if someone assures him that factually there is such a thing, the frog then begins to measure it by imagination by means of pumping its belly as far as possible, with the result that the tiny abdomen of the frog bursts and the poor frog dies without any experience of the actual ocean. Similarly, the material scientists also want to challenge the inconceivable potency of the Lord by measuring Him with their froglike brains and their scientific achievements, but at the end they simply die unsuccessfully, like the frog.
[Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.10]
Note: So the scientists first of all have to be realistic about their actual position. Unless something can be understood by their tiny frog like brains they deny it. First the atheistic scientist’s need to be a little humble, like Einstein, he acknowledged the Supreme Controller:
Prabhupada: The scientists also admit that the nature's law is so systematic. Even Professor Einstein, he agreed, that "As I advance, I see there must be a big brain, God." Is it not? Did he not say?
Devotees: Yes.
Prabhupada: That is knowledge. Everything is being maintained so nicely and there is no brain, there is no manager? One who says, "God is dead, there is no God," he's a rascal number one. Nothing else. Immediately take him he's a rascal number one. That's all. However educated he may be. Because he does not know the psychology, how we accept the Supreme. Suppose a child has come to London. So he cannot see the Queen. Or even a child's father. So many people are coming to visit London. It is not that everyone is seeing the Queen. But if he says, "Oh, there is no Queen," or "Queen is dead," will it be accepted? Similarly, some rascals who do not know how this universe is being managed, he may say, "God is dead, there is no God," but that will not be accepted by a sane man. A sane man will say, "There must be somebody, the origin of everything."
[Srila Prabhupada from a Srimad-Bhagavatam Lecture, 1.1.2, London, August 17, 1971] |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You've posted a lot here about Prabhupada and the Hare Krishnas. Admittedly, I don't know very much about this religion, nor do I know much about this high Saint. |
It's basically theistic buddhism, although the Hare Krsnas I occasionaly encounter in downtown Melbourne seem eager to distance themselves from mainstream Buddhism. What they've basically done (and I'm not familiar with the history of this faith, so I couldn't tell you when or how this happened) is take Buddhist philosophy and throw a God deity into the mix. So far as I can tell in the discussions I've had with one of my friends who I think is a Hare Krsna (he's definitely familiar with Buddhist philosophy and definitely a theist) the noble truths remain prominent (he's always going on about suffering and oneness) but the subjective structure of the Buddhist faith (i.e. the eight-fold path and enlightenment etc. - the individual quests pertinent to Buddhism) seem to have been abrogated in favour of the pantheistic universalism of Krsna. In this sense it falls into the same trap that all other theistic religions do: why bother wandering your own path and finding your own answers when you can just invoke God?
I'm not sure how accurate that all is, but I'm sure Mr Moti will let me know if I've gotten anything wrong. ;) |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
erm wtf? too much intellect from renegade for COR standards! and what right does Moti have to come to this forum and try and make everyone believe HIS religious beliefs and not back anything up? Citing sources and interviews from the 70's isn't exactly solid stuff now is it...? i hereby classify this thread
i've been dying to use that pic :toothless |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Okay, enough already. This is NOT an argument against evolution - it's just some weird "interpretation" of evolution. If you want to believe it, that's fine, but you're presenting no hard evidence or logical reasoning here whatsoever. |
This is the hard evidence. The hard evidence is to hear from the perfect authority. You too hear from authority daily to understand things beyond your sense perception
The Vedic system of acquiring knowledge is the deductive process. The Vedic knowledge is received perfectly by disciplic succession from authorities. Such knowledge is never dogmatic, as ill conceived by less intelligent persons. The mother is the authority to verify the identity of the father. She is the authority for such confidential knowledge. Therefore, authority is not dogmatic. In the Bhagavad-gita this truth is confirmed in the Fourth Chapter (Bg. 4.2), and the perfect system of learning is to receive it from authority. The very same system is accepted universally as truth, but only the false arguer speaks against it. For example, modern spacecraft fly in the sky, and when scientists say that they travel to the other side of the moon, men believe these stories blindly because they have accepted the modern scientists as authorities. The authorities speak, and the people in general believe them. But in the case of Vedic truths, they have been taught not to believe. Even if they accept them they give a different interpretation. Each and every man wants a direct perception of Vedic knowledge, but foolishly they deny it. This means that the misguided man can believe one authority, the scientist, but will reject the authority of the Vedas. The result is that people have degenerated.
=========
According to the Vedic system, knowledge which is achieved from the greatest authority is to be considered perfect. According to the Vedas, there are three kinds of proof: pratyaksa, anumana and sabda. One is by direct visual perception. If a person is sitting in front of me, I can see him sitting there, and my knowledge of his sitting there is received through my eyes. The second method, anumana, is auricular: we may hear children playing outside, and by hearing we can conjecture that they are there. And the third method is the method of taking truths from a higher authority. Such a saying as "Man is mortal" is accepted from higher authorities. Everyone accepts this, but no one has experienced that all men are mortal. By tradition, we have to accept this. If someone asks, "Who found this truth first? Did you discover it?" it is very difficult to say. All we can say is that the knowledge is coming down and that we accept it. Out of the three methods of acquiring knowledge, the Vedas say that the third method, that of receiving knowledge from higher authorities, is the most perfect. Direct perception is always imperfect, especially in the conditional stage of life. By direct perception we can see that the sun is just like a disc, no larger than the plate we eat on. From scientists, however, we come to understand that the sun is many thousands of times larger than the earth. So what are we to accept? Are we to accept the scientific proclamation, the proclamation of authorities, or our own experience? Although we cannot ourselves prove how large the sun is, we accept the verdict of astronomers. In this way we are accepting the statements of authorities in every field of our activities. From newspapers and radio we also understand that such and such events are taking place in China and India and other places all around the earth. We're not experiencing these events directly, and we don't know that such events are actually taking place, but we accept the authority of the newspapers and radio. We have no choice but to believe authorities in order to get knowledge. And when the authority is perfect, our knowledge is perfect.
According to the Vedic sources, of all authorities Krsna is the greatest and most perfect (mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya). Not only does Krsna proclaim Himself to be the highest authority, but this is also accepted by great sages and scholars of Bhagavad-gita. If we do not accept Krsna as authority and take His words as they are, we cannot derive any benefit from Bhagavad-gita. It is not dogmatic; it is a fact. If we study |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The theory that disembodied souls are jumping from body to body constitutes perfect sceince does it? Discounting the logical absurdity of reincarnation (I'd be happy to present these criticisms if you so wish), there is literally no empirical evidence for this transcorporeal swap and go. Without empirical evidence, by tautological necessity, this isn't science.
Once again, I can only offer the challenge he has offered scientists: can you reproduce this is a laboratory? If not, then how can he accept this theory and dismiss the scientific theories concerning biogenesis?
|
We've experienced in our practical lifetime that we were very tiny, youth, we had a small body, child's body. Then youthful body, then we're having old man, old woman's body, like this. So practically speaking, this body is constantly changing. Although Krsna gives this example because He is trying to explain a very fine point of understanding, namely transmigration of the soul: that in reality the body that we have is changing at every moment, at every instant. But we can not see that because our consciousness is not so sharp to pick up when there's change of body. But Krsna explains, "You can see that you had a small body, now you have a youthful body, now you have an old man's body." Actually there is a continuum of change at every moment. So this is the changing material body, and the mind likewise is changing, but the soul, the living entity, is not changing. And this is experienced practically by the fact that in spite of so many changes of body that we had we've still the same person. Just like we can remember when we were young children playing in the park or at the streets, and then older, older, older; going to school; older, family life; older, now retired; now like this. So like this the body is changing in so many ways but still I'm the same person. This can be practically experienced. Everyone has this understanding: different bodies but you're still the same person. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moti
I'm sorry if some of you found the post a little long. It had some solid points don't you think? Today many scientists are propagating the doctrine that life originates from matter. However, they cannot provide proof, either experimentally or theoretically. In fact, they hold their stance essentially on faith, in the face of all sorts of scientific objections. |
Bull.
Here is one experiment
Here's another one
Here's yet another one
Even a preliminary search on google can find you many, many experiments which have been performed which show insight into the origins of life, and the most important thing about them is that they HAVE succeeded in creating life from nonliving matter. Whether or not their theory of how it happened is correct or not, we know IT IS POSSIBLE.
| quote: | | Srila Prabhupada points out that this groundless dogma has done great damage to moral and spiritual standards worldwide and has thus caused incalculable suffering. |
WHO is talking about "groundless dogma" here?
| quote: | | Prabhupada is not presenting dogma like the scientists, as he says: |
:haha:
| quote: | | Try to understand the science of God philosophically, intelligently, logically. There is no question of dogma. Everything is nicely explained in Bhagavad-gita As It Is, so you can try to understand. [Srila Prabhupada from Bhagavad-gita Lecture 4.11-18, Los Angeles, January 8, 1969] |
So because everything is "nicely" explained (despite having no evidence whatsoever), that makes it sound science? As opposed to real science which has thousands of experiments to back up its premises?
| quote: | | "The frog in the well" logic illustrates that a frog residing in the atmosphere and boundary of a well cannot imagine the length and breadth of the gigantic ocean. Such a frog, when informed of the gigantic length and breadth of the ocean, first of all does not believe that there is such an ocean, and if someone assures him that factually there is such a thing, the frog then begins to measure it by imagination by means of pumping its belly as far as possible, with the result that the tiny abdomen of the frog bursts and the poor frog dies without any experience of the actual ocean. Similarly, the material scientists also want to challenge the inconceivable potency of the Lord by measuring Him with their froglike brains and their scientific achievements, but at the end they simply die unsuccessfully, like the frog. |
Again, this is all very nice speculation, but the evidence for it is where?
| quote: | | Note: So the scientists first of all have to be realistic about their actual position. Unless something can be understood by their tiny frog like brains they deny it. |
This whole analogy is ludicrous. First of all, the "frog" event never actually happened, so we can hardly use it as an example. Secondly, scientists are not frogs, and God is not an ocean. None of this has any logical or scientific basis and none of it makes any sense.
| quote: | | First the atheistic scientist’s need to be a little humble, like Einstein, he acknowledged the Supreme Controller: |
Scientists are humble, the entire premise of science is proving existing theories WRONG. Einstein, however was NOT A THEIST.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of the quotes, it's just more of the same crappy unsubstantiated dogma. |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
It's basically theistic buddhism, although the Hare Krsnas I occasionaly encounter in downtown Melbourne seem eager to distance themselves from mainstream Buddhism. What they've basically done (and I'm not familiar with the history of this faith, so I couldn't tell you when or how this happened) is take Buddhist philosophy and throw a God deity into the mix. So far as I can tell in the discussions I've had with one of my friends who I think is a Hare Krsna (he's definitely familiar with Buddhist philosophy and definitely a theist) the noble truths remain prominent (he's always going on about suffering and oneness) but the subjective structure of the Buddhist faith (i.e. the eight-fold path and enlightenment etc. - the individual quests pertinent to Buddhism) seem to have been abrogated in favour of the pantheistic universalism of Krsna. In this sense it falls into the same trap that all other theistic religions do: why bother wandering your own path and finding your own answers when you can just invoke God?
I'm not sure how accurate that all is, but I'm sure Mr Moti will let me know if I've gotten anything wrong. ;) |
First of all let's try understand what is real religion Renegade:
Religion means the law of God.
Prabhupada: We should try to understand what is religion. Religion means the law of God. Just like law means the rulings given by the state, that is law, similarly, religion means the rulings given by God. But if one does not know what is God, then how he can accept what is His ruling? Therefore anyone who has got very scanty knowledge of God, that kind of religion is also scanty. That is the definition in the Vedic litera... Dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: "Dharma, or religion, means the codes or the law given by God." And the Bhagavad-gita, the same ruling is given, law, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja: "You give up all types of man-made religion; you simply surrender unto Me." Therefore the conclusion is religion means to surrender to God. So one who is fully surrendered to God, he is religionist
So people are manufacturing, in the name of so-called religion, "This is our religion. This is..." "This is Hindu religion." "This is Muslim religion." "This is Christian religion." Or "This is Buddha religion." And "This is Sikh religion." "This is that religion, that religion..." They have manufactured so many religions, so many religions. But real religion is dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Religion means the codes and the laws given by the Lord, given by God. That is religion. Simple definition of religion is: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Just like law is given by the state, by the government. You cannot manufacture law. I have repeatedly said. Law is made by the government. Similarly, religion is made by God. If you accept God's religion, then that is religion. And what is God's religion? (aside:) If you stand, you come stand here. Other people are seeing. God's religion is... You'll find in the Bhagavad-gita, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. This is God's religion. "You give up all these nonsense religions. You become a devotee, a surrendered soul unto Me." That is religion.
One who does not know what is God, one who does not know how to surrender to Him, he's not religious. Any religion without the conception of God, without knowledge of God, without knowing the surrendering process, that is called, described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as "cheating religion." Dharmah projjhita-kaitavah atra. The so-called religious system, which is cheating only, that kind of religion is completely thrown away, kicked out. Because religion means to develop your dormant love for God, or to execute the laws of God. That is... The laws of God is, (as) Krsna says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. And how to achieve that? That also Krsna says: man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru. Four principles only. "Always think of Me." Hare Krsna. If you chant Hare Krsna, then you're remembering Krsna. Man-manah. Hare Krsna Hare Krsna... This is the religion; at least, of this age.
harer nama harer nama
harer namaiva kevalam
kalau nasty eva nasty eva
nasty eva gatir anyatha
There is no other way. You chant. Then any, any scripture you will find. Sabdad anavrtti. In the Vedanta-sutra. Sabdat, simply by chanting, vibrating, you become liberated. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam: kirtanad eva krsnasya mukta-sangah param vrajet. Kaler dosa-nidhe rajann asti hy eko mahan gunah. Sukadeva Gosvami said, "Maharaja Pariksit, this age of Kali is full of faulty things. It is an ocean of faulty things. But there is one profit, benefit. What is that?" Kirtanad eva krsnasya mukta-sangah param vrajet. "If you chant the holy name of Krsna, then you become liberated, and you are promoted to the spiritual world." |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moti
This is the hard evidence. The hard evidence is to hear from the perfect authority. You too hear from authority daily to understand things beyond your sense perception |
Again the same goddamn bull ID argument. Scientists do not claim to be "perfect" authorities, they create theories and try to prove them WRONG. Science builds on experimentation and hard evidence, not trusting some "perfect authority." Religion, at least your religion (obviously), almost certainly does. For a little bit of comic relief, I'll post the "John and Mary" story again:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv
| quote: | | The Vedic system of acquiring knowledge is the deductive process. |
No, it's actually a deductive fallacy.
| quote: | | The Vedic knowledge is received perfectly by disciplic succession from authorities. Such knowledge is never dogmatic, as ill conceived by less intelligent persons. |
Such knowledge is dogmatic by definition as it comes from a single authority and requires no logical or physical evidence.
| quote: | | The mother is the authority to verify the identity of the father. She is the authority for such confidential knowledge. |
If it's so "confidential", why is it given so freely?
| quote: | | Therefore, authority is not dogmatic. |
Again, this conclusion is incorrect, authority is by definition dogmatic.
| quote: | | In the Bhagavad-gita this truth is confirmed in the Fourth Chapter (Bg. 4.2), and the perfect system of learning is to receive it from authority. The very same system is accepted universally as truth, but only the false arguer speaks against it. For example, modern spacecraft fly in the sky, and when scientists say that they travel to the other side of the moon, men believe these stories blindly because they have accepted the modern scientists as authorities. The authorities speak, and the people in general believe them. But in the case of Vedic truths, they have been taught not to believe. Even if they accept them they give a different interpretation. Each and every man wants a direct perception of Vedic knowledge, but foolishly they deny it. This means that the misguided man can believe one authority, the scientist, but will reject the authority of the Vedas. The result is that people have degenerated. |
Nice circular reasoning there. The book confirms its own truth. Great!
Again, I'm not commenting on the rest of it. I have no interest in learning about Krsna and I don't think many other people here do either. Thank you so much for bringing your wonderful religion here and trying convert us, but kindly now shut the up and stop posting quotes from whatever your bible is called.
Do you even post ANY of your own ideas or just 5000-word essays from religious nutcases?
If you have a LEGITIMATE criticism of evolution or any modern science, then go ahead. But damn it, stop handing out your "e-pamphlets" on Hare Krsna, none of us are in the mood right now to learn a new religion. If we cared to, we could always find one of the conversion nuts on the street and talk to them. |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Bull.
Here is one experiment
Here's another one
Here's yet another one
Even a preliminary search on google can find you many, many experiments which have been performed which show insight into the origins of life, and the most important thing about them is that they HAVE succeeded in creating life from nonliving matter. Whether or not their theory of how it happened is correct or not, we know IT IS POSSIBLE.
WHO is talking about "groundless dogma" here?
:haha:
So because everything is "nicely" explained (despite having no evidence whatsoever), that makes it sound science? As opposed to real science which has thousands of experiments to back up its premises?
Again, this is all very nice speculation, but the evidence for it is where?
This whole analogy is ludicrous. First of all, the "frog" event never actually happened, so we can hardly use it as an example. Secondly, scientists are not frogs, and God is not an ocean. None of this has any logical or scientific basis and none of it makes any sense.
Scientists are humble, the entire premise of science is proving existing theories WRONG. Einstein, however was NOT A THEIST.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of the quotes, it's just more of the same crappy unsubstantiated dogma. |
You are the one here attached to dogma.
The frog in the well was a perfect example. The scientists are limited like the frog in it's well. Every conditioned soul has four basic defects:
A living being who lives in the mundane world has four defects: (1) he is certain to commit mistakes; (2) he is subject to illusion; (3) he has a propensity to cheat others; and (4) his senses are imperfect. No one with these four imperfections can deliver perfect knowledge. The Vedas are not produced by such an imperfect creature. Vedic knowledge was originally imparted by the Lord into the heart of Brahma, the first created living being, and Brahma in his turn disseminated this knowledge to his sons and disciples, who have handed it down through history.
So the scientist want everything to be understood by their imperfect senses otherwise they reject it. This the the frog in the well. Their are so many things beyond the range of our limited sense percptions neither are our senses perfect. THIS IS CLEAR LOGIC. YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DENY IT. YOU DENY IT BECAUSE YOU ARE DOGMATIC.
Prabhupada exposed the root of the scientific dogma = DENIAL OF A SUPREME CONTROLLER.
One must know that there is a controller. That is the beginning of knowledge. Why should you deny? In every field of activity we find some controller. How can I deny that there is no controller of this creation?
And he exposed the bluff which the suckers have all swallowed namely that life comes from chemical combination.
Karandhara. Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, "If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?"
And these tools are swallowing this dog because they are in denial of the punishment that awaits them for their sinful life. HEAD IN THE SAND!
Therefore these atheist fools, they want to deny next life. That is very horrible for them. That is very horrible to them. If they accept next life... They know their life is very sinful. Then what life they are going to get by the laws of nature? When they think of it, they shudder. "Better deny it. Better deny it." Just like a rabbit. Enemy is in his front, and he is going to die, but the thinks, "Let me close my eyes. I am out of danger." This is atheistic view, that they are trying to forget that there is... Therefore they deny, "There is no life." Why not? Krsna says that "You had a childhood body. You had a baby... Now you have... Where is that body? You have left that. You are in different body. Similarly, this body you'll change. You will get another body." And who says? Krsna says. The most superior authority, he says. I may not understand, but when He says... This is the process of our knowledge. We accept knowledge from the perfect person. I may be fool, but the knowledge received from the perfect person is perfect. This is our process. We don't try to speculate. That may or may not be successful, but if you accept knowledge from the perfect authority, that knowledge is perfect. Just like we are speculating, "Who is my father?" You can speculate who is your father, but that speculation will not help you. You will never understand who is your father. But you go to your mother, the supreme authority. She'll immediately, "Here is your father." That's all. And you cannot know father in any other way. There is no other way. This is practical. You cannot know your father without the authoritative statement of your mother. Similarly, things which are beyond your perception, avan manasa-gocara, you cannot think of, you cannot speak of. Sometimes they say, "God cannot be spoken. God cannot be thought of." That is all right. But if God Himself comes before you and says, "Here I am," then where is the difficulty? Where is the difficulty? I am imperfect. I cannot know. That's all right. But if God Himself comes before me...
So this Krsna consciousness movement is to know everything perfectly from the supreme authority, Krsna. This is the process. Tad vijnanartham sa gurum eva abhigacchet. In order to understand subject matter which is beyond our perception, you have to approach such authority who can inform you. Exactly in the same way: to understand who is my father is beyond my perception, beyond my speculation, but if I accept the authoritative statement of my mother, this is perfect knowledge. So there are three kinds of processes to understand or to advance in knowledge. One is direct perception, pratyaksa. And the other is authority, and the other is sruti. Sruti means by hearing from the Supreme. So our process is sruti. Sruti means we hear from the highest authority. That is our process, and that is very easy. Highest authority, if He is not in default... Ordinary persons, they are in default. They have got imperfection. The first imperfection is: the ordinary man, they commit mistake. Any great man of the world, you have seen, they commit mistake. And they are illusioned. They accept something as reality which is not reality. Just like we accept this body as reality. This is called illusion. But it is not reality. "I am soul." That is reality. So this is called illusion. And then, with this illusory knowledge, imperfect knowledge, we become teacher. That is another cheating. If you have not... They say, all these scientists and philosophers, "Perhaps," "It may be." So where is your knowledge? "It may be" and "perhaps." Why you are taking the post of a teacher? "In future we shall understand." And what is this future? Would you accept a post-dated check? "In future I shall discover, and therefore I am scientist." What is this scientist? And, above all, our imperfectness of senses. Just like we are seeing one another because there is light. If there is no light, then what is the power of my seeing? But these rascals they do not understand that they are always defective, and still, they are writing books of knowledge. What is your knowledge? We must take knowledge from the perfect person.
Therefore we are taking knowledge from Krsna, the Supreme Person, the perfect person. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | So what is the process that has stopped that makes the body "dead". That you do not know. |
If blood stops flowing, other biological processes are effected. Cells start dying, muscles cease functioning, the brain starves. Your case would be better served by identifying the co-dependancy of unique biological functions (you Hare Krsnas appreciate the significance of "oneness" don't you?) but in denying that we can identify the processes which, upon cessation, cause death, you are clutching at straws. Entropy happens, and the inevitable decay of any one of our thousands of vital processes will lead to the decay of many more of these processes (due to the co-dependancy of these processes) which will lead to death. If you wish to slash your wrists in order to test the legitimacy of my theory, then you're more than welcome to.
| quote: | | Today many scientists are propagating the doctrine that life originates from matter. However, they cannot provide proof, either experimentally or theoretically. In fact, they hold their stance essentially on faith, in the face of all sorts of scientific objections. Srila Prabhupada points out that this groundless dogma has done great damage to moral and spiritual standards worldwide and has thus caused incalculable suffering. |
1) There is more evidence supporting scientific abiogenesis than there is Krsna-led Intelligent Design.
2) Somehow I doubt that controversy surrounding the origins of bioligical life is responsible for "damage to moral and spiritual standards worldwide", assuming such worldwide damage could be proven to have occurred in the first place.
| quote: | | "The frog in the well" logic illustrates that a frog residing in the atmosphere and boundary of a well cannot imagine the length and breadth of the gigantic ocean. Such a frog, when informed of the gigantic length and breadth of the ocean, first of all does not believe that there is such an ocean, and if someone assures him that factually there is such a thing, the frog then begins to measure it by imagination by means of pumping its belly as far as possible, with the result that the tiny abdomen of the frog bursts and the poor frog dies without any experience of the actual ocean. Similarly, the material scientists also want to challenge the inconceivable potency of the Lord by measuring Him with their froglike brains and their scientific achievements, but at the end they simply die unsuccessfully, like the frog. |
Quite an odd allegory - are you suggesting we should resist any attempt to expand our minds via rigorous empirical experimentation, lest our heads explode with the extra strain? Isn't that the sort of dogmatic theology they used to teach in the dark-ages?
Buddhism preaches the importance of enlightenment: I believe that such enlightmentment must come as much from without (empirically) as from within (rationally).
| quote: | | Similarly, some rascals who do not know how this universe is being managed, he may say, "God is dead, there is no God," but that will not be accepted by a sane man. A sane man will say, "There must be somebody, the origin of everything." |
The sane man will not accept the existence of invisible beings on the basis that we do not currently understand everything there is to know about the universe. It is human nature to find order in that which is arbitrary and I suspect that it is this inherent, neurological "pattern-detecting" quality we possess that explains our idea to invoke God at every opportunity. |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| fanatics are like trolls, the more you bite the longer they stay... :( |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_mdma
i've been dying to use that pic :toothless |
thanks, that was good, the rest of the posters... get a life or take it to that forum no one cares about, the political room :p :thepirate |
|
|
|
|
