|
The Scientists Bluff Exposed (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Thanks for your reply.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moti
Are you aware of the process of evolution described in the Vedas? |
Nope.
| quote: | | Srila Prabhupada: We accept evolution, but not that the forms of the species are changing. |
The fossil record shows otherwise, as does current evidence:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
What positive, verifiable evidence does Prabhupada draw his conclusions upon to support his suppositions?
| quote: | | The bodies are all already there, but the soul is evolving by changing bodies and by transmigrating from one body to another. |
As evidenced by?
| quote: | | I have evolved from my childhood body to my adult body, and now my childhood body is extinct. But there are many other children. |
And?
That's got to be one of the worst examples I've ever heard to support this position. You're not evolving, sir, you're just merely growing. This is a perfectly natural process that nearly all living species undertake. And what does many other children have in relation to you growing? Furthermore, how does this relate to evolution?
| quote: | | Similarly, all the species are now existing simultaneously, and they were all there in the past. |
Incorrect, all species did not exist simultaneously. The vast majority of creationists even admit as much. There are literally thousands of species evolving in the present. How do you explain antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria? How would you explain the nylon-eating strain of bacteria:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Furthermore, if all species have always existed, why are there extinct species?
Lastly, how do you explain the close genetic similarities amongst species? How do you explain the extremely close genetic similarities amongst apes and man (orangutans have a some 96% similarity).
| quote: | | For example, if you are traveling in a train, you find first class, second class, third class; they are all existing. If you pay a higher fare and enter the first-class carriage, you cannot say, "Now the first class is created." It was always existing. |
So? How does that relate to your case against evolution?
| quote: | | So the defect of the evolutionists is that they have no information of the soul. |
Well I guess it's a "defect" for all scientists then, because no true scientist gives a fart over that which cannot be tested or observed. To date, there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of the soul, so why should scientists be concerned with it if they simply cannot observe it, even indirectly? Why should they incorporate an unobservable, untested, and an unfalsified "thing" into the rest of their observed, tested, and falsified data?
How would that be logical?
| quote: | | The soul is evolving, transmigrating, from one compartment to another compartment, simply changing place. |
Based on what observed evidence again?
| quote: | | The Padma Purana says that there are 8,400,000 species of life, and the soul evolves through them. |
My Giant Cookie Monster from the planet Zoinks sayeth to me that, "you're full of ". I guess we can have our deities and our saints say whatever they wish to say.
There is a difference, however, between that which is simply "said", and that which is supported by evidence. Your figure of 8,400,000 is quite small, and only covers maybe 1/2 the likely number of bacterial strains on the earth.
Padma needs to try again. But he shouldn't feel too bad though with bad numbers. John in Revelation only gives salvation to 144,000 Jewish folks when Jebus comes back, so I guess everyone loves to throw exact numbers around in attempts to show some sense of concreteness (though it's more like borderline lunacy).
| quote: | | This evolutionary process we accept: the soul evolves from aquatics to plants, to insects, to birds, to animals, and then to the human forms. But all these forms are already there. They do not change. One does not become extinct and another survive. All of them are existing simultaneously. |
Evidence contradicts your claims. What positive evidence do you have to support yourself?
| quote: | Devotee: But Darwin says there are many species, like dinosaurs, that are seen to be extinct.
Srila Prabhupada: What has he seen? He is not so powerful that he can see everywhere or everything. His power to see is limited, and by that limited power he cannot conclude that one species is extinct. That is not possible. No scientist will accept that. After all, all the senses by which you gather knowledge are limited, so how can you say this is finished or that is extinct? You cannot see. You cannot search out. |
Is old Prabhupada saying here that Darwin wasn't "there" to see it all happen, therefore it's not true? So all those darn fossil bones in all those darn museums all over the world must be some strange conspiracy theory then, huh?
I guess it this is the wise one's thought process, since he wasn't "there" to witness his own birth, or witness anyone else's birth for that matter, neither he nor anyone else exists then, correct?
Wow, that's got to be the most strangest quantum leaps I've ever heard. If this is not what he's saying, please clarify what he is trying to say.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory has come further than Darwin's original suppositions and observations. Perhaps you could address the current theory, or at least ask Prabhupada's "soul" for advice on this conversation.
Thanks,
Opus1 |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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).
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. |
Not dogma like the dark-ages at all. Simple facts. Our senses are limited. So the scientists need to stop this dogma of the present dark-age. i.e. unless we see it in our lab's it aint a fact.
Let them be humble first of all. What are their tiny little brains and imperfect senses able to conceive?
There well's my dear sir, THAT'S ALL |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moti
There well's my dear sir, THAT'S ALL |
Does that mean you're leaving? OMG please please say it's true!! :D
Ya seriously, I'm not replying to this thread anymore, you are a troll Moti, you have yet to present a single logical or rational point in this thread, and nobody wants to hear it anyway.
So just get lost. You're pissing everyone off. |
|
|
| Moti |
Hypothesis - You cannot expect machine going on without operator
Prabhupada: Hypothesis. Hypothesis. Just like yesterday I was explaining that as soon as there is a machine, there is an operator. This is hypothesis. You cannot expect machine going on without operator. Similarly, this material nature is a machine and the operator is God. This is hypothesis. Even though you do not see God we can make this suggestion. That is human reasoning, logic. If any ordinary typewriter machine... This is a machine, but that requires operator. He is pushing this button; then it is working. It is not automatically working, any machine. So how this big machine is operating without any operator? What is this nonsense? They say, "There is no God. Nature, nature." What is the nature? Nature is a machine. Just like this body. This body is machine, and the operator is the soul, and the guide is the Supersoul. As soon as the soul goes away, then the machine does not work. This is common sense. But they have no common sense; therefore they are rascals, so-called scientists and others. They have no common sense.
* THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT TORTURED AND POISONED TO DEATH BY HIS JUDAS DISCIPLES
http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupa...sp_poisoned.htm
* MATERIALISTIC SCIENTISTS EXPOSED BY THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT
http://members.lycos.co.uk/spexpose/
* WHAT IS KRISHNA CONCIOUSNESS?
http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupa..._kc/what_kc.htm
* PRABHUPADA Your ever well wisher
http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupada1/ |
|
|
| Moti |
Big bang means big brain or what?
Devotee: The scientists say that everything had its origin with a big bang. All of a sudden one day there was a big bang and everything came into being.
Prabhupada: What is that big bang. You do not know. It is your suggestion. Big bang means big brain or what? Big bang? What is that, a big bang?
Devotee: Noise.
Prabhupada: Hm? (aside:) Don't come near. Noise? Big bang, what is that big bang?
Devotee: The scientists say that in the beginning the universe wasn't created, and then all of a sudden there was a big explosion and everything just kind of happened. Everything just came into being.
Prabhupada: But how all of a sudden there can be explosion? What is this nonsense proposition? As soon as there is question of explosion, before the explosion takes place, there must be some arrangement. The time bomb explosion. So the bomb is prepared by something, some bomb is kept by somebody, and after some time it explodes. So how all of a sudden? Where does he get this idea? Just like if there is bomb explosion here, a child may think, "All of a sudden there is a bomb explosion," but a sane man will not think that. There will be inquiry, "Who kept this bomb? Who brought this bomb?" That is sanity. "And all of a sudden explosion," this is all rascal proposal. Therefore the people have become so rascal, guided by these rascals, "All of a sudden, by chance," and they accept them as scientist... This is the drawback of the present civilization. Because they are sudras, like animals, they have got no brain to answer that "How all of a sudden there can be explosion." They have no brain even to ask. Rather, they are giving Nobel Prize. This rascal is speaking like a rascal, still, he should get Nobel Prize. That is the defect. The people at the present moment, they are all rascals. Just like animals. And yes, actually they are animals. Just like animals are eating, sleeping, mating, and eating meat. The other one animal is eating another animal. That's all. No discretion, nothing. This is a civilization of animals, polished animals. Their consciousness has become animalistic. Therefore this Krsna consciousness movement. Just like children. They are animals, just like animals. They have no fixed program. Whatever they like, they are doing. Whatever they like, they are speaking. Simply they are interested in eating. So at the present moment, because they have lost all their power of reasoning and understanding, they are all animals. "All of a sudden there is an explosion." How explosion can take place like that? Any sane human being will ask that "How is that?" Same example: If there is some explosion in the park, a rascal will say, "All of a sudden there is explosion." But the government, police department, immediately inquire, "How this bomb came? Wherefrom? Who placed it?" That is humanity. That is human reasoning. "And all of a sudden there is explosion," you have to accept that. You accept that?
Devotee: I don't accept it.
Prabhupada: Then? No sane man will accept. The so-called scientists, begin, all beginning is like that. "There were chemicals, these chemicals." Now wherefrom these chemicals came? Who placed these chemicals? They do not ask. Because they are fools, the other fools bluff them and they accept it. But we are not going to accept. We shall inquire. And that is human intelligence.
Giriraja: But they may say "Where did God come from?"
Prabhupada: No, no, God, not "come from." By experience you are speaking that things are... Just like the explosion. Explosion was there because God was there. Therefore God is there. The explosion cannot take place by chance, all of a sudden. There was somebody, some brain, and that brain is God. Because you say all of a sudden there was explosion, therefore that is the proof of existence of God. Is it clear or not?
Giriraja: Yes.
Devotee: Something can't come from nothing.
Prabhupada: No. We have no such experience. How we accept this nonsense statement? We have no such experience. I can accept something that is going on. Can you show me? So we show. You study with your experience. Where is your experience that something comes all of a sudden? There is no such thing. So how can I accept your statement? Because you say, "There was explosion," that means there is God. That means there is God. So what is your argument? You say that "Why you bring God?" I bring God because you say, "There was explosion."
Giriraja: No, you're saying that "Something cannot come from nothing."
Prabhupada: Yes.
Giriraja: So therefore this explosion came from God. But then where did God come from?
Prabhupada: That is God. God is always existing. Not "come from." That is God. Nityo nityanam. You are also existing. This knowledge, they are lacking. Just like I am, you are, we are eternal. We are eternal. We are changing body. Because they do not believe or do not try to understand that I am not this body, therefore the whole mistake is there.
Devotee: The scientists would use the same argument. The scientists would say, "Well, since I have not experienced that I am eternal, therefore how can I accept that I am eternal?"
Prabhupada: Yes, you are eternal. Because you were a child and now you are grown up, but you know that you were a child. Therefore you are eternal. You were a child, but you have no that child's body. Now you have got a different body. So although you have got different body, you know that you had a body like a child. Therefore body has changed. You have not changed. That is eternity.
Giriraja: And nobody wants to die.
Prabhupada: Nobody wants to die.
Giriraja: If the soul is not eternal, where has that desire...
Prabhupada: No. This is eternity. This is practical eternity. You have changed so many times your body, but you are the same person. Therefore you are eternal, in spite of changing body. This is simple argument.
* THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT TORTURED AND POISONED TO DEATH BY HIS JUDAS DISCIPLES
http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupa...sp_poisoned.htm
* MATERIALISTIC SCIENTISTS EXPOSED BY THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT
http://members.lycos.co.uk/spexpose/
* WHAT IS KRISHNA CONCIOUSNESS?
http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupa..._kc/what_kc.htm
* PRABHUPADA Your ever well wisher
http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupada1/ |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Ya seriously, I'm not replying to this thread anymore |
Good i was getting tired of hearing your dogma. :haha: |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moti
Good i was getting tired of hearing your dogma. :haha: |
If you do not submit to God, then ultimately you have to submit to the dog.
Who is there who does not submit to anyone? Find out anyone. If you, if a man has nobody to submit, he brings a dog and submits to him. The dog is passing stool. He's standing. He's submitted to the dog. The dog is passing urine, he's submitting: "Yes sir, you pass your urine. I take care of you." This is the nature. If you do not submit to God, then ultimately you have to submit to the dog. This is nature. You cannot avoid it. You have to submit. There is no other way. Because your position is like that. Without submitting to one, you cannot live. Jivera svarupa haya nitya-krsna-dasa. This is the philosophy given by Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Svarupa Damodara: Ultimately when death comes, we have to submit to...
Prabhupada: Yes, one has to submit to death. Yes.
[Srila Prabhupada, Morning Walk, April 29, 1973, Los Angeles]
:eyes: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| Listen bud, I'm all for intelligent debate - just have a looksee at the political forum - but this is total crap. You're out of control, and you're bumping this thread too, I hope you get banned. |
|
|
| Renegade |
One last little thing and then I'm going to bed:
| quote: | | Let them be humble first of all. What are their tiny little brains and imperfect senses able to conceive? |
As I said in my first post, this is nothing more than "narrow-minded, psuedo-religious obfuscation". It seems to be the goal of all too many religious minds - in the absense of anything tangible to attach their metaphysical hopes to - to obfuscate fact and enter into irrational, psuedo-Cartesian skepticism just to increase the space left for their "God of the gaps" to exist in. Not many theists try to prove that God - or any other metaphysical beings - exist anymore. Theology seems now to mainly consist undermining science (as though science were a competing religion or something - better get off that computer if you consider science to be such an evil, Moti!) and promoting epistemic subjectivism to an almost solopsistic degree. They deny the legitimacy of the senses, empiricism and causal necessity and yet the the gall to call us the skeptics?
You choose to obfuscate the issue, Moti, and focus on what we do not know (or rather, that which we know but that can be brought into question on account of our inability to acquire "absolute" knowledge) rather than demonstrating the irrevocable proof of Krsna you supposedly possess. If Krsna actually exists - and these abstract musings you present as arguments are actually accurate - then you shouldn't have to concern yourself with undermining science. Provide me with a solid reason to believe what your saying, and I'll gladly withdraw everything I've said in this topic. The fact is, though, you seek to cloud the issue and focus on irrelevent side-issues solely because you do not wish to confront the reality that you have absolutely no convincing arguments to support the reality of any being you've invoked in this thread. Even if you can prove that insights into our world gleaned from 500 years of the scientific method are false, it still says nothing about your God. If evolution is false, you still have to prove Krsna isn't. You'll have to justify the atheistic disposition you hold towards every God excepting Krsna (in proving that a supreme-being was the architect of life, you still need to prove that this being takes the form of Krsna rather than the form of any other God ever conceived) in addition to falsifying the scientific method.
That's the simple fact. Apply the same sort of skepticism to your religious belief that you do to widely held scientific fact and you'll, perhaps, come to understand why I'm an atheist and struggle to belief even a small percentage of what you're saying.
| quote: | | I have evolved from my childhood body to my adult body, and now my childhood body is extinct. |
You have an active mind - why don't you employ it more productively?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/i/identity.htm |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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. |
Have you taken one science class? Do you know what science is based upon?
Many scientists are quite unconcerned with the origin of life, esp. that which states life originating from non-life (abiogenesis). So please avoid sweeping generalizations about "many scientists" in the future.
Those scientists that are studying abiogenesis, however, have some pretty descent evidence that highly complex organic molecules were prevalent in the universe at large early on and that formation of higher complexity has been demonstrated in experiments simulating early earth conditions. Here's a good website to start:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/AbbyL...ding-Blocks.htm
Here's some more references to specifics:
Amino acid chains have been observed that can reproduce naturally:
David H. Lee, Juan R. Granja, Jose A. Martinez, Kay Severin & M. Reza Ghadiri; "A self-replicating peptide" Nature 382, 525 - 528 (1996).
Natural selection also happens:
Yao, S.; Ghosh, I.; Chmielewski, J.; "Natural Selection in Self-Replicating Peptides", Peptides: Chemistry, Structure and Biology, 1998, 15, 0000.
Yao, S.; Ghosh, I.; Zutshi, R.; Chmielewski, J.; "Self-replicating Peptide under Ionic Control", Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Eng., 1998, 37, 478-481.
Yao, S.; Ghosh I.; Zutshi, R.; Chmielewski, J.; "A pH-Modulated Self-Replicating Peptide", J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1997, 119, 10559-10560.
RNA could come from peptide nucleic acids:
Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel, 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
Also interesting, formamide has been found to catalyze the formation of nucleobases:
Saladino R., C. Crestini, G. Costanzo, R. Negri, and E. Di Mauro, 2001. A possible prebiotic synthesis of purine, adenine, cytosine, and 4(3H)-pyrimidinone from formamide: Implications for the origin of life. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry 9(5): 1249-1253.
RNA would need neither DNA nor protein to catalyze its own replication:
Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny, 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny, 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.
Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin, 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently. Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
Also, a deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes:
Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington, 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
All this shows that abiogenesis is really not that difficult to comprehend, and that it is, in fact, possible. However, it is of course difficult to demonstrate and/or to show concrete evidence of such an event billions of years ago in quite the strange and harsh environment the earth was in at that time. Not too many fossils were preserved, really. So you can understand such difficulties in drawing conclusions. However, indirect evidence such as above indicates these possibilities do exist.
But if there are alternative theories, I'd be anxious to see POSITIVE, verifiable, and tested evidence to support such theories, similar to such supported evidence above. As of yet, I have not seen any. Instead, I just see those creationists just fill in those gaps with "godidit", much like you and your grand wizard are doing here.
This is a logical fallacy: Appeal to ignorance or Argumentum ad Ignorantiam:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
Why would you fall back on such a fallacy?
Absence of evidence does not give credence of evidence of absence, and hence a "creator" started it all. You have to show positive evidence of a creator in order for me or any other scientist to give merit to such a theory. I believe a "godidit" tag on a molecule or RNA strain somewhere would suffice nicely. If you find one, please let me know.
| 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.
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] |
Dogma?
Hello Pot, this is Kettle calling......
There is no dogma in science. Science is based on methodoligical naturalism, which is what the scientific process of observation, hypothical questions, testing, retesting, and drawing conclusions based on those observations. Hence, it changes and modifies itself over time, based on observation. That's science, get over it.
If that's dogma, what is religion?
| quote: | | Here's another little quote: |
Oh goody, more quotes...
| 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]
|
Old Praba here seems to think that scientists have a concern with God. Praba needs to study science a little more in order for him to draw conclusions about what scientists do.
I'll give you a hint - they could care less about God in their work. Since God has done a lousy job showing Himself in observed, tested, and falsified natural phenomena, why would they bother themselves over Him?
Until God shows himself a little more clearer in natural phenomena, scientists will continue to ignore His "works", and study that which can actually be observed.
| 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. 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.
|
Einstein was a noted atheist. Many of his quotes on God are taken out of context. Here's some of his more better known quotes on his feelings towards God:
A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:
| quote: | "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."
Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness.
So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence suggests that it never will be.
A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...
Einstein has 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.
The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html
|
| quote: | | 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. |
Though I myself am not an atheist, I'm not sure I'd be hurt or even taken aback by being called, "a rascal". Just my own opinion, of course.
| quote: | | Immediately take him he's a rascal number one. That's all. |
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAASCAL!!!!!!!
Sorry, couldn't help it. I like that word. Moving on:
| quote: | 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] |
He seems to intertwine atheists with scientists. I wonder if he knew that there are approx. 40% of evolutionists alone that believe in a deity of some sort? And that doesn't include the cosmologists, astrophysicists, geologists, etc. Believe it or not, it is possible to have a certain belief in faith, and yet be able to study that which is observable, all at the same time!!! Amazing, isin't it? It's like walking and chewing gum, only not quite as difficult!
RRRRRRRAAAAAASCAL!!!
Damnit, I did it again. That's my new word for the week.
Thanks. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Actually I have one thing to add (I know I said I was going to give up on this thread but meh, just occurred to me).
Moti:
A great deal of your argument seems to come from your use of equivocal and/or subjective language, twisting the meaning of words to suit your own personal agenda. In particular I'm talking about your use of the word "dogma". Unless you're going to tell me that the dictionary itself is dogma and that only you know the real meaning, let's take a quick look at what it actually means:
| quote: |
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln). |
I'm not sure which one you use, but let's examine each to see how it relates to the validity of your point:
Definition (1) explicity refers to morality and faith and a church (or religious institution). Since scientists make no claims about morality or faith and aren't part of any religious institution, your use of the term can't possibly be valid in that context.
Definition (2) requires the belief to be (a) authoritative, and (b) considered to be absolutely true. Since most science comes from experiment, not authority (this should be evidenced by the fact that scientific reports are never supposed to make use of the 1st person because the experiment is supposed to be performed under controlled conditions, independent of the person performing it or his/her circumstances), this definition would not be valid to apply to any scientific theory either. In addition, scientific claims are not considered to be absolutely true - they are merely considered to be present working models that could be expanded on or proven wrong at any time, as they have been in the past.
Definition (3) is archaic and could maybe, potentially be used to refer to scientific theory; the problem is that this definition is extremely broad and could technically refer to just about any belief or theory, including but not limited to your own beliefs on the Krsna. Nobody uses this definition, and when people refer to religious beliefs as dogma, they are not using the word in this context.
Having said that, definitions (1) and (2) both apply quite well to YOUR "beliefs." Since they explicitly speak of morality and faith and they are associated with a religious institution (the Hare Krsna), they are dogma. Since their validity comes from an individual or an entity that is considered to know the absolute truth, definition (2) fits nicely as well. And as I've already explained, if you can apply definition (3) to science then you can *definitely* apply it to religion.
So you can see that there is no inherent validity to discounting your religious beliefs as something other than dogma and referring to scientific theory as being dogma. Only the most ignorant of ignorant could believe that this is the case and not vice versa. So either you are ignorant and simply don't understand the definition of dogma, or you are intentionally misusing the word and ignoring its real meaning in order to deflect criticism off your weak argument and onto the opposing one.
Take your pick, then - you've proven yourself to be either narrowminded and ignorant, or a hypocritical liar pushing a personal agenda. Neither one, I think, is easily welcomed into a debate among rationally-minded individuals. |
|
|
|
|
