|
The Scientists Bluff Exposed (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moti
Good i was getting tired of hearing your dogma. :haha: |
Wait a god f$cking damn second!
Dogma is that which cannot be changed. This is exactly what religion is. Do you have a f$cking clue what the scientific method entails, and what the process of science does?
IT CHANGES WITH THE GIVEN SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!
Do us a favor, stop taking references out and give us your opinions. This cut -n- paste job is for amateurs. Give your opinions and THEN support them with actual POSITIVE, OBSERVED evidence, or kindly shut the f$ck up.
Now, do you have any positive, verifiable evidence for a soul or even your God? And don't give me any more bull quotes from your grand wizard. If you have no actual evidence to support your position (and that does NOT include mere opinions), then your case is extremely weak. Furthermore, you are in no position to attack any scientific process when:
1. It's becoming apparent that you haven't a f$cking clue as to what science is
2. You cannot demonstrate that your God is the right one with positive, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence.
3. You cannot prove a soul exists (and stop it with the stupid f$cking children's stories about frogs already!).
Stop attempting to put your beliefs in the realm of scientific inquiry. They become ripped apart without supporting evidence.
Why is it so f$cking hard for people to keep matters of faith separate from matters of science?!?!?! |
|
|
| Mr. Pink |
Whateva
:wtf:
 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moti
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. |
What a bunch of huey! What the f$ck is this guy on? There were some serious acid-heads back in the '70's, hmmmm, I wonder?
Naaw, couldn't be.
It also seems that your dali llama here is invoking the idea that religious beliefs and laws have come from your God. Do you have any historical evidence to support this position that your religious laws come from a divine being?
| quote: | harer nama harer nama
harer namaiva kevalam
kalau nasty eva nasty eva
nasty eva gatir anyatha |
Umpa dumpa doopadee do.....
No wait, I've got a better one:
I love you
You love me
We're a happy family
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you
Won't you say you love me too?
(Barney's theme).
My Great Cookie Monster hasn't created a good chant yet, but he's working on one. Hopefully, it'll be as good as Barney's!
| quote: | | There is no other way. You chant. Then any, any scripture you will find. Sabdad anavrtti. In the Vedanta-sutra. Sabdat, simply by chanting, vibrating, you become liberated. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam: kirtanad eva krsnasya mukta-sangah param vrajet. Kaler dosa-nidhe rajann asti hy eko mahan gunah. Sukadeva Gosvami said, "Maharaja Pariksit, this age of Kali is full of faulty things. It is an ocean of faulty things. But there is one profit, benefit. What is that?" Kirtanad eva krsnasya mukta-sangah param vrajet. "If you chant the holy name of Krsna, then you become liberated, and you are promoted to the spiritual world." |
Kinda sounds like those f$cking nuts who believe there is no other way to get to heaven than to hold poisonous rattlesnakes and dance all around the chapel. Of course, being bit and killed by the venom doesn't matter.
I guess you loonies all have your traditions.
What is this dogma thing you refer to again? |
|
|
| occrider |
Dammit ... I missed out on all the fun :(
If you ask me, these fundies might stand a chance if they band together to form a stronger, super fundy. Then they can use the power of 3 or however many god's they subscribe to to make their argument the holiest (pun intended), confusing argument ever. Somewhat like the GUTS theory, it would be the Grand Unifying Religous Argument That Makes Absolutely No Sense ... GURATMANS |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Dammit ... I missed out on all the fun :(
If you ask me, these fundies might stand a chance if they band together to form a stronger, super fundy. Then they can use the power of 3 or however many god's they subscribe to to make their argument the holiest (pun intended), confusing argument ever. Somewhat like the GUTS theory, it would be the Grand Unifying Religous Argument That Makes Absolutely No Sense ... GURATMANS |
Oops, sorry I didn't notify you. This is definitely the first time I've heard from a Hare Krishna.
Same ol' rhetoric, however. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Oops, sorry I didn't notify you. This is definitely the first time I've heard from a Hare Krishna.
Same ol' rhetoric, however. |
Oh well ... serves me right for actually working :whip:
Yes this is a new breed of fundy. Definetely an interesting challenge. It's just not as fun when you can't use the bible against them though.
I love how they always like to revert back to sources from the 70's and 80's for their arguments. That's like me saying that the computer is going to go nowhere because of all the vacuum tubes needed ... |
|
|
| Arbiter |
That's a staggering compilation of internal contradictions, double standards, and errors of fact if I've ever seen one. Fortunately others have saved my time by pointing most of this out. However, I think particular attention to be paid to how nonsensical some of these claims are.
| quote: | | In the past, they say, life arose from matter; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will create life from matter. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life began from matter. This refers to the past--"began." Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense. |
One minute ago, I picked up a glass of water and took a sip from it. This refers to the past. Would it be a contradiction for me to "now speak of the future" and say that I am going to pick up the same glass of water and take another sip from it when I finish typing this sentence?
It would appear not, as I just did. Were it a contradiction, this would have been impossible.
He's right about one thing, though - this is childish nonsense. Assuming, that is, that he was referring to his own attempt at "reasoning."
| quote: | THE INDIVIDUAL LIVING FORCE
Srila Prabhupada. The gardeners supply water to the green trees, so why don't they supply water to this dead tree and make it green?
Dr. Singh. From experience they know that it will not grow.
Srila Prabhupada. Then what is the element that is lacking? Scientists say that chemicals are the cause of life, but all the chemicals that were present when the tree was alive are still there. And these chemicals are still supporting the lives of many living entities such as microbes and insects. So they cannot say that life energy is lacking in the body of the tree. The life energy is there.
Dr. Singh. But what about the life energy of the tree itself?
Srila Prabhupada. Yes, that is the difference. The living force is individual, and the particular individual living entity that was the tree has left. This must be the case, since all the chemicals necessary to support life are still there, yet the tree is dead. Here is another example. Suppose I am living in an apartment, and then I leave it. I am gone, but many other living entities remain there--ants, spiders and so forth. So it is not true that simply because I have left the apartment, it can no longer accommodate life. Other living entities are still living there. It is simply that I--an individual living being--have left. The chemicals in the tree are like the apartment: they are simply the environment for the individual force--the soul--to act through. And the soul is an individual. I am an individual, and therefore I may leave the apartment. Similarly, the microbes are also individuals; they have individual consciousness. If they are moving in one direction but are somehow blocked, they think, "Let me go the other way." They have personality.
Karandhara. But in a dead body there is no personality.
Srila Prabhupada. This indicates that the individual soul has left that body. The soul has left, and therefore the tree does not grow. |
It seems as if Prabhupada believes that science describes the body as a shell inside which is a disorganized amalgam of chemicals. However, this is clearly an error of fact. The body is a highly organized system - you can't just "inject" a chemical into the body and expect the body to use it to sustain itself. The body needs a variety of chemical elements to survive, but injecting them into my forehead isn't going to fulfill those needs.
| quote: |
They are not nice men. They are rascals. They are not even gentlemen. Under appropriate circumstances, gentlemen will have some shyness or some shame. But these men are shameless. They cannot properly answer our challenges, yet they shamelessly claim that they are scientists and that they will create life. They are not even gentlemen. At least I regard them like that. A gentleman will be ashamed to speak nonsense
|
Argumentum ad hominem - and the weakest I've ever seen at that! Perhaps it's true, though, that scientists cannot "properly" answer his challenges (whatever that means). So if I demand mathematical proof of the existence of Krsna, and he cannot properly answer this challenge, I am right in saying that he is a "rascal" right? Or is it just his challenges which have to be answered, not mine?
| quote: | Dr. Singh. They do not think before they speak.
Srila Prabhupada. That means that they are not human beings. A human being thinks twice before saying anything. Krsna makes the presence of life within the body so easy to understand. He says: |
In the context of the aforementioned future/past contradiction claim, this is more than a bit amusing. I don't see why these folks are so self-deprecating. Oh nevermind, yes I do. If I was caught spouting that sort of garbage I'd hang myself on general principle.
| quote: |
According to the Vedic system, knowledge which is achieved from the greatest authority is to be considered perfect.
|
Rule #1: I am always right.
I claim that Rule #1 is correct.
Proof: Refer to Rule #1
| quote: |
Let them be humble first of all. What are their tiny little brains and imperfect senses able to conceive?
|
Well, enough that they are still alive. If their "tiny little brains" and "imperfect senses" were so inadequate, they would have walked in front of a Mack truck and gotten smeared across the pavement years ago because they couldn't see or hear the vehicle approaching.
It's not possible to live without trust in your senses. If you do not trust that where you see a floor, there is a floor and not a cliff, how can you walk? If you do not trust that when you hear another man speak, the words you hear are the one's he spoke, how can you communicate verbally with anyone? It's absurd.
This is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen to justify a religious position. First of all, it provides no evidence whatsoever that any of its claims are veracious. Second, it attempts to undermine what it perceives as a competing influence - namely science. However, it does so from a standpoint marked by an almost frightening degree of ignorance about science. The result is a series of straw man arguments and arguments from ignorance. Finally, it is marked by comical double standards, internal contradictions, and fallacious reasoning - particularly inexplicable non-sequitur jumps from a set of premises, one or more of which is usually false, directly to a conclusion. Even your standard believer would easily recognize this as complete and utter nonsense. |
|
|
| Moti |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What a bunch of huey! What the f$ck is this guy on? There were some serious acid-heads back in the '70's, hmmmm, I wonder?
Naaw, couldn't be.
It also seems that your dali llama here is invoking the idea that religious beliefs and laws have come from your God. Do you have any historical evidence to support this position that your religious laws come from a divine being?
Umpa dumpa doopadee do.....
No wait, I've got a better one:
I love you
You love me
We're a happy family
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you
Won't you say you love me too?
(Barney's theme).
My Great Cookie Monster hasn't created a good chant yet, but he's working on one. Hopefully, it'll be as good as Barney's!
Kinda sounds like those f$cking nuts who believe there is no other way to get to heaven than to hold poisonous rattlesnakes and dance all around the chapel. Of course, being bit and killed by the venom doesn't matter.
I guess you loonies all have your traditions.
What is this dogma thing you refer to again? |
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."
That's not too difficult to understand is it. Are you a meat eater? Meat eating makes the brain very very dull to understand finer spiritual subject matter.
"How you can understand the subtle laws of God? You have dull brain, with cow dung. (laughs) You cannot understand."
Still this quote is easy to understand, is it not?:cool:
Also consider:
One cannot challenge the authority of the Supreme and know Him also at the same time. He reserves the right of not being exposed to such a challenging spirit of an insignificant spark of the whole, a spark subjected to the control of illusory energy.
[Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.21]
Note: so don't be PUFFED UP, you are insignificant. Humility is the first step to real knowledge. Why you are so proud? You are limited in so many ways. You cannot see even your own hand without light. You are so dependent, but falsely thinking you are the lord of all you survey. Get real JOE. YOU HAVE A TINY LITTLE BRAIN AND IMPERFECT SENSES and you are so PROUD!
Neither you nor your guru's [the big frogs] can answer this question:
"If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life bio chemically in your laboratories?"
LIFE IS COMING FROM LIFE that can be proved. But were is the proof Live comes from chemicals?
You cannot explain what is the difference between a dead man and a living man. You have got so many big, big scientists, philosophers. You do not know. So where is your brain?
The scientists do not know what is life, they are "making experiments", they are "advancing" they will prove it "in the future" BUT RIGHT NOW THEY DO NOT KNOW, so if they don't know, they are cheating if they pose as teachers. A TEACHER MEANS ONE WHO KNOWS:
Prabhupada: That means that... Then don't talk that you are scientists. You are student. You are trying to learn. You're student. You cannot say that you are scientists.
Hrdayananda: So regardless of our position, they are not qualified.
Prabhupada: Ah?
Hrdayananda: Yes.
Prabhupada: Their system is to remain a student and pose as teacher, their system. They're trying to learn it, and still they're posing as teacher. Teacher means one who knows. He does not know; still he poses in the post of a teacher.
So knowledge means without any mistake. Anything without any mistake, that is perpetually right. And anything based on mistaken idea, that will change. You have to correct the mistake. The so-called modern scientists, they are simply correcting their mistake. Therefore they have no real knowledge. Nobody can have real knowledge, because we are imperfect. Our senses are imperfect. That is our defect in the conditioned life. We have got four defects: we commit mistake, we become illusioned, our senses are imperfect, and we cheat. Because our knowledge is imperfect, still, we take the position of teacher; therefore we are cheater--not teacher, but cheater. So the teacher society nowadays is the cheater society. And this modern world is a society of the cheater and the cheated. That's all. Somebody is cheating and somebody is being cheated. This is going on.
So how can we not be cheated? That is mahatmabhih. You have to follow the previous great acaryas, mahatmabhih. Just like Krsna is accepted. Krsna said He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
[Srila Prabhupada from a Srimad-Bhagavatam Lecture, 1.15.44, Los Angeles, December 22, 1973] |
|
|
| Psy-T |
A: when i started reading i wanted to comment on the stupidity of each argument here,, but then i realised there's just too goddamn much of it!
B: WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!! ROFLMFAO!!!!
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
where can i sign up to become a true devote of the mighty krishna?
:haha: :stongue: :haha: :stongue: :haha: |
|
|
| Moti |
Although we may have all the constituents of matter at our disposal, we cannot produce consciousness from them. All the material elements may be present in a dead man, but we cannot revive that man to consciousness. This body is not like a machine. When a part of a machine breaks down, it can be replaced, and the machine will work again, but when the body breaks down and consciousness leaves the body, there is no possibility of our replacing the broken part and rejuvenating the consciousness. The soul is different from the body, and as long as the soul is there, the body is animate. But there is no possibility of making the body animate in the absence of the soul.
Because we cannot perceive the soul by our gross senses, we deny it. Actually there are so many things that are there which we cannot see. We cannot see air, radio waves, or sound, nor can we perceive minute bacteria with our blunt senses, but this does not mean they are not there. By the aid of the microscope and other instruments, many things can be perceived which had previously been denied by the imperfect senses. Just because the soul, which is atomic in size, has not been perceived yet by senses or instruments, we should not conclude that it is not there. It can, however, be perceived by its symptoms and effects. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
diginut/renegade/occrider/arbiter/mr.opus:
dont you think this is futile?
your just wasting your energy on a brainwashed 3y/o... |
|
|
| moncster |
| It's like me saying your computer was created by my magical imaginary friend. Prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
|
