(October 9, 2012 at 10:32 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 9, 2012 at 10:28 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: The theories are interesting, of course. But I'd really be more interested in something you can verify the way you can verify claims about medical powders. Can science do that? Because I've been under the impression (maybe mistaken!) that it couldn't.

You seem to be under the impression that a theory is a guess. If you couldn't verify, falsify, and reproduce the contents of a theory it would not be a theory.

If s/he really is under this impression, then either s/he has memory problems (like myself) or there's something else going on, not necessarily to do with honesty. This makes twice now that s/he has been briefed as to what scientific theories actually are, the first instance s/he actually acknowledged and thanked me for the clarification. So there's really no excuse on that level.

(Edited to fix quote attribution.)

(October 9, 2012 at 10:28 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: So while I might want to consult your knowledge if I have a medical problem, why should I consult you on issues about the basis of existence? Have you done any lab experiments to test something about that?

Maybe not, but I often wonder why theists suspend disbelief for their own god, but don't do it for other things. Has you pastor done any tests about how the world started? How about the pope? Who wants to bet that anything your pastor tells you is either:
A. quoted from the bible
B. his own interpretation of a passage (varies between pastors)
C. an anecdote that in no way suggests god, but he thinks it does

Your pastor would simply be taking the word of a 2000+ year old book that contains many scientific errors, and nothing to suggest it couldn't have easily been written by people of the time.
(Note: When I say your pastor, I am simply referring to a generic nameless 'authority' on religion)

Religious 'authorities' study the texts, and are thus knowledgeable on them. They do not study whether the text is even valid in the first place. They, like many theists, first assume god and then bend the evidence to support their particular interpretation of him (which still fails to convince the truly incredulous).

You've already gotten superb answers. I cannot improve on them.

I will suggest this. Sitting in a corner and wondering about silly "questions" like those - and they were all pretty much the same - is a rather pointless exercise. What you seem to be looking for is simply confirmation that your particular religion is right.

Before I get interested in such mental masturbation you would have to demonstrate that your god - indeed any god - is real. Otherwise, they are little more than examples of the mindset that thinks it was "somewhere" before your mom and dad got together.

(October 9, 2012 at 12:26 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(October 9, 2012 at 10:28 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: So while I might want to consult your knowledge if I have a medical problem, why should I consult you on issues about the basis of existence? Have you done any lab experiments to test something about that?

Maybe not, but I often wonder why theists suspend disbelief for their own god, but don't do it for other things. Has you pastor done any tests about how the world started? How about the pope? Who wants to bet that anything your pastor tells you is either:
A. quoted from the bible
B. his own interpretation of a passage (varies between pastors)
C. an anecdote that in no way suggests god, but he thinks it does

Your pastor would simply be taking the word of a 2000+ year old book that contains many scientific errors, and nothing to suggest it couldn't have easily been written by people of the time.
(Note: When I say your pastor, I am simply referring to a generic nameless 'authority' on religion)

Religious 'authorities' study the texts, and are thus knowledgeable on them. They do not study whether the text is even valid in the first place. They, like many theists, first assume god and then bend the evidence to support their particular interpretation of him (which still fails to convince the truly incredulous).

Darkstar, dear, you "appear" to have made a fundamental mistake here. Akincana is not a member of the Abrahamanic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). (Were you operating on that assumption? He/she appears to come from a branch of Hinduism. The manyfold traditions that make up so-called "Hinduism" have a completely different take on the value of texts and religious authority; you might want to familiarize yourself with that world, so you can better "speak the language" as it were.) She (he? I would appreciate you declaring a gender; it's just personal, but I find it helpful for me to know, even if only for picking pronouns) likely does not put any stock in pastors or bible (though she appears to value the Baghavad Gita, which tells an important story about Krishna, most highly). (For what it's worth, I would say the Baghavad is worth reading, for the human, if not religious aspects in it; I found it rather talky and have never gotten more than a hundred pages or so in it; all the same, it is one of the world's "good books.") She or he has, it appears, been studiously avoiding sharing themselves with me, so it's not clear even what kind of Krishna she or he is. There have been references here and there of the type about Hare Krishnas who accost people in airports, and my knowledge of the devotion of Krishna is limited, but it would appear that that kind of Krishna, or an ISKON Krishna, are not the only flavors of Krishna there are. This is one reason I have been trying to encourage him or her to declare themselves and share. I am simply ignorant of these peoples and their world. I won't pretend my curiosity extends simply beyond wanting to know, as a function of the life long hunger inside me, and the human desire to want to reach out and touch your face, to know you intimately, but so far she has chosen to hide. Perhaps she is scared or perhaps I have been overly aggressive. I do that; not just sometimes, but a lot. If my ways are what are keeping you hidden Krishna, demand that I amend my ways. I simply want to know you. That is all.

Anyway. WALL O' TEXT off!

I should have worded that differently. I assumed that his/her religion had pastors and a holy book (which I erronously referred to as the bible, rather than just as a generic holy book). If this religion has neither pastors/priests of any sort, nor a holy book, then I am curious as to what it does have. For example, does it have churches? Hinduism is probably the religion I know the least about (that isn't uber-obscure). My apologies.

(October 9, 2012 at 3:37 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(October 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm)apophenia Wrote: Darkstar, dear, you "appear" to have made a fundamental mistake here. Akincana is not a member of the Abrahamanic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

I should have worded that differently. I assumed that his/her religion had pastors and a holy book (which I erronously referred to as the bible, rather than just as a generic holy book). If this religion has neither pastors/priests of any sort, nor a holy book, then I am curious as to what it does have. For example, does it have churches? Hinduism is probably the religion I know the least about (that isn't uber-obscure). My apologies.

I would start with the Wikipedia entry on "Hinduism." (Which is .) While purists, or people who know a lot (of which I'm not one) may object to parts of it, I think it is a good place to start. As a Wikipedia article, it's somewhat longish, and links in to volumes of more in depth material, but can likely be digested over the course of an ordinary lunch break.


An illustration of a scene from the Baghavad-Gita:

wikipedia Wrote:Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism among others; and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual and the tradition and philosophy followed.

Well, if that isn't the most vaguely defined religion ever...
I suppose I cannot ever claim to know what a non-abrahamic theist believes until they say it flat out...

To anyone who wants to know about my "religious views":

I wouldn't have suggested you look up Hinduism. As you discovered, that term, which doesn't even come from the tradition itself, includes a huge variety of ideas and practices.

I've described my 'Religious Views' as "Gaudiya Vaisnava." If you look that up you'll get a clearer idea than whatever you'll find looking up Hinduism in general.

(October 10, 2012 at 4:33 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: To anyone who wants to know about my "religious views":

I wouldn't have suggested you look up Hinduism. As you discovered, that term, which doesn't even come from the tradition itself, includes a huge variety of ideas and practices.

I've described my 'Religious Views' as "Gaudiya Vaisnava." If you look that up you'll get a clearer idea than whatever you'll find looking up Hinduism in general.

Something tells me that you don't tolerate ambiguity well.



Oh wait, I think I knew that.

I just finished reading this whole thread (about 2 years too late).

I found it interesting due to the fact that I have been affiliated with the Hare Krishna's for several years, but now have started to question many of the philosophy's fundamental tenets.

For years I have despised, even hated atheists, a consequence of listening to lectures and discussions by religious figures.
But I must admit now that atheists are not the evil, hateful demons that I thought them to be
I now respect their drive for rational thought and behavior, it is refreshing, to say the least.

Anyways, this is my introduction to the forums, sorry if resurrecting this thread was inappropriate.

I wonder what happened to the OP (Akincana Krishna dasa) ?