Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Redbeard The Pink]

Traditional or not traditional what difference would it make?
As far as it works who care.
So yes it works therefore this system of acquiring knowledge can be called SCIENCE.
End of the story.

Quote from Wikipedia concerning the efficacy of Ayurvedic medicine:

Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no evidence that any are effective in themselves. According to Cancer Research UK, no significant scientific evidence has shown effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease, although massage and relaxation are often beneficial for some cancer patients and there are indications from animal studies that some herbal products used in Ayurveda might be explored further.

Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.

A review of the use of Ayurveda for cardiovascular disease concluded that the evidence is not convincing for the use of any Ayurvedic herbal treatment for heart disease or hypertension, but that many herbs used by Ayurvedic practitioners could be appropriate for further research.

Research
In India, research in Ayurveda is undertaken by the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (CCRAS), through a national network of research institutes. In Nepal, the National Ayurvedic Training and Research Centre (NATRC) researches medicinal herbs in the country.

Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized.

You might be inclined to discount this because it's from Wikipedia, but the article on Wikipedia concerning Ayurveda is chock full of citations and sources, so if you want to check further into it, knock yourself out. The point is no, your yogi bullshit does not qualify as science and does not generally "work" in the classic sense of the word. Aside from massage and relaxation (which is about as original as making tools from sticks), Ayurveda has practically nothing scientific going for it. Try again.

You can well throw your definition to the dogs.
Philosophy is all about wisdom but wisdom that help the individual to progress.
The study can help to progress just a little bit.
The real progress is made out of hard work.
And the work has got to be done within because the real knowledge is within not outside in the books.
You may have noticed that when you can not get a solution and an answer to some of your problem you think and think and think again.
Inventors got the ideas after thinking and thinking time and time again.
Why would they think if the knowledge wouldn't be within?
As far as to get this knowledge from within is all an other story.
You need a practical method given to you by those who did the hard work before but don't worry about that Pinky.
All will become clear in your mind at the most appropriate time.
It would help a lot if you stop trying spouting bulls all the time  
and start looking within.  

Correction: your philosophy is like that. Your personal philosophy. The general definition of philosophy is the one I gave. If you have a better one, give it and cite your source. Otherwise you're just waxing gibberish (again...are you a goblin?).

All i did is to show you that even in the very old time people were involved in acquiring knowledge
and acquiring knowledge is to be engaged in science.

No, all you did was link to some words on a website, providing no incite at all into what we were supposed to be looking at. You put the word "science" into a sanskrit search engine online, then linked me to whatever it coughed up as something that could even be vaguely translated as science. All you showed us was that you're a bit of a ham-fisted klutz when it comes to proving a point with sources.

Wrong all the way Pinky.
Yoga came first so it can not possibly be an Hindu discipline.
Hindus practice a distorted way of the real yoga.
The same can be said for Christianity and Buddhism.
Christ was a spiritual being like Buddha.
They teach spirituality not religions which once again are distorted spirituality.
But you wouldn't know the difference.
Would you Pinky?  

Citation, please? You know what, never mind. Google, what's up with this bullshit?


Ok, Google is telling me that there does seem to be a crowd that states Yoga is and has been part of Hinduism for a long time, but that it has its origins in Tantric practice, not in Hindu practice. And Tantra is...   You guessed it, folks! It's a religion!


          


So even if Yoga doesn't originate with with Hinduism, your contention is still a non-argument because Yoga is still a religious practice in its origins and at its core.


Spirituality and religion are two sides of the same coin. Your insistence that they are different is nothing more than semantic word salad based on personal definitions. People who call themselves "spiritual" are just pretentious twats who think they've got it all figured out because...I don't know, because they don't go to church, I guess? They still believe the same unsupported bullshit, engage in personal tedium to which they attach metaphysical significance, and cast aspersions on others for not believing things for which there is zero evidence. Looks like pretty much the same thing to me.


Wow. I just realized that "spiritual" people are like the hipsters of the religious world. Religious people often describe themselves as spiritual, but then the "spiritual" people come along and they're like "Nuh uh...you guys don't have spirituality...you just have that mainstream religion stuff that's just a corruption of spirituality. We're going back to the way spirituality was before it became all mainstream and turned into those gross religions!"