RE: Looking for an intelligent, rational discussion re atheism
September 4, 2011 at 11:28 am
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The rishis, like most revelatory characters, are in all likelihood mythical. But lets just take a look at their cosmology for a moment to see if they had an inside track. (The seven rishis are in fact Ursa Major, apparently not stars, but holy men.)
Brahmas lifespan is 100 "Brahma years". A "day" to brahma is 4.32 billion years, making his total lifespan 157680 billion years. Apparently the lifespan of creation is 4.32 billion years, after which there is a 4.32 billion year lull before creation begins again.
Few problems right out of the gate. Firstly, we shouldn't see anything older than 4.32 billion years. In fact we could have three vedic creation cycles in the span of time that the cosmos have been in existence. Even stranger, is that later in the text the Brahmas lifespan is said to be 311040 billion years. Fully twice that of the previous estimate (from the same text). This is later swept away by editors as the lull between the death and birth of a new brahma (and yet still missing a couple hundred thousand years).
An "end times" prophecy is also encoded within. All of creation will end sometime in the year 428898 (at which time creation will be destroyed by "fire or water" okay, they couldn't make up their mind but we'll let that slide). I'm not going to be around to falsify that one, but at least they had the balls to put a date on it. Of course why wouldn't they, who was going to say differently?
The cosmos are a giant egg, emanating from a single point called Bindu. So, there we have a fairly common metaphor for the cosmos as an egg (the whole birth/giving thing etc) tied to an early form of reductionism. Credit where credit is do I suppose..these guys did come up with Cavaraka before anyone else so we have to give them brownie points at some point.
They go on to make an "authoritative" list of species, we could possibly square that against reality.
8,400,400 species
900,00 of which are aquatic
2,000,000 trees and plants
1,100,000 are "small species" and insects and reptiles
1,000,000 are birds
3,000,000 are beasts
400,000 are human species
-We're missing 400 species, so I guess that's the wiggle room?
(if any poster wants to work this one for shits and giggles that would be great. The notion that there are 3x as many "beasts" (large land animals) as there are reptiles and insects, is to me, comedy gold.)
Now, I'm a huge fan of Hindu apologetics, and to hear Swami this or swami that explain away the creation stories, the math, or the "avatars and ages" is always a treat. They're worse than anything I've ever seen. When asked about evolution, they respond with "chicken or egg". Which I'm sure means something to the faithful, but sounds a hell of alot like gibberish to me. Now I've only done a very breif synopsis of their creation and cosmology accounts. It gets worse as time goes on and the vedas become politically charged. The "Seers" the Rishis, if they existed, may have seen something (and the drugs were probably very good), but it certainly wasn't anything we'd call knowledge today. It is a religion, founded at a time when any guess about the world around us was as good as anyone else's. A massive amount of opinion and speculation is required to make the vedas sound any more plausible than genesis. They are also in complete discord with each other in every possible way. How's that yardstick?
As far as everything answers:
If one wanted to test any given conjecture, such as "Brahma Exists", one would need to find some specific area to look. Postulating everything makes a test impossible, since we can't possibly say with certainty that we have tested "everything". If we take a specific example, Clouds. Clouds are Brahma, and therefor proof of his existence. Well, it appears that clouds are made of water, not Brahma. "Brahma is water". You see we could do this forever and never get any explanation for Brahma, or anything else. "Everything" answers are platitudes. It is a factually meaningless statement conceived of only to avoid actually explaining anything (because those who postulated it had no explanations to give).
You know eastern religions have become the new thing for a number of years, stemming back to the moment when the east became truly open for trade (beginning with a craze for all things oriental). Eastern religions seem to have two things going for them. A: that they're new (to us westerners), and B: that they're really old. Neither of these two things in and of themselves should give any rise to claims of knowledge therein. Oftentimes they do.
Brahmas lifespan is 100 "Brahma years". A "day" to brahma is 4.32 billion years, making his total lifespan 157680 billion years. Apparently the lifespan of creation is 4.32 billion years, after which there is a 4.32 billion year lull before creation begins again.
Few problems right out of the gate. Firstly, we shouldn't see anything older than 4.32 billion years. In fact we could have three vedic creation cycles in the span of time that the cosmos have been in existence. Even stranger, is that later in the text the Brahmas lifespan is said to be 311040 billion years. Fully twice that of the previous estimate (from the same text). This is later swept away by editors as the lull between the death and birth of a new brahma (and yet still missing a couple hundred thousand years).
An "end times" prophecy is also encoded within. All of creation will end sometime in the year 428898 (at which time creation will be destroyed by "fire or water" okay, they couldn't make up their mind but we'll let that slide). I'm not going to be around to falsify that one, but at least they had the balls to put a date on it. Of course why wouldn't they, who was going to say differently?
The cosmos are a giant egg, emanating from a single point called Bindu. So, there we have a fairly common metaphor for the cosmos as an egg (the whole birth/giving thing etc) tied to an early form of reductionism. Credit where credit is do I suppose..these guys did come up with Cavaraka before anyone else so we have to give them brownie points at some point.
They go on to make an "authoritative" list of species, we could possibly square that against reality.
8,400,400 species
900,00 of which are aquatic
2,000,000 trees and plants
1,100,000 are "small species" and insects and reptiles
1,000,000 are birds
3,000,000 are beasts
400,000 are human species
-We're missing 400 species, so I guess that's the wiggle room?
(if any poster wants to work this one for shits and giggles that would be great. The notion that there are 3x as many "beasts" (large land animals) as there are reptiles and insects, is to me, comedy gold.)
Now, I'm a huge fan of Hindu apologetics, and to hear Swami this or swami that explain away the creation stories, the math, or the "avatars and ages" is always a treat. They're worse than anything I've ever seen. When asked about evolution, they respond with "chicken or egg". Which I'm sure means something to the faithful, but sounds a hell of alot like gibberish to me. Now I've only done a very breif synopsis of their creation and cosmology accounts. It gets worse as time goes on and the vedas become politically charged. The "Seers" the Rishis, if they existed, may have seen something (and the drugs were probably very good), but it certainly wasn't anything we'd call knowledge today. It is a religion, founded at a time when any guess about the world around us was as good as anyone else's. A massive amount of opinion and speculation is required to make the vedas sound any more plausible than genesis. They are also in complete discord with each other in every possible way. How's that yardstick?
As far as everything answers:
If one wanted to test any given conjecture, such as "Brahma Exists", one would need to find some specific area to look. Postulating everything makes a test impossible, since we can't possibly say with certainty that we have tested "everything". If we take a specific example, Clouds. Clouds are Brahma, and therefor proof of his existence. Well, it appears that clouds are made of water, not Brahma. "Brahma is water". You see we could do this forever and never get any explanation for Brahma, or anything else. "Everything" answers are platitudes. It is a factually meaningless statement conceived of only to avoid actually explaining anything (because those who postulated it had no explanations to give).
You know eastern religions have become the new thing for a number of years, stemming back to the moment when the east became truly open for trade (beginning with a craze for all things oriental). Eastern religions seem to have two things going for them. A: that they're new (to us westerners), and B: that they're really old. Neither of these two things in and of themselves should give any rise to claims of knowledge therein. Oftentimes they do.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
