One of the stupidest fucking replies ever.

[genkaus]

I think the original comment makes a valid point about the limit of human knowledge.

No, it doesn't. It makes an incredibly stupid point.

Both sensual perception and theoretical reasoning, while valuable to a point, cannot ultimately help us achieve absolute knowledge.

And how exactly do you even know there is something like absolute knowledge? Magic?

The human capacity for truth and knowledge is inherently limited.

I have never encountered any limits. Can you tell me where they are?

I think better than being outraged by these points, you should be humble to them.

Humility in face of stupidity posturing as wisdom is a sure indication of your own ignorance.

Aren't good scientists supposed to be humble by things they don't know? You may have some ideas about dinosaurs, and they may be reasonable and based on evidence, but they're certainly not sure the way your day-to-day experience is. Why not admit that?

Actually, they do admit it. That doesn't they have to give any credibility to the farcical claims of religion.

Does it make you insecure that your point of view is not absolutely and ultimately provable?

On the contrary, our security comes from the fact that even if we turn out to be wrong, we can correct ourselves. That is what intellectual honesty is all about. Unlike you. You have to believe that your Vedas are absolutely and ultimately correct - though they are not provable in the slightest and in fact have been disproven to a great extent - because when you accepted them as the authority, you let go of your rational faculties - which is the only means of correction.

Modern science accepts sensory perception and theoretical reasoning as the most reliable means of knowledge. But how do we know these means produce actual knowledge?

Because that is the definition of knowledge. If you have neither, you cannot know anything.

To argue based on those means is circular reasoning. To accept these means of knowledge as "self-evident" puts you in the same class as the religionists you violently reject.

Not even close. Claiming something as self-evident and that thing actually being self-evident are two different things.

I accept Veda, transcendental knowledge, as the highest authority for absolute knowledge.

And that is why you don't have any actual knowledge.

If I want evidence about the nature of existence, I consider the "evidence" of modern science inferior to the evidence of veda.

So, I guess when you get sick, you drink cow-urine instead of taking medicine, correct?