Hare Krishna

[Angrboda]

Oh, c'mon. Can't you even give me a hint? Won't you tell me your path? You came all this way. What is a path if it doesn't lead someplace?

I've already told you my path - I'm a devotee of Krishna. I don't understand what you want me to say.

Perhaps it is because I've negligently skipped from page 9 to page 13, perhaps I've missed your message. If so, I apologize. I have a Dharma reading tomorrow, and I am most ill prepared. So you have time to consider your response.

It would seem, unless I be struck dumb, that you are Hindu and I am Hindu, but this tells us not the distance between you and I.

If you tell me you are a devotee of Krishna, and I tell you that I devote myself to ma Kali, is the room that much brighter?

I will not return till a day or so, but if what little I know of the Baghavad is true, Krsna councils you do your duty. Do your duty, or leave me wanting.

Don't leave me wanting. Okay?

[Tino]

Here's an argument I think is funny, for example:

( P ) Modern science, by their standard of achieving knowledge, has no evidence for God
( C ) Therefore there is no reason to think there is a God

What's missing from this argument is that there may be other ways of knowing if God exists or not. You certainly haven't proved that the modern scientific method is the only way to know anything that may be knowable. That's a claim science can't prove. I've heard respected scientists entirely agree with this point.

Science is great when it stays within the bounds of what it can talk about. When it starts making claims about things it can't talk about, like spirituality, or makes the claim that there is nothing else to talk about, that's like an intellectual foul.

Yeah, sorry, this is ignorant. Science doesn't place limitations on what can be learned, learned about, or how it can be learned. It's only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised. Science is self-correcting, ever-changing, applicable to everything. It values careful observation and respects facts even when they are disquieting and seem to contradict conventional wisdom.

Your "truth", however, is one giant argument from authority - static, unquestionable, unchangeable, untestable, unexaminable, ignorant of observation and fact. Your "truth" can only propagate through religion, because it has to be brainwashed into people to make it appear reasonable. Your religion in particular has a well-known reputation for being a leader in brainwashing its rigid dogma.

If there are other valid ways of knowing that god/gods exist, science places no limitations on using them. However, based on the accumulated knowledge from thousands of years of observations, the reports of "god" or "gods" are a result of the known irrational characteristics of human beings rather than the actions of supernatural beings.

[Angrboda]

Oh, c'mon. Can't you even give me a hint? Won't you tell me your path? You came all this way. What is a path if it doesn't lead someplace?

I've already told you my path - I'm a devotee of Krishna. I don't understand what you want me to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzSWrnCRrUk

Is there a strongness inside of you?

Joan Armatrading - Body To Dust.......

Honestly, I don't mind. I tell you from the bottom of my heart, I don't mind. From my soul, I tell you. (True, I don't have a soul, and my heart is blackest of black... but I don't mind.) But rest assured, I can be trusted to be nice. If not strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swZGbG7_e3s

[Whateverist]

I like that Barbara Dane singing with the Chambers Brothers. Thanks.

[Annik]

See? You're really really angry at God. Otherwise, why say he's sadistic and an asshole?

Can't be angry at something you don't think exists.

[Cyberman]

It's a common theist tactic: the only reason that unbelievers 'reject' whatever god is under discussion is that we are angry, hurt or otherwise damaged, by the god or the earthly agents thereof. Dehumanising your opponents makes them easier to deal with. There is also the fringe benefit of avoiding the real question of why we reject the god; i.e., if we are seen as perfectly happy in our unbelief, the theist can be as well. So we have to painted as the hateful ones.

[Whateverist]

It's a common theist tactic: the only reason that unbelievers 'reject' whatever god is under discussion is that we are angry, hurt or otherwise damaged, by the god or the earthly agents thereof. Dehumanising your opponents makes them easier to deal with. There is also the fringe benefit of avoiding the real question of why we reject the god; i.e., if we are seen as perfectly happy in our unbelief, the theist can be as well. So we have to painted as the hateful ones.

You mean theists actually prefer to understand our rejection of God as either based on an immature emotional reaction or completely baseless? But it is so much simpler than that.

[Cyberman]

So simple that it either flies beneath their radar or they pretend it does.

[Doubting_Thomas]

In case no-one has already posted this in 14 pages of deep debate on Hare Krishna...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjX-XBq0Byc

[Cyberman]

One of the curses of living in the UK - Channel 4 hates us.