Hare Krishna

[The Grand Nudger]

"Uncompromising purity" led you here OP, with nothing but these sorts of comments and responses to show for it? I doubt that very much.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

"Uncompromising purity" led you here OP, with nothing but these sorts of comments and responses to show for it? I doubt that very much.

?? Who said uncompromising purity led me here? I just came here for fun. I'm actually having a really good time.

---

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.

Hindu means lots and lots of things to different people. What else would you like to know?

[KichigaiNeko]

So essentially you have nothing new to offer??

Just like any other religion there is a huge scope for "personal interpretation"?

And as always it boils down to "Whatever floats your boat"

bored now Off to look at what science is up to.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

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.

Science is a wonderful style of figuring things out. It's super great, and I support science.

Scientism is the belief that science is all the real knowledge there is and that anything that can't be explain by science can't be counted as knowledge. Scientism is an attempt to monopolize knowledge.

When you say "arguments from authority are worthless" - I have to ask, aren't a lot of the things you think you know founded on the authority of others? How do you learn anything, for example, without first accepting authority? Imagine a kid coming into a classroom from day one and challenging anything and everything, defying his teacher "your authority is worthless! why do i have to listen to anything you have to say?" Or can you read a book full of new thoughts and ideas without skeptically thinking "who the hell is this author to tell me anything! i can't learn anything from this person! don't try to brainwash me!"? Is that a very mature, balanced position, that leads to real depth of knowledge?

Yet you are comfortable to talk and think like that about religion. Why? How can you be so sure no religion has any kind of knowledge to offer you?

The answer, of course, is that you logically can't. It's just a reflection of your faith or your feelings about the world.

Another point is that, if we're trying to discuss the validity of religion, or a particular idea in religion, you have to make an argument to establish your point, not argue as though it were true. That's called begging the question. You're arguing on the assumption that my religions claims are false, not proving that they are false.

There are valid ways of knowing God. I've learned them, and I'm working on realizing them for myself. You're welcome to think that what I'm into is bullshit. But if you think that that's because you're somehow more logical and rational than me, you're really fooling yourself.

[Nine]

Scientism is an attempt to monopolize knowledge.

lol. Reminded me of this



The reason people accept science is because it tests everything and provides evidence for the points that are made. Every alternative I have ever seen involves blindly accepting without any reason to.

You cannot differentiate between any 2 idiots beliefs and figure out which one is true unless you decide to test what they believe and find out what is true if either are true. Your option seems to be just accept one of them and have a good moan about people caring about what is actually true.

How can you be so sure no religion has any kind of knowledge to offer you?

Because there is no way of finding out for sure if its real or just more bullshit somebody made up.

Another point is that, if we're trying to discuss the validity of religion, or a particular idea in religion, you have to make an argument to establish your point, not argue as though it were true. That's called begging the question. You're arguing on the assumption that my religions claims are false, not proving that they are false.

You give me the claim and if it is possible to find out if its true I will look into it. If it is untestable then it isn't worth caring about seems there is no way to determine if its true or not.

There are valid ways of knowing God. I've learned them, and I'm working on realizing them for myself. You're welcome to think that what I'm into is bullshit.

It is bullshit. You have no valid way to know god. lol

But if you think that that's because you're somehow more logical and rational than me, you're really fooling yourself.

No your fooling yourself. Quit trying to make out that its us with the problem.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

The reason people accept science is because it tests everything and provides evidence for the points that are made. Every alternative I have ever seen involves blindly accepting without any reason to.

Great, accept science. I also accept science. In fact, if you want to be scientific, why not reject your second sentence, which is completely unscientific? You'd have more integrity if you scientifically proved that no one but scientists know anything worth knowing.

---

You cannot differentiate between any 2 idiots beliefs and figure out which one is true unless you decide to test what they believe and find out what is true if either are true. Your option seems to be just accept one of them and have a good moan about people caring about what is actually true.

No disrespect, but is english your first language? It's very hard to understand what this means.

Please, try to figure out what is actually true. Instead of blindly rejecting something you know practically nothing about, get serious about figuring out if there is truth somewhere before dogmatically rejecting it on a whim. That's not science.

---

How can you be so sure no religion has any kind of knowledge to offer you?

Because there is no way of finding out for sure if its real or just more bullshit somebody made up.

Another point is that, if we're trying to discuss the validity of religion, or a particular idea in religion, you have to make an argument to establish your point, not argue as though it were true. That's called begging the question. You're arguing on the assumption that my religions claims are false, not proving that they are false.

You give me the claim and if it is possible to find out if its true I will look into it. If it is untestable then it isn't worth caring about seems there is no way to determine if its true or not.

There are valid ways of knowing God. I've learned them, and I'm working on realizing them for myself. You're welcome to think that what I'm into is bullshit.

It is bullshit. You have no valid way to know god. lol

But if you think that that's because you're somehow more logical and rational than me, you're really fooling yourself.

No your fooling yourself. Quit trying to make out that its us with the problem.

1. Sure there is. More evidence that you haven't done your homework on what I'm even talking about - ironic you're making the same complaint against me.

2. Ok, read the Bhagavad gita. Test it out. There's a way to test it out. If you're not ready to do that, please politely admit that you don't know if there is truth there or not. Don't good scientists admit to not knowing things?

3. Another unscientific comment.

4. And another one.

[Nine]

In fact, if you want to be scientific, why not reject your second sentence, which is completely unscientific?

What the fuck are you talking about?!

Every alternative I have ever seen involves blindly accepting without any reason to.

I have said nothing like what you think you read. I said that I have seen no alternative.

You'd have more integrity if you scientifically proved that no one but scientists know anything worth knowing.

Your insane. My integrity is intact. Your chatting shit.

Until somebody brings forward some kind of evidence that they have an alternative that works as well as science I have every right to not give a fuck what they have to say. Show me your

valid ways of knowing God

Then I will take you seriously. Until then I respect your opinion as much as I respect this guys:

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Until somebody brings forward some kind of evidence that they have an alternative that works as well as science I have every right to not give a fuck what they have to say.

I feel like I've heard this song so many times now... when backed into a logical corner you just sing the "where's your proof?" chorus. It's catchy, I like it.

You have every right not give a f* what someone says. But you have no right to claim you know better....... unless you can scientifically prove that you do.

[Kayenneh]

You're still the one standing on shaky ground.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

You're still the one standing on shaky ground.

Maybe you'd like to scientifically elaborate on this?

You don't know if God exists. That doesn't mean I don't know. Would you care to prove that I don't know?