Hare Krishna

[Nine]

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.

Lmao. The logical thing is to ask for proof.

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.

When did I say I knew better? F* still means fuck btw I don't see the point in pretending it doesn't.

[Kayenneh]

Just because you personally feel that there is a god, it doesn't make it so. You claim that there is, well guess what, burden of proof is on you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

[Tino]

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.

The error you are making here is claiming that science doesn't count anything it can't explain as knowledge. That's wrong. Science is filled with things it can't explain - dark energy and dark matter are two that come immediately to mind. Finding things we can't explain excites scientists - they don't fear it - they hope for it. That's what drives new knowledge. So please correct your understanding of science.

Scientism is an attempt to monopolize knowledge.

On the contrary, it is religion that attempts to monopolize knowledge by simply asserting things to be true without offering any evidence, and then claiming that the inability to verify religious claims is not a failure of the religion, but rather of science. For example, that is what you are doing.

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?

I don't think you've thought this through. First, are you trying to claim that arguments from authority are logically valid? Are you really here trying to overturn humanity's understanding of logic? Second, the "real depth" of knowledge comes from knowing that I can access multiple independent sources that will cross-verify the knowledge that I accept. I'll have to take it in from a first source, but I know that I can go further in depth to look at the sources of that knowledge and, in turn, learn even more about it. On the other hand there are people like you, who are satisfied with the thinnest layer of knowledge, coming from one source, and with no ability to be checked, tested or verified by any other independent source. That's what makes your position immature - it's the child-like acceptance of what you have been told by one source.

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?

Because it can't be independently verified. I'd have to accept it from a book with no source or a leader with no evidence.

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

I've answered all of your questions with logic so the answer is that I can. My feelings about the world are great, and I'm thankful that I have the clarity of science to help me avoid your fate, committing your life to something you can't even explain (for example, again I'll ask you, why does Krishna require worship? Your silence on this repeated question speaks volumes about the subject).

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.

Science argues not what is possible or impossible, but rather to what degree things are likely. After evaluating thousands of years of god claims we've concluded with high certainty that the source of those claims is the irrationality of human beings, not the existence of supernatural beings. But it would take just one bit of evidence to the contrary to open the door for re-inquiry. Just one. Why can't we find that one bit of evidence? Hmmmm.

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.

I don't believe I'm superior to you or anyone else but this conversation has shown that I'm far more logical and rational than you. I take what you are into very seriously, and though I don't know you, my concern for you as a fellow human being is that you're trapped in a cult. Before you commit the rest of your life to worshipping Krishna, why not take a few months off from it and see if it still seems like a good idea? You can always go back. Are you free to leave?

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

By the way, I think the lady in the cartoon makes a great argument.

[Kayenneh]

By the way, I think the lady in the cartoon makes a great argument.

If so, you're worshiping an asshole.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Science argues not what is possible or impossible, but rather to what degree things are likely. After evaluating thousands of years of god claims we've concluded with high certainty that the source of those claims is the irrationality of human beings, not the existence of supernatural beings. But it would take just one bit of evidence to the contrary to open the door for re-inquiry. Just one. Why can't we find that one bit of evidence? Hmmmm.

"We've concluded".... and who is the "we" you're talking about? And why should I accept their authority? It sounds to me like you're asking me to accept an authority on this point - and after reading you're comments, I'm just so reluctant to do that.

Lots (and lots) of people I know have evaluated religious claims and concluded with "high certainty" that there is truth in the claims.

So if there are people that think the claims are good, why have other people decided they're wrong? Do they have any evidence? And if they don't have evidence that religious claims as wrong, why have they unscientifically shut the door on religious claims?

[downbeatplumb]

.

Lots (and lots) of people I know have evaluated religious claims and concluded with "high certainty" that there is truth in the claims.

So what was their method of evaluation?

how was the validity tested, what evidence was mulled over?

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

God's existence is self evident in the experience of having a relationship with Him. If we call on God, if we chant His names, He reveals Himself.

[Darwinian]

God's existence is self evident in the experience of having a relationship with Him. If we call on God, if we chant His names, He reveals Himself.

Prove it!

[Tino]

"We've concluded".... and who is the "we" you're talking about? And why should I accept their authority?

"We" is the scientific community at large.

It sounds to me like you're asking me to accept an authority on this point - and after reading you're comments, I'm just so reluctant to do that.

I'm inviting you to access the knowledge that is freely available to you on the lack of evidence for any supernatural claims. Your religion is one who asks people to accept an authority.

You still haven't answered why Krishna requires worship (to which you've committed your life)(5th request), nor did you address any of my other points.