Hare Krishna

[Mister Agenda]

This, is not a scientific statement. This is what you believe. I'm sure you really really sincerely believe it from the bottom of your heart, too. And I'm sure the gods of science really appreciate your faith and devotion.

I guess there is nothing new in theology, the Hare Krishnas sound just like the Pentecostals in the end: they know deep down that faith isn't a good reason to believe anything, and the only way they can level the field is to accuse you of also holding your belief on faith, even while typing on a computer screen made possible by what you believe in: testing ideas to destruction, the opposite of faith.

Great, so why not stick with that? Science can't talk about God. So why try?

Science can't talk about an unfalsifiable God, which is why all versions of God are now unfalsifiable. Same thing happened to leprechauns. And just because science doesn't have much to say about a God that can't be verifiably detected and never does anything that can be verifiably detected doesn't mean we can't talk about it philosophically. For instance, we might ask what good reason is there to believe that a God that can't be verifiably detected and never does anything that can be verifiably detected exists? And we might note in absence to a good answer for that question, it is reasonable to place God in the infinite category of things that can be imagined to exist but probably do not.

You're comparing apples and oranges, dude. More like apples with the source of you, me, your consciousness, your perceptions, your weights, your ideas about experiments and science and truth and everything. You want God to fit in your little hand, but He doesn't. You may be one of His experiments, He doesn't have to show up for any of yours.

If he exists, he's not just not showing up. He's hiding.

[Kayenneh]

Let's take this "debate" regarding science to a grass root level. E.g. at the moment I'm doing a course that focuses on medical powders and their properties. I am fortunate enough to have two of the most prominent persons in the field in the country as a lecturer and as an assistant in the lab, which mean I have access to the newest discoveries and data. Do I consider these persons as authorities in the field? Yes. Do I take every word they say for granted? No. I have a fundamental understanding of chemistry and the forces working on minuscule chemical particles and can take what I already know and apply this to the new information given to me and confirm that it seems consistent. In the lab I get to put that knowledge into practice and actually see the results for myself. There is no doubt in my mind that the knowledge I've received is anyway corrupt, because when comparing my work to the other groups doing the same in the lab it is proven that powders indeed work the way we were told.

So here's the beef I've got with you Akincana Krishna dasa. Third time is the charm, what is your knowledge and background in the natural sciences?
If you are, what I suspect, quite ignorant in the matter, why you keep ranting on that us who are well acquainted with the sciences don't know what we're talking about? It's fine if you don't know, not possessing knowledge can always be rectified. But to give your opinion so decidedly that all we scientists here have said is bullshit is beyond you. If you really have something that would debunk our statements, you would have provided proof already instead of all your belittling and sarcastic remarks that actually have no valid content. Your claims are based on the personal, on the circular thinking that your holy texts are right because there's a god that inspired the holy texts (ad infinitum), but yet you have the stomach to call peer reviewed data as ridiculous. No on here has made any extraordinary claims, the things beyond us we've honestly said that we don't know. I don't mind you questioning (actually, I find that admirable), but learn your own limits.

[Faith No More]

I've held off from commenting further in this thread in the desperate hope that something new would be brought to the table. In the end, the only new thing within this argument was the label "Krishna" and quotes from a different holy text.

Let me see if I can succintly sum up the arguments here...

1. You can't scientifically prove god doesn't exist.

2. If you haven't found god, you're just not doing it right.

3. You're just mad at god.

Someone let me know if I'm missing something here, because I truly want to believe that not all arguments for god are the same old drivel in a new package

[Cyberman]

No, I think you've pretty much summed it up. The same old clichés all over again.

[Whateverist]

Everyone claims to know what their god wants while simultaneously calling it unknowable.

Ding, ding, ding .. we have a rep winner! Excellent point.

In the same vein, Christians lay claim to the descriptor "humble" and they confess to having a far inferior capacity for understanding than God. But don't think for a minute that they therefore hold their beliefs lightly and open to revision. Nothing could be further than the truth. They have no trouble holding their beliefs over those resulting from your own research since theirs come from God. How do they know they come from God? How did little ole, unworthy them come by true knowledge of God's very word?

They invited it in. They study the word of God of course, but then they might go as terribly wrong as any other bible scholar if they didn't submit to the holy spirit. That's right. In prayer, they essentially assume the position so that the holy spirit may impregnate their minds with the understanding of God. Evidence? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you want the word of God to illuminate you, you've got to lie with the holy spirit until you conceive His word.

[Minimalist]

God is infallible.

I may have missed it but where did you provide evidence that your "god" is any more real than any of the others?

[Kayenneh]

I may have missed it but where did you provide evidence that your "god" is any more real than any of the others?

Obviously he just knows and it's personal. Oh, and every god is the same god.

[Minimalist]

Well...every god is the same old shit, I'll grant you that.

[Angrboda]

I have skipped ahead again, as it is painfully obvious that I'm not missing anything by doing so. It's sad to see confirmation bias claim yet another victim. I am, like Kichiagai, bored now. I have seen the same apologetics so many times, and while it might take some minimal research to remind myself of the substantive responses to some of them, all your making me do that research would be doing is wasting my time. I have no interest in explaining to you things which you could readily find out on your own with just some googling, if you indeed were interested. But the clear fact is that you are not. You are so heavily invested in playing defense, that you've forgotten that unless you actually go on offense and score some points, you will never win. And some of what you say, I can half agree with. Atheists are just as guilty of shallow apologetics, the true meaning of which they don't actually understand at times; however, with you such "misunderstood sound bites replacing the reality" appears to be your specialty.

I have no interest in persuading you. To a truly open mind, the truth herself is sufficient incentive. Though you face a common handicap in not being exceptionally bright. If it gives you comfort, you can hate my parents, for they gave me the genes which have served me so well.

You are not a seeker of truth. I don't know what you seek, but if it isn't truth at some level, it's likely not going to hold my interest. I would rather spend my time tearing apart the faulty thinking of Gautama Buddha and his disciples. That's a much more interesting set of structures than anything you have shown me about you and your Krishna. You have clearly been hiding from me, and giving me answers which tell me nothing. I suspect that you did not expect to find anyone with knowledge of Hindu traditions here, and are attempting to hide your fear and lack of truth. That's probably the wisest thing I've seen you do, because if you come into the open, I will likely shred you just for your impudence. Stay hidden, little Krishna. You don't have good enough game.

Well I am tired of your silly tropes that I've heard a thousand times. They are nothing but noise to me now. If you are too scared to come out and play, then that is just as well, because you likely would lose.


You came here to have fun. Whatever. For someone with such bold assertions and swagger, you talk much, but say very little.


As many here who know me can likely attest, while I am deeply thunderously religious, I am neither shallow nor trite. You seem to have double majored.


Kitto motto ikeru deshou
Chi no hate made mo
Tsuki no ue demo
Norinori dakara zutto ikeru deshou
Tokubetsu dakara sou supesharu dakara

[KichigaiNeko]

The lady has a very valid point there.

You have not come up with any new information, have taken the defensive / victim position and so have won the singular honour of being ....meh

Nice to have met you ...LLAP