Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Iroscato]

Well, I'd love to be reborn as a dog. Tell me, O Wise Rik, exactly how much a dick do I have to be to be reincarnated as a loveable breed such as a labrador, but not a useless one like a pomeranian? Can you give me a few pointers as to how horrible I should be? Or is there quite a large margin of error?

Why would you think that you have to be horrible to be reborn as a dog?
Even not horrible people can be reborn as animals.
It is all about lowering your consciousness.
Being atheist doesn't mean that you are horrible.
Most atheists are very good people but according to yoga by not following the dharma of life (purpose of life) which is to expand their consciousness act like people who drive a car with the brakes on and therefore
waste this life.
By wasting this life it is unlikely that the one who gave you such a life as a human will continue to give
life as a human.
Why would he-she (God doesn't have sex).
He just put you in the condition to act with the consciousness that you got in order to get the best result.  

Right, cool, let's go with that then. So how much do I have to lower my consciousness in order to be reborn as a lab? Can you give me a rough guideline? Obviously I don't wanna be reborn as a mayfly or something, they literally live a day which is filled with sex and nothing el - wait.

Failing a dog, how can I come back as a mayfly?

[Longhorn]

Well, I'd love to be reborn as a dog. Tell me, O Wise Rik, exactly how much a dick do I have to be to be reincarnated as a loveable breed such as a labrador, but not a useless one like a pomeranian? Can you give me a few pointers as to how horrible I should be? Or is there quite a large margin of error?

I wanna be reborn as a cat. I just can't decide if it should be a stray cat or a house cat. On one hand, freedom, on the other.....BELLY RUBS

[Redbeard The Pink]

Traditional or not traditional what difference would it make?
As far as it works who care.
So yes it works therefore this system of acquiring knowledge can be called SCIENCE.
End of the story.

Quote from Wikipedia concerning the efficacy of Ayurvedic medicine:

Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no evidence that any are effective in themselves. According to Cancer Research UK, no significant scientific evidence has shown effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease, although massage and relaxation are often beneficial for some cancer patients and there are indications from animal studies that some herbal products used in Ayurveda might be explored further.

Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.

A review of the use of Ayurveda for cardiovascular disease concluded that the evidence is not convincing for the use of any Ayurvedic herbal treatment for heart disease or hypertension, but that many herbs used by Ayurvedic practitioners could be appropriate for further research.

Research
In India, research in Ayurveda is undertaken by the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (CCRAS), through a national network of research institutes. In Nepal, the National Ayurvedic Training and Research Centre (NATRC) researches medicinal herbs in the country.

Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized.

You might be inclined to discount this because it's from Wikipedia, but the article on Wikipedia concerning Ayurveda is chock full of citations and sources, so if you want to check further into it, knock yourself out. The point is no, your yogi bullshit does not qualify as science and does not generally "work" in the classic sense of the word. Aside from massage and relaxation (which is about as original as making tools from sticks), Ayurveda has practically nothing scientific going for it. Try again.

You can well throw your definition to the dogs.
Philosophy is all about wisdom but wisdom that help the individual to progress.
The study can help to progress just a little bit.
The real progress is made out of hard work.
And the work has got to be done within because the real knowledge is within not outside in the books.
You may have noticed that when you can not get a solution and an answer to some of your problem you think and think and think again.
Inventors got the ideas after thinking and thinking time and time again.
Why would they think if the knowledge wouldn't be within?
As far as to get this knowledge from within is all an other story.
You need a practical method given to you by those who did the hard work before but don't worry about that Pinky.
All will become clear in your mind at the most appropriate time.
It would help a lot if you stop trying spouting bulls all the time  
and start looking within.  

Correction: your philosophy is like that. Your personal philosophy. The general definition of philosophy is the one I gave. If you have a better one, give it and cite your source. Otherwise you're just waxing gibberish (again...are you a goblin?).

All i did is to show you that even in the very old time people were involved in acquiring knowledge
and acquiring knowledge is to be engaged in science.

No, all you did was link to some words on a website, providing no incite at all into what we were supposed to be looking at. You put the word "science" into a sanskrit search engine online, then linked me to whatever it coughed up as something that could even be vaguely translated as science. All you showed us was that you're a bit of a ham-fisted klutz when it comes to proving a point with sources.

Wrong all the way Pinky.
Yoga came first so it can not possibly be an Hindu discipline.
Hindus practice a distorted way of the real yoga.
The same can be said for Christianity and Buddhism.
Christ was a spiritual being like Buddha.
They teach spirituality not religions which once again are distorted spirituality.
But you wouldn't know the difference.
Would you Pinky?  

Citation, please? You know what, never mind. Google, what's up with this bullshit?


Ok, Google is telling me that there does seem to be a crowd that states Yoga is and has been part of Hinduism for a long time, but that it has its origins in Tantric practice, not in Hindu practice. And Tantra is...   You guessed it, folks! It's a religion!


          


So even if Yoga doesn't originate with with Hinduism, your contention is still a non-argument because Yoga is still a religious practice in its origins and at its core.


Spirituality and religion are two sides of the same coin. Your insistence that they are different is nothing more than semantic word salad based on personal definitions. People who call themselves "spiritual" are just pretentious twats who think they've got it all figured out because...I don't know, because they don't go to church, I guess? They still believe the same unsupported bullshit, engage in personal tedium to which they attach metaphysical significance, and cast aspersions on others for not believing things for which there is zero evidence. Looks like pretty much the same thing to me.


Wow. I just realized that "spiritual" people are like the hipsters of the religious world. Religious people often describe themselves as spiritual, but then the "spiritual" people come along and they're like "Nuh uh...you guys don't have spirituality...you just have that mainstream religion stuff that's just a corruption of spirituality. We're going back to the way spirituality was before it became all mainstream and turned into those gross religions!" 

[Little Rik]

This physical world is all an illusion according to yoga.
It is all God mental energy-consciousness that turn into material-physical staff.
We see this world as real as an elephant create in God mind would see himself as real
but the only real thing is God.  

So if a gun-toting maniac comes in to the room, will you run and hide or simply say "it's an illusion".  You don't act as if life is an illusion and you know it.  Do you look both ways before crossing the street?  Why?  the physical bus is a mere illusion right?  Please go test this and let us know.

This is exactly what happen when your consciousness has and keep a parallelism with the physical world.
In this case you got to deal with the matter but when you manage to expand your consciousness
it all change.
As a Christian you should know this better than me.
Jesus according to what was said of him could do things that people call MIRACLES but miracles are not really.
As you can expand your consciousness by raising your vital energy also known as kundalini you can
manage to control matter, water, heat-light, air, space and merge in the cosmic consciousness body.
Jesus was walking on water, heal people, disappear and so on.
Obviously all these power he got from previous lives and finally he reach the state of supreme consciousness.
Everybody can do that and his main purpose in his life was just to show to people the way
but it is important not to come to quick conclusion.
Your spiritual teacher will make sure that you can't use these power for obvious reason.
The temptation to use these power would be far too much to control leading the spiritual aspirant to
fall in the abyss of self destruction so only when you reach the higher stage of cosmic consciousness you
will be allow to use these power as Jesus did.
Some silly people think that i suppose to see inside boxes just because i practice yoga but they haven't really got a clue as the whole system works.
So, yes a bullet would kill me.
That wouldn't be an illusion for sure but for God it is.
Jesus could not have died in the cross if he only wanted.
He had the power to avoid that but why would he avoid it?
He came to show people how to live and progress.
We can go behind physical death and that is all it matter.  

[Little Rik]

Traditional or not traditional what difference would it make?
As far as it works who care.
So yes it works therefore this system of acquiring knowledge can be called SCIENCE.
End of the story.

Quote from Wikipedia concerning the efficacy of Ayurvedic medicine:

Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no evidence that any are effective in themselves. According to Cancer Research UK, no significant scientific evidence has shown effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease, although massage and relaxation are often beneficial for some cancer patients and there are indications from animal studies that some herbal products used in Ayurveda might be explored further.
Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.
A review of the use of Ayurveda for cardiovascular disease concluded that the evidence is not convincing for the use of any Ayurvedic herbal treatment for heart disease or hypertension, but that many herbs used by Ayurvedic practitioners could be appropriate for further research.
Research
In India, research in Ayurveda is undertaken by the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (CCRAS), through a national network of research institutes. In Nepal, the National Ayurvedic Training and Research Centre (NATRC) researches medicinal herbs in the country.
Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized.

You can read tons of reports about a specific issue.
You will always find the positive and negative reports and at the end you wouldn't really know the truth.
Years ago i did heal 100% an old man which contracted a disease called MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).
His leg was almost eaten by these bugs and the amputation was on the way.
The doctors try and try with mountain of antibiotics to no avail.
The leg got worse and worse.
I knew that the NEEM oil was the only solution.
This ayurveda old remedy has been used for ages and ages in India when the modern medicines were not available.
Within 3 weeks of treatment his leg got better and better and after 5 weeks it heal 100% to the astonish of doctors.
So no, let the skeptics think what they like.
Who care.
I know that they are wrong and that is what matter.  

You can well throw your definition to the dogs.
Philosophy is all about wisdom but wisdom that help the individual to progress.
The study can help to progress just a little bit.
The real progress is made out of hard work.
And the work has got to be done within because the real knowledge is within not outside in the books.
You may have noticed that when you can not get a solution and an answer to some of your problem you think and think and think again.
Inventors got the ideas after thinking and thinking time and time again.
Why would they think if the knowledge wouldn't be within?
As far as to get this knowledge from within is all an other story.
You need a practical method given to you by those who did the hard work before but don't worry about that Pinky.
All will become clear in your mind at the most appropriate time.
It would help a lot if you stop trying spouting bulls all the time  
and start looking within.  

Correction: your philosophy is like that. Your personal philosophy. The general definition of philosophy is the one I gave. If you have a better one, give it and cite your source. Otherwise you're just waxing gibberish (again...are you a goblin?).

You can have all the knowledge that you like but deep within there is something that make you feel unhappy.
What you do with all your knowledge then.
Would that help you a tiny bit?
That is why the reality within is paramount and the external reality matter almost nothing.
Philosophy is all about be wise and be wise is all about feeling at peace with yourself within.
All the rest is bullshit.

All i did is to show you that even in the very old time people were involved in acquiring knowledge
and acquiring knowledge is to be engaged in science.

No, all you did was link to some words on a website, providing no incite at all into what we were supposed to be looking at. You put the word "science" into a sanskrit search engine online, then linked me to whatever it coughed up as something that could even be vaguely translated as science. All you showed us was that you're a bit of a ham-fisted klutz when it comes to proving a point with sources.

You ask me a question in order to prove that science only started short time ago.
I did show you that this is crap as even in the very old times people were engaged in science.
Turn it as you like.
All you gain is a mental masturbation.  

Wrong all the way Pinky.
Yoga came first so it can not possibly be an Hindu discipline.
Hindus practice a distorted way of the real yoga.
The same can be said for Christianity and Buddhism.
Christ was a spiritual being like Buddha.
They teach spirituality not religions which once again are distorted spirituality.
But you wouldn't know the difference.
Would you Pinky?  

Citation, please? You know what, never mind. Google, what's up with this bullshit?
Ok, Google is telling me that there does seem to be a crowd that states Yoga is and has been part of Hinduism for a long time, but that it has its origins in Tantric practice, not in Hindu practice. And Tantra is...   You guessed it, folks! It's a religion!
So even if Yoga doesn't originate with with Hinduism, your contention is still a non-argument because Yoga is still a religious practice in its origins and at its core.
Spirituality and religion are two sides of the same coin. Your insistence that they are different is nothing more than semantic word salad based on personal definitions. People who call themselves "spiritual" are just pretentious twats who think they've got it all figured out because...I don't know, because they don't go to church, I guess? They still believe the same unsupported bullshit, engage in personal tedium to which they attach metaphysical significance, and cast aspersions on others for not believing things for which there is zero evidence. Looks like pretty much the same thing to me.
Wow. I just realized that "spiritual" people are like the hipsters of the religious world. Religious people often describe themselves as spiritual, but then the "spiritual" people come along and they're like "Nuh uh...you guys don't have spirituality...you just have that mainstream religion stuff that's just a corruption of spirituality. We're going back to the way spirituality was before it became all mainstream and turned into those gross religions!" 

Tantra is pure spirituality but what's the point to make the idea entering your brain when you never practice it?
A waste of time.  

[LastPoet]

My mind is so full of fuck lol.

[Kingpin]

[Ben Davis]

My mind is so full of fuck lol.

I know! I stopped bothering about 20 pages ago.

[Redbeard The Pink]

You can read tons of reports about a specific issue.
You will always find the positive and negative reports and at the end you wouldn't really know the truth.
Years ago i did heal 100% an old man which contracted a disease called MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).
His leg was almost eaten by these bugs and the amputation was on the way.
The doctors try and try with mountain of antibiotics to no avail.
The leg got worse and worse.
I knew that the NEEM oil was the only solution.
This ayurveda old remedy has been used for ages and ages in India when the modern medicines were not available.
Within 3 weeks of treatment his leg got better and better and after 5 weeks it heal 100% to the astonish of doctors.
So no, let the skeptics think what they like.
Who care.
I know that they are wrong and that is what matter.  

If you only depend on reports (or even direct experiences) of isolated incidents (aka anecdotal evidence), then sure, you can find evidence for just about any damn thing you could dream up: werewolves, aliens, Slender Man, Bigfoot, Nessie, Moth Man, Chupacabra, chemtrails, the Illuminati...you name it, there's some dumb fuck out there who will insist he's seen it personally and knows everything there is to know about it. This is why science conducts studies with lots of people under strict documentation instead of trying one thing on one guy and declaring the whole thing pseudoscience based on their memory of the event.


As for your little story, I don't believe you. Your claim is unreasonable and remarkably convenient to your argument, so I will need to see some evidence of this healing you allegedly performed in order to believe that it happened. Furthermore, even if you can produce evidence that your friend randomly got better without the doctors being able to explain it, I would still need to see evidence that your snake oil was the causative factor in his recovery and not something else (like maybe he just fought it off under continued batteries of antibiotics during those weeks, for instance). Unless you can produce that stuff, your story can't be taken seriously as evidence of your claims, and even then it would still be anecdotal evidence that would need further study before conclusions could be drawn.


It's just unscientific of you to believe all this stuff.

You can have all the knowledge that you like but deep within there is something that make you feel unhappy.
What you do with all your knowledge then.
Would that help you a tiny bit?
That is why the reality within is paramount and the external reality matter almost nothing.
Philosophy is all about be wise and be wise is all about feeling at peace with yourself within.
All the rest is bullshit.

Actually yes, my knowledge has been a great comfort to me during times of hardship because I know that suffering is impermanent and that circumstances change constantly, and that even if I don't survive my suffering I don't have to spend a painful/boring eternity in Heaven or Hell. I'm actually a lot less stressed and depressed than I used to be when I was religious.

You ask me a question in order to prove that science only started short time ago.
I did show you that this is crap as even in the very old times people were engaged in science.
Turn it as you like.
All you gain is a mental masturbation.  

Again, no, you didn't. You only showed us that you have a minimal understanding of how language works. Again. That's pretty unscientific.

Tantra is pure spirituality but what's the point to make the idea entering your brain when you never practice it?
A waste of time.  

"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a lifestyle."


"Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy."


"Tantra isn't a religion, it's pure spirituality."


Bullshit. Tantra is a religion. Everyone wants to claim that everyone else's religion is just a religion and that theirs is somehow special, but it never is. Your religion is a religion, fuckface. This is just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy wrapped in a not-so-convincing disguise.


How very unscientific of you.

[Ben Davis]

Years ago i did heal 100% an old man which contracted a disease called MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)...

I knew that the NEEM oil was the only solution...

Actually, you may not be completely mental here. Although I don't believe your anecdote for one moment, it's true that neem oil has been among one of the 'essential oils' that scientists have been examining in their battle against resistant bacteria. So I did a bit of research. I found that Neem oil has been used for hundreds of years by 'herbalists' as an antibacterial and antibiotic agent. The claim is that a particular component, Azadirachtin, gives it these properties and that it's shown itself to be effective against serious infections like MRSA. There are pages of anecdotes on the net that seem to corroborate this story. So what does the real science say? Well, it turns out that Azadirachtin isn't really antibacterial or antibiotic but limonoid. That is to say it's a biological acid. The oil might treat MRSA not by any antibacterial capability but by starving the infection, literally burning away the flesh that it would feed upon. Not a worthless treatment but not one that could be used practically on an established infection. There's been plenty of research done and it seems that neem oil is not a solution, let alone the only one with similar levels of efficacy. Here's a broader link.

So the results in neem oil treatment of MRSA are poor. That doesn't stop sites like homeremedy here from claiming that it's a practical antibiotic, antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal agent. Some sites even claim that it's a spermicidal contraceptive! The real scientific interest is in Azadirachtin's application as a pesticide not an antibacterial medicine.

Sorry Rik, you've fallen for the snake-oil salesmen's pitch.