Originally posted by Vartiovuori
Nothing new here, yet another case of willfully ignorant people misunderstanding the word "theory"

You should not teach false atheistic theories to our students and at the same time dismiss the Supreme Absolute Truth .....God.

That is dishonest.

You must give the same time spent on your theories to True Spiritual Knowledge taught by the Vedic Literature..

But you give nothing to true spiritual knowledge and give all time to false theories.

Simply dishonest.

Originally posted by Dasa
But you give nothing to true spiritual knowledge and give all time to false theories.

Simply dishonest.

So what? Clearly, this is what you do.

Originally posted by Dasa
So it is the living entities who's consciousness is either evolving or devolving and who change from one body to another. But the 8,400,000 species of life remain constant. Ultimately the whole material world with all its universes containing unlimited planets and stars will be annihilated however the patterns of these 8,400,000 species of living entities will ...[text shortened]... ifest. They are never 'evolved' and there is no chance or natural selection in the process.

Perhaps you'd care to explain then, why there are MORE than this number of species on the planet now? Not even taking the extinctions into consideration?

Or do you not include plants as living species? Why not? And do they have souls too? Why not? Because then you'd have to feel guilty about eating them?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm




If you want to be taken seriously, then please, PLEASE stop talking nonsense.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Perhaps you'd care to explain then, why there are MORE than this number of species on the planet now? Not even taking the extinctions into consideration?

Or do you not include plants as living species? Why not? And do they have souls too? Why not? Because then you'd have to feel guilty about eating them?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201 ...[text shortened]... 459.htm




If you want to be taken seriously, then please, PLEASE stop talking nonsense.

Plants are living things too. However, God did not create plants as living souls. God said that herbs, fruit, and seeds were to be used as food to eat. It was not until after the flood, when there was a shortage of herbs, fruit, and seeds that God gave man certain animals as food also.

P.S. Dasa is still living in the past before the flood, since his vedic teachings were never updated.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Perhaps you'd care to explain then, why there are MORE than this number of species on the planet now? Not even taking the extinctions into consideration?

Or do you not include plants as living species? Why not? And do they have souls too? Why not? Because then you'd have to feel guilty about eating them?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201 ...[text shortened]... 459.htm




If you want to be taken seriously, then please, PLEASE stop talking nonsense.

The Krsna's believe that plants have 'souls' too, however the karma incurred by eating plants is not nearly as bad as the karma incurred by eating animals, and is much more quickly "worked off".

As to a specific number of species on the planet, it just sounds like horse manure to me.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The Krsna's believe that plants have 'souls' too, however the karma incurred by eating plants is not nearly as bad as the karma incurred by eating animals, and is much more quickly "worked off".

As to a specific number of species on the planet, it just sounds like horse manure to me.

Dasa's religion is based on works then, right?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The Krsna's believe that plants have 'souls' too, however the karma incurred by eating plants is not nearly as bad as the karma incurred by eating animals, and is much more quickly "worked off".

As to a specific number of species on the planet, it just sounds like horse manure to me.

The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls.

The Holy Bible has plenty of evidence for humans having souls, but none for plants. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible has plenty of evidence for humans having souls, but none for plants. 😏

Just as I said:
The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Just as I said:
The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls.

You are saying no evidence is as sound as some evidence. Beside making no logical sense, you provide only assertions without proof. I say some evidence is sounder than no evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are saying no evidence is as sound as some evidence. Beside making no logical sense, you provide only assertions without proof. I say some evidence is sounder than no evidence.

You are saying no evidence is as sound as some evidence
No.I did not say that I said
"The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls"

Beside making no logical sense
I'm replying to you!

you provide only assertions without proof
I'm asserting there is no proof, therefore my proof is your lack of proof

I say some evidence is sounder than no evidence.
So do I. But you have none.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Dasa's religion is based on works then, right?

It is mainly based on devotion, if I understand it correctly.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls.

That's why I have inverted commas around that word.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]You are saying no evidence is as sound as some evidence
No.I did not say that I said
"The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls"

Beside making no logical sense
I'm replying to you!

you provide only assertions without proof
I'm asserting there is no proof, therefore my proof is your l ...[text shortened]... roof

I say some evidence is sounder than no evidence.
So do I. But you have none.[/b]

You are a liar like your father the devil.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
"The evidence for plants having souls
is as sound as that for humans having souls"

Incorrect. There are countless volumes written by countless authors giving testament to the existence of a human "soul." There are zero volumes (or close to zero at least, I'm sure) that attest to the existence of a plant "soul." Therefore the testimonial evidence weighs *heavily* in favor of a human soul when compared to the testimonial evidence of a plant soul. I'm not saying "therefore, humans have souls." I'm saying that as far as evidence is concerned, and comparing evidence of human souls to plant souls, the two are not on equal terms.

Eye witness testimony, especially when given by multiple people across multiple cultures and multiple points in history, has at least *some* significance. It is not equal to hardcore, empirical evidence; nevertheless it cannot be completely discounted as completely insignificant. You have to remember that it's only been within the last few centuries that sophisticated laboratories and cameras existed. Until then, all we had to record evidence was eye witness testimony written on paper, or carved on to tablets, etc.