09 Dec 10
Originally posted by lauseyI have never met any parent from any continent who would "not care" if their children were "to be incinerated this second" on account of the fact that they believe that their children "would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe". I believe that authorities in "Asian" environments probably would "blink an eye" if aspiring adoptive parents made assertions - like those made by vishvahetu - during a screening or assessment interview. But you could be right.
Belief in reincarnation and karma is quite high in Asian countries, and to think that someone will be born again elsewhere after death will be considered quite "normal", and authorities in those environments probably wouldn't even blink an eye at Vishva's comment.
09 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by John W Booth[/i]I figure not blinking an eye wasn't the right choice of words. I was just trying to express a point that many in some countries will be considerably more lenient than others based on religion.
I have never met any parent from any continent who would "not care" if their children were "to be incinerated this second" on account of the fact that they believe that their children "would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe". I believe that authorities in "Asian" environments probably [i]would[/i e by vishvahetu - during a screening or assessment interview. But you could be right.
09 Dec 10
I feel compelled to point out that there are practically no restrictions on who may have children by biological means.
Also, it must be noted that vishvahetu says a whole lot of nonsensical or grossly over exagerated things on this forum. It is highly improbable that he believes half of it or even talks like that in his personal life.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by DowardDeepak Chopra?
Deepak Chopra takes on Dawkins in an enlightening six part refutation of The God Delusion. His approach is universal, and carries no bias towards any faith group. Though I know it won't change your mind, I recommend reading it anyway:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Holistic-Living/2007/02/Debunking-The-God-Delusion-Part-1.aspx
Give me a break.
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...Someone like Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to haphazardly form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits. ...”
not according to the article posted by Doward,
But arch materialism is just as superstitious as religion. Someone like Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to haphazardly form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits.
...[text shortened]... ies.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Holistic-Living/2007/02/Debunking-The-God-Delusion-Part-3.aspx
Nope. You are using the same old straw man argument yet again. This is NOT what he believes. Natural selection is NOT purely random. And, if only you understood some basic chemistry, you would know that the way molecules sometimes spontaneously combine to form more complex molecules is also NOT purely random. Nobody is claiming that everything came to existence by pure chance.
09 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonits not my argument, i did not author it, i merely found it interesting this FACT may have escaped your notice, if you disagree then take it up with the author of the piece. I do not believe the quotation mentions so called, 'natural selection', and if that is not the strawiest straw argument i evah seen, then i dont know what is.
“...Someone like Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to haphazardly form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits. ...”
Nope. You are using the same old straw man argument yet again. This is NOT what he believes. Natural ...[text shortened]... is also NOT purely random. Nobody is claiming that everything came to existence by pure chance.
09 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI agree. This is from a man who won an lg Nobel Prize for his unique interpretation on quantum physics. That is, tying it up with holistic medicine (Quantum Healing) just because it sounds "cool".
Deepak Chopra?
Give me a break.
I have read six parts of that article and the amount of assumptions that Deepak has made is astonishing.
Effectively claiming that any gaps in scientific knowledge can be some how explained by falling back on his dogmatic beliefs.
He even quoted Fred Hoyle's analogy regarding the random chance of a hurricane blowing through a junk yard and producing a Boeing 707. Even Dawkins explained why this is view is flawed! Yet Deepak has chosen to ignore this refutation.
He also makes the assumption that because of the results of the Copenhagen interpretation relating to quantum entanglement. He has some how concluded this:
"Events at opposite ends of the universe are paired with each other, so that a change in the spin of one electron immediately produces a twin effect in another electron. This ability to communicate instantly across millions of light years cannot be explained by materialism. It defies all notions of cause and effect. It defies chance."
This most definitely hasn't been proven and therefore is wild speculation beyond sanity.
Also his reference to the six parameters regarding the universe is based on the Lambda-CDM model in cosmology. If any of them are slightly out then this universe couldn't exist (as we know it). This does not take into account multi-verses. The very fact we are here to observe its existence will mean it does fit. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to observe it, so it is no wonder that it is all so convenient.
09 Dec 10
lets get one thing clear.......your children are not your children, and your wife is not your wife.
You are playing a game in this world, and sometimes you are a wife to someone, or a child to someone, or a husband to someone, but its all an illusion or role playing.
You have been born trillions of times in this temporary material creation in different universes, and have had millions of children, and have been a child yourself millions of times to other living beings.
So when you are under illusion, and think that your child is your child, then you are mistaken.....because nothing belongs to you at all.
You look at your child who in reality is a spiritual being which you have never seen,.... but your child, the one that you see, is in reality just dust in the wind and so are you, and all your friends. ( why do you care for dust in the wind)
To understand this clearly you need to gain the spiritual vision, and then you will never care for anything that is just dust in the wind, and with this vision you will never be disturbed by anything, even the annihilation of the planet.
The only thing that is real is the spiritual, and the unreal is the material.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuNo. In reality my child is my child. In the realm of cyberprattle he may be "dust in the wind". I have no particular interest in questioning the degree to which you care for - or don't care for - your own children, which as twitehead pointed out seem to be some kind of biological right of yours and almost anyone and everyone.
your child, the one that you see, is in reality just dust in the wind and so are you, and all your friends. ( why do you care for dust in the wind)
I am, however, curious about whether other posters think that your stated perception of your children makes you a more fit or less fit parent, and whether the 'collective' through its elected officials and government agencies would be well advised or ill advised to allow someone who says "why do you care for dust in the wind?", when he is referring to one's love for one's children, should ever be allowed to adopt children or be granted legal guardianship of anyone else's children.
That's all I'm interested in here. Your theories about whether or not I "will ever be able to care" for my children is all just more cyber jizz smeared across my screen, as far as I am concerned.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by lauseyhis main fallacy is that science is a panacea for all, like all materialists he seeks to reduce everything to its elemental constituent parts, as if knowing how a clock works lends itself to understanding why we think about time in the way we do.
I agree. This is from a man who won an lg Nobel Prize for his unique interpretation on quantum physics. That is, tying it up with holistic medicine (Quantum Healing) just because it sounds "cool".
I have read six parts of that article and the amount of assumptions that Deepak has made is astonishing.
Effectively claiming that any gaps in scientific know ...[text shortened]... 't, we wouldn't be here to observe it, so it is no wonder that it is all so convenient.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetusorry, sorry, it is eternal.
Vedanta is older than trillions of year, because its eternal......how long is eternal?
Every time the cosmos is created, Vedanta is given to mankind for their benefit, so they can raise their consciousness out of the gutter, and return home, back to Godhead.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W Boothi would wager a "less fit than the dutch who named his kid adolf hitler"
Do you think that someone who reckons... "World war-3 can start right now, and i dont care , because if everyone was to be incinerated this second, we would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe" ought to be considered fit, by the proper authorities, to adopt children?
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...its not my argument, ...”
its not my argument, i did not author it, i merely found it interesting this FACT may have escaped your notice, if you disagree then take it up with the author of the piece. I do not believe the quotation mentions so called, 'natural selection', and if that is not the strawiest straw argument i evah seen, then i dont know what is.
your 'argument' was that “..Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to HAPHAZARDLY form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits ..” (my emphasis)
this is what you claim; right?
If so, I despite this claim (for the reasons I just gave in my last post; he knows we evolved and he knows that natural selection is not purely random etc etc) .
Which “author” are you referring to?
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by IshDaGeggon the contrary, it is quite relevant.
Oddly, I think this post exemplifies the very biases it rails against.
The funniest specific counterargument against Dawkins I have pro-religious zealots advocate is that Dawkins himself is an anti-religious zealot.
Now, they disapprove of Dawkins either because he is anti-religious or because he is a zealot.
If the former, then they beg the quest ...[text shortened]... themselves into the bargain, because they are zealots themselves, albeit of a different stripe.
one of the main points in dawkins crusade against religion is this zealotry that doesn't stem for any conclusive proof. but if he himself is a zealot without any conclusive proof (that god absolutely doesn't exist, any religious person is deluded) then that paints him as a hypocrite and diminishes his credibility.