19 Feb 11
Originally posted by Dasa“...Vedanta does not teach or accept superstition. ...”
Vedanta does not teach or accept superstition.
It does not believe in black cats.... walking under ladders.....horse shoes,....rabbits feet.... evolution,....life from dead matter, ....random complex accidents,... etc.,
But I do know for a fact that many atheists do accept these.
Science can fool some people some of the time....but not all people all of the time.
so Vedanta does not accept the existence of the supernatural? I thought it says god exists?
“...It does not believe in black cats.... walking under ladders.....horse shoes,....rabbits feet.... evolution,....life from dead matter, ....random complex accidents,... etc., ...”
firstly, evolution is not “random complex accidents” 😛
secondly, evolution and abiogenesis is not superstition. Evolution is proven fact and abiogenesis is the only credible non-supersicious explanation of the origins of life for it does not involve assuming the existence of something supernatural. The assumption that there exists something supernatural is, be definition, a superstition. And any belief that assumes such a superstition to be true is, by definition, itself a superstition.
“...But I do know for a fact that many atheists do accept these. ...”
then what you “know” is false.
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe spiritual is real.
“...Vedanta does not teach or accept superstition. ...”
so Vedanta does not accept the existence of the supernatural? I thought it says god exists?
“...It does not believe in black cats.... walking under ladders.....horse shoes,....rabbits feet.... evolution,....life from dead matter, ....random complex accidents,... etc., ...”
firstly, evol ...[text shortened]... I do know for a fact that many atheists do accept these. ...”
then what you “know” is false.
Persons who follow spiritual living know this because they experience it first hand.
Persons who follow false religion do not experience it first hand.
Experiencing it first hand is their very own personal proof or evidence.
Their personal evidence is not your evidence, and you shall remain on the outside looking in.
If you were sincere and genuine, then you may also live the spiritual life and you also would have your very own personal proof as well.
Because you deny the spiritual you are forced to present untrue theories for the explanation of life.
Some of those untrue and unproven theories are.
1. A big explosion resulting in all of the complex living life.
2. A big explosion resulting in all the forces and laws of physics.
3. A big explosion resulting in all the suns, moons, galaxies and planets.
4.Evolution resulting in 8400000 species of life starting from a muddy puddle.
5. Presenting that consciousness, awareness, cognition, free will, meaning, purpose.........are only chemical reactions.
All of the above are certainly superstitious and unproven.
Science is being untruthful for printing all this in books and presenting it to the innocent public.
To be truthful.....science should say they do not know what is life and put that in their books instead, but this would take away their title of keepers of the truth.
20 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Dasa“...Some of those untrue and unproven theories are.
The spiritual is real.
Persons who follow spiritual living know this because they experience it first hand.
Persons who follow false religion do not experience it first hand.
Experiencing it first hand is their very own personal proof or evidence.
Their personal evidence is not your evidence, and you shall remain on the outside looking in.
If you ...[text shortened]... d put that in their books instead, but this would take away their title of keepers of the truth.
1. A big explosion resulting in all of the complex living life.
2. A big explosion resulting in all the forces and laws of physics. ...”
3. A big explosion resulting in all the suns, moons, galaxies and planets.
….”
theories 1, and 2 and 3 above don't exist.
“...4.Evolution resulting in 8400000 species of life starting from a muddy puddle. ...”
there are far more species than 8400000 and “mud” hasn't ever been said to be particularly necessary for life to begin.
“....5. Presenting that consciousness, awareness, cognition, free will, meaning, purpose.........are only chemical reactions. ...”
that theory doesn't exist.
Nobody is saying those things. I challenge you to show just ONE person that is saying these things!!!
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonInteresting....well then how does life manifest at all.
“...Some of those untrue and unproven theories are.
1. A big explosion resulting in all of the complex living life.
2. A big explosion resulting in all the forces and laws of physics. ...”
3. A big explosion resulting in all the suns, moons, galaxies and planets.
….”
theories 1, and 2 and 3 above don't exist.
“...4.Evolution resu ...[text shortened]... s saying those things. I challenge you to show just ONE person that is saying these things!!!
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYes but this proposal is false and unproven.....and it supports that life arose spontaneously in a muddy puddle, and then this little tiny bit of life is responsible for 8400000 species of complex functional self replicating life forms.
abiogenesis followed by evolution ( and no "big explosion" )
Then the question begs an answer where did the puddle come from and the planet and the water on the planet and the sun in the sky and the dirt on the ground and the laws of physics that keep the planet stable in perfect orbit. etc...
Not only that but......to give the life form called human the comforts of life, the planet had miraculously created all the ingredients necessary to supply man with thousands of creature comforts as well so he could in the future build his cars and planes and computers and TVs.........and the planet also created for man thousands of delicious foods for mans pleasure, and it could have given man one food consisting of just grey gunk with no taste, but it gave man mangoes, watermelon, spinach, apples, oranges, carrots, potatoes, rice, corn, wheat and so on and so on.....and all this without intelligence of design.
Your asking me to believe that all this came about without a pre conceived design and without intelligence......you cannot be serious.
And then I am called superstitious.....its outrageous and unacceptable.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by sonhouseWe can add this to the list of other things people believe will be proven some day.
We for sure know that our universe is expanding, and that fact alone means if you run back in time, the universe would be shrinking, and carrying that to it's extreme, it runs into some kind of point.
There were problems in the original construction of big bang theory, that one part of the universe could not have connected by energy that only goes at the ...[text shortened]... forth.
I think it entirely possible this will be proven in the next couple hundred years.
Kelly
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by DasaFool.
Yes but this proposal is false and unproven.....and it supports that life arose spontaneously in a muddy puddle, and then this little tiny bit of life is responsible for 8400000 species of complex functional self replicating life forms.
Then the question begs an answer where did the puddle come from and the planet and the water on the planet and the sun in t ...[text shortened]... ou cannot be serious.
And then I am called superstitious.....its outrageous and unacceptable.
If it is unproven it cannot be labelled false.
Read what you post for a change before you finish.
21 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Dasa“....Yes but this proposal is false and unproven ...”
Yes but this proposal is false and unproven.....and it supports that life arose spontaneously in a muddy puddle, and then this little tiny bit of life is responsible for 8400000 species of complex functional self replicating life forms.
Then the question begs an answer where did the puddle come from and the planet and the water on the planet and the sun in t ...[text shortened]... ou cannot be serious.
And then I am called superstitious.....its outrageous and unacceptable.
evolution is proven by the mountain of accumulated evidence:
http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html
As for abiogenesis, we don't know exactly the way it happened and when and where for sure (although we have a mountain of good scientific clues) but, nevertheless, there is no other rational alternative (unless you call stupid superstition “rational”! )
“...and it supports that life arose spontaneously in a muddy puddle, and then this little tiny bit of life is responsible for 8400000 species of complex functional self replicating life forms. ….”
I have already pointed out the OBVIOUS facts that:
“mud” hasn't ever been said to be particularly necessary for life to begin.”
and
“the immense complexity of modern life doesn't represent a slightest problem for evolution theory. In fact it can be seen as evidence for evolution! For such complexity would be exactly what would be expected from evolution steadily adding one layer of complexity on top of the other over the many millions of years life has been on Earth.” (the same can be said about the large number of species)
Now, have you read and understood the above facts?
If so, do you deny them?
If so, can you show any evidence/premise that the two above are false and, if so, what is this evidence/premise?
“...Then the question begs an answer where did the puddle come from ...”
it rained; a puddle formed 😛
“...and the planet ...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
“...and the water on the planet ...”
volcanism (volcanoes release steam) plus icy-comet impacts.
“....and the sun in the sky ….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
-the sun formed first and the Earth later.
“...and the dirt on the ground ...”
http://library.thinkquest.org/J003195F/soil.htm
“....and the laws of physics that keep the planet stable in perfect orbit. ….”
there is NO evidence that the laws of physics “came from” something. The laws of physics could be just brute facts and that would appear to be the least assumptive hypothesis at this time (remember Occam's razor)
“...Not only that but......to give the life form called human the comforts of life, the planet had miraculously created all the ingredients necessary to supply man with thousands of creature comforts as well so he could in the future build his cars and planes and computers and TVs ...”
why is that “miraculous”?
“...........and the planet also created for man thousands of delicious foods FOR mans pleasure, and it could have given man one food consisting of just grey gunk with no taste, but it gave man mangoes, watermelon, spinach, apples, oranges, carrots, potatoes, rice, corn, wheat and so on and so on.....and all this without intelligence of design. ...”(my emphasis)
fruit etc initially evolved and evolved NOT “FOR” our benefit. Later we selectively bread many plants (and animals) to give higher yield and better taste etc for our benefit -that was done with “intelligence” but that was just OUR “ intelligence”!
“...Your asking me to believe that all this came about without a pre conceived design and without intelligence......you cannot be serious.
And then I am called superstitious.....its outrageous and unacceptable. ...”
a belief in the existence of a supernatural intelligence is, by definition, a superstition.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow flimsy and wishy washy, are the arguments for the fabrications that science puts forward to pretend that they are keepers of the truth.
“....Yes but this proposal is false and unproven ...”
evolution is proven and therefore is proven not to be false.
As for abiogenesis, abiogenesis is not “proven” in the strict sense of we knowing exactly the way it happened and when and where for sure (although we have a mountain of good scientific clues) but, nevertheless, there is no other rat ...[text shortened]...
a belief in the existence of a supernatural intelligence is, by definition, a superstition.
The evolution theory is one of sciences greatest hoax,s, .....and persons who have one grain of truthfulness do not accept it.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by Dasa“....The evolution theory is one of sciences greatest hoax,s, ….”
How flimsy and wishy washy, are the arguments for the fabrications that science puts forward to pretend that they are keepers of the truth.
The evolution theory is one of sciences greatest hoax,s, .....and persons who have one grain of truthfulness do not accept it.
that is as idiotic as saying the round-Earth theory is a hoax.
But back to my three questions:
I pointed out the facts that:
“mud” hasn't ever been said to be particularly necessary for life to begin.”
and
“the immense complexity of modern life doesn't represent a slightest problem for evolution theory. In fact it can be seen as evidence for evolution! For such complexity would be exactly what would be expected from evolution steadily adding one layer of complexity on top of the other over the many millions of years life has been on Earth.” (the same can be said about the large number of species)
Now, have you read and understood the above facts?
If so, do you deny them?
If so, can you show any evidence/premise that the two above are false and, if so, what is this evidence/premise?
22 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou can fool the little school kids and fool the brainless lay person who smokes too much pot (and doesn't care anyway) ......but you cant fool every one.
“....The evolution theory is one of sciences greatest hoax,s, ….”
that is as idiotic as saying the round-Earth theory is a hoax.
But back to my three questions:
I pointed out the facts that:
[b]“mud” hasn't ever been said to be particularly necessary for life to begin.”
and
“the immense complexity of modern life doesn't rep ...[text shortened]... w any evidence/premise that the two above are false and, if so, what is this evidence/premise?
22 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonClearly you're deluded. Dasa is a visionary. How dare you question his pontification.
“....The evolution theory is one of sciences greatest hoax,s, ….”
that is as idiotic as saying the round-Earth theory is a hoax.
But back to my three questions:
I pointed out the facts that:
[b]“mud” hasn't ever been said to be particularly necessary for life to begin.”
and
“the immense complexity of modern life doesn't rep ...[text shortened]... w any evidence/premise that the two above are false and, if so, what is this evidence/premise?
I've read into your theory that the Earth is round and I have a business proposition for you. If you persist with your belief that the Earth is round and rotating around an axis you will surely be unable to contain yourself from investing heavily.
My idea is simple, but will revolutionize global shipping. To start with were going to need several hundred cargo containers and hot air ballons. The cargo containers are cheap if you buy them used and I can get some East Indian kids to make the ballons for cheap.
We'll load the containers with cargo and launch them with the balloons. As the Earth rotates the cargo containers will stay in place and "travel" in a straight line. We can snag them at strategic hubs and frieght the shipments to their final North/South destinations.
The empty containers we can relaunch and/or refill and catch them at the original launch point as the Earth rotates.
We need to act fast before somebody else finds out the Earth is round n' stuff.
22 Feb 11
Originally posted by Hand of HecateErrr....right.
Clearly you're deluded. Dasa is a visionary. How dare you question his pontification.
I've read into your theory that the Earth is round and I have a business proposition for you. If you persist with your belief that the Earth is round and rotating around an axis you will surely be unable to contain yourself from investing heavily.
My idea ...[text shortened]... otates.
We need to act fast before somebody else finds out the Earth is round n' stuff.
22 Feb 11
From this thread (and some others) I have come to the conclusion that Dasa might actually incapable of engaging in any rational debate.
It really is a total waste of time putting questions to him -he never gives any thought-out answers and just responds with irrelevant personal attacks like he just has been doing here.