Tech_chaos
Broken In
My sheila dixit frnd ..
Praise n praise for sheila dixit ....
You would be in love with his son sandip dixit too
Debates about the Economy, Politics, Religion, and everything under the sun
- Thread starter theserpent
- Start date
My sheila dixit frnd ..
Praise n praise for sheila dixit ....
You would be in love with his son sandip dixit too
snap
Lurker
@mediator
science of their own motherland?? and if rhitwick follow a certain religion which helps understand other religion or have "soft sides" or which tells to help other people then why is it a problem?
and as you said gita and vedas presents higher science through idols and other stories but people accept it literally, can't it be applied to other religions too?
infact in islam it is encouraged to pursue knowledge
we are going too much ot in this thread or is it allowed because we are having a good debate in fight club
science of their own motherland?? and if rhitwick follow a certain religion which helps understand other religion or have "soft sides" or which tells to help other people then why is it a problem?
and as you said gita and vedas presents higher science through idols and other stories but people accept it literally, can't it be applied to other religions too?
infact in islam it is encouraged to pursue knowledge
we are going too much ot in this thread or is it allowed because we are having a good debate in fight club
mediator
Technomancer
@Snap -
I really don't understand what you mean by the initial part of you latest post.
Refer page 265, the chapter on "The Colloquy of Indra and Agastya" from "Secret of Veda by Aurobindo" and it will explain why Indra often fights those who try to conquer Indralok. It is something one can easily sense in his meditative experiences even in lower stages.
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=30
Ofcourse, like Indian science, it can be applied to Islam as well. But I don't know if you have a deep interest in poetry or metaphors. Goto the Islamic worlds and say "Allah and his prophet" are metaphors alone and you'll be beheaded.
I tried to find metaphors, riddles and poetry in Islam, but I failed for all I know Islam is against creativity Idols, paintings, association of Allah with human forms and strict adherence, non-association of female counterparts like Shiva (supreme consciousness, the experience beyond time and space beyond cause and effect) and Shakti (the world of cause and effect, energy principles) etc.
The world of consciousness is a vast one where the sages have often propounded in different ways they preferred be it nyaya, yoga, vasheshika, dvaita, advaita, 108 upanishads written in different styles or Gita where the supreme consciousness speaks to a perturbed mind and guides him through the moments of chaos, stories, idols etc.
Refer my post from #1636 => *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/fight-club/39882-science-god-55.html#post1732585
If one still thinks knowledge is promoted in Islam, then
1. Vegetarianism would be the first thing not for moralistic or personal reasons but simply because of science of consciousness with a science of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic and non-veg being highest of tamasic foods obstructing the evolution of consciousness for the beginners and unhealthy even as per modern science. Secondly,
2. What is "knowledge" or science behind Bakr-Id?
3. Refer judgement day? Is it a science or a blind a belief? You tell!
4. 72 virgins in heaven. So even heaven in Islam has materialistic pleasures? Benefit of doubt given, and lets find some deeper meaning to it. Please share!
5. Perhaps there is deeper meaning to sharia law and division between us and them?
Your questions are not new to me. I have often tried to think of some deeper meaning. But I could only get it in Greek mythology, the texts of Ahura Mazda etc. But still for the sake of discussion I will leave it to you for finding me some deeper science behind the texts of Islam! I leave it here only.
I really don't understand what you mean by the initial part of you latest post.
Refer page 265, the chapter on "The Colloquy of Indra and Agastya" from "Secret of Veda by Aurobindo" and it will explain why Indra often fights those who try to conquer Indralok. It is something one can easily sense in his meditative experiences even in lower stages.
www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=30
Ofcourse, like Indian science, it can be applied to Islam as well. But I don't know if you have a deep interest in poetry or metaphors. Goto the Islamic worlds and say "Allah and his prophet" are metaphors alone and you'll be beheaded.
I tried to find metaphors, riddles and poetry in Islam, but I failed for all I know Islam is against creativity Idols, paintings, association of Allah with human forms and strict adherence, non-association of female counterparts like Shiva (supreme consciousness, the experience beyond time and space beyond cause and effect) and Shakti (the world of cause and effect, energy principles) etc.
The world of consciousness is a vast one where the sages have often propounded in different ways they preferred be it nyaya, yoga, vasheshika, dvaita, advaita, 108 upanishads written in different styles or Gita where the supreme consciousness speaks to a perturbed mind and guides him through the moments of chaos, stories, idols etc.
Refer my post from #1636 => *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/fight-club/39882-science-god-55.html#post1732585
If one still thinks knowledge is promoted in Islam, then
1. Vegetarianism would be the first thing not for moralistic or personal reasons but simply because of science of consciousness with a science of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic and non-veg being highest of tamasic foods obstructing the evolution of consciousness for the beginners and unhealthy even as per modern science. Secondly,
2. What is "knowledge" or science behind Bakr-Id?
3. Refer judgement day? Is it a science or a blind a belief? You tell!
4. 72 virgins in heaven. So even heaven in Islam has materialistic pleasures? Benefit of doubt given, and lets find some deeper meaning to it. Please share!
5. Perhaps there is deeper meaning to sharia law and division between us and them?
Your questions are not new to me. I have often tried to think of some deeper meaning. But I could only get it in Greek mythology, the texts of Ahura Mazda etc. But still for the sake of discussion I will leave it to you for finding me some deeper science behind the texts of Islam! I leave it here only.
Last edited:
skeletor
Chosen of the Omnissiah
"When I grow up, I'll become a metaphysicist."
hmmm. At a much higher stage then.
To quote you directly,
theterminator
Wise Old Owl
if you're from a different religion & you want to marry a muslim ,.you have to accept islam. thats nonsense ...just trying to spread a religion desperately. nothing like that in hinduism
Oops..thats provocative.
I love the Sevai in Id
Last edited:
sujoyp
Grand Master
whats religion doing in economic discussion 
Economy goes up and down with the policies govt make...how can we have 3 world richest men and 85crore poor people ...and how place like balaji gets 120cr monthly donation and still state have poor hindus ....how we have 100s of KG of gold in temples underground chambers and we can not use to feed poor people?
Economy goes up and down with the policies govt make...how can we have 3 world richest men and 85crore poor people ...and how place like balaji gets 120cr monthly donation and still state have poor hindus ....how we have 100s of KG of gold in temples underground chambers and we can not use to feed poor people?
KyleSforza
Banned
The moment a person starts personalising and discusses the people in the discussion rather the subject or the essence of the debate, it leads to the demise of a fruitful discussion. This is something we see in "Science Vs God" debate often which has reincarnated for some 1000 times where people rather discussing are often engaged in tagging others as theist, atheist, agnostic etc or whatever fancy tags they know of to suit their conditioned minds and hence analyze the discussion from their limited framework unable to transcend the limitation of words, mind, names etc and to add, debate by giving the certificates and testimonials of other people rather than understanding the concept or subject through their own primary understanding and giving it the same thought process and time they give to other studies. Yet they call themselves 'scientific'.
My questions to Rhitwick are not limited to him and I have seen enough teenagers who jump into the debate randomly trying to sound all cool, but all they have to say is "your posts are too long/you are communal/you are XYZ etc" on the similar lines of Digvijay's little speeches and Amul Baby's royal jibber jabber. But thank you for such an intellectually stirring reply!
It would have been an honor had I worked for Modi and I hope this reply wasn't too long for your royal taste.
blah blah blah, I ain't even gonna bother to read it all. I came here just to share this
*fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1176232_441250445983813_1435567907_n.jpg
asingh
Aspiring Novelist
if you're from a different religion & you want to marry a muslim ,.you have to accept islam. thats nonsense ...just trying to spread a religion desperately. nothing like that in hinduism
A lot of temples refuse to marry non-Hindu (if one is non-Hindu) and the gotra per say is not clear.
whats religion doing in economic discussion
Economy goes up and down with the policies govt make...how can we have 3 world richest men and 85crore poor people ...and how place like balaji gets 120cr monthly donation and still state have poor hindus ....how we have 100s of KG of gold in temples underground chambers and we can not use to feed poor people?
Religion is an innate part of our culture and heritage. It will be in all discussion...!
theterminator
Wise Old Owl
Not all. Btw, that's nowhere mentioned in shashtra's.
asingh
Aspiring Novelist
Not sure about the scriptures, but temple refuse. That is all I was saying. I know cases where the Pandit refused.
theterminator
Wise Old Owl
Well that's different. The followers of the religion have made this rule , not the Religion itself.
asingh
Aspiring Novelist
That is how religion is misconstrued and propagated. It is never an exact science. Iconography/practices and dogma: progress/vary as time moves. So it is the religion it self which is refusing.
theterminator
Wise Old Owl
I said the followers , not the religion but in case of Islam that rule is in their rulebook.
Mediater already put forth all this but you're ignorantly coming up again.
There is a festival which is celebrated by slitting the throats of animals.
And that too with the art of Halal ...very slowly slitting the throat of the animal to give it a hell of a pain
Then you have Halal market ....
Last edited:
snap
Lurker
@terminator
as i previously wrote if a non veg person wants to eat meat and shares with other non veg people is something wrong in that? if we ignore the festival and see what are the benefits of it like poor people getting meat.
if you want to keep religion out of it and debate only about veg vs non veg then it is okay
@mediator
it was meant for this
as i previously wrote if a non veg person wants to eat meat and shares with other non veg people is something wrong in that? if we ignore the festival and see what are the benefits of it like poor people getting meat.
Is Islamic slaughter cruel?
The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels.
The scientific facts
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.
The Halal method
With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.
The Western method
Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymens terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
Appearances can deceive
Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.
The holistic view
Islam is a balanced way of life. For Muslims, the privilege of supplementing their diet with animal protein implies a duty to animal welfare, both during the rearing of the animal and during the slaughter. Modern Western farming and slaughter, on the other hand, aims at the mass consumer market and treats the animal as a commodity. Just as battery hens are easier for large-scale egg production, Western slaughter methods are easier for the meat industry, but they do neither the animal nor the end consumer any favours. The Islamic way guarantees a healthier life for the animal and a healthier meat for the consumer
The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels.
The scientific facts
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.
The Halal method
With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.
The Western method
Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymens terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
Appearances can deceive
Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.
The holistic view
Islam is a balanced way of life. For Muslims, the privilege of supplementing their diet with animal protein implies a duty to animal welfare, both during the rearing of the animal and during the slaughter. Modern Western farming and slaughter, on the other hand, aims at the mass consumer market and treats the animal as a commodity. Just as battery hens are easier for large-scale egg production, Western slaughter methods are easier for the meat industry, but they do neither the animal nor the end consumer any favours. The Islamic way guarantees a healthier life for the animal and a healthier meat for the consumer
@mediator
it was meant for this
theterminator
Wise Old Owl
^the longest post of the day 
.
By God, you just defended slaughtering! Now next idiots (oops but i have no choice) will say "Give the death penalty by Halaling a person as that will be more peaceful"
Tell me about Hinduism. I mean what the texts/verses of Hindu literary say. Do any of that sh!t exists in the shashtra's??!? Come on, do some copy-paste again.
. By God, you just defended slaughtering! Now next idiots (oops but i have no choice) will say "Give the death penalty by Halaling a person as that will be more peaceful"
Tell me about Hinduism. I mean what the texts/verses of Hindu literary say. Do any of that sh!t exists in the shashtra's??!? Come on, do some copy-paste again
.theterminator
Wise Old Owl
Did the facepalms really hit you in the a$$
oh, I did read your post very clearly. Why don't you be a good boy & reply to my posts.
skeletor
Chosen of the Omnissiah
Vegetarian food vs non-vegetarian food?
I'm a vegetarian. I'm also non-vegetarian. The main reason of going vegetarian is because of the basic 90% energy loss law of a food chain as we go up - consumer by consumer. Primary producers get their energy all directly from the sun. So, vegetarian people are getting their energy directly from the plants. For a mutton eater, the goat gets 10% from the plants and we get 10% of that from the goat. So, a mutton eater got only 1%.
That's all theory though. True theory. It doesn't matter much btw. Humans have been on top of the food chain for a very very long time now. We've already caused and are spreading too much of filth around. Going veg matters as much as an amoeba dying this second.
If the argument is about "HEY! WE SHOULD NOT HURT ANIMALS!!! THEY ARE ALIVE." well, even plants are also a type of lifeform. It's the law of the universe - one has to eat to survive. To eat, one needs to, hmm kill. Or rear an animal. Milk from cows, buffaloes...eggs from hen et cetera.
I also advise people not to use harpic to clean their unclean toilets. Microbes. They also have a metabolism. Don't want to hurt "life"?
Next argument will be, but animals are "conscious". Plants are not.
If one believes in "life", shouldn't all "life" be equal to him? Why the differentiation?
The next level is - you can go Super Saiyan through the union with the formless and the timeless. You'll go beyond the reality, in a reality of your own. You won't have to eat anything and you shalt fight Indra, the tiger. This can solve the world hunger problem as well.
------
@snap
+100 to your signature.
I'm a vegetarian. I'm also non-vegetarian. The main reason of going vegetarian is because of the basic 90% energy loss law of a food chain as we go up - consumer by consumer. Primary producers get their energy all directly from the sun. So, vegetarian people are getting their energy directly from the plants. For a mutton eater, the goat gets 10% from the plants and we get 10% of that from the goat. So, a mutton eater got only 1%.
That's all theory though. True theory. It doesn't matter much btw. Humans have been on top of the food chain for a very very long time now. We've already caused and are spreading too much of filth around. Going veg matters as much as an amoeba dying this second.
If the argument is about "HEY! WE SHOULD NOT HURT ANIMALS!!! THEY ARE ALIVE." well, even plants are also a type of lifeform. It's the law of the universe - one has to eat to survive. To eat, one needs to, hmm kill. Or rear an animal. Milk from cows, buffaloes...eggs from hen et cetera.
I also advise people not to use harpic to clean their unclean toilets. Microbes. They also have a metabolism. Don't want to hurt "life"?
Next argument will be, but animals are "conscious". Plants are not.
If one believes in "life", shouldn't all "life" be equal to him? Why the differentiation?
The next level is - you can go Super Saiyan through the union with the formless and the timeless. You'll go beyond the reality, in a reality of your own. You won't have to eat anything and you shalt fight Indra, the tiger. This can solve the world hunger problem as well.
Behave please.Did the facepalms really hit you in the a$$
oh, I did read your post very clearly. Why don't you be a good boy & reply to my posts.
------
@snap
+100 to your signature.
theterminator
Wise Old Owl
Yeah, but answer the merciless Halal . This ain't a veg vs non-veg debate although you will be struck down on that. Mankind has advanced to the point that it doesn't need to 'kill' & spill others blood. Now don't give the ultimate Buddhist lecture that even an ant will feel hurt , well those are things we sometimes cannot avoid in daily lives but we sure the hell can survive without red meat.
He/she called your Smilies "silly memes".
Somewhere in this page I found this.
. This ain't a veg vs non-veg debate although you will be struck down on that. Mankind has advanced to the point that it doesn't need to 'kill' & spill others blood. Now don't give the ultimate Buddhist lecture that even an ant will feel hurt , well those are things we sometimes cannot avoid in daily lives but we sure the hell can survive without red meat. He/she called your Smilies "silly memes".
Somewhere in this page I found this
.