^ ^ you know what I meanthe sheer volume!! I dint even know there was a limit on the number of lines you can have per post until now!!
Should I be offended at this "assumption" of yours that I can't think for myself? Actually I thought I may have clarified it in my next post where I said the article reflects some of my thoughts. (BTW, aren't our thoughts and views influenced by others?)mediator said:
To be honest, no, but only parts of them, and parts where my dad read and translated for me from Malayalam. I thought it's more of a morality thing. But I'm gaining knowledge along the way (through debates like these too).mediator said:
And I had told you before too, that the site is filled with pseudoscience. Neither do the site's claims nor it's author Dr.Sant Kumar Kapoor find any mention in credible mathematical circles. Of course I had read the site, not in its entirety though (I did read 3 or 4 pages), because I felt there was no point. I know Indian mathematicians had found out numerical techniques of solving mathematical problems. But the site's claims of saying that the techniques mentioned there are found out by paranormal properties of Hindu gods is going way overboard and highly pseudo-scientific.mediator said:
Invoking the gods (and their properties and attributes) to solve maths? Claims that have absolutely no proof solving maths? A fine example of twisting literature to your whims. BTW, I heard from one of my Hindu relatives that the four heads of Brahma is symbolic of his vision in all four corners of the world. Of course, he could be wrong. The writer of the site interprets his four heads as the four dimensions. Of course, different people, different interpretations (or maybe plain backfitting).vedicganita.org said:
From wikipedia entry on Goldbach's Conjecture:
I wonder why vedicganita.org or Dr.Kapoor escaped the scrutiny of the mathematical community and find no mention there.
Of course I do read if I get time. And I find it is extremely condescending of you to say that what I am saying is nonsense, and it would be nice if you tone down that attitude a bit. Maybe nonsense to you, but as I have said it before, with varying perspective, even the term nonsense can be relative and subjective. Your "sense" may be nonsense to me. But I don't think that I have ever disrespected your views.mediator said:
Actually u have done very little in the past debate and this one too where u acknowledged very little of your "own" perspective!! BTW, our thoughts and views are influenced only when we allow them to be influenced.srivirus said:
Your statements shout of how much u have read the site.
vedicganita.org said:
Don't tell me that u didn't read the site just becoz of that excerpt. Thats really, well, "not wise"!!
Even I didn't find anythin likewise. May be its not published becoz the author is not an Englishman? Ah, I forgot the concept of basmati rice is patented and many such INDIAN concepts that are patented. And then people say why don't INDIANS reveal it, if they have it.
U have shown how much u read, u didn't even read the 33 pages pdf u linked previous time.
You know what, when I was in 10th standard I was told about the amazing Appolo Moon mission. Later I found it was all some frustrated efforts to fulfill some desperate attempts.
I agree she shouldn't have said that. But if I were u, I wouldn't have "rejected" it also. Its only upto u to find out whats correct and it seems u can do that if u have done taking the "helping hand" of meera ji!
If one questions, then he is of course being "closed minded" and following "the herd". But if one accepts without even questioning, he is the poster boy for "open-mindedness".
I agree. Maybe you allowed the influence of some people on yourself, whose views may not have influenced others like me. But I disagree when you say that I haven't put forth my views. I provided links that justify or substantiate my views. Just like you did and still do. How can you even accuse anyone of not having an opinion of their own for giving links if you yourself find it very easy and convenient to post links to sites that are in agreement of your own views or which further take your point ahead?mediator said:
And can you make that clear? There was in all about 9-10 pages on that site. And most of them were doing the same thing.mediator said:
No. I came across those exerpts while I was reading the page 'Multi dimensions of time and space in Manasara'. I said that these are examples which I find hard to digest, because this is no way of solving a mathematical problem. Claims or chants cannot be held as axioms in a mathematical proof. Its not ignorance pal, its skepticism.mediator said:
Isn’t this a prejudice against the white man? Isn't it convenient that whenever a Western source does anything related to the Vedas or any ancient Indian text, you gladly provide details and links, but when you failed to answer my queries, you put an Indian (or Hindu) national's prejudice (or should I say diatribe) that the West doesn’t give us a fair deal and doesn't give us the awards and due credit for our achievements?mediator said:
I would agree, because for some links, as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", which the sites don't provide. They are not up for testing. Many are unscientific. Most of the sites you provided only have made claims too hard for a skeptic like me to digest. And most of them have never been accepted in the scientific community. If somethings are indeed verified (by peers), then we can rest assured that it is TRUE, and we might not even be having an argument like this.mediator said:
I thought that I had clarified it then, that I read things that were critical about Mark McCrutcheon's theories, but I didn't read it in entirety. Just for the sake of it, I had further searched on McCrutcheon and all I could conclude was that he is a person who is scorned upon in the scientific community and whose so called theories are rejected.mediator said:
Too bad you believe in that hoax. But right now, I'm not really surprised that you do.mediator said:
The incident that I cited had happened in 2001. I didn't even have internet back then and I certainly never even knew of Meera Nanda. Don't make lame assumptions on people. I was always skeptical about these things. That is why I had a hard time accepting it. If the Pushpakavimana was real, then so are the Nimbus 2000 and the Firebolt.mediator said:
Dude, some of us have other things to do than sit and surf sites. If you think that voicing one's opinion is trolling, then you are as much a troll as anyone else on this particular thread. I really had thought that you were capable of having a sane discussion with, but I never expected you to fall like this and take it down this low. It's very unfortunate that you should think that we just argue for the sake of it and at our convenience. It was very arrogant of you to make such a statement. Having read your earlier posts, you had accused karnivore of plagiarism, where there was none. Now, since you have accused me of trolling, I ask you, do you even know what trolling means? Did I post anything irrelevant? Did I go off topic? Did I make a wild accusation at anybody? Did I have any ulterior motives when I posted here? And since you are pointing at my position of being a mod, you are welcome to complain or make a report to an admin or any other mod if you feel that I am being a troll, and if anyone agrees, I'll resign. Maybe then, the next time there's a situation like this, you won't get a chance to have a go at me because I'm a mod.mediator said:
+ 1 well said.
No accusations, but it seemed funny where on one hand u say u have exams and on other are posting replies!srivirus said:
"Justify and substantiate ur views"? That seems a bit farfetched!srivirus said:
Need to say anymore? Read the pdf of 33 pages u put forward, where the reviewer himself agrees on many issues!srivirus said:
Shud I assume from the link u put forward that u know arabic? I certainly don't know arabic. But ofcourse, its your wish whether u wanna believe the "apollo moon hoax" or the site I linked, whether you wanna feel elite by thinking of "Big Bang and all the theories" as a fact or something like hypnotism, spirituality that are more real! Ofcourse you can research about spirituality,hypnotism etc or read about the "reviews and comments" from skeptics. Funny, that one guy in "science or God" thread took the help of "digs" to form hs opinion.
Ever heard statements like "Sun god is the essence of whole life on earth", 100 billion years is the age pf brahman?? Understand what it means. "Athidevo bhava, matri devo bhava"? Anything that is essential for our life is treated as God here. So don't just pause when u hear or read the term "God" in context of those lines.
Thats exactly what the sad part is, that in the quest of so called "modern education" we have lost what was ours! Once INDIA was known as "GOLDEN BIRD". But it seems no one takes a pride in that. Where scientists are coming to a conclusion that sanskrit is one of the oldest and scientific language, we are losing it in our home country. Its feels much worse when u see that the foreigners are the ones who are digging deep to know about INDIAN past and texts. Before it was confined to INDIA no one,even nationals, bothered to know about yoga. But suddenly it became "I'm proud of my INDIA" when major fraction of West started practising it and aproved by the scientists. Majority of illiterates on the subjects of INDIAN PAST, have often shown interest and delight only after the "foreigners" proved that it is correct. Vedic mathematics??
The bold part tells how much blinded you are. You can't accept the researches and facts I linked, but however u can believe on big-bang? Please tell me about its "testability". With all the evidences and "theories" and junk about Universe given in modern science filled in textbooks of school children, may be we shud narrow our scope to a more "observable" and "testable" environment like that of Earth.
And thanx for acknowledging ur scientific views. I hope u understand that "scientific" community doesn't flourish by just watching the faces of each other and glancing over other's paper likewise. Its an example where people start treating science religiously without much questioning leading to blind approval!!
The point is that I read "why" it was a hoax, and not just that "It is a hoax". You surely haven't even read about ayurveda that u started "following" MeeraJi. There are people much learned then me, in "Science and God" thread. Well if u can read MeeraJi's reaply, then I hope u can read the whole of Science and God thread tooo!
Modern science has "vaguely" given the proof that u can read and mark them as correct. May be the pushpaka vimana was real. May be we knew about the nuclear weapons. If evidences for dinosaurs are found, then evidences for them have also been found! Whats the conclusion? That science was advanced in the past? So don't get offended, instead think harder and research harder instead of reading "opinions and reviews"!!
Your tone is utterlyy sarcastic and is quite typical. You have "no time' and yet you r posting, and explaining your replies, feeling offended for something true? You saw a statement that talked about INDIAN past and texts and then all u could bring here was a little "enlightment" for "Meera Nanda"! I better start preparing on how to bring "Digg.com" links here I guess.
@mod : I find it really 'typical' that instead of answering my questions, u chose to run away from it every time I ask it. The questions in the "science/god" thread still "remain unanswered" and a few here likewise. But you on the other hand dear, want every question to be answered?
no offence, that was a compliment to you... may be we will come to know a little earlier which century this thread will stop saying the same things again and again Agreed. I mentioned magnetic polarity as a hint, to not get confused, with (+)ve or (–)ve as understood in physics. You do just that and bring in this example of “heat” and “cold”.
Is it too difficult to say, that a word formed with a negative prefix means the opposite of the base word, without having to resort to erroneous example. Happy-Unhappy, Believable-Unbelievable, Charitable-Uncharitable and finally Spiritual – Non-spiritual. That wasn’t hard, was it ?
Again, the definition of non-spirituality is based on your explanation of spirituality. You are inferring stuffs, that I have never implied. I have never implied, that non-spirituality is being scientific. I would rather call it a rational position than anything.
Another example of taking things out of context ? I gave the example of Hitler and Stalin, as a reply to your question, which was “Are u sure, if a person who is possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"?” The answer was Yes, e.g. Hitler and Stalin i.e. a man can pursue materialistic pleasures and yet “appreciate it all”. I never, ever claimed them to be spiritual. It is actually the contrary that I am trying to say. That one does not have to be spiritual to “appreciate it all”.
I don’t think that the wise guy was too far off.
Probably you missed, as usual, the line where I say “But there is little “spiritualism” in it”. Hypnotism is a method of suggesting and does not involve any mystical force or anything. Actually the word “hypnotism” is a huge misnomer.
Lets see if I can retrieve anything worthwhile from this utter mess.
Yes you are. Now I know, that goodness is not enough. Unless one has a “large” amount of goodness, one is not “spiritual”. And one has to be “receptive” of…….something, I guess.
The para of mine, that you have quoted and replied to dealt with something entirely different. I have not asked for the definitions of god or soul or whether you are a theist or not. I have simply put two arguments from a theistic point of view. I also specifically mentioned that this is not how an atheist would argue. Anyway.
There is no such thing as soul. I did not get that sentence within quotes, though. What is that supposed to mean anyway? If anybody wants to call the sub-conscious, his soul, I would not have a major problem with that. The minor problem is that, why not call sub-conscious, what it is – the sub-conscious. We don’t call moon, the sun, at least, not on planet Earth. Or do we.
Because, then you have to believe in a talking god in the most typical sense, who “asks us” what to do, through his messengers or texts. This god can’t be the deistic god or the pantheistic god. This god is of theistic variety. That will go against the fabric of atheism, which you claim to be. So it just seems, that you are not yet sure of which side of the divide you stand in.
I have not implied spiritualism to be elite. Far from it. It is you who is doing that. You claim “[d]efinition of spirituality is universal I think and is more coherent to the one I gave”, thereby dismissing in one clean sweep all other definitions of spirituality. You do not even appreciate the subtle differences in the concept of spirituality in Christianity and Hinduism and Islam and Buddhism or non-religious belief. If you had, you would not have defined spirituality to be “universal”. (You will see the futility of this towards the end of this post).
You are blatantly attributing all goodness to spirituality, latent or perceived, without being able to correlate goodness to spirituality. Is this “elitism” or what. (Its you who introduced the term “elitism”, not me)sen_sunetra said:
So far, you have not put a single argument that will convince a materialist that spiritualism is something exceptional to non-spirituality, or that it is worth exploring, or that it is nothing more than some hogwash.
Big Bang probably does not stand up to testability, but it does have some compelling “empirical evidences” (Hubble’s red shift, Background Microwave radiation etc.) all of which point to the Big Bang. Its much like a forensic detective work of piecing together evidences of a crime. Because no one has witnessed the crime, it does not mean the crime was not committed. If the evidences, point towards it, Court will accept it. Its called circumstantial evidence. (May I note, so far no one has ever been able to come up with any evidence of spirituality, other than flimsy claims). We can’t test the boundaries of Universe, but if something has a beginning or is expanding, then it is bound to have a boundary. Can something infinite have a beginning or expand ? You have concentrated on one part of the definition but not the later part – the part that deals with empirical evidence.
Now see who is guessing. Of course materialists accept the gaps. No one claims that science has discovered or explained everything. And yes, materialists seek clear explanation of everything, through regression. What is so wrong about it. The difference is that, materialists try to find answers in terms of matter while woo-mongers look for something like the FSM, to explain everything.
Absolutely not. I am in no way saying what you are implying. Science will reject everything and anything that does not have a basis or any evidence of being. Show a basis or some evidence, science will lap it up. Spirituality has not shown any evidence of its effect, homeopathy, chiropractic etc. have not shown any evidence beyond placebo, clairvoyance has not shown any evidence of being more than chance and hence science rejects all of these.
Your bolding. What do you mean “why”. I have got few more “whys” for you, which you will probably be able to answer by spiritual means, science certainly can’t. Why is laughter the correct response to humour. Why do we blink both the eyes simultaneously and not alternately. Why do our toes project towards the front and not backwards. Etc. etc.
You seriously do not expect me to answer all those questions on a forum. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject and it is virtually impossible for me to summarize those that I have read. If I could, I would not have been wasting time on a tech forum, but would have written a bunch of books myself. Anyway, I can only suggest you books e.g. The Analysis of Mind by Bertrand Russell. You can start by this and as you progress I will keep suggesting you more books.
This remote computing example is a good one (not being sarcastic), probably the only correct, to the context example that you have cited. Anyway. In case of remote wireless computing, the signals are elocto-magnetic waves which are transmitted through air. This set up has a sender and a/ many receiver/s. Everything works within the known paradigm of science.
“Purification of soul” ???? But you say that soul is “sub-conscious”. If you consider “soul” to be a separate being (being ???), like the dualists, then perhaps you can talk of purification of soul. How can one purify ones sub-conscious ? OK, I am sure I am missing something here.
Read closely, if you can.
First , explain what does “aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions” mean in the context of the above para. Second, please make me understand the classification if it is anything other than “bad” (unacceptable) and “good” (acceptable).Third, which part of the above quote talks of “what (is)"unacceptable" is the "blind" following in both”. Fourth, which comment of mine is an attempt to twist your statement.
How far, i.e. to what extent, is a one allowed to question “freely”, before one acquires the right to reject ? Let me rephrase that. What if, all these questioning “freely” and “pondering” result in outright rejection ? Will you still call it “rejecting without understanding” ?
I don’t think I implied what you are assuming I have. I have simply responded to your observation that if people had hatred for other religion, then there would be mass slaughter. I simply drew your attention to the fact that mass slaughter does happen and it is not at all rare. But you should say that to the families of 6 million jews, or the moslems of Serbia or christians of Somalia or the pundits of Kashmir, or sikhs of Delhi or moslems of Gujrat or…. The list is endless. (I am not even considering the dark ages of Europe.)
Mleccha means one who does not confirm to vedic principles. Even Vevekanda was once referred to as Mleccha by the orthodox Brahmins, surely not because he was devoid of morality and ethics. Of course the word has been used with a wide variety of implications, but always as a derogatory term.
Big Bang is accepted by majority of scientific community for no reason I guess. They are all deluding themselves, perhaps.
Let me take the help of Vivekananda, although I disagree with almost everything he said.
Do you not know, how to reply with reference to the context. I was replying to your question - “You have never climbed everest, so how can u conclude it laborious?”. I was replying to the “HOW” not “IF” there is an alternative ? Yes Sherpas can climb with much ease. But how is that relevant to the question that you had asked. Its like “Whats your name ?” and replying, “My name is Sunetra, and I have friends named Tina, Mina and Linda”.
See a) and b) above.
My argument was based on the “POSSIBILITY of A disease” and not on “POSSIBILITIES”. Clearly, you haven’t even read the entire explanation. If you had, you did not even understand it. So, read it once more, probably you will understand what I am saying. I don’t think I can simplify this anymore. And while replying, instead of evading the whole argument reply from 1) to 8 ).
My guess was based on “some” data alright, although not a direct one. It was based on 2004, WHO survey of alcoholism across the world. You can download page 22 to 34 from here. Refer to Table 6 on page 24. You will find some interesting pattern emerging. [NOTE: Abstainer means, one who has not drank within 1 year preceding the date of survey]
and,
.
Now, apply the sampling rule of statistics on the data presented above.
The original article by Elaine Howard Ecklund can be downloaded from here. Let me quote from her article.
sen_sunetra said:
All I am asking is proof. That’s all. Not some flimsy letter to the editor which we do not know if was published or not, not some claim which could not be repeated in front of skeptics, not some “i-said-so” or “i-heard-so” or “I’ve-seen-so”. Pure, hard evidence.
Validates ??? Well…………….if you say so. Wormholes in DNA ? Microscopic Wormholes ? A sure shot at Noble Prize. Pity, no one gave that chap even a peny. :Sigh: What are those astrophysicists doing if wormhole can be had in lab. Damn those astrophysicist. Draining public fund.
Errrr…. What exactly is “out of space and time.”rense.com said:
I haven’t had a laugh for a long long time. Thank you rense.comrense.com said:
rense.com said:
And yet you continue with your diatribes. And I guess, you already know what I say.
