Man hypnotises himself before op

[legolas]

^^ seriously?? 3 hours?

 

[Vyasram]

@karnivore and @legolas, I now know and understand what you guys must've gone through and felt after having a debate with him. And if I'm right, EXASPERATION would have been just one of the feelings.
I sincerely hope, no wish that sen_sunetra won't answer here and is kept busy.

+Googol^Googol

Earth still revolved around the Sun, gravity was still there, "Universe" was still there etc even when people didn't have the ever changing "equations n variables to fulfill" about them.

And your point is? Do you expect people to invent(rather than discover) the universe, gravity and stuff?

alayan - a vehicle designed to operate in air and water. (Rig Veda 6.58.3)
Kaara- a vehicle that operates on ground and in water. (Rig Veda 9.14.1)
Tritala- a vehicle consisting of three stories. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)
Trichakra Ratha - a three-wheeled vehicle designed to operate in the air. (Rig Veda 4.36.1)
Vaayu Ratha- a gas or wind-powered chariot. (Rig Veda 5.41.6)
Vidyut Ratha- a vehicle that operates on power. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)

Well if u have made up ur mind to treat it as a fairy tale, its ur wish. But still read a few links that wont disturb ur exam preparation.....

*www.bibliotecapleyades.net/es..._atomic_3d.htm
*www.mystae.com/restricted/str...ts/vimana.html
*www.newbranes.com/alternative...ying-machines/

Believe me, after reading this , I feel that Xenu-stuff is nothing compared to this.

 

[mediator]

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 ?

Where's the erroneous example? I didn't even give a fictitous data yet! Isn't 'hot' the opposite of 'cold'?

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.

Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.

My explanation was based on YOUR definition of "spirituality". I am NOT treating it as a "synonym of science". The explanation of non-spirituality appears to sound like science, because of , how you have explained spirituality in the first place. If you had given me a different version, (o, believe me, there are many) I would have defined it in a different way. Simple.

If that makes a MINORITY of scientists look foolish, then I am willing to take the risk.

And thats what I said, u r wrong! Or u can say ur "rational" approach is erroneous!

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".

Taste in art and music is one of the manifestations of the appreciation for quality. That these two monsters also enjoyed nature was also evidenced by their obsession of building rest houses for themselves in some of the most picturesque of places.

I don't have any problem understanding your spirituality. Its you who is having problem understanding the context in which something is being said (or not), and constantly implying things that were not meant to be. Even after clarifications you are sticking with the errors. And frankly, so far you have not being able to cite one single "experience", that is exclusive to
spirituality.

Like I said, u r really full of guesses be it of a fictitious data, theism, where on one hand u say to an athiest it will mean the same and then guess what a theist will say, spirituality, sherpas, panting n the mountains?

So sure, stalin n hitler even though killed many, had dreams to "conquer" territories, build places for themselves, njoyed truly and appreciated it all! Greed for name, fame, terroritory etc? Its high time u acknowledge the difference between greed and happiness that I requested u to understand in the first place!

I don't think that the wise guy was too far off.

U may start where he left off then. Not even him, u can continue where anyone leaves. I had questioned in plenty which remains unanswered.

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.

YEa, even the wise guy said that! I find similarities between ur posts and his.

Lets see if I can retrieve anything worthwhile from this utter mess.

It's the quantity of goodness (using the collective term) that matters. A "little" goodness is not enough. (That's why, a smoker , who has appreciation for quality, or an alcoholic who is scientific and loves his daughter, is disqualified.) There has to be a whole lot of it. Although we all have little spirituality in all of us, we don't automatically become "SPIRITUAL", per se. But when we have whole lot of it, and of course, perceive it, we can stake our claim for SPIRITUALITY. But then, a spiritual person does not have to be perfect. Is that correct ? Now let me wonder aloud.

a)Since you claim, a "spiritual" person does not have to be perfect, meaning, little imperfections may remain, can you please tell us, what are those imperfections, that a person is allowed to possess and yet continue to be spiritual and, of course, why ?

b)How many imperfections can a man possess, and yet be spiritual ? I mean what is the ceiling on number of imperfections ?

c)If goodness far exceeds the number of imperfections, would the man become SPIRITUAL, admittedly, even though he is a materialist and does not perceive spirituality ?

d)You had earlier defined spirituality as i) "the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind", ii) "We are all connected", i.e connectedness, iii) "the quest for eternal wisdom". Now which part of this definition is there in little quantity in all of us ?

e)i) & iii) are matters of ACT, while ii) is a matter of REALISATION. Both, ACT and REALISATION need conscious effort on one's part. Conscious effort means one is aware of what one is doing. So how is it possible for any part of your definition to remain latent in all of us, without we, being aware of it ?

Now, do you want to change your definition of spirituality ? You are saying things that don't go with that definition.

a) I dunno. But spirituality offers u a better way of life where one realises of ill-effects of smokin n alcohol! I said bt the imperfect coz nobody is perfect and that includes our "modern-science" where its hardcore believers call for "peer review" in their every second post, some bringing in opinions, whereas a few others forward the "digg.com" here.
b) Ah, be spiritual and then try to guess.
Besides its better than the theories which r based on more theories n put in to text books of very little school children, who grow up n speak aloud "science can explain everything"!!

Take my "peer review" and start practising spirituality to decrease the number of ur guesses.
c) example?
d) I said a "little spirituality", I wonder why u bring it in parts now?
e) Ur intuition might tell something?

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.

A lucky 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.

The expression "god" is not so ambiguous after all. People make it ambiguous for sake of making it ambiguous and probably trying to sound deep. In all religion, god is considered as a supreme being who created everything. The variations start from here. Some consider it to be the one who listens to prayers, punishes sin, rewards virtue etc. (theism), while some believe all that the rules, laws and nature represent god (pan-theism) while yet other believe it to the creator of everything, who does not interfere in the daily activities of human (deism). Comments like, "God is love" or "God is eternal wisdom", are basically pantheistic metaphors. The minor problem that I have with these metaphors, is that, these always invariably mislead.

Yes, I know that god resides in the dark corners of gaps. As these gaps are being constantly filled up, god is seriously running
out of space to hide.

Ur theory is far fetched! Even if the dark "corners" in the "observable" seemingly limitless space are being filled by something hypothetical which the peers christen as "dark energy/dark space"? Then also the question arises where did it all come from?

Materialists must be surely on a high thinking bt it all......dimensions, strings? Its a bang, a big bang!

So what is god? It seems the answer is complicated, ambigous? I surely don't know!

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.

And there is no such thing is cold. Is there a "thing" called thought, desire etc? From where do we even get them? How, when and why? why r the folks in US and researches even studying on after life reincarnations where many of em have found to be true??

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.

Thats correct, its the texts. So I still don't find why I won't find a reason in it. My side is crystal clear dear, but it seems u r not sure of what u r talking of => "Alcohol fulfills senses"??

Enjoyment is nothing but satisfying one's senses. Drinking certainly does that, along with, as you have rightly pointed out, damage to body and mind.

Post #63

There's a difference between blinding our senses and satisfying our senses, the same way as that of greed & happiness!

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).

Then ur analogy with Mac must be a light hearted joke in an interesting debate!

Besides, you have not responded to the other part of that quote. So let me rephrase that for you. Do you think that if any person who experiences spirituality and of course realizes/perceives it, can never go back to being non-spiritual ?

I thought u were wise enough to have already inferred that or u forget the previous part of debate to question randomly again n again? U do remember spirituality, eternal wisdom posts dont u? C'mon!

I don't think wise people become unwise. Satisfactory? Or u still don't understand?

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)

It was funny actually of u bringing the Mac OS example here.

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.

Again you have resorted to a wrong example. All one has to do is look at one of those Mr Universes or sports personalities to know what gym routine can do. The effect of a proper gym routine has TANGIBLE evidence. It is not hard for a "non-gymer" to conclude, "that regular gym and running help". The question of rejection does not even arise. (I have earlier made this point on this gym example) Where is the TANGIBLE proof of the effects of spiritualism, let alone spiritualism itself ? Show the materialists the proof that spiritualism has its effects, and you will have all the materialists biting dust. Simple isn't it ?

I'm not even concerned bt the materialists or if they r so desperate to bite the dust. U forgot the point of the debate it seems n I guess all my previous little speeches fell on deaf ears! BTW, its surprising that all the so called materialists r still shying to answer my questions. The irony!!

Please do not resort to "experience-it-to-know-it" routine, because so far, you have not been able to provide a single experience that can't be experienced without being spiritual. Altruism, empathy, appreciation for quality are not at all exclusive to spiritualism. If you claim these to be so, then you have to tell us why these are not possible without being spiritual. (Oh, btw, materialism ? mindless pursuit of materialistic pleasure, just in case you resort to this. But I have a feeling that you are going to resort to that only.)

Funny that I'm constantly talking of reincarnations, intuition, control of body/mind etc, yogis stopping heart beats, the whole topic revolved around hypnotism, "eternal wisdom". All the ramayan read and u ask who was "SITA" ?

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.

Cool! But, even though it cannot be reproduced or stand up to testabilty of physical evidence that it really happened on the other hand reincarnations, intuitions, hypnotism have been found many times correct! Like I said, I already have read bt the BING BANG theory. It seems u r short of statements now!

How can u be so sure that Universe had a beginning? Marking the theory as a fact again? Someone gave a link to Big Bang from wiki.

U can have that as an appetizer n read carefully!

It reminds me of a similar debate where one asks for scientific evidence even after having acknowledged that science cannot

explain it! Such a wise questioning itself. I can surely see how much help such materialists need.

Ofcors, but do the materialist accept it, since u said they need "clear" explanation of "everything"??

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.

Meh guessing?
C'mon, I didn't write my previous reply that long.

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.

Thats correct. And thats the reason they have opened reasearches on intuition, hypnotism, reincarnations etc. coz they have evidence that it works whereas the herd of blind followers mark it with terms like "flimsy","garbage","rubbish", <insert ur word> not even willing to see clearly in such case where their peers are going! Its again funny that u r bringing homepathy here! U have a thread that deals with it, and u may read "all" my replies and answer them one by one there.

Its time it seems that "modern science" re-writes itself!

BTW, if you want us not to "reject anything", why do you reject personal god. How do you know there is no such thing as personal god, or for that matter the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pink Unicorn or Magic Dragon or an Invisible Morlock. Going by your logic, we should not reject any of those. For that matter, we should not reject anything at all. As someone said, "Don't be so open minded, that your brain falls off".

On one hand you reject personal god, in spite of the "fact" that many people claim to have "experienced" the super man (or woman),

but on the other, you want us all to consider "spiritualism", because millions have "experienced" it. Contradicting yourself ? Or

am I seriously missing something ?

I wonder for how long u can question n guess without having "experienced" it? Well I tried a lot to be a theist, but a "personal god" cannot bring me my childhood, cannot make me a "god" itself. But again, do u even have an iota of idea of what spirituality is?

U didn't miss "something" dear, it seeems u missed "everything" that has been debated! I can recall here a statement though that said "Drinking satisfies one's senses"
BTW, "millions are not theists" just becoz they have experienced "personal god", a major fraction is such becoz of such beliefs. U can bring in the "herd instinct" here also.

Its like a few friends of mine, who say I wont eat egg because its Tuesday or some say saturday. I ask y they believe so, they say "It is so, it is said so". I hope u r wise enough to atleast understand this example.

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.

U certainly r not trying to entertain me r u? Neural firings happen, causes emotions. But "why" do those neural firings happen?

And why does it causes emotion? What if I can control my emotions? Does the serotonin levels vary at that time also? If a bad news arises, "why,how" those levels start varying? Why shud it happen?
I'm not asking bt the toes or the blinks. All I said was "science cannot explain everything"! so keep ur mind at peace.

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.

As with the links, well, claiming something is easy. Let the scientific community accept these. We shall then see.

I feel more n more resemblence of ur posts with another poster! But, neways where did the forums come from and I certainly didn't tell u to read books? I am only giving simple readable links and not even a pdf of 33 pages that someone else gave without even reading it! I gave only simple links or shud I quote them for u, for better understanding if u like? well ur last line again reflects of the "herd instinct". Some have it for "digg.com"!

"Oh let the scientific community accept these, and then we shall see. Then if it gets a remodification period, then we will watch their faces again n when they'll accept these again, then we shall be back to our drawing boards again......n again n again n again". The situation is simply hilarious!

The example of yogis stopping heart beat makes a presumption that yogis do stop their heart beat. First prove it, then we will discuss on this. A better example could have been, the Russian method of heart surgery, although the method is a totally controlled stoppage or near stoppage of heart. For that matter, any Bypass surgery shall qualify for your example.

We r not talking of surgeries, artificially induced stuff or external aid for the body! It seems u r making it an habit to write "prove it" in every next statement of yours! I feel u must re-read the whole previous discussion first so as to remember n minimize repetitions.

"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.

And what do u call soul? Some call it an entity that "cracks the chamber when u r confining a dying body to it", some call

it the sub-concious that is constantly giving u messages and thoughts. What do u call it?

U r only wasting ur energy in trying to twist the statments and deviate. What u r missing is a simple ethics for debates for reading and pondering on what one said. But u on other hand r full of guesses on what others can think and forming fictitious data to prove ur points? I see why people need "peer review" so much.

Just because I an atheist if does not automatically mean that I don't know anything about "theism". Guess who is guessing and being judgmental. If this is what one gets out of spirituality, then I am more than glad that I am a materialist.

But to an "'atheist' it will all mean the same"? Right?
I'm not guessing anywhere relevant, but ur words speak louder than anyone could guess.

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.

CORRECTION: "first" is replaced by "above".

First, I don't wish to start religious wars that u might aiming for. Second, already did that before. Its again n instance where u come forgetting about ur past debate. Third, is not restricted to above parts. Fourth, u r classifying it as good/bad or acceptable/unacceptable as a whole. Is it a ur natural approach to jump to the conclusions early so as to get a better picture of the things they can't understand? If yes, then its far from scientific one where one understands a picture and then concludes.

Its a similar case where recently a person followed another's 'peer review' filled with opinions and nuthing factual and marked vedas as nuisance.

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" ?

"Allowed to question freely"?? Have u actually questioned the testability of Big-Bang theory n the hypothetical terms related, the "limited" laws and the vaguely understood laws?? If u wonder what I may be talking of, then please refer to the "science or God" thread again.

Whats so hard to understand bt the phrase "rejecting without understanding" which a few materialists have been doing here itself??

=Sen]
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.)

"$hit happens". Don't they. Why should we be bothered by that. Civilized people far out number the barbarians. So lets raise a toast for humanity and let the barbarians have a day or two of thunder. Every doggie needs bonie, don't they. Humanity will continue to exist. So who cares about its wounds here and there. Nice spiritual observation. Bravo.

So r there any "mass" slaughters going on world wide everyday in every country? Do u see that in ur neighbourhood everyday?

People can even kill each other for differing in views. Why r u getting emotional? So yea "$hit happens", I can read it right now.

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.

I do not know, the corresponding term in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or for that matter in Taoism, Rastafarianism and other hundreds of offshoot religious belief system. I guess that makes me guilty of ignorance.

Where is it written that mleccha is related to something called "Hinduism"? Was swami vivekananda a non-hindu? Why did the orhtodox brahmins called him a mleccha then? Were they more learned the Vivekananda? It seems u urself don't understand what u r saying.

Big Bang is accepted by majority of scientific community for no reason I guess. They are all deluding themselves, perhaps.

Finally, u r showing urself!

Let me take the help of Vivekananda, although I disagree with almost everything he said.

"…the only alternative remaining to us is to recognise that duty and morality vary under different circumstances" – Complete Works of Vivekananda, Vol-1, pg 54.

It is this, that I was trying to get across. The thief example was used by Ramkrishna Dev, Vivekananda's Guru, in Kathamrita, as

well. (OOOPS)

It wud have been better if u had not quoted Vivekananda if u can't understand him. It seems u r having tough time udnerstanding the thief example alone.

Still I will try to reply to those:
a)Sherpas have high threshold for fatigue, much higher than even professional mountaineers, probably through genetic adaptation and of course through practice. It is amazing but very normal just like blinds' heightened sensitivity to sound or smell.

b)The expert swimmers that you are referring to, also have increased threshold for fatigue, due to practice. They too will tire

out once they cross that threshold.

In both the cases, fatigue is inevitable. It is a matter of WHEN. You don't suppose, that if a Sherpa is sent in space he

will survive without oxygen, or your expert swimmers can swim all the way to American West Coast.

a) Question still arises, "How can u conclude if its or how it is laborious"??
b) Are u even trying to understand? yeah they will tire after some time, atleast not withing a minute. So see me swim and what do u conclude?

Sure walking, talking, watching TV or perhaps eating too is quite laborious likewise then? C'mon talk sensible man. If u continue to talk like this I guess I will soon lose mah interest in this debate!

1) You are not a SHERPA. (Or are you ? Such an authoritative tone.) So when you are concluding that climbing is not always laborious by citing Sherpas as example, you are concluding "without actually experiencing it", just like me. Just like me you are concluding by "observing" and reading resources.

2) If this is your example of "not rejecting without considering the alternative", then you are doing so, because of a TANGIBLE PROOF a la Sherpas. Had there been no sherpa, we would have been stuck with only one conclusion. Besides, just because Sherpas have high fatigue threshold, it does not make climbing any less laborious for people like us. Also, high threshold for fatigue does not mean zero fatigue.

Guess, who is making the repetitions.

Pleaase atleast don't say that I'm talking like u.
1) Yea not only I have observed but experienced too. Ever lived on mountains? But u saying that "climbing is laborious" simply tells that u r not used to climbing. Is that hard to understand? Also please don't "guess again" that I'm not accustomed to climbing. It simply depends if u have "experienced it and how well u have experienced it". It seems U didn't understand very well of why I talked of Sherpas.

2) Yea for child it is hard to walk first. U have done very little to understand or it seems u r running away from sherpas example. So u see the sherpas in action, what do u conclude now?

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 ).

Both the examples of Mt Everest and Doctor were in the context of "experience, not being the sole criterion for knowledge". You have ripped these out of context and used them in the context of "rejection without consideration". I played along with you just for the sake of carrying out this debate. And you don't even show the decency of appreciation (spirituality ???), now, you want me to develop the examples to suite your context. Show some decency by not making such comments and developing your own examples - that too, in the right context.

U say ur argument was on "Possibility of a disease" and yet u brought "possibilties"? Simplified? It seems u made complicated for urself alone.

I m showing decency, but guess who is bringing in the ficitious data to prove his point? U make me yawn.

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]

a)Muslim countries have the highest number of abstainers. (i.e. lowest alcohol drinkers)
b)Countries following the Eastern religious philosophies follow closely.
c)Europe has the lowest number of abstainers. (i.e. highest alcohol drinkers)

You may also refer to the alcoholism pattern in Europe in this link. (Leave aside the fact that Islamic spirituality is entirely

different from the eastern or western or your spirituality.)

Here's what had you said earlier;

If all u r doing now is running away from what u said, then u can quit the debate right now. Did u forget what ur ficitious data was about? "no. of spirituals who drink"....does that ring some bells? Where is that particular data?

First u tell there is no such data, now u come saying it was based on "some" data and now u link a data that talks about alcoholics and then u talk about religious countries. Are u alright? I feel u r doing ur best in twisting words!
a)b)c) U r agin bringing "muslims", "eastern religion" etc as if religion and spirituality are the same. After all this time, u again put urself to t=0? How wise.

Now, apply the sampling rule of statistics on the data presented above.

So tell me, are you suggesting that in Europe, “materialists” far outnumber “spiritual” persons. If you are, then these are the happy days for materialists. Oh wait. You have already mentioned, a spiritual person needs not to be perfect, or “Large percentage of people drinking "doesn't mean" that many of em can be or may be spiritual?” or <put another excuse>.

On a more serious note, drinking/ eating something that is beneficial to health, depends on one’s awareness and this awareness comes through proper education. It has nothing to do with “spirituality”.

I wud suggest that u shud give up on rationalising things for it needs clear concepts first! U have clearly shown how much ur awareness tells u, "Drinking fulfills senses"?? WTH!

During public lectures about the study, the question inevitably asked first is: Do the professors you studied believe in God? When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response. This means that over 60 percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either atheist or religiously agnostic. In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic.When it comes to affiliation with particular religions, scientists are also vastly different from members of the broader society. About 52 percent of scientists see themselves as having no religious affiliation when compared to only 14 percent of the general population.

MINORITY seems to be the order of the day.

Keep trying ur luck. The MAJORITY I talked of refers in context to spirituality. The minority u talk of refers in context to religion. Why do I have to correct u so often now?

Childhood religious background, not exposure to scientific education, seems to be the most powerful predictor of future irreligion. Those scientists raised in almost any faith tradition are more likely to currently be religious than those raised without any tradition.

Not only exposure to the scientific education, but also develop in them the scientific outlook which unfortunately the "herd" is lacking!

Aha. So much for “spirituality” being “universal”. Those definitions or understanding of spirituality are just too remote to your definition, to be overjoyed by that magic figure of 66 %. Oh. Wait a minute. They did mention the word “spiritual”. Didn’t they.

Interesting, that some think that, “knowledge of the spiritual comes directly from their work”. Lets have a look at what I had said earlier.

Thats correct, u just keep bragging bt the definition of spirituality. U haven't even understood its meaning as so clear from ur replies n talking of religion n spirituality like they r synonyms. Ponder over coz its never too late. Its not remote but the same!

N what u said earlier reflects the confusion in ur mind. Its like there is a difference between scientific exposure and having a scientific outlook. U only seem to have the former.

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.

Irony is that, you are talking of ‘tone’. Right from the beginning you have characterized me.

You seem to have something chronic with the Big Bang theory. Too bad. Its going to stay there and be accepted by the scientific world, for a long long time to come. I guess, you just have to live with it.

I didn't characterize atleast u from the beginning, or r u a person posting with two IDs/usernames to be feeling the heat?

You live with ur theories, imagining them as facts in ur wonderland while I live my spiritual life. Too bad u live ur life based on "peer review" n have a certain emotional affinity with theories like Big Bang! It gives me a picture of a helpless animal waiting for his master to give him appropriate directions to follow. How sad!

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.”

I haven’t had a laugh for a long long time. Thank you rense.com

I leave it to the judgment of rational readers - should this guy be taken seriously or should he be put in a straight jacket and couriered to some mental asylum. Needless to say, I prefer the latter.

And yet you continue with your diatribes. And I guess, you already know what I say.

All you have in favour of spirituality is "EXPERIENCE-IT-TO-KNOW-IT". You have to do better than that.

Are u done with ur fake laugh? "Experience-IT-TO-KNOW-IT" is a wise choice in many cases instead of putting up shots and guesses n a few fake laughs making u look even more miserable. Its funny how materialists present themselves!

PS: As you can see the post is really very looong, mostly because of repetitions, next time around I will respond to your post only if there is something valid or thought provoking. Else, not. It took me over 3 hours and 5 sessions to write this up, including researching.

It wud be better if u don't coz I see alzhiemers sprouting up in u.

 

[sen_sunetra]

It wud be better if u don't coz I see alzhiemers sprouting up in u.

Thanks for the abuse, and real sensitive of you to make fun of the sufferings of people. Bravo.

I didn't characterize atleast u from the beginning, or r u a person posting with two IDs/usernames to be feeling the heat?

For the first bolding, I would ask you to refer to your posts . I don’t even feel like quoting your memorable comments. May be I should have replied to your “characterizations’”, right from the start, instead of being civil.

For the 2nd bolding, I demand an unambiguous clarification and an apology. Unless you do that, I don’t see why I should post any further. Message me when you have so done, and I will carry on with this debate.


To all readers, how to contact the moderators or administrators. And who are the administrators of the forum.

 

[mediator]

Yeah, thats a convenient way to end it. Neways, alzheimers isn't an abuse. It seems u need to polish ur concepts for this term also. I'm not making fun of any person, but just telling the state which resembles as so clearly inferred from ur posts in which u urself don't understand what u speak off and then forget, repeat and making the discussion start from t=0.

I really don't see why I shud apologize for the line in "bold" as u said, for its just another debate where a few even called personal with me. May be u shud read the description of this section called "Fight Club". Its really not for softies, sensitive n emotional souls.

But, if an apology makes u feel better, then u can have 1000s of such apologies from me. So I apologize "unconditionally" for watever the reason might be. I dunno why u felt so aggravated.

Frankly, the previous post of urs made me yawn heavily n PMing u well, is more than the threshold of yawning. I'm willing to give up arms and surrender instead!

PS : @Mods u can close this topic now as nuthing productive is coming out n people have resorted to unnecessary whining.

 

[sen_sunetra]

mediator

Neways, alzheimers isn't an abuse. It seems u need to polish ur concepts for this term also. I'm not making fun of any person,

My grandfather is suffering from Alzheimer disease, and every single day is a struggle for him, just to get up from his bed and step into the next room. I see it every single day of my life, how it is pushing him inch by inch closer to death and you are asking me to polish my concepts.

If mentioning of the disease is the only way of implying whatever you are trying to, then, I pity your vocabulary and taste and your so called spirituality.

People yawn, when they get bored due to their lack of understanding. Had I been you, I would not have been so proud of my yawns.

I really don't see why I shud apologize for the line in "bold" as u said, for its just another debate where a few even called personal with me. May be u shud read the description of this section called "Fight Club". Its really not for softies, sensitive n emotional souls.

You should apologize because you accused me of a fraudulent act.

I had no intention of running away and I still don't have any. If I had, I would not have come back and replied to your last post after a good two weeks.

 

[mediator]

@Sen_Sunetra : I am sorry to hear about your grandfather. How can u say I was making fun of any person? Your new posts spoke how much you forgot about your past posts. I constantly reminded you of your tone. But in the end if you have nothing else to speak of save repeating and forgetting things and "laughing" childishly on rense.com article, telling me that I have to live with big-bang, forging a fictitous data, then sorry to say that I follow laws of physics here of "equal n opposite reaction" save repetitions & abuses. I still don't understand how I abused you. Your posts give a striking resemblance to that of another wise guy here. I welcomed you in the most humble way I could. Now if you say that I'd been unfriendly or repulsive from the beginning, then obviously it means that someone has created aliases. I can very well counter your argument by saying "You accused me of being unfriendly from the beginning........apologize now". Its your wish to understand the statements or shy away from them and laugh. I'm looking forward for science to explain this kind of "behaviour and intelligence", how it happens and why it happens! But take my "peer review" that spirituality can improve upon such primitive type of behaviour and intelligence.

Like I said spirituality doesn't mean u feed mosquitoes with ur own blood. Your continuous demands for apologies make me feel u need to live a spiritual life as well. This is yet another spiritual experience of mine that you are getting emotional randomly unlike me. So am I controlling my serotonin levels now? "How & why for effect and cause"??

Now for the apology part, I already said, I don't like to repeat! BTW, who is PMing you or you developed some intuition?

 

[Vyasram]

You live with ur theories, imagining them as facts in ur wonderland while I live my spiritual life. Too bad u live ur life based on "peer review" n have a certain emotional affinity with theories like Big Bang! It gives me a picture of a helpless animal waiting for his master to give him appropriate directions to follow. How sad!

On many occasions, I feel that you dont actually believe the things you type. One of those.

 

[legolas]

I dint know spirituality is much more profound and reasonable and utterly logical when compared to Big Bang. My bad... I thought both are equally stupid/creative/intuitive theories on which ppl who believe try to explore the possibilities. Others don't but then they don't whine either.

@Vyasram that is called garrulous jibber jabber

 

[mediator]

Thats correct, people don't know much, yet they like to guess what it is. It is like, in ancient era where people didn't know that earth was round, but thought that it is flat & many didn't even question it but simply 'followed' the notion. I wonder what causes such a behaviour in materialists which tends to limit their intelligence and knowledge. At the end they run away and scatter when spiritualists start questioning. A few troll from behind like very little children looking only at the developing situation, laugh n make a few remarks when their little brain gets overloaded pretty soon of the stuff that they can't understand and at the end, all they have to say is, "I shall wait for the 'peer review' , until then its garbage/garrulous jibber jabber/nonsense, atleast I, the wise one, declare it so". How typical!

Materialists n such blind followers have surely got a funny comic character in them where on one hand they follow and wait for the 'peer review' and on other like to form conclusions n remarks themselves without even knowing or understanding the picture. Its like they like to get a scientific exposure without having a scientific outlook, and a simple conclusion from the peer so as to get a little idea in short so as to follow them like reading/hearing the moral of the story from someone without reading the story itself! I wonder if they even read the thesis and publications since many here itself have shown how much they read the link they post.

But newayz, the irony that majority of 'peers' are spiritual themselves. Marvellous!

@Vyasram : U can have plethora of surmise about me. I have no problem with that. @MODS : u can close the thread now.

 

[legolas]

you seem to be declaring yourself as the definition of spiritualism and that your definition of spiritualism is not uncontaminated or unstained and as if you were imparted with this thoughts as some sort of afflatus which is an utter reflection of your megalomaniac attitude.

While in reality, your definition of spiritualism is also influenced by many sayings, writings and with much bias like any other person you have found peace with your beliefs and your numerous erroneous quotes about vedas and their translations and garrulous and utterly redundant paragraphs.

You live with ur theories, imagining them as facts in ur wonderland while I live my spiritual life. Too bad u live ur life based on "peer review" n have a certain emotional affinity with theories like Big Bang! It gives me a picture of a helpless animal waiting for his master to give him appropriate directions to follow. How sad!

So quit whining like some being who has been imparted the knowledge as afflatus and start giving credit for yourself, for you are as much flawed as any1 else, not perfect.

 

[mediator]

U can stop trolling now, as u have done nuthing in this debate save making statements like "U win...oh what a win; this is gibberish/jibber jabber" and being stereotypical side spectator. So keep ur mind at peace instead of coming randomly n poncing around.

 

[legolas]

ufff... finally tired!!!

 

[sreevirus]

Ok. Here's the drill:

There's a topic. Somebody makes a statement that mediator finds contradictory towards his set of beliefs and ideas.

mediator gives links and makes oh so long quotes.

Opponent gives his views.

Mediator finds him closed minded (Mediator adds more links).

Opponent again tries giving his reasons for his disbelief/skepticism.

Now here starts the typical mediator replies: Mediator finds the opponent to be having no intellect. Starts questioning the opponents' brain capacity. Starts making accusations and insinuations. Feels sorry for the opponents. Finds the opponents' posts amusing. More accusations and snide remarks. Finds opponents' posts to be trolling. Thinks of them as childish. Feels even more sorry at the opponent for his/her thinking. Finds the opponent lacking in English vocabulary. Thinks that others giving any links to website with contradicting ideas are because they don't have opinions of their own. Mediator himself gives more links. Acts to be politically correct while slinging insults and insinuations at the opponent. Shows no respect or appreciation for the opponents' views or their time. Gives more links that only he will find credible.

Opponent is disgusted at mediator's antics. Finds mediator's posts irritating. Debate is going nowhere and is stalled.

Mediator feels victorious.



Seriously dude. Did spirituality teach you your unique debating skills? What makes you think your brand of spirituality is the only one that other so called spiritual people follow? I have come across people who are humble and who can amicably debate. You definitely are not one of those. People don't want to have fights with you. Everyone will like a debate as long as things are civilized. And being civil and humble is what you should learn first. I guess your own brand of spirituality has made you what you are and thank goodness that other "spiritual people" don't think and act the way you do and are more human. Even Mark McCutcheon was a really down to earth guy who respected his opponent when he had a debate with another guy who was not convinced by his ideas. You could learn a thing or two from him.

If I remember correctly, you were banned once because you made an insult against a member involving his mother and family (I think it was aryayush if my memory serves me right). Did your spirituality make you do it? Whatever you said to karnivore, legolas and me were pretty low enough, but it was utterly disgusting of you to have made some of those comments to sen_sunetra. Spirituality again?

You leave a bad taste in people's mouths after they have a debate with you. You make things ugly with your arrogance and condescending tone where you belittle people for not agreeing with your views (is it your subconscious reflex or ego?). And you still have the galls to say others are closed minded? It is pure irritation that drives people away, not your debating skills.


Yeah I know you will find my posts to be trolling, but believe me, it will only be you who will find it that way. People can see who can comprehend what.


There went 45 minutes of time of my studies.
But I'll be back (count on it). I have some things to be cleared out. See you here after 5th June.


------


@Vyasram, the Jalvahan, Vayuratha and other things are definitely there in those books (mediator just copy-pasted stuff that I've already seen a lot of times and what's already there in so many sites). Just search for those verses in the books if you have them or in an authentic Hindu website with those scriptures. But these things cannot be anything more than people's imagination at those ancient times. The ancient Persians/Arabs imagined flying carpets, and mentions of them are found in some books. The English imagined flying brooms. So does it imply that those things actually existed and that the Persians and English had found out anti-gravitational technology? Jules Verne wrote books about space travel, underwater travel and air crafts even before such technology existed. So what does that mean? That he invented something or that he imagined how things in the world could be? Heck the creators of the Jetsons and the Centurions were fantastically farsighted for their time. I hope you get what I mean.
Scientology and Xenu border on undiluted lunacy if you ask me.

I have an answer for the nuclear fission stuff, but I'll get back on it a day or two after 5th June. Right now it will be impractical for me to delve in.

 

[mediator]

It seems u have nuthing better to do save guessing "how and what mediator thinks" and then u whine "I have exams"! It seems u don't understand very simple english either. I already said "I don't feel victorious or defeated". This is a discussion zone and I am not putting a sword on the throats of materialists unlike them saying "U have to live with....this n that or saying materialism is garbage".

U told urs and here's mine....
"A wise guy tells that the case is already closed and Dr.Steven has searched for it (whereas he is still looking). I simply tell that he is looking and the case is not closed. A few more jump in and start talking bt spirituality. They question me about spirituality and I answer them. They talk about materialists and spiritualists and that materialists need every answer at material level. Then starts the rain of mediator's questions. Materialists could not answer and some give their expert opinions in between that spiritualism, hpynotism etc are garbage. Mediator simply tells that its not garbage since many cases have found to be true in reincarnation also. Materialists cannot digest this and call it garbage/crap/jibber jabber nth time. Another comes in and now states "Vedas" are garbage, bringing the "opinions" of another wise guy and nuthing factual . I reply to him and he whines that "I have exams". The previous souls start repeating, one of them even forgets the previous replies and repeats, seemingly from t=0 and says "Mediator abused him for having said the word 'alzhiemers'". Mediator finds himself in a clueless situation, where he cannot understand how 'alzhiemers' is an abuse. The exam guy comes in and whines again, not bt exams this time, bt instead says I have "wasted 45 minutes" and that "Mediator abused".

@srivirus : Frankly, u shud compete in the Great Indian Laughter Challenge. May be u can show me in bolds where I abused. It is silly of u actually to drag member like "aryayush" here, since it was just a communication gap and we already settled the thing in the most humble way we could. U seriously don't know whole of story and here u r linking this thread with thousands of other threads where I might have abused.

I myself admit that I have abused "in my past" but not that sordid, but thats how u learn when u understand what u did was not right. I have even apologized if someone felt hurt and if my conscience told me so. No one is born genius or for the matter born wise. Wisdom comes with experience. Hope u have read the "definition" of the term "wisdom" and tried to know its meaning.

So refrain from bringing my earlier fights and other members here coz it simply makes u look, well, no wise and u r a mod!! Such kinda childishness doesn't suit a mod very well.

BTW, I still don't see u saying anything about ayurveda, or meera nanda doesn't know anything about ayurveda as well?

"I have exams","45 mints wasted" & "I am here reading n posting meera nanda's opinions instead of Veda itself".....Grow up!

 

[karnivore]

On one hand my internet connection is for some reason malfunctioning for some days now, and on the other, i am down with worst case Chicken Pox (damn that itch). Still could not resist the temptation of adding fuel to the raging fire.

A wise guy tells that the case is already closed and Dr.Steven has searched for it (whereas he is still looking)

I have neither said nor implied, that "the case is already closed". I have only used the phrase, "already explored THE case". It means that all the facets have been looked into, in view of the currently available evidences and information connected with the case. It does not, in any way, imply that if new evidence arises, it will not again be looked into. It also does not imply, that the search for new evidence has ended.

A bad case of Aphasia.

They talk about materialists and spiritualists and that materialists need every answer at material level. Then starts the rain of mediator's questions. Materialists could not answer and some give their expert opinions in between that spiritualism, hpynotism etc are garbage.

Oh, it rained ? Damn, and i thought i was in the middle of a desert. But i can be excused. Isn't it. I already have Aphasia.

“Materialists could not answer” ? Or were the answers too complicated for you to understand ? Did you actually honestly try to find the answers ? Or you found it convenient to mock instead ?

If you carefully note, that in all my post, i have used only one link, that of Dr Novella's, which was relevant for the thread topic, and tried to answer all your queries with my own understanding of stuffs. Whereas, you covered your posts with links and yet blamed me of following a herd and not being independent. You don't even see the irony here.

Mediator simply tells that its not garbage since many cases have found to be true in reincarnation also. Materialists cannot digest this and call it garbage/crap/jibber jabber nth time.

It is strange that some blog mentions something or somebody claims something and it automatically transpires into irrefutable proof, whereas evidences, which are verified nth times, tested nth times and most importantly, the knowledge gathered from the analysis of such evidences, which has been applied nth times, do not constitute to be "proof".

Another comes in and now states "Vedas" are garbage, bringing the "opinions" of another wise guy and nuthing factual .

"I am here reading n posting meera nanda's opinions instead of Veda itself"

No body has ever claimed Vedas to be garbage. Only the self-claimed cognoscenti, who deliberately misinterpret Vedas have been criticized and called "garbage".

Some more evidence of Aphasia ?

BTW, have you, yourself read any of the Vedas, other than the perverted interpretations by some jacka$$.

Mediator finds himself in a clueless situation, where he cannot understand how 'alzhiemers' is an abuse.

Finally you admit that you too suffer from APHASIA. Don't worry, we are brothers-in-Aphasia.

Anyway, gotta go now. Got to scratch that itch.

 

[mediator]

Finally you admit that you too suffer from APHASIA. Don't worry, we are brothers-in-Aphasia.

Scientists resemble such an understanding, behaviour and intelligence to that of an early man fit only to do a tribal dance. Its not even a case of aphasia where u r trying to degrade and put me in ur category!

Its funny how the left over materialists are lining up one by one now trying to entertain me, joking around and showing how much they can post ON-Topic n then getting their serotonin levels shooting up n down.

How many times do I have to say that u do not have to post ur personal problems here like "Internet not working, exams here n there, chicken pox etc". I feel like the materialist brigade is trying to get some sympathy from me.

But neways, take care and get better soon.

 

[sreevirus]

OK, exam's over. Lets get back to business, shall we?

So where were we? Ah yes. Nuclear technology in the texts. Lets try taking them one thing at a time...

SO...

U may find it "interesting", though the matters of science regarding Universe are nuthing but fairy tales to me! Earth still revolved around the Sun, gravity was still there, "Universe" was still there etc even when people didn't have the ever changing "equations n variables to fulfill" about them.

Of course. For someone who can unquestionably accept anything that he wants to believe, that too a hardened belief in unverified claims made by sites without any credibility, it comes as no surprise that you believe all the scientific theories are fairy tales. You have no problem believing in statements like "Vedic sounds are multi-dimensional domains’ frequencies from within a particular dimensional domain" made in a crank site like vedicganita.org, it is absolutely no surprise that you find more concrete theories like the big-bang and dark matter (which you repeat all too often as an argument) to be lies.

And I guess Vyasram answered about gravity before. Like he said, those stuff existed, nobody invented it. They only tried to find answers. They wanted to know how gravity worked, why it works and why those things exist in the first place. Each explanation they came up with only provided an impetus for further generations to find out more answers to the universe. In any case, they built on their research. Mistakes were found by peers, or further generations (you could draw an analogy to software debugging). Those equations and variables are the reason that you see the things around you. Like the buildings, the malls, the lights, the computer you use,the internet, everything. No ancient texts contributed to their making. Like they say, science evolves, unlike those philosophical texts which remain static and intellectually dishonest apologetic jerks will try to find an answer for everything in them somehow. And what's worse? People like you will accept it blindly. And you call others "blind followers"? I ask you: How dare you?

I'm glad that the scientific community is far away from how you view it, because if they were like you, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

The atomic energy fissions the ninety-nine elements, covering its path by the bombardments of neutrons without let or hindrance. Desirous of stalking the head, ie. The chief part of the swift power, hidden in the mass of molecular adjustments of the elements, this atomic energy approaches it in the very act of fissioning it by the above-noted bombardment. Herein, verily the scientists know the similar hidden striking force of the rays of the sun working in the orbit of the moon." (Atharva-veda 20.41.1-3)

I have to ask you. Have you read the vedas yourself? Anything? If you have, then you would have found out that the Atharvaveda Book 20, Hymn 40, Verses 1-3 says these lines, as I found from authentic Hindu websites.

[SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE] With bones of Dadhyach for his arms, Indra, resistless in attack,
Struck nine-and-ninety Vritras dead,
[SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE]He, searching for the horse's head, removed among the mountains, found
At Saryanāvān what he sought.
[SIZE=-1]3[/SIZE] Then verily they recognized the essential form of Tvashtar's Bull.
Here in the mansion of the Moon.

*www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av20041.htm
*www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/athar/avbook20.asp#av20041
I can't, by any stretch of imagination, find a mention of atomic energy fission, neutrons, molecular adjustments, bombardments or anything even near to them. The only stuff I found having any sort of semblance between the verses in the texts and your claims are the words underlined.

I had already found the answers before my exams, but, not to be too opinionated myself, to have a clear stance for the sake of keeping things fair in this debate, (and the reason why I took two days to answer was that) I even consulted an expert regarding this recently and was waiting for his reply (the person happens to be a PhD in physics from IISc and is highly learned in Vedas, and most importantly, is a highly rational and scientific person). Even he refuted those claims. In our correspondence, this is what he had to say:

Dear Sree,
I generally use Ralff Griffith's translation.
Here is the link to the Atharvaveda Hymns.
Look at Hymn-39 and proceed towards 41
*www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av20039.htm
You will see text like

By Indra were the luminous realms of heaven established and secured, Firm and immovable from their place.

So, in this line it says Indra is the one who made the heaven and earth etc....

But in the hymn-41 it says, he had to use the bones of the Dadhichi as weapons to destroy the demons (called vritrasuras)

Funny....

And by the way, the link to the Nuclear Physics...

Well the words ninety nine vritras are stretched out to mean "ninety nine" elements by their strange level of imagination.

What I did is called peer review, if you didn't have a clear definition of what peer review is.

So let me ask you: can you do any bit of independent thinking other than blindly following claims in Hindu apologetic websites? As karnivore bluntly put it, "have you, yourself read any of the Vedas, other than the perverted interpretations by some jacka$$". You tell others of not having an opinion of their own. This proves how much of an opinion you yourself have, oh great spiritual one. So next time, before you "plagiarise" stuff from crank sites, follow your own advise: THINK.

Again, I ask one more question: Do you even know who was the great swamiji who came up with the idea of nuclear technology in the Atharvaveda?

People like you are an impediment to progress. The sad thing is, scientific temper is totally discouraged to view ancient books as true knowledge (that is after someone has invented or discovered something). I had to answer this and if anyone reading this will become influenced enough to think again before accepting lies and assimilating pseudo-science as reality, I will have attained nirvana.

Jalayan - a vehicle designed to operate in air and water. (Rig Veda 6.58.3)
Kaara- a vehicle that operates on ground and in water. (Rig Veda 9.14.1)
Tritala- a vehicle consisting of three stories. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)
Trichakra Ratha - a three-wheeled vehicle designed to operate in the air. (Rig Veda 4.36.1)
Vaayu Ratha- a gas or wind-powered chariot. (Rig Veda 5.41.6)
Vidyut Ratha- a vehicle that operates on power. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)

Already answered this in my reply to Vyasram in post #114.

About those sites, its only those sites again which claim so. Why am I not surprised? If they were indeed true, at least some credible institute or organization (like an archeological institute or at least Nat Geo) would have taken interest. But no. I observed that many of the articles were written by a certain David Hatcher Childress. Any rational human being, just by one look at his works on the net, would certify him as a natural lunatic. Tell me, can you only follow blindly and believe in hoaxes made by crazies??
One site mentioned the Lonar crater. It is accepted that it was the result of a meteorite or comet impact. Only apologists will make wild imaginations other than that.

@srivirus : Frankly, u shud compete in the Great Indian Laughter Challenge.

Yeah. With inspiration for comedy from someone like you and your posts, I could win the coveted price in a snap.

May be u can show me in bolds where I abused. It is silly of u actually to drag member like "aryayush" here, since it was just a communication gap and we already settled the thing in the most humble way we could. U seriously don't know whole of story and here u r linking this thread with thousands of other threads where I might have abused.

Well, insults may not always be abuse, but for a spiritual person like you, you insult your opponents a lot. You just can't keep your self-righteousness to yourself. And when anyone has a view which is disagreeable to you, they immediately will develop aphasia, Alzheimer's disease, they will become Cyrus Broacha, they will qualify for the Laughter Challenge, and what not. Any person who has had a debate with you will find that you would have branded them with at least two of the following words: hallucination, forgetfulness, troll, laughable, amusing, pitiable, etc. Is that all you can repeat in all your arguments? Its almost like an algorithm.
Anyway, if you had indeed settled an argument before, its great. But the way things are, you still have a long, long way to go.

How many times do I have to say that u do not have to post ur personal problems here like "Internet not working, exams here n there, chicken pox etc". I feel like the materialist brigade is trying to get some sympathy from me.

Thanks for your concern, but no thanks. After all those instances where you felt sorry for us and utterly pitied our existence, the last thing we need is more of your sympathy.



Oh and BTW, the next time, before you accuse others of "blind-following", "repeating", "hallucinating", and all those selected terms, you could meditate and do a bit of self introspection.



Oh I almost forgot, I will accept that the sun (sungod as you put it) is an essential element in our existence, I will accept that my mom and dad are gods, since they are the reason I am, I will also accept guests as god; the sun, parents, guests are all real things/people. I see them, I give them respect. But HOW THE HELL is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5-space (whatever the hell that means)??

 

[mediator]

LOL, the exam guy is back with some exam-aholic nature this time willing to pass some exam here in this forum. Go back where I asked some questions regarding science in the science god thread n this one too. U must understand n appreciate that trolling is not the best way to celebrate the end of ur exams!

 

[legolas]

@sreevirus, this is just a new way of replying to threads. Accordingly.. if upset with the response to the thread or not interested anymore or "really" don't have anything to say... then one can call for mods to close the post.. thinking that they are the only person replying !! so.. don't bother! we have heard much of bullsh!t already