*** Science Or God? ***

[karmanya]

I have to believe that there are some forces that science doesn't understand. Remember that compared to religion, modern science is nothing more than a baby. Will science reach a point where we have more answers? I believe it will. Till then all we can do is ask.
To fuel the debate- What's the difference between a person in a beta coma and a dead person?

 

[karnivore]

But believing theories, like big bang having so much boom n that of evolution, as facts is a sign of a mind that needs plenty of help n rest.

Yes, believing in reincarnation/ OBE/ Spiritual Hypnosis and all kind of imaginary pink unicorns make perfect sense.

Relying on science is good! But u need to know how science goes & progresses then.

In other words, I have to know everything about physics, chemistry, biology, bla and bla. Otherwise I will have to follow some kinda herd, which, we are given to believe, is a sign of mediocrity.

Time to bring my dog back.
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gif

About the brain dead woman, there are hundreds of criticism all over the net. I will give just one.
www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/09/25/is_she_conscious/
A minor correction though. "Vegetative State" is not equal to "Brain Dead"

Edited To Add: OOPS, I almost forgot. You did not "specifically ask" us to consider your links as source. Hmmmm........thinking of deleting my reference

 

[mediator]

Yes, believing in reincarnation/ OBE/ Spiritual Hypnosis and all kind of imaginary pink unicorns make perfect sense.

Nope, not rejecting is not equal to believing! Its high time that materialists start passing a few aptitude tests now.

In other words, I have to know everything about physics, chemistry, biology, bla and bla. Otherwise I will have to follow some kinda herd, which, we are given to believe, is a sign of mediocrity.

Skepticism only looks good when you actually know even remotely about the subject! But heck, here we have someone who forwarded James Randi n the "randomised trials", even though having told N times that its patient specific! So, yes u actually lost complete track of ur herd.

Edited To Add: OOPS, I almost forgot. You did not "specifically ask" us to consider your links as source. Hmmmm........thinking of deleting my reference

Well I don't think materialists are that retarded to have any problem to understand that. Do u form an exception?

Back to ur drawing board : Can science explain everything? I wonder why my questions that I asked a long time back still haven't got any answer to them.

 

[karnivore]

Nope, not rejecting is not equal to believing! Its high time that materialists start passing a few aptitude tests now.

Let me get this straight. You are not rejecting pink unicorns ? Instead mocking science ?

Uh...OK...
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image13.gif

Skepticism only looks good when you actually know even remotely about the subject! But heck, here we have someone who forwarded James Randi n the "randomised trials", even though having told N times that its patient specific! So, yes u actually lost complete track of ur herd.

Guess, you have never heard of MATERIA MEDICA. Also, I wonder, why are homeopathinc medicines sold, off-the-shelf/ over-the-counter. (Are you saying that the largest homeopathic medicine manufacturing company, Boiron is wrong and duping people ?) Don't think you are even aware of the fact, that in USA, homeopathic medicines are sold as health supplements and not as medicines. Which means, that anybody can walk in a store and buy it. *sigh*

And it is strange, why, when homeopathic medicines are individual specific, the homeopathic doctors would practice, clinical homeopathy or complex homeopathy or even, isopathy ? Then, there are homeopathic research that claims homeopathy works - scratch a little bit and hey presto, none of those are "individual specific". In fact, Shang et al simply repeated those non-individualised studies done by homeopaths and found the results to be -ve, but look at the criticisms, and one would get the impression, Shang et al had devised their own studies. (Not to mention that they did repeat 18 of the "individualised" studies).

Hmmm........someone seems to be so close to his herd, that he is now sniffing their arse.

Well I don't think materialists are that retarded to have any problem to understand that. Do u form an exception?

Want me to copy/paste your memorable comments ?

Back to ur drawing board : Can science explain everything? I wonder why my questions that I asked a long time back still haven't got any answer to them.

No science does not explain everything. But, science can explain everything.

And those questions would be ? [Twice your arse has been beaten to pulp, once by @sreevirus and once by yours truly, still hungry for more?]
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image06-3.gif

 

[mediator]

Let me get this straight. You are not rejecting pink unicorns ? Instead mocking science ?

Now who told u that I'm mocking science? Not believing blindly is not equal to mocking science. Not treating theories as facts does not mean one is being unscientific. I wonder how naive materialists can be.

Also, I wonder, why are homeopathinc medicines sold, off-the-shelf/ over-the-counter. (Are you saying that the largest homeopathic medicine manufacturing company, Boiron is wrong and duping people ?) Don't think you are even aware of the fact, that in USA, homeopathic medicines are sold as health supplements and not as medicines. Which means, that anybody can walk in a store and buy it. *sigh*

And it is strange, why, when homeopathic medicines are individual specific, the homeopathic doctors would practice, clinical homeopathy or complex homeopathy or even, isopathy ? Then, there are homeopathic research that claims homeopathy works - scratch a little bit and hey presto, none of those are "individual specific". In fact, Shang et al simply repeated those non-individualised studies done by homeopaths and found the results to be -ve, but look at the criticisms, and one would get the impression, Shang et al had devised their own studies. (Not to mention that they did repeat 18 of the "individualised" studies).

Hmmm........someone seems to be so close to his herd, that he is now sniffing their arse.

Forget about "double blind" and 'randomised trials", it seems u didn't even get the basics of "proving" and medicines that fits the cases also to be asking some silly question as in bolds!

ant me to copy/paste your memorable comments ?

Ah sure, entertain me as u wish, that u will!

No science does not explain everything. But, science can explain everything.

Ah, the faith of a materialist!

And those questions would be ? [Twice your arse has been beaten to pulp, once by @sreevirus and once by yours truly, still hungry for more?

"Mom see...I won, I won"? How cute! U r sure high on psychedelic drugs, that u r with serotonin levels on the loose again?

Funny, The same old "keyboard commando" who said Dr.Novella has already explored the case of that hypnotism case is talking bt "arses" and his favourite pulp from them?

I wonder how the materialists can even live in such a narrow minded world of them, n then they hallucinate, have nightmares, think of theories as facts n think of themselves as some experts with some self-righteous opinions!

 

[karnivore]

Now who told u that I'm mocking science? Not believing blindly is not equal to mocking science. Not treating theories as facts does not mean one is being unscientific. I wonder how naive materialists can be.

Okie dokie. So you are not rejecting any pink unicorn ? In that case....
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image24.gif

Forget about "double blind" and 'randomised trials", it seems u didn't even get the basics of "proving" and medicines that fits the cases also to be asking some silly question as in bolds!

Thats mediatorspeak for "I don't know what hell you are talking about, so I will pretend to look the other way and bring in a staw-man argument."

Good call.

Ah sure, entertain me as u wish, that u will!

Okie dokie. Post #35, #36, #37

Ah, the faith of a materialist!

Lets see now. Should I have faith in something that has given me this notebook or this internet or that aeroplane or this car or that refrigerator or this microwave oven or that fMRI or this cell phone or.....?

Hell yeah

"Mom see...I won, I won"?

Mom see...we won, we won. YABA DABA DOOOOOOOOOO.

Funny, The same old "keyboard commando" who said Dr.Novella has already explored the case of that hypnotism case is talking bt "arses" and his favourite pulp from them?

Of course, why not. I see yours splattered all over the threads you post in.

I wonder how the materialists can even live in such a narrow minded world of them, n then they hallucinate, have nightmares, think of theories as facts n think of themselves as some experts with some self-righteous opinions!

Have you been....
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image15.gif

 

[sreevirus]

@mediator: And these are facts, right?

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 can't recall the meaning of the word scientific now! DAMN! I've developed Alzheimer's.
Oh and I just forgot what hallucination means. Gotta look that up in the OED. Oh wait, isn't that a word that mediator uses in almost all of his arguments?


Uhhhhhhhh....



Cough cough ... what was the overlord of the real 5 space?

 

[mediator]

Okie dokie. Post #35, #36, #37

LOL n u win the great INDIAN laughter challenge! May u cud not "comprehend" the words in very simple English.....

But neways, for all those who want to take a break from this troll thread, Here's a more serious discussion,

I clearly told that people can watch much worthy/serious ongoing debate. It doesn't mean a "source" or a "reference" that I don't remember to have put up to back up my claims/posts, but a debate that one can look at instead of a troll thread.
And hence, entertain me as u wish that u will.
I hope the chicken pox is over.

Lets see now. Should I have faith in something that has given me this notebook or this internet or that aeroplane or this car or that refrigerator or this microwave oven or that fMRI or this cell phone or.....?

Oh da baby whines! SHould I also have faith in something that is depleting ozone layer, causing serious side effects, health hazards, polluting the rivers and all? And so u shud understand the reality, how science works, how things works and how ur body reacts accordingly! Psychedelic drugs....hmmm?

I can't recall the meaning of the word scientific now! DAMN! I've developed Alzheimer's.
Oh and I just forgot what hallucination means. Gotta look that up in the OED. Oh wait, isn't that a word that mediator uses in almost all of his arguments?

Rather ur post has made me even more hungry and dig deeper into what is original! Thanx for that.

Like I said, I'm not here to win or defeat, feel victorious or defeated! My talk was more based on "Science is there in Vedas and was in past". I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda. Cough cough Meera Nanda?

So if u r done with ur exams, u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few? Thats not called a discussion in the first place! Cough cough the universe (observable?), the boundaries, the rotation, revolution, testabilty, dark <wateva> to name a few? I ask again do u even comprehend what a "theory" is? Most satisfying doesn't mean anything to support ur childish claims.

So if u r willing to discuss seriously, don't vanish next time, when I ask some questions, saying "Oh I have exams"!

Silence on our part would only encourage gullible minds who would come across these sort of debates to accept these kind of malarkey as truth. The least we can do is to play our part as skeptics and make people think twice

It wud be better if u limit ur role on to that instead of giving expert opinions and marking it with ur limited vocablury like "crap/garbage/wateva" where the peers r still exploring on the subjects, n then the materialists say "Lets wait for the peer review". But heck "Forget the peers, we shall give the expert opinions and remarks ourselves". Srivirusaya namah!

 

[Faun]

lolz
* Why people are recognizing the essence of Vedas ? Is it orthodox to believe in it if it works ? What science is giving us had been already Vedas (it was already there and we searched the whole universe to see that we took the million dollar worth efforts to find it instead utilizing it on human welfare).
* Try to learn Vedic maths. You will know how hard it was to multiply numbers in conventional ways.
* Science is just another cult that did more bad than good. I wonder next moment you could be sitting(or may be a part of it) on a pile of human ashes fried by WW 3.
* Pick the best things from everything. Its not that everything except one thing is crap, its just you are too adamant.
* I know i wrote that algorithm and it works. But who wrote the DNA coding ? Is that another life above us ? or is it a matrix or is there other world ?
* Lastly, we are not the supreme power here, we have limitations, may be there could be some other organ to complement it. We have a brain, heart and few other organs to judge, but still a third eye wouldn't hurt. We could be able to see the another dimension. Or may be a little bit more truth and a bit more detail, but still limited.

 

[karnivore]

u win the great INDIAN laughter challenge

Ahem...where do i collect my prize ?

I clearly told that people can watch much worthy/serious ongoing debate. It doesn't mean a "source" or a "reference" that I don't remember to have put up to back up my claims/posts, but a debate that one can look at instead of a troll thread.

Now its time for my favourite Panda.
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/Avatar/thum_774747b9049aba24e.jpg

SHould I also have faith in something that is depleting ozone layer, causing serious side effects, health hazards, polluting the rivers and all? And so u shud understand the reality, how science works, how things works and how ur body reacts accordingly!

Exactly what was expected of you. The ill effects are because of how WE use our scientific knowledge. E=MC^2 can generate power and light up millions of homes or kill millions of people. How it is used is not Einstein's fault.

Science is the knowledge. How we use that knowledge is entirely our choice. You are as usual, confusing the practice with knowledge.

The way you have posed the question, it seems we would be better off if we could take a million steps back to the stone age.

...u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few?

I though Final Theory was dealt with.

I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda.

Whats with that. Remove spirituality and it might work, at least not as bunk and baseless as homeopathy. Asprin is made from the bark of willow tree, belonging to the genus Salix. Digitalis is derived from a category of foxgrove plants. Neem is one good example. As long as its about using natural ingredients, it may work, although limited to common ailments. Complex diseases and modern viruses or bacteria can't be dealt with primitive knowledge.

There is no reason to go ga-ga about ayurveda. All ancient civilizations like the Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese all had their own medicinal knowledge based on plants and shrubs. Of course, much of it was based on placebo, but many actually worked.

So whats the big deal.

What science is giving us had been already Vedas (it was already there and we searched the whole universe to see that we took the million dollar worth efforts to find it instead utilizing it on human welfare)

Thats something that comes out of a bull's behind.

Try to learn Vedic maths.

We did invent the ZERO, and contribute to modern mathematics, but there is no such thing as Vedic maths. Maths is maths. You never hear Egyptian maths, although we are all aware of Egyptians contribution to geometry and trigonometry.

Science is just another cult that did more bad than good. I wonder next moment you could be sitting(or may be a part of it) on a pile of human ashes fried by WW 3.

Again, confusing the knowlege with practice.

Pick the best things from everything. Its not that everything except one thing is crap, its just you are too adamant.

Welcome to reality. Everything except science is indeed a big pile of BS.

I know i wrote that algorithm and it works. But who wrote the DNA coding ? Is that another life above us ? or is it a matrix or is there other world ?

Nature wrote it through a process of natural selection. There is extremely dim probability for another life above us.

Lastly, we are not the supreme power here, we have limitations, may be there could be some other organ to complement it. We have a brain, heart and few other organs to judge, but still a third eye wouldn't hurt. We could be able to see the another dimension. Or may be a little bit more truth and a bit more detail, but still limited.

OK, you are watching to much science fiction movies. Its all natural selection. And rest assured there is no matrix other than one in which Keanu Reeves starred.

 

[mediator]

Exactly what was expected of you. The ill effects are because of how WE use our scientific knowledge. E=MC^2 can generate power and light up millions of homes or kill millions of people. How it is used is not Einstein's fault.

Science is the knowledge. How we use that knowledge is entirely our choice. You are as usual, confusing the practice with knowledge.

The way you have posed the question, it seems we would be better off if we could take a million steps back to the stone age.

Your usual childish tone is less intense here. Neways, The same can be said for the "pink unicorns" that u like to christen that u do. Even with the so many evidences, people like to ignore it and few even go one step beyond and call em as crap. Just like u did some research of that nuclear evidence in ANCIENT INDIA, u could have done the same for HOMEOPATHY. Just like people be skeptic, they can read the originals of vedas too instead of relying on some sites to "prove" their frustrated agenda. I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago, but it wud have been better if u had actually posted from where u copied all that stuff instead of marking it as your own. The ill effects are also because how we form that scientific knowledge. Just to painfully repeat again, how drugs are tested! Some tested on animals to create for humans and even among humans we have varying immunity levels, not the same. Just go back and read all that we discussed and how much death has been caused by "modern scientific medicines" as against homeopathy. Getting cured and having plethora of side effects isn't called cure in the first place.
"Limited laws"? I read laws are supposed to be universal, absolute! I won't repeat it all and agree science is the knowledge and Veda in sanskrit means "Knowledge" itself. But heck a few will read "opinions" by some fanatic to show that veda are useless. I guess its a sin itself to bring in "opinions" in a debate not marked by anything factual. Meera Nanda? WTH!

I though Final Theory was dealt with.

I think u were down with chicken pox when I quoted that reviewer's pdf of 33 pages and asked a few questions, all of which remain unanswered!

Whats with that. Remove spirituality and it might work, at least not as bunk and baseless as homeopathy. Asprin is made from the bark of willow tree, belonging to the genus Salix. Digitalis is derived from a category of foxgrove plants. Neem is one good example. As long as its about using natural ingredients, it may work, although limited to common ailments. Complex diseases and modern viruses or bacteria can't be dealt with primitive knowledge.
There is no reason to go ga-ga about ayurveda. All ancient civilizations like the Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese all had their own medicinal knowledge based on plants and shrubs. Of course, much of it was based on placebo, but many actually worked.

And thats where u witness ignorance at its best. That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs where we have plethora of side effects and then u take another medicine to cure that! U can do ur homework well in this regard and actually learn something if ur agenda is not to mock Ayurveda in the first place!

Also, I have no motive to compare chinese's, mayan's or egyptian's equivalents of Ayurveda. If they had, then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few? U talk of peers and their review, then go and learn what the peers talk of the Vedas!

The question only becomes then how unbiased u r. One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher! I agree the greatness should be shown and not merely preached blindly and that goes same for science, where some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!

But if it shud be shown and not merely preached, then I guess it should also be dug deeper and explored without any unbiased and selfish attempts to falsify it. I don't think a skeptic's role is to laugh like a goon, or to give cheap remarks or opine like that, but to pour some rational and scientific thoughts and to question what he finds irrational!!

We are no experts but people who hold interest in such knowledge, but just like u gave a few links to @T159, similarly u can clear ur skepticism in the forums of the relevant subjects we discussed instead of guessing and opining! So who won? I am not here to win. Are u?

 

[sreevirus]

Oh da baby whines! SHould I also have faith in something that is depleting ozone layer, causing serious side effects, health hazards, polluting the rivers and all? And so u shud understand the reality, how science works, how things works and how ur body reacts accordingly! Psychedelic drugs....hmmm?

If I use a pencil to stab and murder someone, who is evil, me or the pencil? If you can't fugure out the obvious answer, then there is no point in taking this matter further.

Like I said, I'm not here to win or defeat, feel victorious or defeated! My talk was more based on "Science is there in Vedas and was in past". I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda. Cough cough Meera Nanda?

Likewise, no one is here to win or lose. But the only thing we are doing is debunking pseudoscience.

And would you let Meera Nanda rest in peace for a while? Her topic was more against superstitions among the scientific Indian people and compartmentalization of science and faith among Indians in general. Why are you trying to hold on to any twig that you find suitable?

What would I say about Ayurveda? It is just knowledge gained by previous generations. They might have tested stuff out. And they came to know that some plants and herbs help in healing. There is nothing further to it. These things actually work. But what really are ridiculous are the explanations that they came up at that time. The prime concern for instance is the so called Divine Origin of the Ayurvedic science. Other things like the Tridosha philosophy (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) are also unscientific to say the least. Sure the ancients could be termed as men of science who tried to come up with answers, only that the science at that time was not as advanced as it is now. The least people could do is build on such knowledge and discard the unscientific beliefs behind it. That would actually make it more convincing.

Various explanations were given as an answer to things unknown, and where something didn't seem right to the senses, they were attributed as paranormal at that time. So how about moving on? The Chinese had yin and yang, we had our own mumbo-jumbo, the Egyptians had their own answers. They can't be blamed for their answers because they really didn't know much at that time. But we know more now. Why still lurk in the dark now, trying to pull out answers from nowhere?

Like karnivore said, there has been such knowledge in every civilization, like the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Chinese and Native Americans. There have been witch doctors too, and some people still believe in them, and they, like you, have their own reasoning to their beliefs, but those reasoning don't necessarily have to be rational and scientific.

I would accept that science is there in the Vedas when I get a verse which explicitly says something like "All metal conductors oppose the flow of electrons when a potential difference is applied across it" rather than "A hundred men were opposed from their march forwards by rocks in their way" which might be misconstrued as a sign for Ohm's law. The last time you where quoted stuff about nuclear technology was just another example of follies that people make up to fit science in the scriptures.

I had asked you before and I ask you before and I ask you again, do you know who was the person who came up with the idea of nukes in the Vedas? Or did you just copy-paste stuff from some random website.

So if u r done with ur exams, u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few? Thats not called a discussion in the first place!

How many times do I have to tell you? I read things that were scientifically critical of the Final theory. I do not necessarily have to agree with any other nonsense that a reviewer might have said. I guess I know how to filter out stuff.

Oh BTW, this is a bulletin board. Posts made are not going anywhere. So even if someone can't answer anything immediately doesn't mean that the other should stop posting stuff altogether. So if you have something worthwhile to say, quit being so concerned about my exams and blurt out whatever you have to say. People can come and see later and reply when they do have time. If you think being civil and giving a reason for absence is an excuse to chicken out, then you are hallucinating yourself.

Cough cough the universe (observable?), the boundaries, the rotation, revolution, testabilty, dark <wateva> to name a few? I ask again do u even comprehend what a "theory" is? Most satisfying doesn't mean anything to support ur childish claims.

OK, time for a refresher course in SCIENCE. The word theory in this context is a "scientific theory". So, from Wikipedia

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

and

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

ALSO

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

I hope you can comprehend the differences in the usage of the word with respect to the context now. Don't confuse the word theory here with its literary meaning.

BTW, no scientist worth his salt would ever come up with a scientific theory out of thin air.

Well, if a "scientific theory" didn't satisfy you, maybe you could provide a sound reasoning for that. But what is irking is that you continually fall for "theories" made up by unscientific sources and even an ounce of such stuff will make you go ballistic against more concrete ideas. Why do have this chronic problem with theories like the big bang and evolution that you keep barking about them in every other post of yours? If it is a matter of satisfaction, then only you can help yourself.

Also, I have no motive to compare chinese's, mayan's or egyptian's equivalents of Ayurveda. If they had, then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few? U talk of peers and their review, then go and learn what the peers talk of the Vedas!

So? Every civilization had scientific minds. The answers/inventions they came up with are nothing supernatural, to be in awe of.
And did you yourself read any Vedas?

The question only becomes then how unbiased u r. One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher! I agree the greatness should be shown and not merely preached blindly and that goes same for science, where some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!

Heh. Talk about presumptions! I'd have been skeptical even if my mom told me so. And my school incident was just a one-day incident, where the teacher told us so during one of her lessons when I was 14 years old. And my exams are over. So stop harping about it.

I never mocked the Vedas for the content in them, and I never will, if it is viewed as a work of art. What is ludicrous is the rigid belief system built around it and the pile of trash that people come up with, with their wishful thinking after reading it. No one in their right mind can or should accept back-fitted science in literature. These are just things that unscrupulous masochistic people come up with to satisfy themselves about the righteousness of their religion, the brilliance of their ancestors, and the glory of their nation and to have a false and grim satisfaction in their nationalist pride. And to top it off, it proves absolutely nothing except how one can whine about having everything in the past before things were invented or discovered.

But if it shud be shown and not merely preached, then I guess it should also be dug deeper and explored without any unbiased and selfish attempts to falsify it. I don't think a skeptic's role is to laugh like a goon, or to give cheap remarks or opine like that, but to pour some rational and scientific thoughts and to question what he finds irrational!!

One of a skeptic’s roles is to debunk pseudoscience. I hope you didn't find my work as a just a biased tirade, because I found it hard to see anything subatomic in those verses in the Atharvaveda. One of the reasons I consulted an expert then was because one could accuse me of not knowing the Vedas well and that my judgment could be highly opinionated with wrong knowledge about what I found while searching for the verses. But still, Vritasuras are not the atoms in any element nor is the bone of a Dhadyach a neutron. Only highly biased wishful thinking can come up with an explanation (infused with some scientific mumbo-jumbo of course) that seemingly make a personal interpretation of verses in a scripture appear like modern science for anyone to see it like that. And we can all see the “unbiased scientific person” who sees it that way. (HINT: It’s not me or karnivore or legolas)


PS: I think this is the 5th, 6th or 7th time that I'm asking you. Since you put so much faith in the claims of vedicganita.org, then how is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5 space? And how does it prove any mathematical problem? Any answers? Considering the fact that you claim to know so much about it, and assuming that you have read it through, the answer should've been a piece of cake for you.

And you still haven't clarified your stance on the nukes yet.

 

[karnivore]

Don’t you ever get tired of bluffing.

Re: Vedas;

Earlier you had declared that @sreevirus’s effort has made you dig “deeper into what is original”. That’s a BS. Forget digging deep. You haven’t even scratched. If you had even scratched, you would not have continued with this vedic nonsense.

Just like people be skeptic, they can read the originals of vedas too instead of relying on some sites to "prove" their frustrated agenda.

You think Vedas are written in your high school Sanskrit. Don’t you. That’s why you expect everyone to read “the originals of vedas”, although you have yourself, not bothered to read even a translation.

Rig-Veda is the oldest of all Vedas, presumably written between 1500 BCE an 500 BCE (The time frame is a rough estimate for the entire Vedas, not just Rig-Veda). Rig-Veda itself is subdivided into 10 books and the chronologically earlier books are some of the oldest texts in human history. The Vedas were not written by one person, but by number of persons who were generations apart. The evidence is the gradual change in the syntax, grammar and dependence on local words (not to mention the different writing styles).

The Rig-Veda was written in a very ancient, actually the earliest, form of Sanskrit. Much of its grammar is lost forever. In other words, some of the hymns can’t be read without much accuracy and can be read only on the basis of some extremely complicated process of permutation and combination. It is the job of the philologists, not Sanskrit scholars, which you continue to believe. (In fact there are very few people who can read “the originals of vedas”). Let me give you an example of how difficult the job of these philologists are (and I am quoting from B.N.Narahari Archer’s “Measurement of Time”)

Atharva-Veda (XIX; 53)
“ purnah kumbhah ityasya mantrasya bhrgu rsih sarvatmakah kalo devata tristup chandah harih om

purnah kumbho dhikala ahitas tam vai pasyamo bahudha nu santam om tatsat ”
(Excuse me for not being able to put the accentuation marks)

The various translations are:

1. A full jar has been placed upon time.
Him, verily we see existing in many forms.(Bloomfield)

2. The whole of this universe is stationed in the Omnipresent God.
We, the good ones on the earth see him in various ways.(Devichand)

3. On time is laid an overflowing beaker.
This we behold in many a place appearing.(Gri[FONT=&quot]ffi[/FONT]th)

4. A full jar has been placed upon time.
We behold him existing in many forms.(Muir)

5. Above Time is set a brimful vessel.
Simultaneously we see Time here, there, everywhere.(Panikkar)

6. A full vessel is set upon time.
We indeed see it, being now manifoldly.(Whitney)

[Sayanah has a different translation for the sukta]

Note the wide difference between the translation. Next time when you say something like read “the originals of vedas”, try to figure out if most of your favourite hindu apologists have themselves read “the originals of vedas”. I know some have, but the most do not even have a clue. They all depend on Griffith’s translation, although Griffith’s work is not a scholarly work, but was aimed at Victorian era English speaking Indian middle class.

So don’t bluff.

…then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few?

Who said there was no science in ancient times. But it was limited to as far as they could see with their naked eyes, particularly the night sky.

Show me an evidence of our knowledge of “the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon”. If vedic astrology is anything to go by, then it talks of only five real planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) all of which can be observed with naked eyes. Also it is based on the notion that earth is the centre of the universe, proving, that they were not aware of its rotation.

Jantar mantar was built much later. And what is so mysterious about that iron pillar ? Although it is good metallurgy, it is bad ironsmith work. The iron pillar is actually pretty inferior iron. So much of slack makes it highly brittle. The Chinese had an amazingly better technique, where they mastered the art of separating the slack in the process of iron making. A good example is the Ninja sword.

So stop BSing.

Re: Medicines/ Science etc.

The ill effects are also because how we form that scientific knowledge. Just to painfully repeat again, how drugs are tested!

Although, testing drugs contribute hugely to the scientific knowledge, it is actually an application of scientific knowledge of chemistry and biology. If we did not know the chemistry of the drug or the biology on which it is supposed to work, we could not have produced the drug in the first place. Testing that drug is the process of validating, that we got it right.

Some tested on animals to create for humans and even among humans we have varying immunity levels, not the same.

Another useless comment. Humans do have varying immunity levels. But that does not stop homeopaths from comparing the symptoms of one human, recorded during proving, to another human, the patient. If “individualization” is all that makes the difference, then why aren’t the proving subjects considered on individual basis. Why are the symptoms recorded en mass. Because, that will create infinite possibilities, too large to deal with mediocre brains of homeopaths.

Once again, stop BSing.

Getting cured and having plethora of side effects isn't called cure in the first place.

Say this to a person whose only hope of living is dialysis, or chemotherapy or one who has done a laser surgery or…..

That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs where we have plethora of side effects and then u take another medicine to cure that!

Yes. So, now we should throw away our ECGs and MRIs and X-Rays, and go back to stone age where people died of small pox (now they no longer do) or plague (in west, they no longer do) or …… Hail stone age.

…learn something if ur agenda is not to mock Ayurveda in the first place!

I think, I had placed ayurveda a little above that junk called homeopathy. I think I had said, that ayurveda may work, although limited. I think I had said, that the naturopathy part in ayurveda has some basis.

…some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!

Once again. Science DOES NOT explain everything. But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.

….how much death has been caused by "modern scientific medicines" as against homeopathy.

Forget about harming the body, homeopathy effects the body just as water does. No sane person would claim that distilled water kills.

But heck a few will read "opinions" by some fanatic to show that veda are useless. I guess its a sin itself to bring in "opinions" in a debate not marked by anything factual. Meera Nanda? WTH!

The vedas are not at all useless. Show me who said that. They are a treasure trove of information about the lives, the belief, the thoughts etc. of our ancestors.

You keep repeating the name “Meera Nanda”, and how she is wrong, but don’t give any evidence of her error. Well, how would you. You don’t have a clue of what she writes about. It will take your entire life time to understand what “post-modernism” is. Only then, you can begin to understand “Meera Nanda”.

One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher !

I don’t think he mocked vedas. He ridiculed, quite correctly, the hindu apologists and their pathetic attempt to retro-fit data.

And really, you should appreciate that fact that he went out looking for answers instead sitting pretty on his arse and asking “how, when and why”, expecting the whole world to bow to his whims.

I am not here to win. Are u?

Yes, I want to win over LIES. I want to win over MISINFORMATION. I want to win over HYPOCRISY.

The same can be said for the "pink unicorns" that u like to christen that u do.

Whatever that may mean. Let me ask you once again:

DO YOU ACCEPT PINK UNICORN ?

The answer can be given in simple YES or No.

Now, for some clarifications:

I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago, but it wud have been better if u had actually posted from where u copied all that stuff instead of marking it as your own.

If you had actually read that post of mine, till the last line you would have come across this line:

[Valuable inputs from xenophilia.com]

Once again, you are bluffing. If you had read about “nuclear stuff some months ago”, why the hell did you then post that link, just ONE month ago (06.05.08 ), knowing fully well that it is misinformation. You are then admitting that you have made a conscious attempt to mislead people.

That makes you a lousy fraud.

Now I humbly ask the moderators – should a person be allowed to post even when he has himself admitted to intentionally, with full knowledge of the fraud, mislead people. Its one thing to believe something and saying. But it is entirely different, when one is aware of the fraud and still perpetuating it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added later:

Before I forget, let me ask this Q

Isn't homeopathy all about "Individualization" ? At least this term has been used umpteenth number of times to dismiss all randomized and double-blinded trials. [Strangely when any of these trials yield positives, homeopaths develop a temporary amnesia and forget to point out that the trial was not "individualized"]

Can anybody please explain what is veterinary homeopathy ? Does that mean that homeopaths have learned to MOOOOOOOOOO. Because I don't see how else a cow can be conversed with. After all, homeopaths don't treat the disease, they treat the person, oops, cow.

A memorable admission at BOIRON's site [Link given already given]:

As in human medicine, the limits of homeopathy should not be ignored: parasites, fractures, foreign bodies, etc, are all cases that are not within the realm of its therapeutic possibilities.

In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?

 

[mediator]

@srivirus : STill asking questions and shying to respond to mine! Ah well...

What would I say about Ayurveda? It is just knowledge gained by previous generations. They might have tested stuff out. And they came to know that some plants and herbs help in healing. There is nothing further to it. These things actually work. But what really are ridiculous are the explanations that they came up at that time. The prime concern for instance is the so called Divine Origin of the Ayurvedic science. Other things like the Tridosha philosophy (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) are also unscientific to say the least. Sure the ancients could be termed as men of science who tried to come up with answers, only that the science at that time was not as advanced as it is now. The least people could do is build on such knowledge and discard the unscientific beliefs behind it. That would actually make it more convincing.

What is ridiculous about the explanation and how is it unscientific "to say the least"?

Various explanations were given as an answer to things unknown, and where something didn't seem right to the senses, they were attributed as paranormal at that time. So how about moving on? The Chinese had yin and yang, we had our own mumbo-jumbo, the Egyptians had their own answers. They can't be blamed for their answers because they really didn't know much at that time. But we know more now. Why still lurk in the dark now, trying to pull out answers from nowhere?

You r treating modern science too religiously! We need to find the answers from the dark coz its time we stop being arrogant and blind towards the success of those "mumbo jumbos"!

Can Ayurveda Cure HIV/AIDS
Alternative Therapies to AIDS cure
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
*www.natural-health-information-centre.com/modern-medicine.html


"Why try to pull answers from nowhere"?? Thats not a very scientific view!

I would accept that science is there in the Vedas when I get a verse which explicitly says something like "All metal conductors oppose the flow of electrons when a potential difference is applied across it" rather than "A hundred men were opposed from their march forwards by rocks in their way" which might be misconstrued as a sign for Ohm's law. The last time you where quoted stuff about nuclear technology was just another example of follies that people make up to fit science in the scriptures.

Please don't make me laugh. You want vedic terminology to be the same as that of modern science n then have the same assumptions and theories?? Do u even understand who a skeptic is?

U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.

I had asked you before and I ask you before and I ask you again, do you know who was the person who came up with the idea of nukes in the Vedas? Or did you just copy-paste stuff from some random website.

And so I checked out. U actually gave the link to sacred-texts.com where along with "Max Muller", the christian bias known for "mistranslating and misleading" people on Vedas, a few others similar souls have contributed to those mistranslations! WTH, and u call urself a skeptic?
*www.melbournearya.com/statement_of_my_beliefs.htm
*www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/vedol-0-X.html
*www.hknet.org.nz/plastic-max-page.html
*veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/indology.htm

Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.

How many times do I have to tell you? I read things that were scientifically critical of the Final theory. I do not necessarily have to agree with any other nonsense that a reviewer might have said. I guess I know how to filter out stuff.

Can u stop lying now even after exposing how much u have read that pdf u linked?
Neways, how about giving straight answer to my questions then, that I quoted from the reviewer's pdf? I said it then, I kept saying it which was met with some unusual reply like "Oh, I have exams" and so I say it now, "Answer the questions I asked!". Show me, how great modern science is that it can answer everything!

Oh BTW, this is a bulletin board. Posts made are not going anywhere. So even if someone can't answer anything immediately doesn't mean that the other should stop posting stuff altogether. So if you have something worthwhile to say, quit being so concerned about my exams and blurt out whatever you have to say. People can come and see later and reply when they do have time. If you think being civil and giving a reason for absence is an excuse to chicken out, then you are hallucinating yourself.

U shud atleast thank me for not posting for sometime n letting u celebrate the end of ur exams. Besides I don't even feel like giving petty explanations like "Exams/chickenpox" or wateva statements the materialist brigade made to generate some sympathy from me. Also, that thread was about hypnotism and where u started trolling from nowhere and deviated it altogether to a discussion regarding Vedas. Who made u a mod here anyways? U talk of bulletin board, do even know the forum rulezzz???

OK, time for a refresher course in SCIENCE. The word theory in this context is a "scientific theory". So, from Wikipedia

Lolz, when will the materialist brigade ever learn? Using wiki again? Guess I too shud start using wikis and diggs.com i nevery post of mine now. But neways, here from the wiki page u linked....

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

Do u even undertsand the meaning of lines in bold? And here u r treating all those theories as if it were a fact. Get ur facts straight first and then think what a skeptic role shud be. Ur mere guesses of how a skeptic shud be is itsef a theory!

Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
.
.
.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts

And science can predict the future of Universe, can it predict Universe itself, can it predict whats beyond it? Are u saying modern science likes to go by some abberation?
It is not even testable, or has proof for its t=0, has flaws, but the "skeptic" says "Its the most satisfying"! LOL
On the other hand homeopathy is testable, has success rate etc save science cannot explain it at present! Oh don't repeat bt Placebo now, I already discussed bt it!

So? Every civilization had scientific minds. The answers/inventions they came up with are nothing supernatural, to be in awe of.
And did you yourself read any Vedas?

Who is saying about supernatural stuff? Materialists have a very bad habit bt guessing. And yeah, u must understand that the Vedic collection is toooo large to be read by any one person and I'm not that old yet! But it seems u don't even know about the attempts to mistranslate the vedas and mislead the world, do u?

Heh. Talk about presumptions! I'd have been skeptical even if my mom told me so. And my school incident was just a one-day incident, where the teacher told us so during one of her lessons when I was 14 years old. And my exams are over. So stop harping about it.

U r just a disgrace to the skeptics batch, and let me tell I'm not abusing before u start guessing again.

I never mocked the Vedas for the content in them, and I never will, if it is viewed as a work of art. What is ludicrous is the rigid belief system built around it and the pile of trash that people come up with, with their wishful thinking after reading it. No one in their right mind can or should accept back-fitted science in literature. These are just things that unscrupulous masochistic people come up with to satisfy themselves about the righteousness of their religion, the brilliance of their ancestors, and the glory of their nation and to have a false and grim satisfaction in their nationalist pride. And to top it off, it proves absolutely nothing except how one can whine about having everything in the past before things were invented or discovered.

But I think true way of science doesn't reject what can be tested, reproduced or has successes for many years!

One of a skeptic’s roles is to debunk pseudoscience. I hope you didn't find my work as a just a biased tirade, because I found it hard to see anything subatomic in those verses in the Atharvaveda. One of the reasons I consulted an expert then was because one could accuse me of not knowing the Vedas well and that my judgment could be highly opinionated with wrong knowledge about what I found while searching for the verses. But still, Vritasuras are not the atoms in any element nor is the bone of a Dhadyach a neutron. Only highly biased wishful thinking can come up with an explanation (infused with some scientific mumbo-jumbo of course) that seemingly make a personal interpretation of verses in a scripture appear like modern science for anyone to see it like that. And we can all see the “unbiased scientific person” who sees it that way. (HINT: It’s not me or karnivore or legolas)

Amazing, and when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science, the herd of materialists is treating it as a "pseudoscience"!

PS: I think this is the 5th, 6th or 7th time that I'm asking you. Since you put so much faith in the claims of vedicganita.org, then how is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5 space? And how does it prove any mathematical problem? Any answers? Considering the fact that you claim to know so much about it, and assuming that you have read it through, the answer should've been a piece of cake for you.

And I thought u were having exams! But neways, I told u to read the whole site, but it seems u have bad habit of reading between the lines or a first few paras!

The "geometric message" of this enlightenment can be decoded in terms of the following complete parallelism between the idol of Lord Shiv and geometric setup of Hypercubes-5.
Sr.No

Idol of Lord Shiv

Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
1
Five heads Five dimensions
2
Three eyes Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
3
Ten arms Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
4
Heart Origin / Centre
5
Lord of Lord Shiv 6-space as origin of 5-space
6
Dwadas Adityas 12 hypercubes-5 as (12 Suns) boundary of hypercube-6 (A6:12A5)


U also have the relation between the dimensions! Shud I paste everything? You will find it well, not nonsense, if u read it to the end. You don't even understand what a theory is. Why am I not surprised!

And PS: this is more than the 5,6,7th time I'm asking you, are u going to answer the questions I asked or not? I hope u don't have exams!

And you still haven't clarified your stance on the nukes yet.

I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!

Earlier you had declared that @sreevirus’s effort has made you dig “deeper into what is original”. That’s a BS. Forget digging deep. You haven’t even scratched. If you had even scratched, you would not have continued with this vedic nonsense.

Can u quit whining....ever?

Atharva-Veda (XIX; 53)
“ purnah kumbhah ityasya mantrasya bhrgu rsih sarvatmakah kalo devata tristup chandah harih om

purnah kumbho dhikala ahitas tam vai pasyamo bahudha nu santam om tatsat ”
(Excuse me for not being able to put the accentuation marks)

The various translations are:

1. A full jar has been placed upon time.
Him, verily we see existing in many forms.(Bloomfield)

2. The whole of this universe is stationed in the Omnipresent God.
We, the good ones on the earth see him in various ways.(Devichand)

3. On time is laid an overflowing beaker.
This we behold in many a place appearing.(Griffith)

4. A full jar has been placed upon time.
We behold him existing in many forms.(Muir)

5. Above Time is set a brimful vessel.
Simultaneously we see Time here, there, everywhere.(Panikkar)

6. A full vessel is set upon time.
We indeed see it, being now manifoldly.(Whitney)

Bloomfield, Griffith etc known for their mistranslations?

Note the wide difference between the translation. Next time when you say something like read “the originals of vedas”, try to figure out if most of your favourite hindu apologists have themselves read “the originals of vedas”. I know some have, but the most do not even have a clue. They all depend on Griffith’s translation, although Griffith’s work is not a scholarly work, but was aimed at Victorian era English speaking Indian middle class.

So don’t bluff

Do u even understand why the difference occurs? U could have atleast Sourced what u copied from. Like I said, skepticism is fine when u know even remotely on the subject!

Every one can see whose bluffing!

Show me an evidence of our knowledge of “the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon”. If vedic astrology is anything to go by, then it talks of only five real planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) all of which can be observed with naked eyes. Also it is based on the notion that earth is the centre of the universe, proving, that they were not aware of its rotation.

*www.vibrantskin.net/2/p14a.htm
*ashoktiwari.tripod.com/eved.html
*sanatandharma.tripod.com/index.html
*www.hindusarise.com/achievements.htm
*www.lovearth.net/108.htm

U can easily find more with that "keyboard commando" skills of urs!

Although, testing drugs contribute hugely to the scientific knowledge, it is actually an application of scientific knowledge of chemistry and biology. If we did not know the chemistry of the drug or the biology on which it is supposed to work, we could not have produced the drug in the first place. Testing that drug is the process of validating, that we got it right.

And boom, the plethora of side effects!

Another useless comment. Humans do have varying immunity levels. But that does not stop homeopaths from comparing the symptoms of one human, recorded during proving, to another human, the patient. If “individualization” is all that makes the difference, then why aren’t the proving subjects considered on individual basis. Why are the symptoms recorded en mass. Because, that will create infinite possibilities, too large to deal with mediocre brains of homeopaths.

Infinite humans does not mean infinite possibilties. Its not like fingerprint. "Provings" and best case fit? Guess ur brain still looms at large having so much trouble understanding even the basics!
But neways let me put in brief and very simple terms if u still didn't understand all that huge dscussion this last time.
I hope u know the meaning of "materia medica", that u do. The homeopath chooses a medicine based on the symptoms of the patient and cross checks with the materia medica and prescribes the medicine that is a "close fit". For that, subsequent examination of the case is necessary to determine the correctness of the remedy, dose and to make any adjustments in the remedy, dosage, treatment plan.

Say this to a person whose only hope of living is dialysis, or chemotherapy or one who has done a laser surgery or…..

Sure, those who wish to live simple and natural life and those who don't want to spend the huge $$$$ on modern medicine are already coming to INDIA for ayurvedic treatments, resorting to yoga and spiritual life and homeopathy!
*www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061027232826data_trunc_sys.shtml

First u defy nature and then whine! I think world is realising that science with spirituality makes perfect sense! But here r a few who talk of psychedelic drugs.

So stop bullshiting!

Yes. So, now we should throw away our ECGs and MRIs and X-Rays, and go back to stone age where people died of small pox (now they no longer do) or plague (in west, they no longer do) or …… Hail stone age.

I think u can do side along with Max muller,griffith etc. I certianly didn't say that. Funny materialists!

I think, I had placed ayurveda a little above that junk called homeopathy. I think I had said, that ayurveda may work, although limited. I think I had said, that the naturopathy part in ayurveda has some basis.

I understand u r quite a peer!

Once again. Science DOES NOT explain everything. But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.

Finally we r starting to here the golden words. Can u now tell why it doesn't/can't explain everything?

Forget about harming the body, homeopathy effects the body just as water does. No sane person would claim that distilled water kills.

Someone told me the difference between a skeptic and a fanatic and that a fanatic wont listen no matter how much evidence u give to him. I'm only witnessing the latter with an aim to demolish this wonderful field of homeopathy, just because science can't explain it at present!

I wonder why both doctors and patients are resorting to homeopathy and natural treatments?

You keep repeating the name “Meera Nanda”, and how she is wrong, but don’t give any evidence of her error. Well, how would you. You don’t have a clue of what she writes about. It will take your entire life time to understand what “post-modernism” is. Only then, you can begin to understand “Meera Nanda”.

What we have here is pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science.

U forgot what I replied with back in that thread!

Yes, I want to win over LIES. I want to win over MISINFORMATION. I want to win over HYPOCRISY.

Nice jokes out there.

Whatever that may mean. Let me ask you once again:

DO YOU ACCEPT PINK UNICORN ?

The answer can be given in simple YES or No.

Funny, that when explanied bt homeopathic techniques and all, u first talked bt "double blind" and "randomized" trials. Next when told bt "best case fit", u talk about infinite possbilities. Its like minimum to maximum, the extremes.

So then, in ur understanding, if something is fact, then other must just be a fiction. Isn't it? Big Bang, evolution, dark wateva, universe, side effects (modern medicine "cures"?). Fact or fiction? Accept : Yes or no?

I thought I told pretty clearly plenty of times, not rejecting doesn't means accepting! And if the evidences are there and researches going on genuinely and seriously then one is simply too foolish to reject them.

Once again, you are bluffing. If you had read about “nuclear stuff some months ago”, why the hell did you then post that link, just ONE month ago (06.05.08 ), knowing fully well that it is misinformation. You are then admitting that you have made a conscious attempt to mislead people.

Do u even understand what I posted! Compare and Take ur time to understand.

I dunno how many times, u said it bt wud like to reflect in a humble way "Stop bullsheeteeng"!! Besides, adding something in extra large fonts isn't gonna synchronise my serotonin levels to the randomly up n down shooting levels of urs!

Guess this peaceful discussion, is bringing me closer to Vedas with the help of some pseudo-skeptics or shud I say fanatics?

And hence, entertain me as u wish that u will. I hope u understood bt that homeopathic forum link that people can watch instead of that troll thread and not confusing it anymore with some "source" or reference! My memorable moments? Indeed!



I again ask the materialist brigade, will they ever answer the questions that I asked or just keep asking? One did for spirituality, one for homeopathy, one for Vedas and none for what I asked! WTH .

 

[karmanya]

This thread seems to have degenerated into a bunch of thinly veiled insults. Frankly speaking mediator, I can't even tell what your questions are.

 

[karnivore]

^^ Welcome to mediator land. But, hell, you can see the veil ?

Bloomfield, Griffith etc known for their mistranslations?

And yet, most of the links that you give, use Griffith as their reference. CCCHOOO CCCHWEEEEET.

Do u even understand why the difference occurs? U could have atleast Sourced what u copied from. Like I said, skepticism is fine when u know even remotely on the subject!

I think I gave the answer as to why the difference occurs. Because of the antiquity of the language, because much of the rules of grammar and syntax are lost forever and one has to depend on a cocktail of permutations and combinations.

I did mention the author and the piece from where I had copied that part. I did that so anybody can google around and find the original piece - just like you have done. I seriously doubt, if you have actually gone through the entire article.

*www.vibrantskin.net/2/p14a.htm
*ashoktiwari.tripod.com/eved.html
*sanatandharma.tripod.com/index.html
*www.hindusarise.com/achievements.htm
*www.lovearth.net/108.htm

Quotes many famous authors, Max Mullar, being one, and famous scientists, Carl SagaN, being another. Isn’t it nice to see Max Mullar, so hated for “mistranslation”, being quoted in an apologist site. Oh I get it, he said something that suited our horsetard. Temporary amnesia. But it is equally disgusting to see Carl being bundled with those horsetards. How wonderful it is to cherry pick quotes.

The sites contain numerous out of context quotes, wishful interpretations and misinformation to make it look like good science. Typical.

And boom, the plethora of side effects!

And boom, no polio, no chicken pox, no plague, no hepatitis C, no………

And boom, average age of human reaching over 70 in medically advanced countries……

Infinite humans does not mean infinite possibilties. Its not like fingerprint. "Provings" and best case fit?

You don’t have a clue as to what I meant. Don’t you ? I did not mean “infinite humans”, I meant “individualization” of proving subjects. And since each individual is different from others, with much claimed varying immunity levels, the results are bound to be infinite, even if tested within a finite group of people. The infinite possibilities arise from different lifestyles, varying idiosyncrasies, varying hereditary traits. Imagine the permutations and combinations.

I hope u know the meaning of "materia medica", that u do. The homeopath chooses a medicine based on the symptoms of the patient and cross checks with the materia medica and prescribes the medicine that is a "close fit". For that, subsequent examination of the case is necessary to determine the correctness of the remedy, dose and to make any adjustments in the remedy, dosage, treatment plan.

AHA………finally. So if, the homeopaths are relying on symptoms, just like modern medicine, where does this thing called “individualization” fit ? AFAIK, Mataria Medica, only lists the symptoms and the possible medicines. It does not say a word about symptoms specific to an “individual” characteristic.

Let me give an example: Suppose a plumber has symptoms A, B, C and D. And then a poet has the same symptoms i.e. A, B, C, and D. Now they go to the same homeopath. The homeopath will ask them a lot of gibberish, so as to “individualize” the patients. Then he will go search his MM. He will find that symptoms A, B, C and D “closely fit” to so and so disease and can be treated with medicine X. Now, can you please tell me how will the quack decide, if medicine X is required by both the plumber and the poet , and in which potency. And if he decides that based of varying lifestyle(hope you do realize that a plumber is bound to have a different lifestyle than a poet), they would need different medicines, where and how will he reference that medicine.

So let me summarize. Provings are not “individualized”, Mataria Medica is not “individualized”, but the practice is “individualized” and the doctor has no reference of his “individualized” patient’ ailment. Wonderful dog$hit.

Sure, those who wish to live simple and natural life and those who don't want to spend the huge $$$$ on modern medicine are already coming to INDIA for ayurvedic treatments, resorting to yoga and spiritual life and homeopathy!
*www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

First u defy nature and then whine! I think world is realising that science with spirituality makes perfect sense! But here r a few who talk of psychedelic drugs.

Sure modern treatment costs. That’s precisely the reason why people are turning to alternative meds, not because alt. med. works. Then, who is doing the follow up ? No one.

Let me say this once again:
Failure of modern medicine is not the proof of homeopathy. Homeopathy will have to prove itself on its own account.

I think u can do side along with Max muller,griffith etc. I certianly didn't say that. Funny materialists!

Tch Tch Tch. Aren’t those sites, you linked to, quoting Max Muller and Griffith ?

All those explanations are based on Griffith’s translation.[Or have you again posted links without actually reading those ? CCHOOO CCCHWEEET]. So decide first. Are you accepting Griffith or rejecting. If you reject Griffith, then you have to, sadly, reject that explanation of hypercube and that nuke thingie as well.
Care to explain:

That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs

How does “that primitive knowledge” hold “the key to actually cure a patient.” (Errrr…you do realize that, “that primitive knowledge” did not involve understanding of virus or bacteria or did not involve pathological tests)

I understand u r quite a peer!

Peer of whom ? Certainly not yours [would rather put a bullet in my head]

Finally we r starting to here the golden words. Can u now tell why it doesn't/can't explain everything?

I don’t think this is the first time that I have said this (if you only bothered to be a little attentive). The reason is simple. Because of our limitations. We are gradually overcoming these limitations and accordingly science is gradually progressing. No body claims we know everything that is there to know.

Someone told me the difference between a skeptic and a fanatic and that a fanatic wont listen no matter how much evidence u give to him. I'm only witnessing the latter with an aim to demolish this wonderful field of homeopathy, just because science can't explain it at present!

That someone probably never debated with you. Errr……evidence has been given ? When, where, how ? Shoot……we have been sleeping all the while. Oh I get it. You are referring to anecdotes and claims.

Homeopathy is indeed wonderful. Wonderfully stupid.

What we have here is pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science.

U forgot what I replied with back in that thread!

So, “pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science” means she was referring to the effects of BRAHMI ? You couldn’t be further from the truth. But that’s what happens when you cherry pick comments, without reading anything else, and forming opinion on that basis. You will be surprised to know, that she does not entirely dismiss ayurveda. So go back, get her book, read it through and see what she means by that comment. Then come back and start debating. OK.

So then, in ur understanding, if something is fact, then other must just be a fiction. Isn't it? Big Bang, evolution, dark wateva, universe, side effects (modern medicine "cures"?). Fact or fiction? Accept : Yes or no?

First, why would, “other” be fiction, if “something” is fact. Please explain, in the context of my understanding.

Second,
Big Bang = Theory, and there is a surprise waiting for you in the coming years.

Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy.

Evolution = Fact, if not, then please explain how a virus becomes antibiotic resistant.
Dark wateve = Dark Matter is theory, Dark Energy is hypothesis to explain the increasing speed of expanding universe.
Universe = Fact
Side Effects = Fact
Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]

I thought I told pretty clearly plenty of times, not rejecting doesn't means accepting!

Can you please tell me the meaning of “NOT REJECTING”. Although I am not new to mediator land, I am still learning the rules.

And if the evidences are there and researches going on genuinely and seriously then one is simply too foolish to reject them.

What……come again………did you just say “EVIDENCE”. Errr………Well, here is the evidence. I have seen a pink unicorn. It was grazing in my backyard. All my neighbours have seen it. I took a snap, but unfortunately the pink unicorn did not appear on the snap. We are doing some serious research. We have invited some scientists from Jadavpur University to do the research for us. But it is a secret research.

Now, do you “NOT REJECT” the pink unicorn ?

Do u even understand what I posted! Compare and Take ur time to understand.

Make me understand:

I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago

If, some months ago, you had read whatever I had posted, debunking this link, then why did you post that link on 06.05.08, being aware of the fraud ????
Now, should I call the paramedics to get that foot out of your mouth or would you use HOMEOPATHY ?

What is ridiculous about the explanation and how is it unscientific "to say the least"?

Good question. What is NOT ridiculous about the explanation and how is it scientific “to say the least”

Can Ayurveda Cure HIV/AIDS
Alternative Therapies to AIDS cure
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
*www.natural-health-informatio...-medicine.html

…and pigs can fly and pink unicorns graze in my backyard.

U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.

OHO……anecdotes and claims = evidence. OK. Point taken and forgotten - thankfully.

And so I checked out. U actually gave the link to sacred-texts.com where along with "Max Muller", the christian bias known for "mistranslating and misleading" people on Vedas, a few others similar souls have contributed to those mistranslations! WTH, and u call urself a skeptic?

…but those nuke thingie and all are based on Griffith’s translation. *scratch*

Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.

I guess you will not reject the scientific evidence in, say, I don’t know……, say BIBLE or KORAN

…can it predict Universe itself…

Do you even understand what you are asking. Can you please explain what does “predict Universe” mean ?

….when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science,

You mean, your peers……

Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
1 Five heads Five dimensions
2 Three eyes Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
3 Ten arms Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
4 Heart Origin / Centre
5 Lord of Lord Shiv 6-space as origin of 5-space
6 Dwadas Adityas 12 hypercubes-5 as (12 Suns) boundary of hypercube-6 (A6:12A5)

It is precisely the question that we are asking. What is the basis of this parallelism. Numerical coincidence can’t be the basis. [Because the number 5 and 3 appear quite a number of times. There is no point in pick-n-chose, because then one has to explain those numerics in their respective context as well] So what is the basis. Why is head = dimension, or eyes = solid dimension [BTW, 3 eyes each on 5 heads would make 5 x 3 = 15 eyes, and the author conveniently neglects this], arm = boundary components, heart = origin (this makes sense, though), and the rest………only lord shiva knows.

I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!

……and it was based on Griffiths’s translation. [CCCHOOOO CCHWEEEEEET]

 

[mediator]

This thread seems to have degenerated into a bunch of thinly veiled insults. Frankly speaking mediator, I can't even tell what your questions are.

There are 2 threads in FIGHT CLUB. One is this one and other about hypnotism. Please read the 2 from beginning.

And yet, most of the links that you give, use Griffith as their reference. CCCHOOO CCCHWEEEEET.

Is that a peer review?

I think I gave the answer as to why the difference occurs. Because of the antiquity of the language, because much of the rules of grammar and syntax are lost forever and one has to depend on a cocktail of permutations and combinations.

And u were told about the mistranslations and misleadings by a bunch of christian biases. And when the peers acknowledge that Sanskrit the language with most scientific formation of words and grammer, still present today, u r guessing much its rulez of grammar and syntax are lost forever? WTH!

Quotes many famous authors, Max Mullar, being one, and famous scientists, Carl SagaN, being another. Isn't it nice to see Max Mullar, so hated for "mistranslation", being quoted in an apologist site. Oh I get it, he said something that suited our horsetard. Temporary amnesia. But it is equally disgusting to see Carl being bundled with those horsetards. How wonderful it is to cherry pick quotes.

The sites contain numerous out of context quotes, wishful interpretations and misinformation to make it look like good science. Typical.

Actually those apologists sites tell what and how of the destruction of INDIAN texts and who all had an agenda and part in it.

And boom, no polio, no chicken pox, no plague, no hepatitis C, no………

And boom, average age of human reaching over 70 in medically advanced countries……

And No AIDS?? Besides I would like to read the research that says about the line in bold. Also, do u even understand what contributes to a longer life expactancy?
Here, This might get u a clue. Speaking of which u must understand how the major population in INDIA simply lives and struggles to earn a bread. Poverty, illiteracy? I think u r not even acquainted to the reality. Even yoga is not widespread among villages and rural areas. Understand how much it is practised in US and some other developed countries. It is well known that the more health conscious u r, the more u respect the nature and live accordingly, the better is ur life expactancy!

You don't have a clue as to what I meant. Don't you ? I did not mean "infinite humans", I meant "individualization" of proving subjects. And since each individual is different from others, with much claimed varying immunity levels, the results are bound to be infinite, even if tested within a finite group of people. The infinite possibilities arise from different lifestyles, varying idiosyncrasies, varying hereditary traits. Imagine the permutations and combinations.

And I think I briefed about it quite nicely. I remember having told that its not like fingerprinting. The patient needs to be under an examination of homeopath to see all the related "factors" (check out what all factors), then checkout for materia medica and if an adjustment is needed in the remedy! I wonder if materialists even put their brains unbiasedly to understand something that science cannot explain at the moment!

AHA………finally. So if, the homeopaths are relying on symptoms, just like modern medicine, where does this thing called "individualization" fit ? AFAIK, Mataria Medica, only lists the symptoms and the possible medicines. It does not say a word about symptoms specific to an "individual" characteristic.

Do even understand the "factors" that contribute to those "symptoms". Its not just physial symptoms that modern medicine relies on! Again leading to repetitions now? Look back what we debated, use the "keyboard commando skills" and u just might get it.

In general terms a homeopath will take a very detailed history from you in order to try and ascertain the complete symptom picture. Not only will they want to know your state of mind and exactly how the symptoms present, they will also want to know what makes your symptoms better or worse. Having obtained a complete picture, the homeopath will then try and match your symptoms to a particular remedy. A prescription for a simple acute problem can sometimes be done over the phone or in a very short period of time.

Repetition. U cud have simply refreshed ur memory on the past discussions instead of zeroing in on t=0 discussion i.e from the start. Pseudo-skeptics!

Let me give an example: Suppose a plumber has symptoms A, B, C and D. And then a poet has the same symptoms i.e. A, B, C, and D. Now they go to the same homeopath. The homeopath will ask them a lot of gibberish, so as to "individualize" the patients. Then he will go search his MM. He will find that symptoms A, B, C and D "closely fit" to so and so disease and can be treated with medicine X. Now, can you please tell me how will the quack decide, if medicine X is required by both the plumber and the poet , and in which potency. And if he decides that based of varying lifestyle(hope you do realize that a plumber is bound to have a different lifestyle than a poet), they would need different medicines, where and how will he reference that medicine.

I was told fanatics don't even try to get it. Indeed!
Physical, psychological conditions etc remember, that form the symptoms?
Its not like the modern medicine where u just list the physical conditions only and u get the name of a medicine!

Sure modern treatment costs. That's precisely the reason why people are turning to alternative meds, not because alt. med. works. Then, who is doing the follow up ? No one.

Let me say this once again:
Failure of modern medicine is not the proof of homeopathy. Homeopathy will have to prove itself on its own account.

Oh well, it seems u only read where I quote u whereas they like to form some kinda team here.
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
*www.natural-health-information-centre.com/modern-medicine.html

Google for more!

It is a sad fact that virtually 100% of ALL medical education (both under-graduate and post-graduate) is paid for either directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry. As such, the industry can control the educational agenda and our doctors are now taught little except how to control the symptoms of disease, preferably with long-term drug use. It is not the Doctors themselves that are at fault, but the pharmaceutical marketing system that trains them.

Now lets think about what that means.

EVERY Doctor, regardless of his / her own convictions, is taught that the way to treat disease is to use drugs, often without even considering the underlying causes of the disease.

Examples

* High blood pressure (hypertension). Modern medicine uses various drugs to drop the blood pressure - without considering why the body had elevated it in the first place.
* Angina - Modern medicine uses drugs to "cover-up" the symptoms of angina and other forms of heart diease, without telling you you can actually reverse the damage that is causing it!
* High Cholesterol - modern medicine uses drugs to artifically force lower cholesterol levels, without thinking about WHY the body raised them in the first place (clue: it is a defensive mechanism!)
* Depression - modern medicine dopes adults and (increasingly) kids with toxic drugs to cover up pyschiatric / psychological issues that are caused by malnutrition, plain and simple. (specifically, a chronic lack of omega-3 fatty acids)

Yet the few who are prepared to speak out against these giant corporations are shunned by their own colleagues, whose blinkered, self-serving attitudes are exactly what their pharmaceutical bosses want to see. Take these examples.

1. Dr Weston A Price, who proved beyond all doubt that the chronic diseases we have seen emerge in the 20th century are largely caused by our increasingly poor nutrition, and that in 26 separate "primitive" societies, these diseases DO NOT EXIST - until you give them a Western diet! He was IGNORED by modern medicine.
2. Dr Linus Pauling, one of the few people EVER to win TWO Nobel prizes, who showed not only that ischaemic heart disease is nothing more than chronic scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency), but that ALL CHRONIC DISEASE is caused by mineral deficiencies. Modern medicine ridiculed his results without even studying them, but has no answer to his success in treating patients.
3. Dr Mary Enig (author of Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol), one of the pioneer scientists involved in assessing the role of various fats in heart disease and cancer in the 1950s, who proved that saturated fats (in butter, cheese, eggs and meat) PROTECT against these diseases, whilst the unnatural hydrogenated vegetable oils used in margerines (and virtually all prepared foods) CAUSE the very problems they are supposed to prevent. She was shunned by the modern medicine establishment and all research funding was withdrawn, despite the fact that the evidence fully backed her up.

And these are just a few examples from many cases where modern medicine is so entrenched in its pharmaceutical-based "symptom treatment" paradigm that it has totally lost all interest in PRVENTING disease, which is exactly what Natural Medicine is all about.

As if they weren't enough, the pharmaceutical industry, through its pressure group, Codex Alimentarius, is now trying to ban the very minerals and vitamins that can prevent and treat disease - fight it!

So what can you do about it?

The answer is very simple - make sure you are informed about your health problems, and make sure your Doctor, or other health care professional is informed too. If your Doctor doesn't undestand the importance of nutrition, find another Doctor who does.

* Establish a routine of basic nutrition, which in many cases is enough to stop many "chronic diseases" in their tracks.
* If you already suffer from a "chronic disease", don't just accept lifelong treatment, find out which deficiencies are implicated and (if basic nutrition for a few months doesn't do the job) correct them, you will be amazed at the results. Contact us for more information
* Be prepared for the long term - most "diseases" take years to develop, they WILL take time to recover from too.
* Join the Alliance for Natural Health, who are working to undo the illegal Eurpoean Directive on Food Supplements (ESPECIALLY if you are in the USA - the EU law is a prototype intended for the US to follow)

Live with the nature and njoy! I can give u more with such data, if u want. Whats the point even after such prolonged discussion?

Besides, homeopathy has proved quite a lot for 200+ yrs save science cannot explain it right now. I wonder how homeopathy works on plants and babies too. Placebo? Oh common, babies are already cared too much I guess! Modern medicine it seems is ignoring tooo much at present. But some people it seems do have that giant gullible bone and herd instinct too much.

Tch Tch Tch. Aren't those sites, you linked to, quoting Max Muller and Griffith ?

All those explanations are based on Griffith's translation.[Or have you again posted links without actually reading those ? CCHOOO CCCHWEEET]. So decide first. Are you accepting Griffith or rejecting. If you reject Griffith, then you have to, sadly, reject that explanation of hypercube and that nuke thingie as well.
Care to explain:

Tch Tch. Take ur time and read correctly this time. I'll show it like I always do when ur comprehension fails u!

I don't think this is the first time that I have said this (if you only bothered to be a little attentive). The reason is simple. Because of our limitations. We are gradually overcoming these limitations and accordingly science is gradually progressing. No body claims we know everything that is there to know.

And the things that are yet to know, have evidences for them be rejected? Again I say, understand how science progresses!

Homeopathy is indeed wonderful. Wonderfully stupid.

Again a peer review? Peers might be abusing themselves to have such a blind fanboy following in their herd!

First, why would, "other" be fiction, if "something" is fact. Please explain, in the context of my understanding.

Ur understanding is quite absurd and u treat it as if there exists only "yes" or "no"! Thats why I asked, if its not a fact, then in ur understanding, it must be a fiction. Answer straight Do u treat all those theories as facts : Yes or NO?

Second,
Big Bang = Theory, and there is a surprise waiting for you in the coming years.

I am delighted! Lets see if the questions can be answered. Funny materialists, instead of answering they like to entertain, "u will have a surprise"!

Read this
*www.engadget.com/2007/08/16/german-scientists-claim-to-have-broken-speed-of-light/

And if that goes true, I guess much of the modern physics will fail instantly n the bland cheerleading by the materialists.

Evolution = Fact, if not, then please explain how a virus becomes antibiotic resistant.
Dark wateve = Dark Matter is theory, Dark Energy is hypothesis to explain the increasing speed of expanding universe.
Universe = Fact
Side Effects = Fact
Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]

Evolution = Then please give atleast the evidences of "fossils" of each n every species that might have "gradually" evolved! Can Humans fly? I want an answer with a high degree of cetainty to mark it as fact.
Other questions though not what I had thought can be found here.

Dark wateva = Skeptics like to discard the evidences of homeopathy and love to accept the hypothesis and theories? LOL, Answer straight. Dark wateva : fact or fiction? In ur understanding ofcors!

Side effects = Person not cured! Whats the guarantee that the orginal disease will not resurface? Are we treating the symptoms or the disease? Why do we witness large number of deaths in modern medicine as against homeopathy? U r so annoying!

Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]

Like I said, I am a spiritualist, a person who likes to go with the nature and not take psychedelic drugs and toilet cleaners. To add, I'm a vegetarian! I wonder if I will have any cardiac arrest in the first place! I may be willing to donate an organ though.

I think u r only getting emotional, asking questions like "What will u do if....". May be I shud ask, what will u do if u get AIDS, what will u do if u go out of $$$$. So don't raise silly questions.

Can you please tell me the meaning of "NOT REJECTING". Although I am not new to mediator land, I am still learning the rules.

Down to English basics now? The mediatorland is quite compassionate towards such people.

What……come again………did you just say "EVIDENCE". Errr………Well, here is the evidence. I have seen a pink unicorn. It was grazing in my backyard. All my neighbours have seen it. I took a snap, but unfortunately the pink unicorn did not appear on the snap. We are doing some serious research. We have invited some scientists from Jadavpur University to do the research for us. But it is a secret research.

Now, do you "NOT REJECT" the pink unicorn ?

Funny. Is the case happening again n again, with similarities? "Secret" has no meaning! What is happening can it be confirmed, world wide? U don't even produce analogous examples!
The definition of the "pink unicorns" that u have formed in ur mind, as so clear from the example, don't even match of what u call "pink unicorns" in this discussion.

Make me understand:

I surrender!

If, some months ago, you had read whatever I had posted, debunking this link, then why did you post that link on 06.05.08, being aware of the fraud ????
Now, should I call the paramedics to get that foot out of your mouth or would you use HOMEOPATHY ?

You aren't much of a skeptic are u. Firstly, google seems to be a convenient way to confirm ur skepticism, isn't it, on issues related to archeology? Secondly, plagurizin skepticism isn't much of skepticism. Thirdly, how come the case of the name "francis taylor" is judged by a mere "google search". How sane is that??. WTH
*cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3090274

Can Ayurveda Cure HIV/AIDS
Alternative Therapies to AIDS cure
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
*www.natural-health-informatio...-medicine.html

…and pigs can fly and pink unicorns graze in my backyard.

U can stop trolling if u have nothing better to say. Homeopathy is rising and its going to rise even further beyond!

Do you even understand what you are asking. Can you please explain what does "predict Universe" mean ?

Sigh making me repeat again! "Boundaries of universe", "rotations if any", "revolutions if anything beyond universe", "Where all of it came from", "all the phenomena, are they even testable" to name a few? In short "predict universe"? I had asked this last time toooo! You r making me yawn now.

Food for thought!
*www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/cosm-m17.shtml
*hetdex.org/dark_energy/discovery.php

It is precisely the question that we are asking. What is the basis of this parallelism. Numerical coincidence can't be the basis. [Because the number 5 and 3 appear quite a number of times. There is no point in pick-n-chose, because then one has to explain those numerics in their respective context as well] So what is the basis. Why is head = dimension, or eyes = solid dimension [BTW, 3 eyes each on 5 heads would make 5 x 3 = 15 eyes, and the author conveniently neglects this], arm = boundary components, heart = origin (this makes sense, though), and the rest………only lord shiva knows.

LOl, may be u didn't get that the site actually explains the connection between the dimensions and it is quite clear in doing so! And materialists like u will keep making remarks like "only lord shiva knows"! There r a lotta such poetic references, hymns etc in puranas, Vedas which I think is really beyond the materialists to comprehend!

I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!

……and it was based on Griffiths’s translation. [CCCHOOOO CCHWEEEEEET]

LOOOOOL. And what do u think @srivirus posted was from? Err, griffith?
That what happens when u start replying in favour of other comrades. Then u oughtta know what he had spoken exactly!
So stop lying.

PS : AGAIN I ask, Show me how great modern science is and answer all the questions I ask. Why is the materialist brigade keeping its mum?

 

[karnivore]

Actually those apologists sites tell what and how of the destruction of INDIAN texts and who all had an agenda and part in it.

How much can those sites be trusted. I have only given a cursory look, and voila, already an anomaly.

Unfortunately for you, Cosmos is a book which I have read and also possess

"It is the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of."

Carl Sagan does not say that in that book.

Now read carefully, particularly the part bolded

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths.It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still."

What impression do you get ? That the author of the site has quoted Sagan word for word. At least there is no indication of any edit or anything. Once again read that part bolded. Now read the original

"It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, no doubt by accident, to those of modern scientific cosmology"

Four simple words left out without any indication of edit. Four simple words that clear up Sagan's position. Four simple words, that imply "coincidence". Four simple words that would not look good on an apologist site that is desperately trying to shoe-horn data into the ancient text and trying to justify.

That, my dear friend, is called cherry picking quotes, that is called mis-information. That is a fraud. Your kinda site, run by one of your peers. You can use it for your source. But remember, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

You can thank your lord shiva, that i have lost all interest in your useless links. Otherwise i might just read those sites more closely and kick some more arse.

 

[sreevirus]

You r treating modern science too religiously! We need to find the answers from the dark coz its time we stop being arrogant and blind towards the success of those "mumbo jumbos"!

I’m treating science in the best possible way I can. You, on the other hand, don’t even know the basics of it.

With reference to your links: Cure for AIDS? Dr. G. Shantakumaran would’ve been hailed as a modern day messiah and he’d have been a household name like Einstein if his claims are to be taken seriously. His work could’ve been a lifesaver for millions of HIV positive and AIDS affected people all over the world. But no. The only documentations of his works are on a few websites. And it’s not anything recent, even a year old; this guy has claimed to have cured an AIDS victim way back in 1992. If it was true, then why is it that AIDS is still spreading like wild fire? It was 1992 and his method, if true, could’ve made this world something else other that what it is now. BUT, there has still been no breakthrough. WHY? The obvious answer is IT’S FAKE.

Now don't give me the usual crap about the west not accepting Indian achievements; people are not so cruel to not acclaim medicines that work. Why would anyone want to deprive the millions of people who are suffering from a potential cure? I could think of the answer that you'd formulate in your mind: a conspiracy theory to continue sales of drugs right? Nah. It doesn't work that way.

Ah well, to quote Carl Sagan again, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. It would have been indeed something extraordinary to have a real cure for AIDS. We have unfortunately not got it yet I guess.

Please don't make me laugh. You want vedic terminology to be the same as that of modern science n then have the same assumptions and theories??

Not something that doesn’t even have a spark of semblance. 99 Vritasura’s != 99 Elements. Bones of Dadhyach != neutrons. And what I used was Ralph Griffith’s translation, not Max Mueller’s.

Do u even understand who a skeptic is?

The question is, do you?

U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.

Science does explain why things work with practices like homeopathy and ayurveda (where even the effects of herbs and plant extracts are explained), but the problem with you is that you do not find those answers convincing because of some personal incredulity, and harp on such things are unacceptable to science.

And so I checked out. U actually gave the link to sacred-texts.com where along with "Max Muller", the christian bias known for "mistranslating and misleading" people on Vedas, a few others similar souls have contributed to those mistranslations! WTH, and u call urself a skeptic?

Back to the prejudice against the west and the white man I see. Why is it that you employ selective amnesia whenever anything goes against you? And FYI, the verses I quoted were indeed from Griffith translation. Didn’t do your homework, eh? Didn’t read well? Oh I see, you just wanted to find something in desperation. So you searched for critics of translation of the Vedas and came up with some ugly stuff about Muller. Go check sacred-texts.com again. They have specifically mentioned that they have used Ralph T.H. Griffith and Maurice Bloomfield, not Max Muller.

Oh BTW, FYI, the nukes were created by a western white nutter named Stephen Knapp. The things that you quoted proudly were taken from one of his books titled “Secret Teachings of the Vedas”. I looked into his works and he can aptly be termed somewhat of Hinduism’s equivalent of Zakir Naik. I’m confident that you won’t find nukes in any one else’s translation either, except for Knapp’s own interpretation.

Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.

I do understand that. If anyone asked me to take a word about Hinduism as interpreted by Zakir Naik seriously, I’ll have a good laugh. The problem is, you are highly biased and selective in that aspect. If something goes for you, you will gladly accept it, but will be forever skeptic if something is proved against you. Even if Osama bin Laden or the Pope will extol the greatness of the Vedas, you won’t have any problem with it, because you have accepted your beliefs as reality beyond doubt. Well, Stephen Knapp doesn’t agree with Griffith, Bloomfield or Muller, but I guess you quite comfortably agree with Knapp. And ironically, you don't even know what you are agreeing to.

Can u stop lying now even after exposing how much u have read that pdf u linked?

Can you stop bluffing about telling how much you have read things? I went through that PDF and that is why I told you last time that I don’t have to accept the personal beliefs of the reviewer. I only wanted the scientific flaws in the theory. The reviewer gives a lot of explanation of the scientific infeasibility of the expansion theory, but at some instances, like where he felt there could’ve been an alternate explanation which involves a knowing hand in the creation of the universe, which of course, he gives his personal opinion/belief. The reviewer obviously is influenced by some set of beliefs similar to what T159 said, a universe within a universe, a higher consciousness, etc. These are just personal beliefs of the reviewer. That said, however, the review was indeed not in agreement to McCutcheon's theories.

You on the other hand, didn’t even know that I was quoting Griffith’s translations. Practice what you preach, oh wise one.

U shud atleast thank me for not posting for sometime n letting u celebrate the end of ur exams. Besides I don't even feel like giving petty explanations like "Exams/chickenpox" or wateva statements the materialist brigade made to generate some sympathy from me. Also, that thread was about hypnotism and where u started trolling from nowhere and deviated it altogether to a discussion regarding Vedas.

Yeah, and if I had left without mentioning anything, you’d have really been silent about how chicken I was to make a hit-and-run post, too scared to come back and answer your so called questions, right?

Who made u a mod here anyways? U talk of bulletin board, do even know the forum rulezzz???

Go ask raaabo. I guess he believes that I know the rules.

BTW, if you have a problem with me, don’t hesitate to use the report button. I’m not the only mod here, nor am I a sole evil dictator. Maybe if I went wrong somewhere, the concerned people might take action against me.

(Sssh! It’s a secret, don’t tell anyone. I told raaabo that I was a blind follower of Raaaboism, and he made me a mod)

Lolz, when will the materialist brigade ever learn? Using wiki again? Guess I too shud start using wikis and diggs.com i nevery post of mine now. But neways, here from the wiki page u linked....

Yeah, I suppose I should take a leaf out of your book and start taking references from personal opinions of some Tom, Dick or Harry out there with a website. Science and scientist and their works, RIP.

Do u even undertsand the meaning of lines in bold? And here u r treating all those theories as if it were a fact. Get ur facts straight first and then think what a skeptic role shud be. Ur mere guesses of how a skeptic shud be is itsef a theory!
.
.
And science can predict the future of Universe, can it predict Universe itself, can it predict whats beyond it? Are u saying modern science likes to go by some abberation?
It is not even testable, or has proof for its t=0, has flaws, but the "skeptic" says "Its the most satisfying"! LOL

Let’s see. Empirical observations/evidences like background microwave radiation, red shift, etc. which supports the idea of the universe being denser in the past, which agreed to mathematical theories made earlier implying the occurrence of a big bang don’t account for anything for you right? Fossils discovered which shows a trait of advancement of features don’t mean anything, does it? Your problem is that you can’t even comprehend the works of astronomers and biologists to even understand what they mean. To do that, you will have to come out of the realms of ancient texts.

It was a theory that predicted the existence of objects like black holes, and they have been discovered. I guess these are all fairy tales for you right? But I guess I will no longer be a fairy tale when some nut like Knapp will retrofit that into the Vedas too.

BTW, man never needed to fly. Neither did the elephants, hence the reason you don’t see them in the sky with wings. Of course, you won't understand that, since you don't understand evolutionary biology. Recommended reading: Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion. But that is just for laymen. I think karnivore can recommend even better books.

Well, if you find the theory of evolution hard to accept, what else is your answer? Oh wait, I know. Reincarnation, right? Which led to the evolution of the modern man, isn’t it? Well, I know that would be your answer, because I have seen that in so many Hindu websites, and they are in agreement to the Hindu philosophy.

And I guess the universe was created by Brahma who himself was born out of Vishnu’s navel. So long, science!

We still don’t know what happened at the beginning of time (t=0), but that doesn’t mean that answers won’t be known ever. The brightest minds on earth are at work uncovering the secrets. Science evolves.

On the other hand homeopathy is testable, has success rate etc save science cannot explain it at present! Oh don't repeat bt Placebo now, I already discussed bt it!

Testable indeed. Still, it yielded no poitive results in a falsifiable randomized test.
From what I saw in the documentary "The Enemies of Reason", every patient taking a homeopathic medicine is getting a dose of Oliver Cromwell's urine, along with the urine and other waste of everyone else.

But it seems u don't even know about the attempts to mistranslate the vedas and mislead the world, do u?

I did. And I saw the attempts in which the nukes were described.

U r just a disgrace to the skeptics batch, and let me tell I'm not abusing before u start guessing again.

You are a disgrace to the so called spiritualists who call themselves intellectual. I ain’t abusing either.

Amazing, and when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science, the herd of materialists is treating it as a "pseudoscience"!

Any rational being would term Knapp’s work as pseudoscience. Only you and your peers can see anything otherwise.

The "geometric message" of this enlightenment can be decoded in terms of the following complete parallelism between the idol of Lord Shiv and geometric setup of Hypercubes-5.
Sr.No

Idol of Lord Shiv

Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
1 Five heads Five dimensions
2 Three eyes Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
3 Ten arms Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
4 Heart Origin / Centre
5 Lord of Lord Shiv 6-space as origin of 5-space
6 Dwadas Adityas 12 hypercubes-5 as (12 Suns) boundary of hypercube-6 (A6:12A5)

I did read these junk in that site. Which was precisely why I asked how you can take the properties of a mythical being like Lord Shiva as axioms in a problem of geometry? Where is the proof/implication that his five heads represent 5 dimensions? How does his three eyes represent the solid dimensions? Just because a deity has 5 heads, 3 eyes and 10 arms, it doesn’t come as any solution/proof of hypercubes. There is absolutely no parallelism, as karnivore said. If you accept it as true, then you have to accept that Lord Shiva is indeed a god who exists. And that again goes against your earlier claims of you being a spiritual atheist. Make up your mind.

And no, Fermat’s theorem and Goldbach’s conjecture still have not been solved.

I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!

Of course you’d think so, otherwise it would mean that you have actually learnt that it was unscientific and would have to admit to it being wrong. But you won’t. Its all Stephen Knappaya Namaha now I guess.

I was told fanatics don't even try to get it. Indeed!

True indeed. You don't.



PS: Those two links that you gave in your latest reply to karnivore as food for thought only explains the why the concept of dark matter came into being. And, they only give more reasoning to the possibility of a Big Bang. If you had given those links as criticism of dark energy, then they are not doing any criticism, instead, only supporting the idea. Did you even read those food for thought?

 

[Dark Star]

Ok just for instance I agree to both of you ... People with firm Believe and people without faith in GOD>.

God is everywhere , God save his Child..Ok.. So where was GOD when WTC Blast off .. Where was god when Bombay Bom Blast take off.. Now you will save it was all pre-written.. People usually say Bhagwan ki Sharan me sab thik hota hai..

Then what happened to GOD when Varanasi Blast held ?It was inside the campus of Sankat Mochan Mandir.. Was GOD sleeping ? OR what ?

Hindu Religion is baseless. SOmetimes they say GOD Is everywhere then at the same time .. The wander several part to worship GOD ? Is this you called Sense ? GOD is everywhere in everypart.. GOD is one.. Then whats the use of creating Temples and staues ? Just pray a mere stone.. That wouldn't please GOD ?/

There are questions that won't satisfy people.. I don't believe in hypothetical assumptions.. My Mom daily used to send me to nearby Temple.. I do visit the temple daily ! But is it really needed ! If you don't have faith then its all for nothing...

Current Scenario is that GOD = the best way to earn money. .. Curse me buts its truth.. Being a Varanasi guy I had visited several Temples. ANd those Pandits won't allow you to touch GOD if you pay less Dakshina. WHy don't GOD punish them if GOD exists..

Bhagwan sabko dand deta hai ! Well what you can say about Daud Ibrahim , Bill Laden and many more.. Those currup politicians. the tears of the poor are all for nothing.. We will keep praying but all in vain..

I won't question the existence of GOD people have faith.. Let them have.. But one day or so they will say "Kya Bhagwan Hain " ? Well beleive inwhat you want to sbut until there are proof its all in vain ..