Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content Count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    95d 7h 28m 59s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. That does not mean Indians invented how to think, as you claimed. Mesopotamians were also plenty advanced. So were the Greeks. Oh and Indians never stopped killing each other for wealth and food either pretty much right until the British conquered ALL of India. That much, is objective, archeological and historical fact. The first language to have epic tales, is Sumerian, the language in which Epic of Gilgamesh is recorded. If you mean Sanskrit is the first engineered language - its true for classical, Panini Sanskrit that is somewhere in the 800BC-400BC range. Prior to that, aka Vedic Sanskrit, is not one of 'Rasa' at all. Its another Indo-European language. So far, what we can tell from its structure, its atleast the second-oldest of all Indo-European languages ( Nesite, aka Hittite, has an older/more archaic form to it) in its 'Vedic' form. Modern day kids know more about their own existence, their own body, the universe, etc. than Valmiki or Vyas. Authors who's books are used to 'recommend to us' how to live our lives should know more than the kids of today, don't you agree ? Pffft. You don't know enough history to comment on my level of history. I have the classic misfortune of being an 'Indian biassed history buff' to the largely ignorant history folks in the west as well as being the 'Firangi Lutyen' to the Chaddi idiots back home like yourself. India, is an underrated civilization- that is true. But India is not the inventor of thinking. As far as Indian history is concerned, the best way to know you are on the right track is when you piss off the RSS types as well as the die-hard anti-indian racists out here like Witzel. In terms of knowledge, yes. Its knowledge that leads to the correct conclusion - decisively. Give enough knowledge to a monkey and the monkey will make the right call eventually. Deny knowledge to even some of the most brilliant and they will believe in nonsense. This is pretty much testable in lab condition. What is also an empiric fact is the technological, scientific and existential knowledge of species homo sapiens is getting greater and greater with time. With the most educated population in history of mankind (as a % of mankind that is educated), we are at a point, where our kids know more about where the universe comes from, what we are made of, what species homo sapiens IS- than Valmiki, Vyaas, Mohammed and such. A good, objective measure of blind reverence to an idea being out-dated, is when the author of the idea has less empiric evidence about what he/she is talking of, than most of the kids of a much later time. So we should pay no attention to what their ignorant extrapolations were about 'life'. If they bumbled upon a greater truth, because they were smarter than the rest, despite being far less educated than our kids, yay- congrats. I am sure if i knew the name of the dude who first figured out how to make a fire, I'd think he is a pretty freaking smart guy and deserves rememberence. People telling us how to live our lives and what is true/not true about the universe from 1000s of years ago, fall in that category. I will happily admit, they were some of the smartest, brightest minds of their time. But they are also lilliputs in actual knowledge today. So i have less reason to listen to their extrapolations, than those of far better educated and equally smart people of modern times. Just like how Valmiki and Vyas were much, much more advanced than the guy who invented fire and wouldn't think much of this guy's (or the spiritual guru of his times for eg) idea of 'existence', Valmiki, Vyas etc. are at that level to us.
  2. Ofcourse it will, if the government treats them all equally and does not let them interfere in the government. That is the more standard and common definition of 'secularism'. The indian style is psuedo-secularism (ultimate pandering, on paper, to all religions by the govt.):it is definitely violating the seperation of church and state axiom of secularism.
  3. Mind science *IS* psychology, psychiatry and pure biology.Anyone who says otherwise, is saying pure bakwaas. And so what they learnt the nomenclatures and frameworks from others ? They learnt it, they improved upon it 1000 folds and now we know how the brain and mind works 1000x more than your half-literate rishis thousands of years ago. i used to be a practicing buddhist. So i know the concept. Still doesn't change the fact that what we know today via science, about the mind, is 1000x more than those half-literate rishi-munis did. Yes, they do know more than Galileo and Newton. Newton and Galeleo were great minds, just like those rishi and munis, but the fact remains that their knowledge is less than what a science grad possesses in their little finger. Therefore, they are not fit to instruct us or lead us. Simple logic. As the saying goes ' knowledge is power'. Not ' brilliance is power'. You could be a brilliant illiterate (just like those muni-rishis) and you have nothing to offer. You could be someone not so smart but with entire encyclopedia memorized and you have a lot to offer. Kids today have more knowledge than those self-declared sages. Simple. LOL at thinking being initiated by indian civilization. Such insecure nonsense belongs in the dustbin. You need to learn history more if you think we invented how to 'think'.
  4. Pfft. Mind sciences are 1000 times more advanced today than the age of so-called rishi-munis who did not even know how many planets are in the solar system, nevermind meaning of existence. Give me a clinical psychiatrist any day of the week over the hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo speaking half-literate rishi-munis. You just can't handle the fact that children know more about our existence, biology, dna, the universe etc. than the writers of your religion. An average university science graduate knows more about math and sciences than the sum total of ancient Indian civilization. The average psychology graduate knows more about how the mind works than the totality of every single 'rishi muni, gyaani' of the past talking about mental faculties. So tell us, how are the thoughts of those with 0.00001% knowledge as us, are fit to be followed as an example ?
  5. today's scholars think of the same and today's high school kids have a better understanding of the universe and how we came to exist than those illiterate 'sages'. Thats a fact.
  6. I'd say yes. LOL at name-calling. The world is trending towards putting all these hocus pocus religious nonsense in the dustbin, buddy. Because the world is slowly waking up to the reality that just like how we don't let amazon tribals to dictate how we should live our lives, the same applies for religions who's founders/major figureheads are all high school flunkies by today's standard.
  7. Well i am firmly for the government running everything that is a public space and public property. Religion is no exemption- the government is ultimate authority in charge of running a land, creating its laws and dispensing justice. Religion falls under those categories.
  8. Turkey during Ataturk's early years, allowed such for females. The cardinal question is inapplicable, since it is a title granted ONLY by the said religion. I am talking about access and civic rights. I am not saying who gets to be purohit or mullah or bishop, etc. The way i see it, as long as all religions are treated the same and has no influence on the government, it is secular. Doesn't matter if they are treated well or treated poorly. Secularism is not about good or bad treatment of religions, its simply about equal treatment of all religions and them having no influence over government functionings.
  9. If they are a completely private property and private entity, sure. But they are not. This is not someone's personal temple, this is a public place. Therefore, i refuse to recognize any such restriction to a public building. Nope. You have no right to dictate what the purpose of a public building is or why people should go there. Nobody does.
  10. And that is not a valid reason because ?! You sure everyone who goes to a temple to pray are there so they can commune with said God/Gods and isn't just there coz their moms dragged them along ? You cannot judge intent.
  11. Uhm, pretty sure i have been in more churches, mosques & temples than 99.9% of humanity.........
  12. Judiciary does not have supreme power, since judiciary has no power to MAKE the laws. They have the power to strike down any law if they deem it unsatisfactory. And that is required, because without judiciary having the supreme authority to strike down laws, you WILL have a banana republic, in a region rife with low education, where all you will need, is to have a big majority and you can deem any group - muslims, hindus, sikhs, christians, bengalis or gujjus or whatever- to have no rights or xyz impositions specifically on them. The best system we can think of, is the system we have currently, where the legislative body only has power to MAKE the law while the judiciary has the power to VETO a law. One without the other, is where abuse of power will come from. Also, i am a statist - not an anarchist. I simply do not share beliefs in old, out-dated systems made thousands of years ago by people who'd be considered ignorant illiterates by grade-10 kids. That does not make me an anarchist, just a modernist. Anarchism is anti government/anti-system. That is fundamental anathema to statists like me, who think that under current socio-political systems, the state machinery reigns supreme.
  13. False. Judicial committee has ultimate authority in legality of laws created. No amount of public pressure is going to get 'unnatural sex act' back in the constitution. Also, democracy works with an element of authoritarianism in it - our fundamental human rights for eg, are not democratically elected values, neither are they subject to democratic erasure. Ie, its fundamentally authoritarian imposition - in this case, it is our rights. Ie, you can get a 100% super-majority in both the houses to change the Indian constitution, to revoke all human rights from muslims. SC will immediately invalidate that, as fundamental rights are not subject to democratic consensus. This is for every single democratic nation btw. Nope. Judiciary cannot CREATE any laws. But they certainly can and will override any laws created by the legislative, if they deem it unconstitutional/in violation of our rights or heck, even amend the constitution if they find one part conflicts with another (such as with unnatural sex act part). You must've skipped basic civics class in school it seems. The legislative has the ultimate mandate in CREATING laws. The executive has the ultimate mandate in IMPLEMENTING said laws. And the Judiciary has the ultimate mandate in determining the VALIDITY of said laws. No amount of 'people pressure' is going to legally force the supreme court to change its decisions on a law.Thats basic civics 101.....
  14. decision by logic, reasoning and by committee ofcourse.
  15. Nope. We don't want to 'kill' tradition. We are simply not interested in protecting a grotesque concept under the guise of 'tradition'. Tradition exists to serve us. Over time, almost all traditions become meaningless, flawed or obsolete. We are simply going to educate people on this concept and over time, remove all the traditions that have ceased to serve our modern existence. Simple.
  16. LOL. You clearly do not know then, that the concepts of liberalism, conservatism itself are present in Indian philosophies. I guess i will have to quote some works for you. Your nonsense of 'western ideology' is pure, 100% bakwaas, period. Ok. Good for hindus. Too bad India is not a hindu nation. Try your nonsense beleif based laws in Nepal, maybe. Sure. Which is why i said it needs to change in the constitution. Maybe corrective action of the SC will one day prevail on this. Space for belief does not give believers right to discriminate against people, period. I do not share your belief in belief based-access for ANY religion. Period. You do your thing by yourself. How YOU act, believe, pray, whatever is not affected by another person being there or not being there. If it is, then its YOUR problem and excuse yourself, not ask the other person to leave. Thats my stance on the issue. Well, that guy is dead. If HE was alive, he is fully entitled to not be anywhere near women himself, but its not him anymore. Its a statue in his name, controlled by other people, that are impinging on other people's right to be there. Same way any right to innanimate object can be taken away and has been taken away.
  17. You seriously want to go down the route of historical discourse with me - this should be fun. Deity has no rights per se. It only gets rights because some humans demand it gets rights. Rights rest with humans- what we create. Innanimate objects with no declared potential for will have no fundamental rights. Yep they should. Which is why i am in favor of striking down these restrictions in hinduism, islam, christianity etc.. Not pick my own like a RW nut from a particular religion and decry all the rest. It is man-made. your scriptures are man-made. Aasman se tapak nahi ayi. Someone sat down and wrote it. Man-made. Or maybe woman-made. But made by species homo sapiens. Sure. My point is, it was part of the constution and struck down. Similarly your deity's rights can be struck down from the constitution by a legally valid democratically sanctioned process. No no fundamental rights need to be altered, since fundamental rights of a human being can be seperated from giving rights to books, buildings, statues etc. we can simply state that such objects have no rights and enjoy the same rights as a microwave or a computer. Matter over.
  18. The word you are looking for, is not fascist or communist, its called authoritarian. And yes, democratic governments too have the ability to have a say in the religion's core tenets or beliefs, by the ability to simply modify the constitution and do what it wishes. Simple. Anyways, we are digressing - my point is, religion is inferior to government in power and practice - this i can demonstrate historically and even currently. Religion exists, simply because governments ALLOW religion to exist. thats the bottomline.
  19. False. Governemnts have banned religions, persecuted religions, even today they can (and do, for eg, China) tell EXACTLY what a religion can or cannot do. I am not talking about your or my belief system, i am pointing out the SIMPLE FACT that government has, does and always will have the power and authority to do whatever it wishes, to any religion. Religion is subservient to governments, it lives due to what the government allows it to live as. You can believe whatever you wish. But banning access to certain sections of society is not just hocus pocus nonsense belief in your head, it is an actual action that affects people. PS: Virgin birth, atleast as far as entire kingdom animalia is concerned, is EXCEEDINGLY rare, not impossible. Get your facts correct, kindly.
  20. No. Government has always superceeded religion and still does. Power lies with the government - whether its the 11th century king/sultan with an army, 18th century privateers with charters or modern military. And when government chooses to - it dictates what religions can/cannot thrive, what kind of power religion will have etc. The goverernment has always been a superior body of power to religion. This is a historically attested fact.
  21. Again, stop saying nonsense like western viewpoint or colonial history. This only shows YOUR lack of knowledge about Indian history. And yes, the law violates human rights of women by discriminating against them. Period. Perhaps its time to ask the Supreme Court for corrective action on said article. No knee-jerk, i have demonstrated how it is RW/Sanghi nonsense. The same idiots who deride muslims/islam for islamic practices, wants special exemption clause for Hindus. Thats classic RW/Sanghi behaviour. Doesnt change the fact that the idea of banning half of humanity from a place of worship due to their biology, is discrimination. The constitution has a moral obligation to care what should be the case. This is why 'unnatural sex act' was struck down from the contitution. You can pretend all you want that the constitution is the end-all, be-all, but just the last few weeks have shown to everyone that the Indian constitution can and WILL be changed by the SC if its deemed to discriminate.
  22. That is nonsense. Government overrides all, as it is government's perogative to come up with laws & implement them. It is both a current and historical fact that religion is and always will be subordinate to the laws of the land/government and what leeway they have - even the right to survive - is dictated by the government of said land.
  23. Government has EVERY right. Government overrides religion, as it is a superior entity. Always have, always will. Basic framework of any human society is a form of government. Not a form of religion
  24. That doesn't save broken/outdated parts of the constitution from being struck down by the SC. Even if it gives right to the religion, this makes the said religion discriminatory. If Hindus want to argue that they are exercising their constitutional rights, fine. It doesnt save them from being discriminatory a##holes sticking standing in the way of progress, which i am sure any chest-thumping Hindu is able to identify with, since they spend so much time pointing this aspect out about Islam.
  25. Irrelevant. Indian comstitution doesn't make it right per se just like saudi constitution doesn[t make it right there is no hypocrisy, period. Knee-jerk anti-westernism isnt going to save you here. Pffft. Indian constitution just got changed last week. This nonsense needs to be removed as well. Dont appeal to authority on the basis of Indian constutution. Its wrong, PERIOD. Neither should be the case.

Guest, sign in to access all features.