Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, dial_100 said: Few bad apples and you got your whole story wrapped around it. I still maintain my stand. We are most liberals of a lot. It is easy with much homogeneous population to have a liberal facade but that is because they dont have any great traditions and culture to follow. We have 1000s of years of a civilization. Despite being extremely diverse population, we maintain quite liberal tolerant attitude towards each other. We are what we are inside out, unlike pretentious people. "few bad apples" ?? More like 500 years of our civilization eating itself. All material evidence and literary evidence is there. Cholas-Chalukyas warred for 200 years every 10 years with massive armies. Rashtrakuta, Western Chalukyas, Gujjars, Pals - all ate each other for nearly 300 years. When Xuanzong visited India, circa 550s AD, we were technologically at the top of the tree. When Mahmoud of Ghazni invaded 400 years later, our 'vaunted warriors' had wooden stirrups instead of superior iron 'bridge' stirrups. We are the biggest cause of our own demise. Muslims kicked over our dying civilization, but we are the reason for the rot in it. That is an inescapable conclusion of history. Quote This society has worked against so many archaic and bad traditions and maintained the core ethos of our culture. And the ones you are calling liberals are mostly immoral people. what do you they know about traditions. Now I consider myself non-religious but those traditions are always part of my life. I wont renounce my festivals and core beliefs in the name of liberalism. Most liberals in india only take pride in bashing hindus. When it comes to others, they hide in their blankets. I call them coward and immoral people. Now stay on the topic. Its a common misconception that liberal means immoral. Not so. For e.g., most of Scandinavia does not believe in God or Godly morality, yet, their crime levels are the lowest in the western world. Proof, that you do not need God to be moral. There are plenty of Indian liberals, who i find are very moral people, despite being atheists. As per traditions - traditions are made to be broken. A tradition which has outlived its purpose and is demonstrably false, is no longer a tradition, its a social parasite. All social structures - philosophy,tradition, etc. exist for two purposes only: for progress of mankind and to support an objective, empiric reality. Any social structure that violates the said core basis for having a social structure, deserves to be discarded and trashed. Most liberals in India bash hindus, because most liberals in India are commies. Indian liberalism has not figured out yet, that one does not need to be a communist, to trash idiotic traditions written by inferior men, pandering to an inferior philosophy (religion). But we are getting there. To me, moral religious people are of less value (in their morality) than moral irreligious people. because religious people have a REASON to be moral : whether they believe in a karmic reward or heaven/hell, they have a direct incentive (reward) and direct deterrent ( punishment/bad karma) to be moral. What reason does an atheist have to be a moral, good person, to help others ? The only reason is altruism/betterment of the species,with zero personal benefit attached. Hence, i feel exactly the opposite : real, moral people are those who are moral despite not believing in a God and the reward/punishment that comes with God or a Godly system. Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 hours ago, someone said: Religion is under the state, and so state keeps an eye. That is correct. But that doesn't mean states can dictate/control religion, its festivals & customs. That's a Saudi version if you want state to decide on how much or little religion one can display/do. Thats exactly what it means. If religion is 'under' state, then it directly means that if religion and state directly clash, religion loses. How else, is religion 'under' state, if in cases where 'state says no, religion says yes', religion gets to still have its way ?! 2 hours ago, someone said: States keep an eye on religion through the secular constitution, if only something is unconstitutional, they may intervene. Decisions are made through on constitution, not from your insignificant opinions which are completely irrelevant. Here, firecrackers is not unconstitutional so it's a wrong decision and unnecessary interference. Tomorrow, a judge could say meat has health hazards and bans it. Would you support it? No, and it's a similar case here of completely wrongful interference. Object ordanance ban is not specified in the constitution, its a legislative ordinance. Nowhere in the Indian constitution does it ban its citizen from possessing a nuclear weapon. But the state bans you from it, via ordinances. Same can be applied to fire-crackers. You can argue that banning an object (firecraker, meat, etc) is unjust. But it is, by definition, legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: "few bad apples" ?? More like 500 years of our civilization eating itself. All material evidence and literary evidence is there. Cholas-Chalukyas warred for 200 years every 10 years with massive armies. Rashtrakuta, Western Chalukyas, Gujjars, Pals - all ate each other for nearly 300 years. When Xuanzong visited India, circa 550s AD, we were technologically at the top of the tree. When Mahmoud of Ghazni invaded 400 years later, our 'vaunted warriors' had wooden stirrups instead of superior iron 'bridge' stirrups. We are the biggest cause of our own demise. Muslims kicked over our dying civilization, but we are the reason for the rot in it. That is an inescapable conclusion of history. Its a common misconception that liberal means immoral. Not so. For e.g., most of Scandinavia does not believe in God or Godly morality, yet, their crime levels are the lowest in the western world. Proof, that you do not need God to be moral. There are plenty of Indian liberals, who i find are very moral people, despite being atheists. As per traditions - traditions are made to be broken. A tradition which has outlived its purpose and is demonstrably false, is no longer a tradition, its a social parasite. All social structures - philosophy,tradition, etc. exist for two purposes only: for progress of mankind and to support an objective, empiric reality. Any social structure that violates the said core basis for having a social structure, deserves to be discarded and trashed. Most liberals in India bash hindus, because most liberals in India are commies. Indian liberalism has not figured out yet, that one does not need to be a communist, to trash idiotic traditions written by inferior men, pandering to an inferior philosophy (religion). But we are getting there. To me, moral religious people are of less value (in their morality) than moral irreligious people. because religious people have a REASON to be moral : whether they believe in a karmic reward or heaven/hell, they have a direct incentive (reward) and direct deterrent ( punishment/bad karma) to be moral. What reason does an atheist have to be a moral, good person, to help others ? The only reason is altruism/betterment of the species,with zero personal benefit attached. Hence, i feel exactly the opposite : real, moral people are those who are moral despite not believing in a God and the reward/punishment that comes with God or a Godly system. You call someone idiotic and illiterate people and I haven't learnt 1 single thing from you yet, despite you being so educated. You aren't telling me anything that I don't already know. So despite all the mass killing happened say in 500 AD and few centuries there after, I have not known many people who believed in that ideology. Why? Because we Indians are evolved much above even the modern liberals. We have problems, lots of them but still better than the most. According to you only atheist could be liberals and that is a wrong theory or understanding of that word. Even though I am not religious doesn't mean I am atheist. I sit right between religious people and atheist/liberals. For me atheist or liberals are coping out from the fundamental truth and that is a different discussion all together but point is that I can not relate to modern liberals at all but I also clearly see some of archaic belief system of religious people which they are struggling to abjure some obsolete traditions. We must evolve and by that it doesn't mean we completely discard culture and tradition but device way to understand what really is a bad tradition and what is necessary. Unless we have that discerning power, it is impossible to judge if a tradition or religious belief is right or not. With changing world, whats been given to us, its meaning should also change. 1000 years ago we used bullock carts and now we have modern gadgets. So in evolution we must be able to apply those principles and still lead a peaceful life. There is knowledge everywhere and it is very deep. While religious people understand the depth of it but do not know how to evolve and liberals/atheist on the contrary completely discard it as they find it easy. Believing in god is a privilege. You want to believe in a god without putting anything into finding answers for yourself. You say, I will believe when I see it. You wont ever see anything. You have to search for answers. Just by saying that I haven't been to japan so it doesn't exist doesnt work in case of god. You need to buy your own ticket to go to japan. Same way, finding god a journey where you have to buy a ticket which doesn't guarantee you the arrival at the destination. You have to cross all the hurdles. So be happy in your belief system but don't assume that those were illiterate people who gave us enormous wealth of knowledge. They are 1000 times more knowledgeable than people like you and I. They had answers to the questions that some of us are searching, either religious or spiritual people and others like atheist want to deny it outright and live a disconnected life. We are liberals and let you lead your life your way, just stop bothering us. We know what we are doing, hope you do as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, dial_100 said: You call someone idiotic and illiterate people and I haven't learnt 1 single thing from you yet, despite you being so educated. You aren't telling me anything that I don't already know. So despite all the mass killing happened say in 500 AD and few centuries there after, I have not known many people who believed in that ideology. Why? Because we Indians are evolved much above even the modern liberals. We have problems, lots of them but still better than the most. According to you only atheist could be liberals and that is a wrong theory or understanding of that word. Even though I am not religious doesn't mean I am atheist. I sit right between religious people and atheist/liberals. For me atheist or liberals are coping out from the fundamental truth and that is a different discussion all together but point is that I can not relate to modern liberals at all but I also clearly see some of archaic belief system of religious people which they are struggling to abjure some obsolete traditions. We must evolve and by that it doesn't mean we completely discard culture and tradition but device way to understand what really is a bad tradition and what is necessary. Unless we have that discerning power, it is impossible to judge if a tradition or religious belief is right or not. With changing world, whats been given to us, its meaning should also change. 1000 years ago we used bullock carts and now we have modern gadgets. So in evolution we must be able to apply those principles and still lead a peaceful life. There is knowledge everywhere and it is very deep. While religious people understand the depth of it but do not know how to evolve and liberals/atheist on the contrary completely discard it as they find it easy. 1. Why ? because most Indians are ignorant of history, thats why. Most Indians know jack-$hit about Kanauj triangle or Chola-Chalukya ravages. 2. Saying you are more evolved, doesn't make you so. 3. I am not saying only atheist can be liberal. I am saying an atheist liberal has more integrity than a religious liberal, because an atheist liberal is doing it, because its right. A theist does it, because there is risk-reward to their ideology for it. 4. I am yet to meet an atheist, who discards 'knowledge'.What they do discard, is books written by men who knew less of the universe, than grade 8 kids do today, when those books tell us how to live our lives. Do you take life lessons from a 5 year old ? No ? Why ? Because they lack knowledge (not because they are dumb. Nobody follows a super-intelligent 5 year old either). Same applies to those who wrote those religious books. They are ignorant, with knowledge level of today's children. So why should we listen to them ?? Quote Believing in god is a privilege. You want to believe in a god without putting anything into finding answers for yourself. You say, I will believe when I see it. You wont ever see anything. You have to search for answers. Just by saying that I haven't been to japan so it doesn't exist doesnt work in case of god. You need to buy your own ticket to go to japan. Same way, finding god a journey where you have to buy a ticket which doesn't guarantee you the arrival at the destination. You have to cross all the hurdles. So be happy in your belief system but don't assume that those were illiterate people who gave us enormous wealth of knowledge. They are 1000 times more knowledgeable than people like you and I. They had answers to the questions that some of us are searching, either religious or spiritual people and others like atheist want to deny it outright and live a disconnected life. We are liberals and let you lead your life your way, just stop bothering us. We know what we are doing, hope you do as well. 1. I have no need to search for said answers of God. Searching for God is as valid as searching for the Avengers. Are you searching for the avengers ? for Tony Stark ? no ? God has exactly that much relevance to us. God does not interact with me directly- there is nothing about God that comes from outside human source. And its always been used for social control, so i see the need to invent God (social control), but no need for God to actually exist. Either way, 'why we are here' is not an ultimatey relevant question to 'what to do once we are here'. 2. Your analogy assumes there is a God. Atheists are not 'all religions are wrong, true God got a bad rep', atheists are like 'i see no reason to believe in God in the first place'. 3. Yes, it can be empirically proven, that those who wrote the Mahabharata/Ramayana/Koran/Bible knew less of this universe than grade 8 kids do. Grade 8 kids today know the difference between virus and bacteria. They know of Neptune and Pluto. They know of black holes. All of these facts are not known to those with inferior knowledge thousands of years ago, who wrote those books. Valmiki, Mohammed- we are a thousand times more knowledgable than them- Forget religious preachers, any high school graduate with good grades know more than Aryabhatta did. Any grade 12 biology pass knows more than Sushruta ever did. Its not an empty claim, that those of 1000-1500+ years ago, knew less than our children do today. The most knowledgable man 1000 years ago, knew less- about everything- than a 18 year old high-school graduate does with As. It is empirically verifiable. I won't claim to be smarter than Issac Newton. But i know way, way more math than that guy. I knew more than Aryabatta when i was in grade 10. Every kid who got As in GCSE/ICSE/CBSE grade 10 math, knows more math than Aryabhatta ever did. These are all empirically verifiable. So explain to me, why does a man who knows far less about the universe than me, gets to tell me how to live my life in this universe. Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto GoldenSun 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: 1. Why ? because most Indians are ignorant of history, thats why. Most Indians know jack-$hit about Kanauj triangle or Chola-Chalukya ravages. 2. Saying you are more evolved, doesn't make you so. 3. I am not saying only atheist can be liberal. I am saying an atheist liberal has more integrity than a religious liberal, because an atheist liberal is doing it, because its right. A theist does it, because there is risk-reward to their ideology for it. 4. I am yet to meet an atheist, who discards 'knowledge'.What they do discard, is books written by men who knew less of the universe, than grade 8 kids do today, when those books tell us how to live our lives. Do you take life lessons from a 5 year old ? No ? Why ? Because they lack knowledge (not because they are dumb. Nobody follows a super-intelligent 5 year old either). Same applies to those who wrote those religious books. They are ignorant, with knowledge level of today's children. So why should we listen to them ?? 1. I have no need to search for said answers of God. Searching for God is as valid as searching for the Avengers. Are you searching for the avengers ? for Tony Stark ? no ? God has exactly that much relevance to us. God does not interact with me directly- there is nothing about God that comes from outside human source. And its always been used for social control, so i see the need to invent God (social control), but no need for God to actually exist. Either way, 'why we are here' is not an ultimatey relevant question to 'what to do once we are here'. 2. Your analogy assumes there is a God. Atheists are not 'all religions are wrong, true God got a bad rep', atheists are like 'i see no reason to believe in God in the first place'. 3. Yes, it can be empirically proven, that those who wrote the Mahabharata/Ramayana/Koran/Bible knew less of this universe than grade 8 kids do. Grade 8 kids today know the difference between virus and bacteria. They know of Neptune and Pluto. They know of black holes. All of these facts are not known to those with inferior knowledge thousands of years ago, who wrote those books. Valmiki, Mohammed- we are a thousand times more knowledgable than them- Forget religious preachers, any high school graduate with good grades know more than Aryabhatta did. Any grade 12 biology pass knows more than Sushruta ever did. Its not an empty claim, that those of 1000-1500+ years ago, knew less than our children do today. It is empirically verifiable. So explain to me, why does a man who knows far less about the universe than me, gets to tell me how to live my life in this universe. Wow. Where do I begin. There are literally 100s of things wrong in your post. Lots of assumption and bunch of useless information to prove a point that atheist could be more liberal. We are poles apart. But let me try to explain what we both are trying here. We both found a bag where there are 10 different things written. You did not understand 8 of them. The other 2 you understood, you found someway to prove them wrong so you summed up the whole bag is useless and threw it away. I also read through all 10 things and didnt understand different 8 of those but the 2 of those that I did understand, I decided to use them and build on to it know more about the remaining 8. I might as well find the same 2 kind of obsolete as you did. But I am more focusing on the remaining 8 which according to me is a wealth unlike you who think it is trash. Now, your worldly knowledge about black holes or some stupid space theories or some cruel historical figures lived in 500 AD do not charm me in anyway. As human we are equipped to earn that worldly knowledge and boast that we have something special. For someone like me though, being a spiritual person, I want to know the real meaning of life so that I know what to do with it. You want to focus on what you want to do with your life without know the purpose. I get it. You want to decide purpose of your own life. But I find those "Illiterate people" fascinating. Mind you, I know and can very well understand your modern world. But you hardly know anything about mine and by reading 2-3 or may be 1000-2000 books you think you have a knowledge. For me it is all garbage. because having it or not having it doesnt make any difference in my life. I have some of it myself so that I can survive in this modern world but I still search of things that are not taught in the universities or done research on, in laboratories. I am not religious and not atheist either. So I know the meaning of liberal. You havent proven anything to me yet for me to believe that they knew less than 7 graders. You are only measuring it in tangible ways. I get it. It is like science guy boasting that an artist doesnt have a knowledge that of 7 grade kid (in science field). Or an artist is saying that a science guy is a geek and doesnt understand artistic meaning of some literature. What both are missing is that what the other possess. For me neither is superior to the other. Unless you raise your level of discussion, i am tired of arguing with you. You do not accept 1 thing in the argument and keep spinning the wheel over and over. It seems you are habitual argumentator. And I aint getting anything and I am failing to give you anything. Is that fair? And btw, if you think I have unintentionally claimed that I am more evolved than you then that is wrong. peace now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Just now, dial_100 said: Wow. Where do I begin. There are literally 100s of things wrong in your post. Lots of assumption and bunch of useless information to prove a point that atheist could be more liberal. We are poles apart. But let me try to explain what we both are trying here. We both found a bag where there are 10 different things written. You did not understand 8 of them. The other 2 you understood, you found someway to prove them wrong so you summed up the whole bag is useless and threw it away. I also read through all 10 things and didnt understand different 8 of those but the 2 of those that I did understand, I decided to use them and build on to it know more about the remaining 8. I might as well find the same 2 kind of obsolete as you did. But I am more focusing on the remaining 8 which according to me is a wealth unlike you who think it is trash. How is this analogy relevant ? What did i not 'understand' from religious texts ? There aint no math theorem unsolved hanging out there or a logic conundrum that is unknown. Those are books which makes a claim. And supply zero evidence except 'i say so, in this book'. Just now, dial_100 said: Now, your worldly knowledge about black holes or some stupid space theories or some cruel historical figures lived in 500 AD do not charm me in anyway. As human we are equipped to earn that worldly knowledge and boast that we have something special. For someone like me though, being a spiritual person, I want to know the real meaning of life so that I know what to do with it. You want to focus on what you want to do with your life without know the purpose. I get it. You want to decide purpose of your own life. But I find those "Illiterate people" fascinating. Mind you, I know and can very well understand your modern world. But you hardly know anything about mine and by reading 2-3 or may be 1000-2000 books you think you have a knowledge. For me it is all garbage. because having it or not having it doesnt make any difference in my life. I have some of it myself so that I can survive in this modern world but I still search of things that are not taught in the universities or done research on, in laboratories. The 'real meaning of life', rests ultimately, on understanding the phenomenal universe- the facts about universe. Its this worldly knowledge that lets me know, i evolved from a bacteria, not from two magic beings (Adam, Eve, Manu, whatever). Everything we understand of this universe - where it came from (so far), where it may be going, etc. are derived from worldly, empiric knowledge. And those who wrote those books, had far less knowledge of this universe than you or I do. So why do they get to tell me about existence, which is fundamentally a question of universal knowledge and phenomena, when they knew so much less than me on the very same topic ?? Just now, dial_100 said: I am not religious and not atheist either. So I know the meaning of liberal. You havent proven anything to me yet for me to believe that they knew less than 7 graders. You are only measuring it in tangible ways. I get it. It is like science guy boasting that an artist doesnt have a knowledge that of 7 grade kid (in science field). Or an artist is saying that a science guy is a geek and doesnt understand artistic meaning of some literature. What both are missing is that what the other possess. For me neither is superior to the other. Unless you raise your level of discussion, i am tired of arguing with you. You do not accept 1 thing in the argument and keep spinning the wheel over and over. It seems you are habitual argumentator. And I aint getting anything and I am failing to give you anything. Is that fair? And btw, if you think I have unintentionally claimed that I am more evolved than you then that is wrong. peace now. Knowledge is only measured in tangiable ways. If you cannot provide evidence/logical theorem of your knowledge (mathematics for e.g.), then its not knowledge, its belief. Infact, that is the critical difference between fantasy belief system and knowledge - one does not have proof and evidence, other has. This is why 'God' is a matter of belief, but Sun is not. Because we have knowledge about the Sun- belief is not required. And yes, everything i said is true- your writer of Mahabharata did not even know how many moons are around Saturn. or what the heck is a black hole. Or quantum phenomena. Or any such thing. I can easily prove, that a grade 10 math guy with A in math, knew more math than the greatest mathematician (Aryabhatta) 1500 years ago. Just as i can easily prove, that i know more about math and physics than Issac Newton did. I am not claiming you or I are more 'evolved' than our ancestors. Not in the genetic/biological sense. But they were inferior to us in knowledge. That much, is categoric. So why are we letting less knowedgable people than us, tell us what to do with our lives ?? Does that not seem contradictory to you ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandeep Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 On 10/9/2017 at 4:45 AM, Gollum said: I think this order reeks of judicial over reach. This sets a very bad precedent, banning anything in this age is a strict no no for me, be it banning of beef or alcohol or crackers. It is wiser to have strict safeguards and regulations rather than outright banning. For instance the SC could have called for regulatory measures or ordered the ban of certain harmful/toxic chemicals used in crackers that ultimately cause severe air pollution. Besides firecrackers aren't even the main source of air pollution in Delhi this time of the year. http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/nasa-pics-delhi-pollution-smog-in-delhi-punjab-haryana-farmers-burning-crops-delhi-pollution-latest-news/438050/ Paddy stubble burning in neighboring states of Punjab/Haryana coupled with air circulation patterns in NCR cause this intense smog. We can't even blame the farmers here because there is very little time between the rice harvesting(October 2nd week) and wheat sowing(November 1st week). Paddy was never a main crop in those 2 states until the 2000s. It is only in the last 15 odd years that they have started growing wheat and paddy in rotation. Combine harvesters cut the crop well above the ground leaving only the stubble. Farmers then usually have to manually cut the stubble. If it is wheat they generally use the wheat residue as animal feed. On the other hand they don't bother collecting rice stubble because it can't be used as animal fodder (rice straw in those 2 states has high silica content and hence is dangerous for consumption by animals). Hence they simply burn the rice stubble, unwilling to incur high cost and energy on collecting them (can't really blame them tbh). Biomass by processing paddy straw can provide clean and reliable energy. Unlike Karnataka, the northern states don't have many biomass based power generation plants. Paddy straw is an ideal raw material for such plants. I wish the concerned people invest in such paddy stubble based power plants in north India, thus taking care of the annual stubble burning problem and employing many people in the process. They can even look into the possibilities of converting rice stubble to manure through some compost technique. Research should be directed towards how paddy straw can be used in cardboard making or paper making, the possibilities are endless. Leaving all this the SC has taken the cop-out decision of imposing a blanket ban on firecrackers. Diwali is celebrated as much/even more vigorously in Bengaluru, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Chennai (maximum crackers are burst in this city from personal experience) but these cities don't have the same smog problem as Delhi. Can't these judges figure out the reason why? Kejri did the odd-even experiment last year same time but even that didn't solve the air pollution problem. How can it when the main reason for this problem originates in 2 other states and not Delhi. Not just Delhi, even Lahore has the same problem on an annual basis. If Hindus are pissed off with this order, can't really blame them. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: How is this analogy relevant ? What did i not 'understand' from religious texts ? There aint no math theorem unsolved hanging out there or a logic conundrum that is unknown. Those are books which makes a claim. And supply zero evidence except 'i say so, in this book'. Thankfully you accepted something in this post. I appreciate that. Now you are repeating same thing hundred times that they were illiterate people and point you used to prove that is your worldly modern knowledge. You are using a wrong scale to judge what they knew. 11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: How is this analogy relevant ? What did i not 'understand' from religious texts ? There aint no math theorem unsolved hanging out there or a logic conundrum that is unknown. Those are books which makes a claim. And supply zero evidence except 'i say so, in this book'. Knowledge is only measured in tangiable ways. If you cannot provide evidence/logical theorem of your knowledge (mathematics for e.g.), then its not knowledge, its belief. Infact, that is the critical difference between fantasy belief system and knowledge - one does not have proof and evidence, other has. This is why 'God' is a matter of belief, but Sun is not. Because we have knowledge about the Sun- belief is not required. In these above to arguments you clearly said the scale you are using to judge them. Arent you? Now the question is what scale one should use and where to find it. There are 2 ways to go about it, either you search or your discard and say there is no mathematic theorem so I discard it and move forward. But when you move forward, dont claim that it is trash. You were unable to understand it becuase you are either not interested or it is complicated. Whatever it might be. I am sure same thing would happen to me when I were to read a book on say history. I am very poor in history unlike you who is champion. I can certainly say that your worldly knowledge is of no interest to me but I am not denying you having it. But you on the contrary, have no way to prove some books written few 1000 years ago if they were right or wrong if they were right then what exactly they were saying. It doesnt interest you and i think it should end there. You shouldnt debase those personalities and talk in such a condescending way. I dont deny that all that was written is not very easy to digest and understand for common people. So it mostly get misused by either fundamentalist or preachers to misguide others. That part is certainly absolutely wrong. 11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: And yes, everything i said is true- your writer of Mahabharata did not even know how many moons are around Saturn. or what the heck is a black hole. Or quantum phenomena. Or any such thing. I can easily prove, that a grade 10 math guy with A in math, knew more math than the greatest mathematician (Aryabhatta) 1500 years ago. Just as i can easily prove, that i know more about math and physics than Issac Newton did. Alright lets move on. In my world, this is our #1 enemy. "I know, I am greater or I am smarter". In my world we say I am still learning, I still have lot to learn. When i said that we are evolved in my earlier post I didnt literally mean me, myself but we as an indian civilization based on a deeply rooted knowledge we earned. Humbleness is the key to the spirituality. Egoless life. Now my writer of Mahabharata was a Virat himself, Shri Krishna. He was the mighty one. :) Now why would he tell you something that you could already see with your own eyes or could figure out by yourself that there are black holes deep inside the galaxy. He gave you those things that would take ages to understand and could not be easily passed on from 1 to other. The books you read could be finished in 1 day or 1 week. The books I read where even 1 shloka takes whole life to understand then imbibe inside me. Take a simple thing. Like we must discard our ego. Try doing that and you will realize it is extremely difficult for us humans to do but not entirely impossible. So our knowledge is where we imbibe it deep inside while your knowledge could only be perceived even at a superficial level. You might find even me quite stupider in many ways which I am. :) But I prefer to be that because I do not want to waste time in pointless searching. 11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: I am not claiming you or I are more 'evolved' than our ancestors. Not in the genetic/biological sense. But they were inferior to us in knowledge. That much, is categoric. So why are we letting less knowedgable people than us, tell us what to do with our lives ?? Does that not seem contradictory to you ?? Well you have a point there. Actually I personally think that the coming generations in majority (of course including me) are getting more and more stupider. But that just me. I feel my ancestors were lot wiser than me. What you really are discounting is the fact that the baseline that they started at vs you. But thats okay. Its okay if you want to claim that you are lot knowledgeable in mathematics and science than those people but "evolved"? I have a different meaning of that word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 33 minutes ago, dial_100 said: Thankfully you accepted something in this post. I appreciate that. Now you are repeating same thing hundred times that they were illiterate people and point you used to prove that is your worldly modern knowledge. You are using a wrong scale to judge what they knew. How is it a wrong scale, since they too, are men sitting around thinking about what was 'told' to them by their ancestors before writing it down. When Sanjaya is describing the world, he is doing a bloody poor job compared to that of an actual map of the world, for eg. Ergo, he knew less of the world(Valmiki). So why is that a wrong scale ?! 33 minutes ago, dial_100 said: In these above to arguments you clearly said the scale you are using to judge them. Arent you? Now the question is what scale one should use and where to find it. There are 2 ways to go about it, either you search or your discard and say there is no mathematic theorem so I discard it and move forward. But when you move forward, dont claim that it is trash. You were unable to understand it becuase you are either not interested or it is complicated. Whatever it might be. If someone is telling me to live my life a certain way, i would want facts from him/her. Facts about phenomenal universe why so, not just empty claims of 'God told me'. I have no way of knowing if thats a lie or truth, which means, its not a factual observation to begin with. So then we are left with, what they understood of this universe. And they understood a lot less than you or I do. How can people less educated than me, come up with more complicated facts than me ? They can think any fantasy they want- that i won't deny. They can dream all they want about a God story. Doesn't make it fact or real. So what is so 'complicated' to understand in the so-called scriptures, tell me ? Can you quote me a single part of the passage from any scripture, where 'humans today have not understood any of the meaning of the sentence' ? 33 minutes ago, dial_100 said: I am sure same thing would happen to me when I were to read a book on say history. I am very poor in history unlike you who is champion. I can certainly say that your worldly knowledge is of no interest to me but I am not denying you having it. But you on the contrary, have no way to prove some books written few 1000 years ago if they were right or wrong if they were right then what exactly they were saying. It doesnt interest you and i think it should end there. You shouldnt debase those personalities and talk in such a condescending way. I dont deny that all that was written is not very easy to digest and understand for common people. So it mostly get misused by either fundamentalist or preachers to misguide others. That part is certainly absolutely wrong. I have no way of knowing they were saying the truth, if there is no evidence of what they claim. As i said, if i am to 'wait for evidence that they are wrong', then logically, i am left with no alternative but to accept EVERYTHING i hear as true. Because everything, theoretically, can be true, if you do not know the entire universe. Since you do not know what else is in the universe, you must also accept any idea- because that idea can be true in an incomplete set. To say 'i searched, i didnt find any proof anywhere, there is nowhere else to look', is impossible with ANY fantasy claim. To demonstrate, i will say, whatever you say about God, just change the word to 'Superman/Batman/Thanos' and it is just exactly the same idea. Only difference, less people follow it, less rigidly. The reason its not easy to digest, is the same reason almost every religious book is not easy to digest- if it were so easy to digest, the fraud of their claim (that they are saying its God but can present no evidence of utter perfection of anything to demonstrate its from God), will be laid bare. 33 minutes ago, dial_100 said: Alright lets move on. In my world, this is our #1 enemy. "I know, I am greater or I am smarter". In my world we say I am still learning, I still have lot to learn. When i said that we are evolved in my earlier post I didnt literally mean me, myself but we as an indian civilization based on a deeply rooted knowledge we earned. Humbleness is the key to the spirituality. Egoless life. Now my writer of Mahabharata was a Virat himself, Shri Krishna. He was the mighty one. :) Now why would he tell you something that you could already see with your own eyes or could figure out by yourself that there are black holes deep inside the galaxy. He gave you those things that would take ages to understand and could not be easily passed on from 1 to other. The books you read could be finished in 1 day or 1 week. The books I read where even 1 shloka takes whole life to understand then imbibe inside me. Take a simple thing. Like we must discard our ego. Try doing that and you will realize it is extremely difficult for us humans to do but not entirely impossible. So our knowledge is where we imbibe it deep inside while your knowledge could only be perceived even at a superficial level. You might find even me quite stupider in many ways which I am. :) But I prefer to be that because I do not want to waste time in pointless searching. First, Mahabharata is not written by Krishna. Its by Valmiki. He is the source we have. Krishna's hand didn't write the prose. Valmiki's did. Second, why would he tell me- oh i don't know- the best and most obvious way to demonstrate 'knowledge beyond your capability, that still won't make sense' is to show such knowledge. If i wanted to show a primitive amazonian I know way more than him, I'd simply prove it by leaving a math theorem that I know they will eventually crack but not for a thousand years maybe. Thats why. Obvious, implicit proof of divinity, is lacking. But claim is made, all over the place. You want ego-less life, well there are plenty of Buddhist and Jain ego-less monks too out there, who reject all the Gods of hinduism, so God is not necessary for ego-less life, i may add. To not believe in God, is not to be an egotist, that is the classic Abrahamic (Muslim/Jew/Christian) ploy. But as Indians, we should know better than to accuse atheists as egotistic. Because there ARE plenty of Buddhist sects and Jains too (even if they are minority), who still maintain their staunch atheism. 33 minutes ago, dial_100 said: Well you have a point there. Actually I personally think that the coming generations in majority (of course including me) are getting more and more stupider. But that just me. I feel my ancestors were lot wiser than me. What you really are discounting is the fact that the baseline that they started at vs you. But thats okay. Its okay if you want to claim that you are lot knowledgeable in mathematics and science than those people but "evolved"? I have a different meaning of that word. Your ancestors were not a lot wiser, they were a lot less overstimulated than you were. thats the key difference. we are getting smarter and more educated as a species. No question. But with modernity, we are also getting over-stimulated and our entire lives revolve more and more around new, wonderful experiences. Our ancestors were a lot more black and white, because their lives were a lot more black and white. They had to live by a much narrower path or they died. Less secure world, way more disease related deaths, way more war related deaths, way more capital crimes, etc etc. Since you like the Gods so much, let me make an example for you: To compare Valmiki to us, is to actually compare Valmiki to Indra. Like Indra, our average guy today, knows more about everything than Valmiki- including, religion. We have millions and millions of people who have working knowledge of atleast half a dozen religions today, including Hinduism. Like Indra, we understand technology that we cannot explain to Valmiki in 2 minutes, like Indra, we have power and knowledge un-imaginable. But like Indra, we are not perfect and have our own set of 'godly problems' that may just be the end of us. And lastly, of course not- i am not discounting the baseline.Which is why i have taken care to call them people with inferior knowledge/less knowledge than grade 8 kids and not 'stupider, less smart/dumber people'. Because I have no problem accepting that Aryabhatta, the man, was 100 times smarter than me. But i know 1000 times more than him, is my point. Baseline is reality. Fair or unfair, reality is, you know more about this universe, what works and what doesn't, than guys 2000 years ago did. dial_100 and GoldenSun 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) Environment first so a good move. Not only will it reduce smoke levels but also alleviate noise levels for animals, which suffer during such activities However, Fire cracker shows can be allowed at certain selected place where the community can explode them on everyone’s behalf Also a ban on fire crackers during a week will not do much to alleviate pollution. Need to do a lot more including banning heavily polluting (air, water, land) manufacturing plants even if it leads to short term job losses Message should be: Stay poor, hungry or whatever but don’t pollute and mess with the planet for your short term economic gains, pleasure, .... Edited October 11, 2017 by zen Adi_91 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 Now ban in bombay and chattisgarh. BJP can seriously GTFO. I would rather fight an open war against gungadeen empire than be lulled into submission under a compromised Hindu leadership. Gollum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 2 hours ago, surajmal said: Now ban in bombay and chattisgarh. BJP can seriously GTFO. I would rather fight an open war against gungadeen empire than be lulled into submission under a compromised Hindu leadership. Is this BJP though or is this the judiciary ? If its the judiciary, then BJP can't do jack $hit until they control the Rajya Sabha too...much like Kashmir... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 16 hours ago, Muloghonto said: If someone is telling me to live my life a certain way, i would want facts from him/her. Facts about phenomenal universe why so, not just empty claims of 'God told me'. I have no way of knowing if thats a lie or truth, which means, its not a factual observation to begin with. So then we are left with, what they understood of this universe. And they understood a lot less than you or I do. How can people less educated than me, come up with more complicated facts than me ? They can think any fantasy they want- that i won't deny. They can dream all they want about a God story. Doesn't make it fact or real. So what is so 'complicated' to understand in the so-called scriptures, tell me ? Can you quote me a single part of the passage from any scripture, where 'humans today have not understood any of the meaning of the sentence' ? I have no way of knowing they were saying the truth, if there is no evidence of what they claim. As i said, if i am to 'wait for evidence that they are wrong', then logically, i am left with no alternative but to accept EVERYTHING i hear as true. Because everything, theoretically, can be true, if you do not know the entire universe. Since you do not know what else is in the universe, you must also accept any idea- because that idea can be true in an incomplete set. To say 'i searched, i didnt find any proof anywhere, there is nowhere else to look', is impossible with ANY fantasy claim. To demonstrate, i will say, whatever you say about God, just change the word to 'Superman/Batman/Thanos' and it is just exactly the same idea. Only difference, less people follow it, less rigidly. The reason its not easy to digest, is the same reason almost every religious book is not easy to digest- if it were so easy to digest, the fraud of their claim (that they are saying its God but can present no evidence of utter perfection of anything to demonstrate its from God), will be laid bare. First, Mahabharata is not written by Krishna. Its by Valmiki. He is the source we have. Krishna's hand didn't write the prose. Valmiki's did. Second, why would he tell me- oh i don't know- the best and most obvious way to demonstrate 'knowledge beyond your capability, that still won't make sense' is to show such knowledge. If i wanted to show a primitive amazonian I know way more than him, I'd simply prove it by leaving a math theorem that I know they will eventually crack but not for a thousand years maybe. Thats why. Obvious, implicit proof of divinity, is lacking. But claim is made, all over the place. You want ego-less life, well there are plenty of Buddhist and Jain ego-less monks too out there, who reject all the Gods of hinduism, so God is not necessary for ego-less life, i may add. To not believe in God, is not to be an egotist, that is the classic Abrahamic (Muslim/Jew/Christian) ploy. But as Indians, we should know better than to accuse atheists as egotistic. Because there ARE plenty of Buddhist sects and Jains too (even if they are minority), who still maintain their staunch atheism. Your ancestors were not a lot wiser, they were a lot less overstimulated than you were. thats the key difference. we are getting smarter and more educated as a species. No question. But with modernity, we are also getting over-stimulated and our entire lives revolve more and more around new, wonderful experiences. Our ancestors were a lot more black and white, because their lives were a lot more black and white. They had to live by a much narrower path or they died. Less secure world, way more disease related deaths, way more war related deaths, way more capital crimes, etc etc. Since you like the Gods so much, let me make an example for you: To compare Valmiki to us, is to actually compare Valmiki to Indra. Like Indra, our average guy today, knows more about everything than Valmiki- including, religion. We have millions and millions of people who have working knowledge of atleast half a dozen religions today, including Hinduism. Like Indra, we understand technology that we cannot explain to Valmiki in 2 minutes, like Indra, we have power and knowledge un-imaginable. But like Indra, we are not perfect and have our own set of 'godly problems' that may just be the end of us. And lastly, of course not- i am not discounting the baseline.Which is why i have taken care to call them people with inferior knowledge/less knowledge than grade 8 kids and not 'stupider, less smart/dumber people'. Because I have no problem accepting that Aryabhatta, the man, was 100 times smarter than me. But i know 1000 times more than him, is my point. Baseline is reality. Fair or unfair, reality is, you know more about this universe, what works and what doesn't, than guys 2000 years ago did. Nice Post. Most important thing is first equip yourself with a power, discerning power, a divine wisdom if you will, then read the text. I am not saying everything written in these books is right but many many things there are like goldmine. Dont approach with closed mind, try with open mind. Lastly, it has to be done individually. These answers dont come as gifts. You need to work on it. Religions mostly are distorted, almost to the extend that they have become useless. I myself was born in a very religious bramhin family. I gave up all that. Doesnt mean i gave it up to become atheist. One is to make himself equipped with something that will help him/herself in that journey. So I agree that religious texts are vastly distorted but focus should be on the core. So as for above highlighted part. May be i know some things about universe. But neither it is relevant nor it is anything amazing. Modern humans are equipped to gain such kind of knowledge very easily. What is so great about it? But some guys who lived say either 2000 years ago or even in recently times, they had something that I would only dream of getting a .000001% of that. The real quest is to gain that knowledge, not where I learn distance form earth to moon or whether saturn has 2 dozen or 5 dozen moons. Or whether i know some stupid business calculus or not. Again I am speaking this for myself. We as humans have freedom and we should do as we choose to do. Now let us get back to the firecrackers. Sorry folks for digressing the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 I spent last Diwali in India. on the main 2-3 days I was outside enjoying the kids light up firecrackers and I was really happy to see all the jubilance on the streets and sweets. But literally on the 3 rd night my throat completely choked and had a severe throat infection so bad that I had to see doctor. I agree that I spent really long time in states now, nearly 20 years. But as an adult, healthy adult, i couldnt handle the smoke and pollution, leave alone the sound pollution. So best thing is to find a balance, use firecrackers in moderation. Adi_91 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 17 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Is this BJP though or is this the judiciary ? If its the judiciary, then BJP can't do jack $hit until they control the Rajya Sabha too...much like Kashmir... Namo can pass an ordnance tomorrow if he wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 144 imposed in gurgaon. Good effin job Atal Bihari Modi. You win Haryana for the first time and saddle us with a bheegi billi for a CM. Thanks. Luck of this fecking state... back in the hands of real estate mafia in 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 On 10/10/2017 at 6:52 PM, Muloghonto said: How is it a wrong scale, since they too, are men sitting around thinking about what was 'told' to them by their ancestors before writing it down. When Sanjaya is describing the world, he is doing a bloody poor job compared to that of an actual map of the world, for eg. Ergo, he knew less of the world(Valmiki). So why is that a wrong scale ?! If someone is telling me to live my life a certain way, i would want facts from him/her. Facts about phenomenal universe why so, not just empty claims of 'God told me'. I have no way of knowing if thats a lie or truth, which means, its not a factual observation to begin with. So then we are left with, what they understood of this universe. And they understood a lot less than you or I do. How can people less educated than me, come up with more complicated facts than me ? They can think any fantasy they want- that i won't deny. They can dream all they want about a God story. Doesn't make it fact or real. So what is so 'complicated' to understand in the so-called scriptures, tell me ? Can you quote me a single part of the passage from any scripture, where 'humans today have not understood any of the meaning of the sentence' ? I have no way of knowing they were saying the truth, if there is no evidence of what they claim. As i said, if i am to 'wait for evidence that they are wrong', then logically, i am left with no alternative but to accept EVERYTHING i hear as true. Because everything, theoretically, can be true, if you do not know the entire universe. Since you do not know what else is in the universe, you must also accept any idea- because that idea can be true in an incomplete set. To say 'i searched, i didnt find any proof anywhere, there is nowhere else to look', is impossible with ANY fantasy claim. To demonstrate, i will say, whatever you say about God, just change the word to 'Superman/Batman/Thanos' and it is just exactly the same idea. Only difference, less people follow it, less rigidly. The reason its not easy to digest, is the same reason almost every religious book is not easy to digest- if it were so easy to digest, the fraud of their claim (that they are saying its God but can present no evidence of utter perfection of anything to demonstrate its from God), will be laid bare. First, Mahabharata is not written by Krishna. Its by Valmiki. He is the source we have. Krishna's hand didn't write the prose. Valmiki's did. Second, why would he tell me- oh i don't know- the best and most obvious way to demonstrate 'knowledge beyond your capability, that still won't make sense' is to show such knowledge. If i wanted to show a primitive amazonian I know way more than him, I'd simply prove it by leaving a math theorem that I know they will eventually crack but not for a thousand years maybe. Thats why. Obvious, implicit proof of divinity, is lacking. But claim is made, all over the place. You want ego-less life, well there are plenty of Buddhist and Jain ego-less monks too out there, who reject all the Gods of hinduism, so God is not necessary for ego-less life, i may add. To not believe in God, is not to be an egotist, that is the classic Abrahamic (Muslim/Jew/Christian) ploy. But as Indians, we should know better than to accuse atheists as egotistic. Because there ARE plenty of Buddhist sects and Jains too (even if they are minority), who still maintain their staunch atheism. Your ancestors were not a lot wiser, they were a lot less overstimulated than you were. thats the key difference. we are getting smarter and more educated as a species. No question. But with modernity, we are also getting over-stimulated and our entire lives revolve more and more around new, wonderful experiences. Our ancestors were a lot more black and white, because their lives were a lot more black and white. They had to live by a much narrower path or they died. Less secure world, way more disease related deaths, way more war related deaths, way more capital crimes, etc etc. Since you like the Gods so much, let me make an example for you: To compare Valmiki to us, is to actually compare Valmiki to Indra. Like Indra, our average guy today, knows more about everything than Valmiki- including, religion. We have millions and millions of people who have working knowledge of atleast half a dozen religions today, including Hinduism. Like Indra, we understand technology that we cannot explain to Valmiki in 2 minutes, like Indra, we have power and knowledge un-imaginable. But like Indra, we are not perfect and have our own set of 'godly problems' that may just be the end of us. And lastly, of course not- i am not discounting the baseline.Which is why i have taken care to call them people with inferior knowledge/less knowledge than grade 8 kids and not 'stupider, less smart/dumber people'. Because I have no problem accepting that Aryabhatta, the man, was 100 times smarter than me. But i know 1000 times more than him, is my point. Baseline is reality. Fair or unfair, reality is, you know more about this universe, what works and what doesn't, than guys 2000 years ago did. Valmiki wrote Ramayana. Mahabharata is written by Maharshi Vyasa muni (The belief is that it was narrated by Vyasa and Lord Ganesha penned it) Muloghonto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 It is a pretty stupid ban. The ban is on sale in ncr. People who want crackers can just get them from neighboring cities like meerut or rohtak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Yuvraj Singh Appealed For Cracker-Free Diwali. Twitter Responded With This Pic https://amp.sports.ndtv.com/cricket/yuvraj-singh-appealed-for-cracker-free-diwali-twitter-responded-with-this-pic-1763131?akamai-rum=off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Wonder where is secularist and Intolerance people when Hindus are being attacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts