The philosophy thread

[King]

Sorry but that is total cr@p :tounge_smile: Zero evidence of that.

I can only say this, you haven't seen enough in your life. You will realize that over the years :wink_smile: The problem with humans is the "I know it all" attitude. Unfortunately so far humans know nothing. Landing on the moon was considered an achievement and with an achievement like that comes needless arrogance. Guess what, there are over 50 billion galaxies like ours. Earth is like a fish in the Indian Ocean. The best possible place for you to start knowing a bit more about ourselves is to take a peek at the hubble photos. It will give you an idea how small we are. IMO we haven't seen anything. To see anything the first thing an individual need to do is shred off the ego and know all attitude.

[King]

Not really' date=' Ravi. Einstein's work was an extension of Newton's and what Newton said still holds for the limits in which he formulated his work. Modern attempts like String Theory are trying to extend Einstein's work into the realms of very small distances, that doesn't mean they will prove Einstein's or Newton's works wrong. They are aiming to extend their works into frameworks where they are not applicable.[/quote'] Shwetabh, it was only a saying. Science contradicts itself over the time. Flat earth was believed long enough till one found it is not flat. That surely is disproving. Also Einstein's theory of relativity has been questioned too. No way can we simply take scientist's theories by face value. Science whether you like it or not is based a lot on theories. String theory you speak of has no hard evidence either. Now till the time it is proven don't you think it will remain only a theory?

[Gaurav]

Ravi no one is saying that science has complete answer. Scientists appreciate Hubble photos more than anyone. The fact that science corrects itself once it discovers new facts shows that it is the way forward. It's religion that acts like "know it all" and provides pseudo answers. Sorry but you have got it wrong way around.

[King]

If Science has no complete answer then how can you claim it is any better? I'm not saying all that religion says is right either. All I'm saying is there is no complete truth in both religion and science. Both have some fair bit of truth and to just pooh pooh it for the sake of it is not right. Science just doesn't accept reincarnation. There have been cases where you cannot disprove it but science says there is no proof to it. Now that is truly arrogance. If you can't disprove something that doesn't mean you cannot approve it. I believe there are so many mysteries out there we don't have an answer to it. Take for instance Einstein. He was a super being. Surely he had way better IQ than just a normal being. He specialized in science and succeeded. You will no sure commend him for the work. Now let's take someone like Buddha. He also was a super being way better than an average human. Now what stops you from appreciating the effort he put in philosophy? Why can't you acknowledge him? Just because you can't understand his way of life is that right? Again are you able to understand Einstein's string theory? No you cannot but you are happy to believe another physicist that says it was a marvelous way to figure out the way of our universe.

[Anakin]

Is it ever possible to have "complete" knowledge? Religions are right about what exactly?

[Gaurav]

If Science has no complete answer then how can you claim it is any better? I'm not saying all that religion says is right either. All I'm saying is there is no complete truth in both religion and science.

Science is better because it can show clear proof. Let's take evolution for example. We have fossil proof that backs evolution. Religion provides ZERO proof for anything! God created Earth in 6 days and then rested on the seventh day? Pleazzze! Stuff like that is wishful thinking! A supreme egomaniac being that needs his knob polished all the f@king time sounds like an insecure lady boy. A system that self corrects based on new evidence + re-confirms already confirmed stuff on additional new information is surely better than a rigid system that says "my way or the highway" :devil_smile: If religious books are manuals from God then how come they are full of basic elementary mistakes? If some parts of the religious books got corrupted by humans with passage of time then how the hell do you know which parts are real and which parts are man made? Surely god must be aware of this problem? How come he is not sending a revised manual?

Science just doesn't accept reincarnation. There have been cases where you cannot disprove it but science says there is no proof to it.

Sorry Ravi but that is typical wishful desi thinking. If reincarnation was true like you believe then it would have been a piece of cake to prove it...6 billion people on earth and so many more billions dead. There has been ZERO documented scientific evidence to back such bogus claims. Prove it and science will gladly accept it...that is the beauty of science. It self corrects based on FACTS! Some video of an unknown kid going to some house and saying he knows xyz can be fraud. Anyone who has been to India knows how many religious fraudsters there are in India :hysterical: Folks in India jump on all kinds of religious backwas. Statues drinking milk would have been passed as another miracle had it been not for the fact that science re-created it without any problem :hysterical: Once I saw a 5 legged abnormal cow and it was being paraded as a cow that blesses infertile couples with a boy. Should have seen how many people were collecting the cow piss and stuff. Andhwishwas ki bhi hadh hoti hai :cantstop:

Take for instance Einstein. He was a super being. Surely he had way better IQ than just a normal being. He specialized in science and succeeded. You will no sure commend him for the work. Now let's take someone like Buddha. He also was a super being way better than an average human. Now what stops you from appreciating the effort he put in philosophy? Why can't you acknowledge him? Just because you can't understand his way of life is that right? Again are you able to understand Einstein's string theory? No you cannot but you are happy to believe another physicist that says it was a marvelous way to figure out the way of our universe.

See I am not living my life based on Einstein's theories. Religious people on the other hand are living their lives based on pseudo god theories. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE! Ravi take Islam, Christianity, Judaism for example and read the stuff contained in their books and you truly will laugh your head off! The amount of hatred contained in these books is shocking! I would never EVER accept such a hate filled egomaniac creature! Take our own Hindu followers. Beta meat khalo magar beef mate khana. WTF? So eating other animals is ok but only cow should be spared? What kind of silly logic is that? Ok I am out. Don't make ma ban you Ravi :hysterical::wink_smile:

[Anakin]

GKD, agree with you on most points, but sometimes you have to consider few other factors. The reason for forbidding cow is very simple, it was an agricultural society, even now it is on a lesser extent. So killing cows would be quite stupid when they were necessary for the farmers.

[Gaurav]

GKD' date=' agree with you on most points, but sometimes you have to consider few other factors. The reason for forbidding cow is very simple, it was an agricultural society, even now it is on a lesser extent. So killing cows would be quite stupid when they were necessary for the farmers.[/quote'] Yes but that has nothing to do with God. That is the point that I am trying to make. As a hardcore vegetarian I am all for animal welfare and protection from cruelty. Surely an infidel like me who chooses not to kill animals because of compassion/ kindness needs to be applauded compared to a selfish religious idiot who cuts off an animals neck slowly and painfully using the excuse that it's ok if he takes gods name while doing so?:thumbs_down:

[Anakin]

Yes but that has nothing to do with God. That is the point that I am trying to make. As a hardcore vegetarian I am all for animal welfare and protection from cruelty. Surely an infidel like me who chooses not to kill animals because of compassion/ kindness needs to be applauded compared to a selfish religious idiot who cuts off an animals neck slowly and painfully using the excuse that it's ok if he takes gods name while doing so?:thumbs_down:

As ironic as it sounds, they really believe that's the most humane way to kill. Try even the "educated" ones and they'll say the same with more conviction. Some govt organization in USA tried to make that point, but couldn't do much obviously because it'd piss off the jews and "peaceful" ones.

[King]

Science is better because it can show clear proof. Let's take evolution for example. We have fossil proof that backs evolution.

You believed it just because a scientist claimed so? Did you find a fossil yourself and check it? Your source and proof here again is a human being. Similarly with religion too. The scholars that have practiced and experienced are not dumb heads. Just because it is not on discovery channel or google or because you don't know head or tail about it doesn't make it proof less. The problem here is you put different yard stick for science and religion. The date of fossil is yet again certified by a "HUMAN BEING". Again the dates are based on a formula put together by another human being. The national geography or discovery plays this over and over again then you start believing everything that they say. They are humans too and they keep contradicting too, then why do you believe it?

A system that self corrects based on new evidence + re-confirms already confirmed stuff on additional new information is surely better than a rigid system that says "my way or the highway" If religious books are manuals from God then how come they are full of basic elementary mistakes? If some parts of the religious books got corrupted by humans with passage of time then how the hell do you know which parts are real and which parts are man made? Surely god must be aware of this problem? How come he is not sending a revised manual?

You are so unsure when you say "elf corrects based on new evidence + re-confirms already confirmed stuff". In other words you are happy to believe it despite its flaws. The problem with ya is your very little understanding of a religion. No one stupidly follows every word in a religious text. Just like Science there are pointers in religions too. Unfortunately there are a lot of greedy ones that abuse it just like the way science is abused. I haven't seen you stop believing science completely just because it has been abused by some greedy ones.

Sorry Ravi but that is typical wishful desi thinking. If reincarnation was true like you believe then it would have been a piece of cake to prove it...

Describe wishful desi thinking for me, thanks. Secondly you tell me what kind of proof do you accept? Thirdly how much have you found about this subject. We can then discuss it otherwise it is futile. For a start find out a bit about Dr. Ian Stevenson. You will see a lot of proof provided by this man. He is a pioneer in this research. If you can believe one of the other scientist that tells ya the fossil belongs to 3 billion years ago I don't see any reason how a qualified professional like Dr. Ian Stevenson that put in his life time into this research cannot be believed.

See I am not living my life based on Einstein's theories. Religious people on the other hand are living their lives based on pseudo god theories. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE!

Believing religion doesn't mean people live every second of theirs based on religious scholars recommendations. There are certain theories that are observed just like you follow some of Einstein's theories.

Ravi take Islam, Christianity, Judaism for example and read the stuff contained in their books and you truly will laugh your head off! The amount of hatred contained in these books is shocking! I would never EVER accept such a hate filled egomaniac creature! Take our own Hindu followers. Beta meat khalo magar beef mate khana. WTF? So eating other animals is ok but only cow should be spared? What kind of silly logic is that?

Those again are theories and unless you practice it you wouldn't know would you? I accept there is a lot of bull **** in those texts but that doesn't mean there isn't anything right in religions. Just like to take science with a little perspective you take religion too. Religions have a lot of valid things too and there is a way of life surrounding that. Unfortunately you don't want to see it just because there is some unbelievable stuff or something that is not in your purview in it. I need to head somewhere so can't elaborate any further but will do when I have some time. BTW don't ban me, I want to be able to fix you when I come back :cantstop:

[Anakin]

Ravi bhai, the good thing about science is that one scientist just can't claim something and everyone won't just believe him. That's why sooner or later the scammers get caught in science unlike in religion, where it seems like the blind adulation increases over time. Anyways, if you want to test the fossils yourself, you can do it too, it's all open source, not some mystical message coming in a cave or something.

[Anakin]

LOL, you doubt dating of fossils but are fine with "some" parts of religion with absolutely 0 evidence. Yeah, we do apply different yardsticks for those.

[CC1981]

I think what Ravi is trying to say is that while Religion is not end-all-be-all, neither is science. Not to say that science isnt the way forward but i think the fundamental point is, even what we accept as scientifically infallible, can ultimately be false. That, i can say is a pretty enlightened view and which has been noted by philosophers (both in ancient India as well as post reneissance Europe) as one of the flaws with science - ultimately science too, involves interpreting data and any data interpretation is ultimately related to conciousness or the nature of it. Ie, ultimately, what we consider science may be a subjective viewpoint too. It is a position that most scientists/science-nuts instinctively balk at, I too did, before i educated myself in some basic philosophy and i must say, they do have a point. This is what i was illustrating with my big-bang contention but i don't think i am making much headway in that either. Oh well. I guess i have to learn how to express myself better.

[King]

I think CC has touched some of the things that I wanted to say. Anakin, GKD I may have puzzled you guys with my perspective of religion. I don't believe in individual religions if that is what you guys reckon I'm saying. It is possible I may have expressed myself quite wrongly. I'm not a believer in a particular religion say Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism et al either but do believe in philosophy and world above our mundane stuff we are involved in our daily lives. There certainly are things after death as has been experienced by a lot of learned men like Buddha, Christ and the rest. They were able to rise above the rest. I do not believe in Adam and Eve but I do believe in great men that are above the rest. They experienced stuff that you and I haven't. They were not adept like the current scientists to file a thesis on their findings about life beyond mundane. Whatever they learnt, they passed it over to their disciples but down the lane it was diluted and people started to interpret that wrongly. I do hate the ones that impose religion or give a belief system based on terror and sabotage. I do believe in almighty and have no shame in accepting that. That is where our differences lie. You reckon there is nothing beyond what us folks have understood so far. I think there are a lot of things beyond us but we haven’t tried enough to understand it as we are engulfed in the mundane stuff on a daily basis. There surely is a way to life and each one of us is living by it. BTW where does your morality and ethics have come from? It just didn’t develop out of nothing otherwise don’t you think humans will have been revealing in hunting each other till date? Why do you detest stealing? Science doesn’t touch this subject at all but you know it isn’t right. Why do you reckon it is wrong? Why do you feel sympathy for a fellow being? I’m sure science didn’t teach you this. Ever wondered where did you pick these rights and wrongs from? You are leading a life prescribed by some men that have figured out the rightful way of living. That is the truth. Just that you do it sub consciously and have been attuned to it right from your birth. These rights and wrongs have been imbibed into humans with the evolution. Why have some great warriors of the past put the arms down and embraced the life of non violence. Have you ever thought in these lines? What are rights and what are wrongs? Yesterday’s wrong is today’s right and vice versa. As does science evolve human philosophy, morale and ethics does too. This is the way of life in which I believe. A perfectly healthy human dies and the doctors cannot figure out why the perfectly healthy being’s heart just stopped functioning. Has science any answers to these? There is more life than just gadgets mate. We will all figure this out when our lives wane out slowly. As the famous saying goes “Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don’t know. “ Philosophy, way of living, conduct, morale, ethics are as much part of the life as is science.

[King]

LOL' date=' you doubt dating of fossils but are fine with "some" parts of religion with absolutely 0 evidence. Yeah, we do apply different yardsticks for those.[/quote'] I don't quite understand what you are saying. When did I say I'm doubting fossil study? I said fossil study is something you guys are happy to quote but the fossil study is based on a lot of theories too. You are happy to believe in those theories but why not say believe what Buddha or Christ experienced? Is it because the Fossil study has been accepted by few more scientists? I'm happy to believe in fossil study as I believe in what say Buddha or Christ figured out about life, I'm in no delusions IMO.

[gorah_pindu]

Ravi - im not sure what religion you follow, but there is no need to subscribe to the very poor arguments of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists about fossils dating back to the great flood of Noah. Occam's Razor - either god forged several million years of evidence just to trick people (unlikely) or that evidence is real (much more likely). Thats where most of the scientific critisism originates - because Hinduism and Buddhism dont perticularily need to reconsile any creation myth with science - Manu's legend can just be taken as metaphor.

[King]

Ravi - im not sure what religion you follow, but there is no need to subscribe to the very poor arguments of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists about fossils dating back to the great flood of Noah. Occam's Razor - either god forged several million years of evidence just to trick people (unlikely) or that evidence is real (much more likely). Thats where most of the scientific critisism originates - because Hinduism and Buddhism dont perticularily need to reconsile any creation myth with science - Manu's legend can just be taken as metaphor.

Clearly I mentioned I wouldn't go with Adam and Eve, Noah's arc but that wouldn't stop me to believing there have been people that raised beyond the mundane stuff. You are right certain religions do use science such as fossil findings to prove their religions, I don't buy into that. I'm a Hindu by birth but I have never really been forced to follow Hinduism.

[gorah_pindu]

I was born to Christians and not forced into that. Later became more interested in Hinduism. But ive essentially been an agnostic my entire life. Im Anglo-Indian incase you are wondering - not that I really believe in 'culture' or anything - I might as well be African, because we are all the same.

[Anakin]

I don't quite understand what you are saying. When did I say I'm doubting fossil study? I said fossil study is something you guys are happy to quote but the fossil study is based on a lot of theories too. You are happy to believe in those theories but why not say believe what Buddha or Christ experienced? Is it because the Fossil study has been accepted by few more scientists? I'm happy to believe in fossil study as I believe in what say Buddha or Christ figured out about life, I'm in no delusions IMO.

See there is the problem. Yes it's based on theories, but they have been more than double checked by many and calibrated many times too. And no, science has no problem with what buddha or jesus (if he indeed existed) or many more hindu yogis experienced. In fact, the fact that yoga or meditation can alter our minds and body is quite accepted and may be in the future we'll know exactly why. But see that's not exactly religion now is it? Human mind is still a huge mystery to everyone, it's not like religion has found out everything about it.

[Gaurav]

I find it really sad that someone like CC looses his marbles when it comes to religion :wink_smile:

I said fossil study is something you guys are happy to quote but the fossil study is based on a lot of theories too. You are happy to believe in those theories but why not say believe what Buddha or Christ experienced? Is it because the Fossil study has been accepted by few more scientists?

No it's because I have seen fossils and seen the info that supports evolution. What have you seen that supports the existence of God? The bottom line is that I am not living my life based on evolutionary text. Religious folks are living their life based on their text. Human history proves that religion is up to no good. Btw how the hell do you know what Buddha or Christ experienced? What is the proof that God exists? I experience enough stuff when on drugs. Do those experiences make it real?

I'm happy to believe in fossil study as I believe in what say Buddha or Christ figured out about life, I'm in no delusions IMO.

Sorry they figured out absolutely NOTHING in terms of the stuff we are talking about. I don't think what I am saying is making any impact on you guys. You are trying to compare completely illogical stuff like religion which has ZERO evidence to back it's EXTRAORDINARY claims with something like science that is backed with 100 times more physical/empirical evidence than anything religion has EVER offered! Science corrects it's mistakes based on facts while religion is rigid and stagnant in it's hate filled pool of pus :hysterical: Carl Sagan- You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. Ok I am out of thsi thread Ravi....no hard feelings mate :giggle::camera: