India is about to spend a ridiculous $530 million on a statue in the middle of the Arabian sea

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, zen said:

Note that there is nothing wrong with performing Poojas if those participating in it prefer to do so. God is looked upon as the father figure .... Now if you are stressed out, it is likely that you would speak to an elder. Even if the elder does not do anything, talking to him gives you relief and may be even confidence to take on the challenge as you may feel that someone is there to watch your back. And that renewed confidence could help you to overcome your stress (the situation that put you in stress) .... And if you are doing a massive puja, chances are that poor are getting fed too 

I disagree.There is nothing wrong with Puja on the surface. But it promotes the mindset of divine causality, that results are out of one's own hands and rest on the pleasure/displeasure of divine beings and is altogether anti-progress. 

It is no coincidence that the biggest explosion of discoveries in the ancient world came in the classical Greek era, when they started to follow Solon's philosophy of 'look for reasons within phenomena, not at Gods'. Or in Indian history it comes in the 500s BC-600s CE era, when multiple philosophies/religions competed with each other and empires patronized all of them. The rise of Bhakti movement lead to less diversity in religion, promoted 'Uber-religious mentality' and guess what ? for the 400 year period between rise of Bhakti movement & Islamic conquests of India, Indian innovation, discoveries, etc. amounted to next to nothing compared to the centuries before. 

 

Or take Islam for that matter- Islamic 'golden age' came when they conquered Persia, were exposed to the eastern (Indian & Chinese) discoveries and their Khalifs were open to foreign influence. But few centuries after rise of Islam, that window closed, Islam became more and more devotion-based and progress again ground to a halt.  Not many know this, but while many know of famed muslim physician Ibn Sina, it was Khalid Ibn Barmak, the son of the Kushan-shahi governors of Balkh ( Barmak is arabic transliteration of Pramukh) brought and translated many Indian medical journals in Persian & Arabic. 

Or look at western Europe vs Eastern Europe. They are all in the same boat till ultra-religious dogma declined and age of reneissance came in. 

 

Religion makes you look for answers in the afterlife or blindly please an unproven, unseen, non-interactive entity (God/Gods) instead of looking at the phenomenal universe to try and solve your problems. Societies that look to religion, give up progress in this phenomenal universe, for promises they can't verify.

 

[Tibarn]

On 1/9/2017 at 1:20 PM, Muloghonto said:

I am simply saying how historians see history. When we see stelae of Egyptian kings and Assyrian emperors, they don't go 'hmm, who knows if it was implemented or not', they see it as 'if it didn't happen and is just a crock of lies, why didn't people deface it over the years ?'.

If you start questioning archaeological evidence, then whole history falls apart. Jews were not massacred & deported by the Assyrians then, Egyptian kings didnt build the pyramids - they just 'claimed glory for it',  etc etc.

See how slippery that slope is ?

 

Feku saala provide a source where anyone completely discredited any of the Ashokavandana, Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa. You're pulling stuff out of your a** again. Show some historians or GTFO 

 

The only person who discredits any of the three is a Buddhist fundoo like you. Trained historians use these sources and some Odd day Atheist/Even day Buddhist fundoo thinks he's qualified to discredit them. 

 

Provide a source. 

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/prospective-undergrads/virtual-classroom/historical-sources-what

Even undergrads know you are vomiting nonsense. 

Quote

Any leftover of the past can be considered a source. It might well be a document, and we often think of history as a textual discipline, based on the interpretation of written texts, but it might also be a building, a piece of art or an ephemeral object – a train ticket, say, or perhaps a pair of shoes. These are all 'sources' because they all provide us in different ways with information which can add to the sum of our knowledge of the past. Sources only become historical evidence, however, when they are interpreted by the historian to make sense of the past. The answers they provide will very much depend on the sorts of questions historians are asking. For example, a train ticket might be used to provide evidence of migration patterns or of the cost of living at a particular time, but also of broader cultural trends: for many years, for example, it was the practice to print a 'W' on a woman's ticket (this was when stations had women-only waiting rooms and trains had women-only carriages). As for a pair of shoes, it might provide the cultural historian with evidence of changing fashions and consumer tastes, or the social historian with evidence of class differences or production patterns. It all depends on what the historian wants to know. This is why it makes little sense to ask if something is 'good historical evidence', without knowing what evidence it's supposed to provide.

 

 

Also show a source where archaeology is supposed to be blindly followed. Ch*tiya making up rules as he goes. Comparing Ashoka's rock edicts to the pyramids is Lahori logic from the Anglo-Bangladeshi. The pyramids are used as evidence of a structure that clearly exists. It doesn't mean everything written on the pyramids are true. Otherwise a rational person would have to take the Egyptian gods interacting with humans as a truth. There are also the archaeological ten commandments which say that God spoke to Moses, and yet, according to the great empiricist, we are supposed to take that as valid and factual.  The rock edicts, by themselves, only prove that someone named Priyadasi/Ashoka made a couple of sets of rules, engraved them in rocks, and put them in numerous places across his kingdom,  not that any of that happened.  

 

The self-described Canadian Software Engineer, whose Master's degree is in Engineering, yet thinks WebMd is a "scientific source" is making up rules of historical discourse. I hope no one is actually taking this line of argument seriously.     

 

Once I have more time later this weekend, I will respond to the rest of your shit posts, but right now this should be enough to occupy you, Gappu. 

6 hours ago, zen said:

That is a surprising comment. Appears as if Sen forgot about the likes of Chandragupta who actually founded the Mauryan empire

It doesn't surprise me, honestly. If you are familiar with the director Ashok Pandit, his family were exiled Kashmiri Pandits, and he was making a film about the Kashmir Exodus. He was casting actors, and contacted Amartya's daughter who is an actress, I think her name was Nandana Sen. He made her drop the film after agreeing to do it. This is all directly from the mouth of Pandit.

 

If one reads the article by Sanjeev Sanyal in Swarajya, he argues that the glorification of Ashoka, is an attempt to find someone in history who shared Nehru's idea of how to run a country, particularly in regards to size of government and his love of Socialism. I'll link the article below for anyone who didn't read it earlier. This is why they also whitewash his crimes in standard history books as well. I can argue similar for Akbar, but that is for a different thread, I suppose. 

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/ashoka-the-not-so-great

 

The interesting part is that Ashoka, as Sanyal argues, completely shifted away from Chandragupta's policies in regards to following Chanakya's Arthashastra. 

 

18 hours ago, surajmal said:

@Tibarn, You have some stamina. Radish was outed as an uberbong sometime ago. Don't take him seriously. Trolls are to be trolled with, not reasoned.

I know, unfortunately I've dealt with him ~8 times before. At first he seemed like a normal person someone could disagree with and have constructive discussions with,  eventually he got pissed off and started personally attacking me. Now I take pleasure in trolling him for his lack of sources, his passing off his opinions as fact,  and abusing him back. I don't take anything he says seriously, so I just do this for fun.      

   

[Muloghonto]

54 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Feku saala provide a source where anyone completely discredited any of the Ashokavandana, Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa. You're pulling stuff out of your a** again. Show some historians or GTFO 

 

The only person who discredits any of the three is a Buddhist fundoo like you. Trained historians use these sources and some Odd day Atheist/Even day Buddhist fundoo thinks he's qualified to discredit them. 

Learn to read :

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=slVobUjdzGMC&pg=RA1-PA99&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=9jb364g4BvoC&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

These links have already been provided before and had you bothered to read them, you'd see Historians TODAY discrediting Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, etc. as historical sources.

 

Quote

The pyramids are used as evidence of a structure that clearly exists.

The pyramids have writings in them, saying which king built them. So if we can question ashokan inscriptions as 'propaganda, he didnt do any of it, just claimed so', we can then say the same for pyramids 'those kings didnt build it, just claimed credit for it'.

 

Quote

Comparing Ashoka's rock edicts to the pyramids is Lahori logic from the Anglo-Bangladeshi.

Whatever, Sindhi-mussalman pretending to be Gujju.

 

Quote

If one reads the article by Sanjeev Sanyal in Swarajya

Except Sanyal is not a historian, he is an economist.

 

 

Quote

 

The interesting part is that Ashoka, as Sanyal argues, completely shifted away from Chandragupta's policies in regards to following Chanakya's Arthashastra. 

Err no.

The fundamental policy of the Arthashastra is the ruler is the nexus that ties EVERYTHING together- social policy, administrative policy, war policy, taxation, etc. and Ashoka, by all accounts, was a prodigiously involved monarch, even to his late age. 

The problem was Arthashastra itself - it doesnt seek to create institutions that'd churn out administrators or tax collectors or planners, like the Chinese did (thus even though in Chinese empires, emperor weilded absolute authority, it didnt require direct oversight of the Emperor to get anything done. It did however, in India) nor did it seek to divest powers in multiple sources ala Roman Senate.

 

In effect, it was a book that, as an administrative manual, is ill-suited to running a vast empire. And that is why the Magadhi Empire fell- not just the Maurya dynasty, but also the Shunga dynasty : too much work for one man to do effectively.  

As i said, read the Arthashastra. It boggles the mind what its recommendations of a 'worthy Emperor' is. 

Here is an excerpt: 

Quote

He shall divide both the day and the night into eight nálikas (11⁄2 hours), or according to the length of the shadow (cast by a gnomon standing in the sun): the shadow of three purushás (36 angulás or inches), of one purushá (12 inches), of four angulás (4 inches), and absence of shadow denoting midday are the four one-eighth divisions of the forenoon; like divisions (in the reverse order) in the afternoon.

Of these divisions, during the first one-eighth part of the day, he shall post watchmen and attend to the accounts of receipts and expenditure; during the second part, he shall look to the affairs of both citizens and country people; during the third, he shall not only bathe and dine, but also study; during the fourth, he shall not only receive revenue in gold (hiranya), but also attend to the appointments of superintendents; during the fifth, he shall correspond in writs (patrasampreshanena) with the assembly of his ministers, and receive the secret information gathered by his spies; during the sixth, he may engage himself in his favourite amusements or in self-deliberation; during the seventh, he shall superintend elephants, horses, chariots, and infantry, and during the eighth part, he shall consider various plans of military operations with his commander-in-chief.

At the close of the day, he shall observe the evening prayer (sandhya).

During the first one-eighth part of the night, he shall receive secret emissaries; during the second, he shall attend to bathing and supper and study; during the third, he shall enter the bed-chamber amid the sound of trumpets and enjoy sleep during the fourth and fifth parts; having been awakened by the sound of trumpets during the sixth part, he shall recall to his mind the injunctions of sciences as well as the day's duties; during the seventh, he shall sit considering administrative measures and send out spies; and during the eighth division of the night, he shall receive benedictions from sacrificial priests, teachers, and the high priest, and having seen his physician, chief cook and astrologer, and having saluted both a cow with its calf and a bull by circumambulating round them, he shall get into his court. 

 

So according to Chanakya, you are to divide your day & night into 16 1.5 hour periods, recommended sleep is 3 hours/night, with a leeway of an extra 1.5 hour ( third part of the night) and 1.5 hours/day ( sixth part of the day) is for personal amusement. 

Its no wonder that big, centralized Empires in India died more than 2000 years ago,with the demise of the Magadha Empire (Kanva was their last dynasty of centralized power) and India had to resort to feudal confederations with their never-ending wars & instability it brings with itself.

Because Arthashastra as a political treatese, is a failure in large scale management.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Learn to read :

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=slVobUjdzGMC&pg=RA1-PA99&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=9jb364g4BvoC&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

These links have already been provided before and had you bothered to read them, you'd see Historians TODAY discrediting Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, etc. as historical sources.

 

The pyramids have writings in them, saying which king built them. So if we can question ashokan inscriptions as 'propaganda, he didnt do any of it, just claimed so', we can then say the same for pyramids 'those kings didnt build it, just claimed credit for it'.

 

Whatever, Sindhi-mussalman pretending to be Gujju.

 

Except Sanyal is not a historian, he is an economist.

 

 

Err no.

The fundamental policy of the Arthashastra is the ruler is the nexus that ties EVERYTHING together- social policy, administrative policy, war policy, taxation, etc. and Ashoka, by all accounts, was a prodigiously involved monarch, even to his late age. 

The problem was Arthashastra itself - it doesnt seek to create institutions that'd churn out administrators or tax collectors or planners, like the Chinese did (thus even though in Chinese empires, emperor weilded absolute authority, it didnt require direct oversight of the Emperor to get anything done. It did however, in India) nor did it seek to divest powers in multiple sources ala Roman Senate.

 

In effect, it was a book that, as an administrative manual, is ill-suited to running a vast empire. And that is why the Magadhi Empire fell- not just the Maurya dynasty, but also the Shunga dynasty : too much work for one man to do effectively.  

As i said, read the Arthashastra. It boggles the mind what its recommendations of a 'worthy Emperor' is. 

Here is an excerpt: 

 

So according to Chanakya, you are to divide your day & night into 16 1.5 hour periods, recommended sleep is 3 hours/night, with a leeway of an extra 1.5 hour ( third part of the night) and 1.5 hours/day ( sixth part of the day) is for personal amusement. 

Its no wonder that big, centralized Empires in India died more than 2000 years ago,with the demise of the Magadha Empire (Kanva was their last dynasty of centralized power) and India had to resort to feudal confederations with their never-ending wars & instability it brings with itself.

Because Arthashastra as a political treatese, is a failure in large scale management.

but you are assuming that every king chieftain wannabe chieftain followed arthashastra.

[zen]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I disagree.There is nothing wrong with Puja on the surface. But it promotes the mindset of divine causality, that results are out of one's own hands and rest on the pleasure/displeasure of divine beings and is altogether anti-progress. 

It is no coincidence that the biggest explosion of discoveries in the ancient world came in the classical Greek era, when they started to follow Solon's philosophy of 'look for reasons within phenomena, not at Gods'. Or in Indian history it comes in the 500s BC-600s CE era, when multiple philosophies/religions competed with each other and empires patronized all of them. The rise of Bhakti movement lead to less diversity in religion, promoted 'Uber-religious mentality' and guess what ? for the 400 year period between rise of Bhakti movement & Islamic conquests of India, Indian innovation, discoveries, etc. amounted to next to nothing compared to the centuries before. 

 

Or take Islam for that matter- Islamic 'golden age' came when they conquered Persia, were exposed to the eastern (Indian & Chinese) discoveries and their Khalifs were open to foreign influence. But few centuries after rise of Islam, that window closed, Islam became more and more devotion-based and progress again ground to a halt.  Not many know this, but while many know of famed muslim physician Ibn Sina, it was Khalid Ibn Barmak, the son of the Kushan-shahi governors of Balkh ( Barmak is arabic transliteration of Pramukh) brought and translated many Indian medical journals in Persian & Arabic. 

Or look at western Europe vs Eastern Europe. They are all in the same boat till ultra-religious dogma declined and age of reneissance came in. 

 

Religion makes you look for answers in the afterlife or blindly please an unproven, unseen, non-interactive entity (God/Gods) instead of looking at the phenomenal universe to try and solve your problems. Societies that look to religion, give up progress in this phenomenal universe, for promises they can't verify.

 

Those are points that can be explored further. However, I do not think that there has to be a this or that choice. I am not sure that your examples even illustrate that those you talk about necessarily made this vs that choices .... Human beings have different needs including intellectual, spiritual and social 

 

It is man that is constantly creating a this vs that scenario for his benefits. Which is why we have Religion vs Science (and not Religion and Science), Capatalism vs Communism, Black vs White, etc. 

 

And not all results are in our hands. for e.g. the moment a zygote is formed, a couple would not know whether it is going to be a daughter or a son, a healthy offspring or one with genetic disabilities. Whatever the result, most parents accept it as God's wish

 

 

[Vilander]

reading your comments it appears that confederation and eventually democracy were just an evolution for India, not a forced western concept.

[Muloghonto]

56 minutes ago, Vilander said:

but you are assuming that every king chieftain wannabe chieftain followed arthashastra.

I am not, though it probably was followed by many kings. I am simply pointing out that prescribing an 18 hour work day for one of the most stressful jobs (managing a country) is not recipe for success when trying to manage a humongous empire.

People forget that the Mauryan Empire was larger than India today and at its time, was the largest,richest & most populous empire on the planet. 
If you read Dr. Angus Maddison (economic historian), it becomes clear that India back then, compared to rest of the world, was as rich as Saudi Arabia per capita but like China's population. We were somewhere like 25% of the world's population and 30-40% of the GDP.

Yet,for an empire this diverse,rich & huge, the king had to personally oversee spying, taxation, military strategy, governor appointments, etc. 

That is pretty much setting your king up to fail, because when you have hereditary rule (monarchy), finding kings who are a) motivated enough to put in 18 hour workdays and b ) well rounded enough to succeed in all the above departments,is going to be highly rare.

In terms of longetivity of empires, two stand out to mind : Roman Empire & Han dynasty China/Ming Dynasty China. 
And they both followed a template that didn't require too much direction from one individual : Roman Emperor was not policy-setter, the Senate was .

The difference between Roman Republic & Roman Empire was imagine the US President (analog to Roman Consul/Emperor) being an appointed post with veto power over anything the senate proposes (Roman Empire). But by and large, policy was undertaken by the senate and implemented through local governors, who had a set path of achieving governorship : be a land-owner (citizen) -->serve in the military --> get elected to senate --> get appointed as governor. 

 

Or lets look at China, another land where long-standing centralized power existed. They created institutions, such as their civil service with standardized testing & curricula, to churn out governors and governors were rotated every 5-10 years from province to province, to prevent nepotism & them planting roots for dynasties. So while the Emperor could do whatever he wanted and drive the country in any direction, China did not lose leadership when they had bored emperors (of which there were plenty), who preferred to shut themselves in their Palace & enjoy wine, women & luxuries : the system ran itself with governors still being churned out, military being obedient to the emperor first and then to the regional governors, governors getting rotated etc. 

In both models, what strikes out, is that the functioning of the empire was not down to just one man's competence.

 

This was the model of imperial authority in India & middle east - thats why one super-driven emperor like Chandragupta/Darius I/Ashoka could literally take the empire to unheralded greatness, while one mediocre emperor like Darius III or Salisuka could ruin everything. 

This is why the Arab empire quickly fragmented too - too much authority in 1 man, too much land to rule for one man.  

That is why for most of history, 'Empires' have been feudal empires, where the 'Emperor' directly ruled a small section of the empire, with other regions of the empire being effectively autonomous provinces with little or no imperial oversight. They paid taxes, bowed to the overall emperor and deferred to him for foreign relations & minting coins but beyond that, they ran their own little kingdom as they pleased.

This is true for all Indian empires after the Magadha & Satavahana Empires collapsed too- no direct imperial authority, whether it is Rashtrakutas or Cholas, Palas or Pratiharas, Chandellas or Maukharis or Guptas - all of them- ruled territory that was a small part of the empire directly & had vassal kings. 

But the biggest weakness of such a vassal feudal entity is that of unity and that is apparent in contrasting the Roman/Chinese empires with rest of the world : even in deep doo-doo versus the Mongols, the song dynasty kept on fighting. Instead, when Ghori invaded us, some feudal lords showed up, some didnt & this continues in Indian history through the Delhi Sultan/Mughal period : when Empire is in deep doo-doo from foreign pressure, some are conspiring in the corner to benefit themselves.

 

Or in the last Roman-Persian war that was the prelude to Arab domination : Persians ruled like Indians did-via intermediaries. Eastern Roman Empire till then had still kept the Roman organization structure to governors (though they were feudalizing at that point, but had 1000 year tradition at that point of strong governance). Romans lost everything in Asia- Egypt, Judea, Anatolia- only Greek posessions & Constantinople remained. Yet Heraclius was able to function with whats left, spent a whole year training one final army, launched a ship to modern day Georgia & launched an invasion of Armenia (under Persians) at that time, carving a path towards Ctesiphon (Persian capital). Persians panicked, lost a few battles, then again, some nobles conspired in the corner, overthew the king & sued for peace. 

So moral of the story is, I don't think Arthashastra is a very good book for rulership, even of its age,if applied to large empires. You either go for the Chinese model of 'system exists + absolute ruler can interfere' or just the 'system exists and nobody has absolute power over everything' Roman model. The book (arthashastra) may work well in terms of small kingdoms & perhaps thats why small Indian kingdoms have been notoriously tough nuts to crack but much larger Indian empires have suffered quick collapse.

Perhaps this whole 'one man does everything according to Arthashastra', filtering down the times + inherent instability of the feudal system it causes, meant much more efficient & stronger small-medium sized kingdoms but 'falling apart in one way or another all the time coz 1 man cant do everything at once/divided loyalties & agendas pulling the feudal mega-state apart'' mega-empires. 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

31 minutes ago, Vilander said:

reading your comments it appears that confederation and eventually democracy were just an evolution for India, not a forced western concept.

Yeah, i think if India didn't fall to the muslims, we'd have developed to some form of 'western style aristocratic democracy' at the very least, where in times like 15th,16th centuries (i.e., prior to modern democracy), there existed a strong democratic component amongst its aristocracy, who still had inalienable rights that even the king couldn't mess with - such as post Magna-Carta England/Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth etc.

 

Whether it'd have developed along the lines of western democracy or not in terms of giving rights to the masses- one will never know probably, as that too requires a certain unique conditions to be present concurrently in some levels or others. 

 

[Muloghonto]

54 minutes ago, zen said:

Those are points that can be explored further. However, I do not think that there has to be a this or that choice. I am not sure that your examples even illustrate that those you talk about necessarily made this vs that choices .... Human beings have different needs including intellectual, spiritual and social 

 

It is man that is constantly creating a this vs that scenario for his benefits. Which is why we have Religion vs Science (and not Religion and Science), Capatalism vs Communism, Black vs White, etc. 

 

And not all results are in our hands. for e.g. the moment a zygote is formed, a couple would not know whether it is going to be a daughter or a son, a healthy offspring or one with genetic disabilities. Whatever the result, most parents accept it as God's wish

 

 

Not all are in our hands. But many are. And many more will be discovered if we tried to think in terms of 'IS this all in my hands?'  rather than 'all is not in my hands, so lets pray to an unproven diety'. 

My point isn't that some king woke up one day and decieded that their whole country should be religious and their civilizational goose was cooked.

Infact, that would be pretty absurd. But religion playing a more prominent role in the administration and gaining power over masses via religion, does show a sad correlation with diminishing progressive output/going back on progress due to inventive 'moral' reasons. There is a general shift to power via religion in the first millennia AD and subsequent  shock to discoveries/progress, social success because of it in many parts of the world.

As for knowing from the moment a zygote is formed - perhaps not, but give it time and most congenital defects would be detected in foetus in the future. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Not all are in our hands. But many are. And many more will be discovered if we tried to think in terms of 'IS this all in my hands?'  rather than 'all is not in my hands, so lets pray to an unproven diety'. 

My point isn't that some king woke up one day and decieded that their whole country should be religious and their civilizational goose was cooked.

Infact, that would be pretty absurd. But religion playing a more prominent role in the administration and gaining power over masses via religion, does show a sad correlation with diminishing progressive output/going back on progress due to inventive 'moral' reasons. There is a general shift to power via religion in the first millennia AD and subsequent  shock to discoveries/progress, social success because of it in many parts of the world.
 

Appears as if you missed the point -> it is man that is using topics such as religion to his advantage. If there was no religlion, he would use something else like communism, race, etc. If these didn't exist, we would invent something else

 

As I said that human beings have different needs including intellectual, spiritual, social, etc. For e.g. on one hand, a scientist could be inventing a solution in laboratory, while on the other hand leaving the outcome of his offspring to God upon hearing the news from his wife that she is pregnent. Using scientific means in one situation and faith in other does not diminish his abilities in one domain or the other .... Since you think Ashoka was a great adminstrator, did he stop being one after turning religious?  

 

Also note that God being unproven to you, does not necessarily mean that he is unproven to everyone. Proof has various forms

 

Coming back to proofs, you mentioned some of Ashoka's policies by citing what was written on the Ashoka Pillars. The same pillars address him as "favorite slave of God" (or something to that order). So if you are going to take what is written on the pillars about policies at facevalue, why not the "favorite slave of God" part?

 

Anyways, you have probably chosen the easier path - what I don't see, I don't believe in. In ancient world, you could be the one suggesting that world is flat because there is no evidence at that point in time that it is round. By walking a few steps, you would have probably proved that the world is indeed flat

 

In short, the conflicts that you believe exist, do not exist 

 

 

PS

Quote

As for knowing from the moment a zygote is formed - perhaps not, but give it time and most congenital defects would be detected in foetus in the future. 

No one has claimed xyz may not happen in future .... whatever will happen in future will happen but there could be new unknowns or situations where one would bank upon faith 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, zen said:

Appears as if you missed the point -> it is man that is using topics such as religion to his advantage. If there was no religlion, he would use something else like communism, race, etc. If these didn't exist, we would invent something else

Sure. But as i said, mankind using religion as power AND religion used for power having stifling effect for development is a double-whammy, that is the inherent flaw of religion.

Quote

 

As I said that human beings have different needs including intellectual, spiritual, social, etc. For e.g. on one hand, a scientist could be inventing a solution in laboratory, while on the other hand leaving the outcome of his offspring to God upon hearing the news from his wife that she is pregnent. Using scientific means in one situation and faith in other does not diminish his abilities in one domain or the other .... Since you think Ashoka was a great adminstrator, did he stop being one after turning religious?  

It does;t necessarily have to be 'left up to God'- one can leave it up to natural process too, which is really what it is, since God is unproven. 
I don't think Ashoka stopped being pragmatic per se, but did it influence rulers down the road to be more reliant on religion ? Maybe. 

 

Quote

 

Also note that God being unproven to you, does not necessarily mean that he is unproven to everyone. Proof has various forms

Err no, proof has only one form : empiric, scientific observation. You can't change the goalpost for empiric proof. God *IS* unproven. That, is a scientific fact. proof is in something like we know the sun exists. That is proven. Or that our galaxy is being pulled to a region of space called 'the great attractor'. Things we can verify with observation is proof. Things we cannot, are belief. That sharp divide in evidence is not negotiable, really.

 

Quote

 

Coming back to proofs, you mentioned some of Ashoka's policies by citing what was written on the Ashoka Pillars. The same pillars address him as "favorite son of God" (or something to that order). So if you are going to take what is written on the pillars about policies at facevalue, why not the favorite slave of God part?

??

I don't understand- you do realize the 'lavish titles fitting for a king' doesnt LITERALLY mean what it says, correct ? 

 

Quote

 

Anyways, you have probably chosen the easier path - what I don't see, I don't believe in. In ancient world, you could be the one suggesting that world is flat because there is no evidence at that point in time that it is round

Actually there is and most ancient cultures knew the earth was round. Greeks, Indians, Egyptians, Babylonians- all knew the earth was round. The only exception of an ancient civilization that thought the earth was flat was, strangely enough, the Chinese.

And such evidence exists. One doesnt need to go to space to see the earth or sail all the way around the world to know for sure it is round. 

The Vikings knew that the earth is round too.  One can deduce that the world is round by observing different shadow lengths at different latitudes (IIRC, thats how Egyptians figured out the world is round) or by observing the curvature of the horizon by spotting sails/masts first from a hilltop, etc (thats how Indians, Vikings, etc. figured it out).

I actually don't believe in God because God is an absurd 'concept' AND it is unproven. Not because God isn't proven only. God implies sentience and the idea of a pre-material sentience creating material is a contradiction in terms to me. Having a God create everything before itself being created, is as illogical as saying we had calculus first, then people figured out how to count. If you want, there are several books by several known philosophers/scholars who point out how stupid the idea of God is and it pretty much exists for one reason and one reason alone : 'if we cant explain something, blame it on supernatural', a tendency we have retained due to our evolution from primitive beings. 

And as we have gained in technology & understanding, we have also 'upgraded' our idea of what God is and what God/Gods can/cannot do. This underlines a psychology of God for species homo sapiens, not necessarily for God itself.

 

 

Quote

In short, the conflicts that you believe exist, do not exist 

You mean its just a coincidence that when Europe & India went super-religious, it shut down all progress for mankind, when Islam ran out of 'meeting new people/translating their stuff' steam & progress went to zero, its all just a coincidence ?

More and more people going 'everything is in hands of God, lets not worry, afterlife awaits' has no effect on the overall level of 'lets discover how to do this/what causes this/what this stuff is, coz i need this to do something' ??

Must be some other phantom in the room then, that we are missing for what caused Europe, India, etc. to come to a crashing halt in discoveries, progress, etc. for 100s of years. 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

PS: By 'God' i mean the 'ultimate, creator God, who/what exists before everything/anything existed at all'. If you want to restrict the definition of God as 'some being from another universe who created THIS universe', sure, such a being can exist, but thats not really what most religions mean when they talk about 'God'. 

[zen]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. But as i said, mankind using religion as power AND religion used for power having stifling effect for development is a double-whammy, that is the inherent flaw of religion.

It does;t necessarily have to be 'left up to God'- one can leave it up to natural process too, which is really what it is, since God is unproven. 
I don't think Ashoka stopped being pragmatic per se, but did it influence rulers down the road to be more reliant on religion ? Maybe. 

 

Err no, proof has only one form : empiric, scientific observation. You can't change the goalpost for empiric proof. God *IS* unproven. That, is a scientific fact.

 

??

I don't understand- you do realize the 'lavish titles fitting for a king' doesnt LITERALLY mean what it says, correct ? 

 

Actually there is and most ancient cultures knew the earth was round. Greeks, Indians, Egyptians, Babylonians- all knew the earth was round. The only exception of an ancient civilization that thought the earth was flat was, strangely enough, the Chinese.

And such evidence exists. One doesnt need to go to space to see the earth or sail all the way around the world to know for sure it is round. 

The Vikings knew that the earth is round too.  One can deduce that the world is round by observing different shadow lengths at different latitudes (IIRC, thats how Egyptians figured out the world is round) or by observing the curvature of the horizon by spotting sails/masts first from a hilltop, etc (thats how Indians, Vikings, etc. figured it out).

I will give you the benefit of doubt and take that^ as a serious post 

 

One can find double whammy in most things including science. Tomorrow if the world is nuked out, improper use of science can be blamed in the history books of aliens on how the Earth ceased to exist

 

Again, everyone has a choice on what to leave it on

 

So you don't agree with "favorite slave of God" part but agree with the rest .... ok we get it

 

Assume that you were in China .... the point is that you claim to base everything on evidence which at that point would show to those concerned that world is flat (otherwise they would believe that it is round) .... and you could "prove it"  by walking a few steps! 

 

As I said, you have taken the easier path 

[Muloghonto]

16 minutes ago, zen said:

I will give you the benefit of doubt and take that^ as a serious post 

 

One can find double whammy in most things including science. Tomorrow if the world is nuked out, improper use of science can be blamed in the history books of aliens on how the Earth ceased to exist

 

Again, everyone has a choice on what to leave it on

 

So you don't agree with "favorite slave of God" part but agree with the rest .... ok we get it

 

Assume that you were in China .... the point is that you claim to base everything on evidence which at that point would show to those concerned that world is flat (otherwise they would believe that it is round) .... and you could "prove it"  by walking a few steps! 

 

As I said, you have taken the easier path 

Its a title. Do you take every single title on a letter-head by royalty seriously ? Cleopatra was titled 'mistress of Sedge & Bee'. So she was the controller of bees and the queen bee herself or her entire letters are invalid ? or could you just not see it as a title ?

 

Assuming I was in China, i'd think the world is flat. and then when evidence presented itself, if it was in my lifetime, i'd change my mind. I don't see whats so wrong about that. 

And yea,i'd imagine the path of evidence & rationalism is the easier part believing in contradictions or illogical things. 

[zen]

55 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Its a title. Do you take every single title on a letter-head by royalty seriously ? Cleopatra was titled 'mistress of Sedge & Bee'. So she was the controller of bees and the queen bee herself or her entire letters are invalid ? or could you just not see it as a title ?

 

Assuming I was in China, i'd think the world is flat. and then when evidence presented itself, if it was in my lifetime, i'd change my mind. I don't see whats so wrong about that. 

And yea,i'd imagine the path of evidence & rationalism is the easier part believing in contradictions or illogical things. 

You should google Cleopatra and bees before using that as an example .... Coming  back to Ashoka, are you suggesting that he spread lies through the pillars which expressed his official position? 

 

Nothing wrong in it but it is an easier path. Don't believe in airplanes till you see them. And till that point, oppose those who believe man can fly in the name of lack of evidence 

 

As I said, there is no conflict or this vs that scenario like you would like to believe. I gave example of the scientist, along with talking about different human needs. Science is applied to construct temples as well 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

You should google Cleopatra and bees before using that as an example .... Coming  back to Ashoka, are you suggesting that he spread lies through the pillars which expressed his official position? 

 

Nothing wrong in it but it is an easier path. Don't believe in airplanes till you see them. And till that point, oppose those who believe man can fly in the name of lack of evidence 

 

As I said, there is no conflict or this vs that scenario like you would like to believe. I gave example of the scientist, along with talking about different human needs. Science is applied to construct temples as well 

 

No, but i am not dumb enough to not realize what is a title and what isn't.

And yes, Cleopatra was titled mistress of Sedge and Bee- like all Pharaohs for hundreds of years before her.

 

As i said, i am not just an atheist coz God is unproven, but also because God is an illogical concept.

 

There is a conflict between overly religious society and lack of progress- thats what history shows us.

 

[zen]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No, but i am not dumb enough to not realize what is a title and what isn't.

And yes, Cleopatra was titled mistress of Sedge and Bee- like all Pharaohs for hundreds of years before her.

 

As i said, i am not just an atheist coz God is unproven, but also because God is an illogical concept.

 

There is a conflict between overly religious society and lack of progress- thats what history shows us.

 

No one is debating what Cleopatra was titled. What was said is google the reason for it. I gave the keywords for the search too .... Usually, titles are not awarded randomly .... You have to answer the questions being asked and not focus on things that are not asked / not discussed / not being implied

 

Earlier you posted about which regions perceived earth to be round and which did not, when answer to that added zero value to the discussion .... you had also written that yadda yadda could be determined from the zygote in future, when no one is debating that could not happen in future and when the point is about the existence of some unknowns and situations that demand banking on faith (post #152) .... you wrote about someone translating Indian medical journals in the Islamic world. However, that does not show that the person who translated the journals was not religious .... As the phrase goes - "correlation does not imply causation" 

 

As mentioned earlier, what is unproven to you does not necessarily mean it is unproven to everyone. Proof has various forms, yadda yadda .... The person you consider to be one of the greatest preferred to title himself  "favorite slave of God". So the simple question is -> was he illogical or believed in illogical concepts (per your PoV) such as religion?

 

Again already discussed that it is man that uses topics such as religion, communism, etc to suit their needs .... Science when used negatively can in fact destroy the planet .... "Law of diminishing returns" is applicable to a variety of domains 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, zen said:

Earlier you posted about which regions perceived earth to be round and which did not, when answer to that added zero value to the discussion .... you had also written that yadda yadda could be determined from the zygote in future, when no one is debating that could not happen in future and when the point is about the existence of some unknowns and situations that demand banking on faith (post #152) .... you wrote about someone translating Indian medical journals in the Islamic world. However, that does not show that the person who translated the journals was not religious .... As the phrase goes - "correlation does not imply causation" 

If its a one-off, then no, correlation doesnt imply causation. But when the results repeat itself, then its a strong possibility that correlation is due to causation. Especially when it also makes sense logically. As i said, religion makes you put stock in the afterlife/next life. That is fundamentally less impetus to improve THIS life.

 

Quote

 was he illogical or believed in illogical concepts (per your PoV) such as religion?

If he was serious about that title, then yes, he believed in nonsensical concept such as religion. But at the same time, i don't hold it against ancient people for beliving in the divine. They did not have a strong philosophical tradition to lean on (though Jainism was much more popular in India back then and Jainism denies a creator God). Nor did they have the empiricism of modern times to strongly differentiate between what constitutes belief and what constitutes evidence.

 

 

Quote

 

As mentioned earlier, what is unproven to you does not necessarily mean it is unproven to everyone. Proof has various forms, yadda yadda

No, proof has only one form. What others consider 'proven', is then not 'proven', its them just not knowing the difference between belief and fact. Those are empiric terms, not 'relative terms'. There is a categoric difference between something being true and someone wanting that something to be true.

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Muloghonto

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

If its a one-off, then no, correlation doesnt imply causation. But when the results repeat itself, then its a strong possibility that correlation is due to causation. Especially when it also makes sense logically. As i said, religion makes you put stock in the afterlife/next life. That is fundamentally less impetus to improve THIS life.

 

If he was serious about that title, then yes, he believed in nonsensical concept such as religion.

 

 

No, proof has only one form. What others consider 'proven', is then not 'proven', its them just not knowing the difference between belief and fact. Those are empiric terms, not 'relative terms'.

 

Could you show that all those who did something great were not religious? Let's start with the person who translated Indian medical journals in the Islamic world 

 

So you accept that Ashoka could have been illogical because he believed in concepts such as religion .... But much of Ashoka's aura came from him turning religious and spreading Buddhism .... Appears as if everyone who accepted Buddhism is illogical, which itself appears to be an illogical conclusion  

 

You have to learn to see the difference between what constitutes as proof in different domains. In science, if "x" is done to arrive at proof, it does not mean that in another domain, the same method is applicable

 

PS On a side note - takling about scientific evidences, you may want to read:

 

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232521028_The_alliteration_in_Shakespeare's_sonnets_a_study_in_literary_behavior 

 

"An analysis of the alliterative patterns of 100 of Shakespeare's sonnets suggests that the process of alliteration is not due to any special deliberate behavior process on the part of the poet, and the occurrence of alliterative words is no more than what would be expected by chance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)"  

 

• http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015NegativeResults/pmed.0020124.pdf 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by zen

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

Could you show that all those who did something great were not religious? Let's start with the person who translated Indian medical journals in the Islamic world 

 

So you accept that Ashoka could have been illogical because he believed in concepts such as religion .... But much of Ashoka's aura came from him turning religious and spreading Buddhism .... Appears as if everyone who accepted Buddhism is illogical, which itself appears to be an illogical conclusion  

 

You have to learn to see the difference between what constitutes as proof in different domains. In science, if "x" is done to arrive at proof, it does not mean that in another domain, the same method is applicable

 

PS On a side note - takling about scientific evidences, you may want to read:

 

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232521028_The_alliteration_in_Shakespeare's_sonnets_a_study_in_literary_behavior 
• http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015NegativeResults/pmed.0020124.pdf 

 

 

You commented about his title- i am saying that if he actually believed in Devas, then it'd be an illogical position. But like i said, ancient man didnt have the resources they do now to see that God is a stupid concept. 

It does not matter about 'domain'. Proof is proof. You are lying to yourself if you think proof changes standards depending on 'domain'. It doesn't. Whether  something exists or not, is a matter of empiric evidence.Not 'different strokes for different folks', thats called lying to yourself and forgetting the fact that just because you wish something to be true, doesnt make it so.

 Whether you call it science, empiricism or rationalism, the proof for existence of something is all the same. 

And no God meets that definition, not to mention, a creator God is a stupid concept to begin with.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Muloghonto