Bharat Rakshak

Being a tad selective, are'nt we, Calvin. See, its always a very effective idea, as i will later demonstrate, when faced with tough unanswerable questions to absent oneself, hope that the tough questions are now forgotten by the forum and then come back making the same inane arguments. But, that for later.

First: Here is rongsheng's post:



Then, he follows with:



That's what happens, calvin, when the likes of your idols like karol wojtyla and the organization he belonged to have sown hatred for a couple of millenia now.

What, did you expect that the target of the EJ would always meekly allow himself to be led to the gas chambers? They're fighting back, matching hatred for hatred, and it unnerves you and your defence of the EJ, dont it. Well, here's a pithy axiom for you seeing as you are so fond of them.

One reaps what one sows. The EJ has sown hatred and is now reaping it. Wonder why you are so discomfited by this, hmmmmm?

I don't see where Calvin has espoused evangelism.

Here's what i was alluding to when i mentioned the disappearing act.



Then, he further added the following:



Then, me:


Then, Vick on the conundrum of how one parent - the christian will make it to heaven while the other parent - the hindu - will go to hell:

Silence. nothing. zip. zero.

He did not come back for a while. But, just in case, i am posting this on the first page so that our short human memories may use the reminder.

Why, thank you for asking Mr. TSJ.



The minority "rights" that calvin refers to is the right of the EJ to EJ.

Added Later: I did change the "you" to "one sows what one...." I had meant "you" in the general sense of the word and, despite the evidence i have posted above with Calvin defending these "rights", it was not my intent to have the "you" directed at Calvin. Suffice to say that should i wish to specifically direct a "you" at Calvin, there will not be any ambiguity there.

Mr. Calvin, do you think this seemingly innocuous question by Vick is hateful? Or am i being tooooo sensitive here?

And this, to you, is *espousing* evangelism? I suppose defending the right of a racist to spout racist nonsense makes me a racist as well. Are you thinking about what you are saying?



My quote was taken from GS's post, not rongsheng's. Why the equivocation?



Where did I say that Wojtyla was an "idol" of mine? The only time I discussed Wojtyla recently was in the context of the collaboration between Walesa, Wojtyla and Reagan to defeat communism. Perhaps this is anti-semitic to you.

Quite frankly, you are the most intolerant person on this board. You jump up and down yelling "ANTI SEMITE!" at the drop of a hat, and are yet the fastest to the draw to tar others with stereotypes. Either stereotypes are acceptable, or they are not. This means that stereotyping jews is either acceptable, or if it isn't, stereotyping muslims should not be acceptable. So, which is it going to be, Mr. Sadler?

dang it! ... I spent two long days in a meeting (with NPA no less) and the thread that I was posting in has long been shaheedized ...

not sure where to pick up, so I will post brief replies ...

Johann,

I never questioned the right of applied scientists (or, stamp-collectors, as rutherford-ji called them) to comment on their views of religion ... the debate in question was whether they were qualified to comment on the "nature" of reality in order to be able to comment on the "nature" of reality as embodied in religious philosophies ...

let me expand on that ... most applied branches of science work with principles that were once invented and then applied to physical problems ... they work within the paradigm that the principles provide them ... for example, a large number of modern day chemists are in reality quantum physicists ... and they will continue to do excellent research using the tools provided to them by quantum mechanics ... however, they will never invent a new mechanics that provides them with new tools ...

this difference is fundamental ... period.

I do apologise for the Rongsheng/GS error. I confused the two. However, the point i was trying to make is still valid. See below.


I see no problem in countering hate with hate.

You seem, time and again, to avoid the fundamental question. You see no difference in advocating the rights of the EJ but take offence when similar hatred is hurled back.

So, who dont you answer your own question first.

Here's the list of the EJ assault that GSub put together.

A sincere suggestion. May be if you spent less time disproving the putative tolerance of the hindu faith by finding temples that do not allow hindus to understanding the agenda of the EJ and the dangers it portends to indian (not just hindu) society, you wont be reduced to the kind of apoplectic wondering of "whether india will indeed be threatened by the EJs?"





WWW.GO2SOUTHASIA.ORG

WWW.SSPX.CA

WWW.MISSION1.ORG

WWW.FAMILYBIBLE.ORG

WWW.TRADITIONINACTION.ORG

WWW.MOSTHOLYFAMILYMONASTERY.COM

WWW.PEACE-OF-MIND.NET

WWW.RELIGION-CULTS.COM

WWW.EXPOSINGSATANISM.ORG

WWW.DEMONBUSTER.COM

WWW.CUTTINGEDGE.ORG

WWW.WAYOFLIFE.ORG

WWW.CONTENDERMINISTRIES.ORG

WWW.BIBLEQUERY.ORG

WWW.OLIVETREEVIEWS.ORG

WWW.INPLAINSITE.ORG

WWW.THEMIRACLESOFJESUSMINISTRY.ORG

WWW.MISSIONFRONTIERS.ORG

WWW.PASTORNET.NET.AU

WWW.BIBLESTUDYLESSONS.COM

WWW.TRUTHANDGRACE.COM

WWW.CHRISTIANDOCTRINE.NET

WWW.THE-TESTAMENT-OF-TRUTH.CO.UK

WWW.CBN.COM

http://www.hafsite.org/pdf/hate_report_2007.pdf


WWW.CHICK.COM

WWW.BLESSEDQUIETNESS.COM

WWW.CHRISTIANANSWERS.NET

WWW.JESUS-IS-LORD.COM

WWW.STR.ORG

WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Pantheon/4789/ ... e/hind.htm

WWW.IMB.ORG

WWW.SBCLIFE.NET

WWW.GOSPELFORASIA.ORG
[b]Gospel for Asia, a missionary organization in Asia with the goal of
widespread proselytization and church-planting.

A report about Himachal Pradesh (a state in
North India that is predominantly Hindu), includes the following statements: “Most of the people in this state are under the bondage of Satan…Please pray that the Lord may break the stronghold of Satan, which has blinded the eyes of many people.â€

I feel exactly the same way about you.

With Rakesh, for example, despite the fact that i do not agree with him (and will post later to elaborate), i can still respect his honesty.

As for yourself, the less said the better. I had resolved not to respond to anything you said. It is pointless. For a person whose vision is so biggoted, no amount of evidence can make him/her see the light.

And as to yelling, anti-semite. I believe the one person on this forum who i have called anti-semitic was GeorgeJ. Friend of yours??

As for calling vatican and its associated personnel anti-semitic, no proof is required. If the existing body of knowledge does not convince you, then nothing will.

I have been browsing the trashed thread and ran into something ... this is the kind of post that attracted me to Valkan boss years ago in another forum:



one can argue about the place of logic in the universe ... but, if one does accept logic as a guide in one's life, stuff such as that posted above is sheer pleasure to peruse ...

This was a while back on the porki thread.

I remember reading about a porki official who, in expressing his views on Gandhi said something to the effect that "even the worst moslem is better than a hindu like gandhi."

Perhaps someone will remember that and post that comment here.

Any takers who would argue that the above statement is not hateful and biggoted?

Then, how is that comment and the following belief held by the EJ different. Although the initial question was asked by me, reframed by Rakesh (which to me shows his innate tolerance and respect for others), and is posted below.



Reframed and answered by Rakesh. My original question was re-phrased by Rakesh. The "NO" is his answer.




Does the above belief quality as hate speech?? Or is it that because it is a christian belief, as opposed to one held by a despicable heathen hindu, an axiomatic truth as held by the christian (EJ)?

I have realized that. We should get on the same page with regard to "hate."

"Hate" is a concept that I haven't spent much time trying to understand, primarily because I view the world in terms of "the use of force." If someone says "I hate you and would be glad if you are dead" that begins to cross the line into advocating the commission of a crime (i.e., advocating the taking away of a persons right to sustain his own life).

I made a reference to "hate speech" earlier, primarily in response to Johann's comment about how a pamplet demonising Islam was tantamount to hate speech. However, it is not obvious to me that "hate speech" can be outlawed, and effectively policed. Even worse, it is not clear how "hate" speech can take away another person's life or property, unless it is explicitly calling for the taking away of a person's life or property. Of course, if it is the latter, we already have laws against assault on the book.



Actually, I have tried to highlight inconsistencies in other's logic, not because I agree with the evangelists or their detractors. It seems to me that if a person is opposed to the use of hate, then that person must not use hate.

You on the other hand seem only to be bothered by others using hate. This is a uniquely self serving argument that I have no respect for.



You seem to be laboring under a misconception. I have tried to focus the discussion on this, by posing propositions to the forum, but these have hardly been my points of view.

More than anything, it appears that you do not have a coherent vision of what rights the individual has, to wit, you say:


Religions have no rights, only people have rights.

As a matter of fact, Calvin, it is. Like i said once before, i have an almost visceral reaction to folks quoting the Vatican and its functionaries like Wojtyla. And like i reminded you before, if one quotes the likes of hitler in defence of one's arguments, one should not then act all surprised when the reader (including a jew) finds anti-semitism in that.



You are asking the wrong person, Calvin. Why do you insist on not assigning blame where it belongs continues to surprise me.

Do you wish to see the destruction of your 5,000-yr old civilization? Perhaps, dusty roads and poverty and filth is all that you think it is. Your formidable logical capabilities seem to disappear when defending the "rights" of the EJ.

So, which will it be, Mr. Calvin?

Either what the EJ is doing in India inciting hatred and must be stopped

OR

Allow free rein to the hindu to hit back in equal measure and then some.

Sorry, but your tactic of restraining the hindu with both his hands tied behind his back and his mouth gagged while advocating the right of the EJ to spill his bile and hatred unfettered in India is, my guess at least on this forum, finding no takers.

You and i have about said as much as we have to say to each other. I have no wish to direct any questions or comments at you. I dont simply see the point in arguing with a person as biggoted as you. The only reason why i even bothered to address or respond to your comments was in the hope of discerning why you defend the rights of the EJ so much, despite their obvious threat to India. That, i am afraid, i have not been able to find out, your putative championing of "right" notwithstanding.

I'd rather interact with others on the forum and do the following:

Dispel the notion held by most that christianism and islam are "Abrahamic" faiths. They are not.

Alert them to the danger of the EJ and their hateful agenda and hypocrisy.

You keep pretending otherwise.

In all sincereness, i say Shalom to you.

Calvin,

you have been professing your belief in "rights" ...

I have been professing my bellief in "logic" ...

as far as I can tell "rights" are derived from "logic" ... are they not?

what is so "right" about "all men are born equal"? ... if I had a faith based system, I could easily trash that concept as something that my god/faith poo-poo'ed on ...

what will your defence be, if not something based on logic?

as a corollary, I claim that all your beliefs are a subset of logic ... hence, why not simply embrace logic and give up faith? ... else you can give up your stance of defending "rights" ... what say you?

If you will be so kind as to allow me one parting comment. And please feel free to have the last word. This reply is not directed at you. But i am using your words to make a point to those hindus on this forum, and those of native indian faiths, who might get lulled into this semantic discusssion on "hate speech."

Anti-semitism began as hate-speech. And yet, when the time came to defend the lives and property of jews, the apparent much vaunted "law-and-order" types keep peddling the same old $hit of effective policing et al.

Let me be clear to indians on this. The assault of the EJ is beginning as hate speech. Where they have gained the upper hand, they have slaughtered the hindu as in your northeast. History repeats itself. For your own sake and for the sake of those who do care about the "rights" of the non-worhippers of christ, do take action to prevent the bile and hatred of the EJ from spreading in your midst. You are the inheritors of one of the oldest civilizations on this planet. Your well-being and continued existence, rooted in a hindu ethos, is the only guarantee of people like the Jews from being overwhelmed by such hatred.

Thank you for listening.

in principle, I see the largest dichotomy as follows:

folks have used all forms of logical arguments to further their viewpoints on this thread ...

at the same time, they are unwilling to consider Logic as the supreme form of thought ...

what gives?

Apparently quoting Henry Ford on the issue of mass production will lead one to be accused of anti-semitism. What nonsense!



Again, you misrepresent my position. As I have said numerous times, a person should be able to say whatever they want without threatening the life, liberty or property of another. If this person happens to be a Hindu, so be it, and if he happens to be a Christian evangelist, so be it. You are the one that sees bigotry in it. Quite frankly, that is probably a reflection of you more than of anyone else.



As long as this "equal measure" does not involve violence, threat of violence or other similar tools of the trade, this should be acceptable.



Quite frankly, this is a non sequitur to me.



I agree. The entire framework is based on the axiom that all human beings believe that every other human being has a right to sustain his own life, mainly because they believe that they have that right themselves.



I believe my defense is based on logic, the logic deriving from the single axiom stated above.



I don't disagree. However, if you notice, most of my commentary pertains to the public realm, where men come into contact with other men.

It is my contention that whatever a man conjures up in his head, by way of faith, delusion, or fantasy is beyond the capability of human beings to "limit". Religion and other faith based initiatives may have a role here depending on the individual. To that extent, I don't think there is any locus standi in demanding that a person should give up faith.



You are conflating "effective policing" with "protecting minority rights." These are not the same. Hitler had a very effective police force, as did Stalin and Saddam Hussein. However, none of them protected "minority rights." Therefore, if we were to conduct a thought experiment, imagine what would have happened if there were an effective judicial system to overturn whatever orders were given to take away the life and property of the minority (jews). That, is the scenario that I wish to paint, a government where the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority, because the constitution protects the rights of the minority.

(I guess I am now a Baathist, Communist, anti-Semite by Sadler's definition!)

A general rant:

One of the classic weapons of the EJ is the "You Farted'" theory, so aptly named by BRF's own Mr. Shiv.

When exposing the hatred of the EJ or even discussing retaliation in kind, the hindu (or the jew) may expect to be in turn accused of inciting hatred. The classic "you farted" accusation.

Let's look at this. Are there people on this thread advocating hatred for

The Buddhist Faith
The Jain Faith
The Sikh Faith
The Zoroastrian Faith
The Hebrew Faith
The Scientologists??

Heck no. Do at least some of these faith diverge in their doctrine from the hindu faith. Absolutely. You have here Zoroastrian faith, the forerunner to my own Hebrew faith. Both monotheistic. And faiths such as the Buddhist and Jain (pl correct me if i am wrong) which have been described to me as being atheistic faiths. Yet, these faiths have lived peacefully in India for a few millenia now. Perhaps, it should be the exponents of christianism and islam who should wonder about the intolerance of their own faiths, and the intolerant and biggoted acts of its own followers, before casting the proverbial first stone.

Instead, the discussion is focussed on exposing the hateful agenda of the EJs, and to the extent it pertains its inherent source in the christian bible. Same with islam.

Yet, this very expose is considered hateful. So, please dont get sucked up into being defensive about this in the face of such "you farted" accusations. Recognize them for what they are and recognize the persons hurling such "you farted" accusations for what they are.

"context" is used liberally to jusitify deviation from the bedrock of one's belief ... how does "men coming in contact with men" result in a distraction from your larger worldview? ... isn't MCICM just a subset of how you contemplate reality? ... it should especially be so if you indulge in deep thought about "you and your creator" ... this would be an instance of Man coming in Contact with God ...

what I am alluding to is that most folks here, including you Calvin, have been unable to separate their *politics* from their philosophy and their religion ...

I will be happy to debate you on that because I have steadfastly stuck to my scientific/logical view in the process ... the fact that Hindu thought comes closest to passing the logical tests is not an agenda/political view that I hold ...



is it all beyond the capability of humans to *deride* such apparitions/conjectures?



the "locus standi" as you put it, lies in accepting Logic as the superior method for dissection and evaluation of "faith" ... all sorts of ill-formed ideas such as "mass murder", "child rape", "bank robbery" etc do not violate "faith" at all ...

they are ruled out by society purely by the power of Logic ...

hence, I submit, that your defence of faith is weak at best and untenable at worst ...

my post above was in response to Calvin's original response to me before he diluted it by editing and embedding his responses to Sadler in the same post ...

Calvin, perhaps it is not intentional in the sense that you are clubbing me with Sadler ...

However, someone like you should be well-versed in terms of how one poster quotes another within the "faith" we put in "phpBB" ...

why the deviation from following the norm?

you could have easily left your original post in respone to me alone and posted a new one in response to Sadler ... what's up?

I don't see necessarily an either-or situation regarding minority-rights and demands for reforming/restraining proselytization practices.

Fundamental rights of individuals, whether minority or majority, must be ensured. These rights include rights to life, property, free expression etc. Indian constitution currently includes right to freely propagate a religion in the list. Whether right to propagate/convert should belong in the list of fundamental rights is hotly debated, although many would like to club it together with right to free expression. But the act of inducing conversion is usually not just an issue of free-expression, and thats where a lot of hot opinions have been generated on these threads.

Also why should there be a separate right to 'propagate' a religion? Why can't it be adequately covered within the right of free-expression?

A majority of participants agree here that religious rights can be abused by evanjihadis to propagate hate and for sociopolitical ends. If the conversion is claimed to be a spiritual conversion, but in reality is something else, driven by non spiritual motives, drivers or inducements, then that conversion is a farce & a fraud. Evidently the religions have found themselves unable or unwilling to tame these abuses from within. Therefore demands for reforms in Christianity & Islam regarding their proselytization practices have been raised, and are not necessarily in confrontation with the issues of minority rights. And if religions are unwilling or unable to reform from within, and if affected people demand legal restrictions on proselytization practices, then again that is not really an issue of protecting minority rights, but rather protecting the rights of those individuals who can be exploited by a wrongful conversion method.

Regarding feasibility of reforms, Hindus did carry out huge internal reforms during the last century under various external & internal pressures.

This one statement by vick recounts the entire attitude of christians towards non-christians.

Would someone please get up and defend the 'right' of christians to hate non-christians with religious sanction, nay, pride?

There is one thing that EJs and their defenders must understand - that the privilege of religious conversion WILL be taken away if abused. Please do not underestimate the distrust Hindus (common Hindus, not the RSS types) have of missionaries. Dara Singh episode shows what might happen if the EJs push too hard.

------------------
I think that the EJs have a self perception problem.

They think that just because Jesus is the god og love, anything they do in his name will automatically be filled with love. They have given up taking moral responsibility for their actions. This is a very dangerous behaviour because this is a sociopathic tendency. Its the same attitude that underpines fascism and mob behaviour of all kinds.

What a responsible christian can do is to first admit that evanjelism is not a socially acceptable behaviour among non-christians. This is Calvin's main failure, an inability to accept that evanjelism, per se, is bad. Period.

Calvin, if you can understand why I fell offended if some one insinuates that my culture and religion are bad, I think you will understand why EJ is a socially unacceptable behaviour.

Calvin, I agree with Sadler when he says that you have a bias against anything non-christian. What makes it worse is that you seem to quite unaware of it yourself.


Care to elaborate on what is greater good? Social harmony? At the cost of Hindus? No thanks. If "greater good" means accepting insults against my religion and my culture, then you can go fish, but not in my pond.

-----------------
Countering Hate with Hate:
Well, during the 90s, BJP and other Hindu organisations had tried to kickstart a debate on xtian conversions and missionaries. It was the xtians who did not participate in the debate. It was a wonderful opportunity for them to inform the Indian public about their activities but they didn;t take it. Now, what is it that xtians have to hide?

-------------------


Errr, Hindus have never been the initiators of violence in this subject. So, don't trun the responsibility of escalation on us. The conflict will reach those levels of violence that xtians go to. If you disappear our people, I think it is only logical that we respond. In kind.

The violence of the missionaries in NE India is well known, at least in this forum. It does you no credit to say that 'Hindus' should not resort to violence, when xtians are already doing so.

-------------------

As I said earlier Calvin, you have an unconcious bias against anything non-xtian. I think it would be good for the quality of the debate if you acknowledge, to yourself, that you have a problem perceiving the world from non-xtian POV. At least do that in private.

Rakesh had no problem understanding that the root of Hindu-xtian animosity is the fact that Hindus do not consider conversion a 'right', whereas xtians do.

Well, this is a religion thread. So, I guess 'logic', as you call it, will not find many takers here.
I suggest you open another thread on the relative merits of religion and logic.


But answer a general question on logic -

How can you be sure, that what YOU consider logical, is actually logical, and not a subconcious reflection of your own bias/prejudice/desires?
Is there any substantive way of ascertaining what is logical and what is not?

Good point Abhishek.

In geometry, it turns out that Euclid's fifth postulate on paralleism can be chosen in 3 distinct ways. The original postulate was that "given a line and a point outside that line, a single line through that point can be drawn which would be parellel to the original line". This postulate gives rise to the Euclidean geometry.

It turns out that if you modify that postulate to say that either

(i) no line parelle to the original line can be drawn, or
(ii) infinite number of distinct lines parallel to the original can be drawn

You still get a logically consitent geometry.

All these kinds of non-euclidean geometries are realized. All of them are "logical". So it is clear that the real "juice" lies in the postulates or axioms. In mathematics you can choose any axioms that suit your fancy. But only certain kinds of axioms have given rise to fruitful mathematics, in the sense of large number of interesting theorems. Scientists try to choose their axioms such that they don't violate current knowledge and are falsifiable by a feasible experiment in future. Then the theroteical scientists go on deriving results from those axioms. Scientists can claim that they have a superior method of weeding out axioms. This scientific method then not only includes logic, but a scientific-method which assists in choosing/dropping axioms.

If you just want to be logical, then a huge number of diverse philosophies will pass the muster. Even those with possibly outrageous axioms. Many theologies can pass the "logical" test. But if you want to be logical AND have your axioms chosen consistent with the scienfic method, then very few axiom sets survive.

have you been ignoring Valkan's discourses on monistic non-dualism?



it is clear that you have obviously missed a study of logic and are using "logic" in a colloquial sense ...

I will be happy to take you through either the Advait logic or Aristotleian logic ... but, seriously, should you not do some homework before posting "shocking" stuff on BRF?

---

I see that Kumar is veering towards Godel to the extent that he is quoting his own posts ...

boss, stick to Dirac and bask in the glory of logic ...

it is not up to experimentalists to explain the nuances of theoretical constructs ... however, it is seriously up to theorists to explain how a guy "scribbling on paper" can predict physical reality ...

ponder that, and then we can have a debate on heuristic reality ...

Vishy_mulay wrote:



The real question now should be;


.

x-post from old thread,

Saik this can be considered another explanation for 'similarity of origin' theory...

Christianity developed from OT and stopped burnt offerings altogether while SD evolved from burnt offering and made it symbolic. But beginning was same for both.



TSJ: regarding 'burnt sacrifices, take a look at this, hindus still make burnt offerings but differently



This rice powder paste modelled as a lamb (Pishta-Pasu) on the baked plantain leaf will be hard-baked after folding the leaf edges. Parts of the figure will be cut out and ritualistically offered to fire-god (Homam), with the assumption that it is truely a lamb.

Yes.

I had said this earlier and I say it again. What is your world view (religion/philosophy/lack of it) is unimportant in a world where people are ready to kill you. Your concept of god or reality better have a self defence mechanism. There is no point is being an argumentative Indian if you are a dead argumentative Indian. This is something the packees had figured out a long time ago.

I still remember the words of the ISI brigadier Mohammed Yousaf, who wrote The Bear Trap that the Hindu has an infinite patience to bear pain. Or words to that effect.

What he meant, of course, was that if you don't increase the pain administered to Hindus beyond his tolerance limit, you can happily screw his life without expecting retaliation. He was right in that assumption, sadly.

Why I don't pay attention to Buddhi Vilasitan (Intellectual Decadence) is that our mind blowing ability to imagine away our problems. When some outsider points out that we have a problem, we get all prickly.
(We, as in Indians).


Is the 'logic' you refer to derived from sensory perception, or is based on 'spiritual' insight? Or, perhaps you will point me towards a book which will describe logic to me in its own fashion?

In all three cases, if you point out the world view and then.... oh jeez. You are pissed off that I had manhandled you earlier, right?

--------------
Sri Aurobindo's counterpart, The Mother, had asked this question in words something like this - Is the mind (concious) the origin or thoughts/ideas, or do thought and ideas merely emerge on the concious plane after getting processed in the unconcious?


The point being, if what a person considers logical is really a reflection of his supressed desires (among other things), how is one to judge what is logical (I am assuming here that you associate the quality of universalism with 'logic'), and what is personal?

That is what I meant.

[edited by author for being OT]

thank you for taking us all back to the jungle ... before you spout forth about my worldview, please make sure that you represent anyone besides your own jungle thought ...



boss, so far you have not shown any evidence of "buddhi" ... so, what you worry, have curry onlee ...



excuse me for ignoring said manhandling ... please point to it and I will suitably be contrite regarding said manhandling ...

as for your query regarding various forms of "logic", please refer back to my post about "homework" ...

I used Dirac's example for a reason ... his prediction of the positron was based purely on logic ...

pause for a moment and reflect on how profound that prediction was ... no one in the world had any reason to believe that "anti-matter" exosted ... one guy on a piece of paper suggested that "it must" because his scibblings said so ...

and, lo and behold, the positron was discovered a few years later ... not only that, pretty soon there was an anti-particle for every known particle ... I have spoken to folks who discovered the anti-proton ... they explain how they were skeptical and wanted to prove Dirac wrong, but ended up proving him right ...

there is power in this example if you can only slow down enough and ponder it ...



please go ahead and sign a consent form with the admins that I have equal license to ridicule you with acronyms, puns, poetry, whatever it takes ... I would welcome it ...

be vewy careful when entering a scoff war with Alok_N .... you ain't seen nothing yet ...

else, you can apologise, cease and desist ...

Sweet


Some people like what I write. If you are not one of them, that's just you.


Hey, I know you are a professor. You don't have to remind me by giving me homework.

then don't ask for "point me to a book on logic" ...

as logic goes, you are inconsistent, boss ...

I have had beers with you and I don't wish to fight you ... but just like Kumar, you are on a warpath that does not behoove you ...

he is resorting to acronyms, while you are pointing out "manhandling" that you have delivered etc ...

respect is earned not given ... I have been giving respect to both of you thus far ... ponder that and reflect on why you are "Hindus" ...

Basta.

Alok, It wasn't my intention to offend you. I have deleted my post which was OT anyway. Sorry for the confusion.

Err, I did not actually give you manhandling. I was refering to the fact that you got pissed with me since some threads away on this religion thread series. I guessed you were carrying the animosity since then.


I am not sure how your respect for me ensures my religious integrity.
Is your assumption logical??? Or, does it reflect some deep supressed desire?

Is that a spanish word? Does it mean 'dear'? Thanks for asking but I am pure hetero.

Would you please care to elaborate what does 'The Mother'(pardon me for ignorance ) mean by unconcious ? soul (atma) I suppose,again the proponents of logic would say atma is nothing but a term used to collectively describe a Human's ability to think and percieve the things.So this discussion wont go anywhere.

At the end of the day every thing boils down to whether one believes in God or not,a believer would use logic and try to prove the formers existence and a non believer would use logic to examine 'God's' existence,wait... btw what do I mean by God I am myself confused. .