Re: Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified

From: Chris Devol (eat_at_joes.pub)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:48:33 GMT

"the Danimal" <dmocsny@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:1108687007.411574.88070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>> "the Danimal" <dmocsny@mfm.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108679009.066006.136490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Chris Devol wrote:
>> >> This is called the scientific method.
>> >
>> > Is that what the Vedas call it?
>>
>> Yes. They refer to science as "vijnana", and to the scientific method
> as
>> "sambandha, abhideya, prayojana"
>
> What do they call the inverse-square principle? Tensors?
> Differential equations? Quarks? Etc.? I would like to know
> the Vedic words for all these things. What does the Vedic
> version of the Periodic Table look like?

No, you don't want to "know" anything about the Vedas. If you did, you would
spend your time reading them. Unfortunately, you are too lazy.

> Too bad Asimov did not live long enough to write a Guide
> to Vedic Science.

If Asimov is where your knowledge of religion comes from, that explains your
ignorance. But here's a tip on how you might find him so you can ask him
about things: just go to your local slaughterhouse and check the cows
waiting in line to be killed. You'll probably find him there, lazily chewing
his cud, oblivious to what awaits him behind the red door.

>> > Did the scientific revolution in Europe begin when medieval
> scholars
>> > found old copies of the Vedas sitting in some library?
>>
>> No. It began when Brahma, the creator of this universe, attended a
> lecture
>> by the Supreme Scientist, Lord Sri Krishna, some 150 trillion years
> ago.
>
> "Some" 150 trillion years ago? Have Brahma or Krishna had
> difficulty keeping track of time?

No, but modern scientists do.

> A trillion years here, a trillion years there; pretty soon you're
> talking real time.
>
> I'm also curious about how stable the "year" has been for the
> past 150 trillion years. It's possible for astronomers to
> measure very slight changes in orbital periods. 150 trillion
> years is a long time; long enough for the Sun to have orbited the
> galactic core many times, and for other star systems to have
> passed nearby (in astronomical terms) and perturb the planetary
> orbits in our solar system.

I'm curious to know how such an intelligent person as yourself thinks that
there were star systems and orbiting bodies in continuous motion for 150
trillion years.

>> > Did the scientific revolution actually occur first in India?
>>
>> No, but India has retained the knowledge in a more complete form than
> any
>> other culture.
>
> Explain why India was several decades late to join the
> nuclear club, then.

Same reason they have fewer meth addicts and crack babies. But don't worry,
your "scientists" are working to correct the situation.

>> >> > Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not
>> > knowledge.
>> >> > Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John
> Stuart
>> > Mill and
>> >> > most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
>> >
>> > I wonder what they would say if they were alive today? I can
> imagine
>> > if I came back to life 500 years from now, after getting up to
> speed
>> > I might revise a few of my present opinions.
>> >
>> > Knowledge of religious beliefs is just that: knowledge of religious
>> > beliefs. It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of poker, or music is
>> > "knowledge."
>>
>> Knowledge of how matter works is just that, knowledge of how matter
> works.
>> It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of football, or oil painting is
>> "knowledge".
>
> Yes, except that it's possible to change what is knowledge of
> football, oil painting, or poker and still be just as correct
> as always. You just persuade all the footballers, painters, and
> card sharks to change their rules. Nature seems less amenable
> to persuasion.

Nature seems inflexible and hostile to you because you are her enemy. She
doesn't like your "scientific" atom bombs, toxic waste, and
methamphetamines.

>> > As to whether religious knowledge is a productive way to obtain
>> > knowledge about how nature works, well---one only has to look
> around
>> > one's house and see how many of those clever artifacts came from
>> > any religion.
>>
>> You mean atomic bombs, sarin gas, methamphetamine, crack babies,
> smog, toxic
>> waste dumps, and in general all the world destroying "clever
> artifacts"
>> produced by the religion of scientolatry?
>
> That depends. Can one look around one's house and see those
> things?
>
> I don't have many of them in my house, although each morning
> I do deposit a pretty toxic waste dump.
>
> And speaking of world destroying artifacts, why are you reading
> my words on one just now?

I don't really care about your words. They are poisonous. But if anyone
reads my words, and checks out the Vedic science of life, he can become
livberated from all the problems of material existence. Unfortunately,
taking your words seriously will have the opposite effect. Therefore, I am
making the best use of a bad bargain, using technology to propagate
gracious, true words which direct people to an eternal life of bliss and
knowledge. You, on the other hand, are simply piling up more and more toxic
waste, which is the inevitable effect of destitute philosophies like
scientism, materialism, positivism, naturalism, humanism, etc.

>> >> Knowledge always becomes opinion and belief. So does ignorance.
>> > Therefore,
>> >> calling something "opinion" or "belief" or "dogma" does not say
> very
>> > much.
>> >
>> > Belief is an emotion; therefore, the sky is the limit. With enough
>> > effort (or perhaps laziness) a person can believe almost anything.
>>
>> That is your belief. My guess is, you arrived at it through laziness
> rather
>> than effort.
>
> Actually I arrived at it by noting the diversity of the world's
> religions and other popular beliefs. It's hard to think of anything
> that would really be unbelievable to everyone.
>
> Some laziness would have been at work there, because of course
> I did not actually go out and interview everyone in detail about
> their beliefs. But it seems clear enough that lots of people
> believe lots of very different things. Do you doubt this?

Obviously people believe lots of different things.

> Belief is clearly an emotion. We "feel" that things are true.
> Who is not aware of such feelings?

If you're trying to say that "mere" belief is no guarantee that what one
believes is true, so what? I'm not talking about "mere" belief. I'm talking
about experimentally verifiable knowledge of reality, such as that found in
the Vedas. Such knowledge is also "belief". One "feels" that it is true,
because one has realized it by undergoing the rigorous experimental process
of acquiring the knowledge.

That is the scientific method.

> When you hear someone saying things you know to be true, you
> probably feel different emotions than when you hear someone
> saying things you think are wildly untrue. You probably
> experience different emotions while reading my articles than
> you feel while reading the Vedas.

So what? Your motive is to ridicule what you don't know, to mock knowledge
that you're to lazy to acquire. That is malignant and psychopathic.

The Vedas motive is pure, to free people from all suffering. That is benign
and healthy.

You bet I react differently to you than to the Vedas.

> Sometimes our feelings turn out to be correct, and sometimes
> they turn out to be wrong. Ask any gambler.

Yeah, right, I'm going to ask an emotionally sick person about the
reliability of emotional responses. Good one.

>> > Knowledge, on the other hand, must exhibit some sort of
> orderliness.
>> > If I claim to have knowledge of poker rules, for example, I should
> be
>> > able to answer questions about which of several poker hands wins.
>> > If my knowledge of poker is "wrong," I won't be much fun to play
> with.
>>
>> And if your knowledge of religion is wrong, as it is, you won't be
> much help
>> in assessing its value.
>
> No, I would be of no help in answering questions about the doctrinal
> details of a religion, which is quite distinct from assessing
> its value.

That statement itself is ignorant. The doctrinal details of a religion are
simply a codification of its values. If you don't know the one you don't
know the other.

> You don't have to know anything much about how automobiles work,
> for example, to decide whether you think a particular automobile
> is worth its asking price. You can determine the value of things
> without much knowledge about them. You only have to be able to
> sense how they seem to be impacting your emotional state.

To determine the actual value of an automobile, one must know all about it.
The less one knows about it, the less credibility one's assessment of its
value will be accorded.

> Most people have even less knowledge of how people work, but
> we can all perceive more value in some people than in others.

Now that's an example of "mere" belief. To "feel" that someone else is "more
valuable" without knowing all about them.

> Assessing the value of things to other people is trickier, but
> not out of the question.
>
>> > Poker is a made-up game which does not claim to reflect any
> external
>> > reality.
>> >
>> > Religion is a made-up game which does claim to reflect an external
>> > reality. And, in fact, the religions I am familiar with each claim
>> > exclusivity on this type of knowledge.
>>
>> That is a made up statement which reflects only your own ignorance of
>
>> external reality.
>
> I am aware of one religion which tried to claim all other religions
> were correct, but I think that is an exception.

A religion which tries to claim that all other religions are correct is even
more of a waste of time than a religion which is simply not correct.

> Judging from the
> Hindus burning mosques and the Muslims burning Hindu temples in
> India, I'd say each side believes the other has a few things wrong.

Non sequitur. If a man beats his wife, it is not the fault of "marriage". If
a bank teller embezzles money, it is not the fault of "banking". If a high
school student opens fire on his classmates, it is not the fault of
"education".

Science is not determined by what it studies, but by its methodology. The
Vedas are science books, because they use the same methodology as all
science, axioms, reason, hypotheses, repeatable experiments, confirmation or
rejection of hypotheses, and theory. Their subject matter is broader than
that of modern materialistic naturalism, because their goal is far greater:
liberation from all suffering. Modern Western mechanistic science will never
accomplish this, but Vedic knowledge has and will.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Dover decision Redux
    ... endorsement of religion. ... mere re-labeling of creationism, ... position, ID is not science. ... scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... this is no more than religion. ... "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)