Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Those bodies generally do not emit ionizing radiation. The gas giants do, but only in very small amounts compared to the sun. They are not closer to us than the Sun. None of this has to do with the ethics of eating animals. It has been amply proven that cancer can have natural causes, therefore your attempt to correlate cancer with bad diet is not successful. Move on.

Dim & Slow radiations, giving effects in long term? By nearer, I meant nearer to other stars. Sun is one in those 8. Total 9 are indicated in astrology. Diet & diseases are not issue to it. About odd/unnatural diets, much literature are available. Some I already quoted even of NCI.

 

[JayUtah]

Dim & Slow radiations, giving effects in long term?

No. The gas giants have a negligible effect upon life on earth.

By nearer, I meant nearer to other stars.

Other stars are light years away, many orders of magnitude greater than the distance between objects in the solar system.

Sun is one in those 8. Total 9 are indicated in astrology.

Astrology has nothing to do with science, and it has nothing to do with the ethics of eating animals. Do not distract from the challenges against your claims.

 

[Kumar]

They are not proofs. They are claims. If you don't know the difference, you're on the wrong forum.



The reasons why you don't have infallible proof are irrelevant. The point is not to make the claim if you don't have the evidence. You don't have the evidence, so retract the claim.

History is also a proof. Otherwise whole history will have to be dumped into sea--even of any culture, country or religion. We can not create physical presense of past unless some Time Machine is possible. Moreover, these are Religious Proofs in Religion forum. I even remain skeptical in all non-A&F even to 99% level proofs but can still accept those by taking calculative risk(as I told earlier) GREAT.

 

[Kumar]

No. The gas giants have a negligible effect upon life on earth.



Other stars are light years away, many orders of magnitude greater than the distance between objects in the solar system.



Astrology has nothing to do with science, and it has nothing to do with the ethics of eating animals. Do not distract from the challenges against your claims.

If all are so far, how we get cosmic rays or Ionizing radiations from other than Sun?

If no physical affect from those 8 stars, may those are used for changes in time & environment calculation.

 

[Kumar]

Passed down by broken oral tradition that not even all Jains accept as indisputable.



The same can be said for Judaism, Christian, and Islam. Just because an object exists doesn't mean the stories told about it are true.



They are not proofs. They are claims. If you don't know the difference between the two then you will have a very difficult time talking with rational people.



Yes, that's right.



Yes, Christianity is mostly made up. The existence of Jesus is not a settled matter.



Yes you are. You accept or reject fact based on whether it agrees with what you already believe. You admitted this. You proudly admitted this. That makes you as blind a believer as one can possibly be.



You don't know what's going on there either.

Sorry, you are going too far. Harmonizing & belief is healthful.

 

[JayUtah]

History is also a proof.

History and religion are not the same thing. History doesn't make claims of a mystical nature.

Otherwise whole history will have to be dumped into sea...

No. History makes ordinary claims that can be tested according to the available evidence. It does not make claims of the mystical. Just because ordinary stories can be told about places that still exist doesn't make those stories true, whether they are cast as historical or religious. The question is simply whether there is evidence. It's easier to meet the standard of proof for ordinary secular events than for claims involving mysticism. If you are making mystical claims, you don't get to lower the standard of proof.

We can not create physical presense of past unless some Time Machine is possible.

Straw man. Where there are difficulties in obtaining evidence of historical events, theories regarding what happened, who participated, and so forth will also be lacking. Not "thrown into the sea," as you insist. You keep trying to drive questions to an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, you are going too far.

No, I'm just being ordinarily skeptical. You want me to go as far as accepting the origin story for your religion as if it were indisputably true. That's an unreasonable request.

Harmonizing & belief is healthful.

No, religious nonsense is not, in my experience, helpful. You're using it to moralize and claim superiority. That is not helpful when you cannot provide evidence to back up the claims underlying those moralizations. You're not harmonizing. You're demanding belief in your religion, announcing that you can set aside any fact that disputes it. That's not harmonization. That's dogmatic preaching.

You don't get to demand that we all treat your beliefs with kid gloves.

 

[Kumar]

No, it is an oral tradition that persisted for hundreds of years until it was partially lost by -- of all ironies -- a famine. I can point to many religions that are well-followed, such as Catholicism. There are more than a billion Catholics, which makes it a much more followed religion than yours. Should I accept the claims of the Catholics just because they say a lot of people believe them? "Ancient structures" is meaningless gibberish.

I have given you the reasons for doubt. You are unable to respond to them except to reassert your uncritical belief.

When voting happen in any democratic country, why they base majority? Why they just check qualities & capability of any competent person and make him head of country. Majority is also an authority.

Sorry but it can be bit illogical, when we don't fully know our house, we tend to look other into other's house. Ef Earth vs space & other planets.

 

[JayUtah]

When voting happen in any democratic country, why they base majority? Why they just check qualities & capability of any competent person and make him head of country. Majority is also an authority.

No, we don't vote on what facts are

 

[Kumar]

History and religion are not the same thing. History doesn't make claims of a mystical nature.



No. History makes ordinary claims that can be tested according to the available evidence. It does not make claims of the mystical. Just because ordinary stories can be told about places that still exist doesn't make those stories true, whether they are cast as historical or religious. The question is simply whether there is evidence. It's easier to meet the standard of proof for ordinary secular events than for claims involving mysticism. If you are making mystical claims, you don't get to lower the standard of proof.



Straw man. Where there are difficulties in obtaining evidence of historical events, theories regarding what happened, who participated, and so forth will also be lacking. Not "thrown into the sea," as you insist. You keep trying to drive questions to an all-or-nothing proposition.

That is also a recorded & apparent history which can be checked alike other history. What are physical & live proofs og say 500 or 1000 years back history. Lot of variations are also interpreted in those.

 

[JayUtah]

That is also a recorded & apparent history which can be checked alike other history.

Then provide the evidence. Don't just claim it is infallible and beyond dispute. That's an unbelievably high standard of proof to set for yourself without having anything more than the claims themselves.

Lot of variations are also interpreted in those.

Historical claims are not presented as indisputable. In fact, the study of history is rife with debates over how to interpret the evidence. You're the one setting the bar absurdly high. All you have to do to fix that is to retract the claim that the origin story of your religion is indisputable. My guess is that you won't do that. My guess is that you'll double down on the claim.

 

[Kumar]

No, I'm just being ordinarily skeptical. You want me to go as far as accepting the origin story for your religion as if it were indisputably true. That's an unreasonable request.

Yes but somewhat blind skeptical. We do not ask for DNA proofs from our parents, otherwise mostly we would had just wondered on road or died.

No, religious nonsense is not, in my experience, helpful. You're using it to moralize and claim superiority. That is not helpful when you cannot provide evidence to back up the claims underlying those moralizations. You're not harmonizing. You're demanding belief in your religion, announcing that you can set aside any fact that disputes it. That's not harmonization. That's dogmatic preaching.

You don't get to demand that we all treat your beliefs with kid gloves.

This religion neither recommend it nor need it and tend to remain within natural limits, since true religion. Nothing supernatural, miracles or violence is indicated. Just quality based not entity bases, Its follower respect Lord Mahavira and others due to their qualities. In Basic Navkar Mantra. I simply took its some parts to match it with some part of true religion.

 

[Kumar]

Then provide the evidence. Don't just claim it is infallible and beyond dispute. That's an unbelievably high standard of proof to set for yourself without having anything more than the claims themselves.



Historical claims are not presented as indisputable. In fact, the study of history is rife with debates over how to interpret the evidence. You're the one setting the bar absurdly high. All you have to do to fix that is to retract the claim that the origin story of your religion is indisputable. My guess is that you won't do that. My guess is that you'll double down on the claim.

Religious & historical evidences are already presented. If you are really intrested to know more, you can do google search. I feel you can very easily find many many. Do some home work. Since I already provided, I shall do any more even if you or any other not satisfied--alike taking earth in your hand alike football to know its real shape personally.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes but somewhat blind skeptical.

No, ordinarily skeptical. You're making a claim. I'm asking you for evidence of the claim. You don't have any, and you don't even really know what evidence consists of. Since you have no evidence, I reject your claim. That's what skepticism means. If you don't like how skeptics treat your beliefs, don't talk to skeptics.

We do not ask for DNA proofs from our parents...

Yes we do, where rational questions of parentage arise and the truth is important. That we accept some ordinary propositions on faith does not justify asking people to accept extraordinary claims on faith.

This religion neither recommend it nor need it

Yes, you're vigorously preaching it, and it's the basis of your claims regarding the ethics of eating animals.

...since true religion. Nothing supernatural, miracles or violence is indicated. Just quality based not entity bases, Its follower respect Lord Mahavira and others due to their qualities.

Jainism is not the one true religion. It's not "natural" or universal. You're simply asking us to take the claims by and about Mahavira at face value. You even apply an honorific to him. You arbitrarily regard him as a prophet and can't seem to see why others don't. This just makes you a blind believer. You don't know why you believe what you believe. To you it's just self-evidently true because you've never considered it critically.

 

[JayUtah]

Religious & historical evidences are already presented.

No, you've presented claims. Please actually read posts instead of just banging away at the keyboard.

Do some home work.

I have, and i have found plenty of reasons to dispute your claim that the Jainism origin story is indisputably true. When you're ready to address those reasons instead of just pretending they have no effect, let us all know.

 

[Kumar]

No, ordinarily skeptical. You're making a claim. I'm asking you for evidence of the claim. You don't have any, and you don't even really know what evidence consists of. Since you have no evidence, I reject your claim. That's what skepticism means. If you don't like how skeptics treat your beliefs, don't talk to skeptics.



Yes we do, where rational questions of parentage arise and the truth is important. That we accept some ordinary propositions on faith does not justify asking people to accept extraordinary claims on faith.



Yes, you're vigorously preaching it, and it's the basis of your claims regarding the ethics of eating animals.



Jainism is not the one true religion. It's not "natural" or universal. You're simply asking us to take the claims by and about Mahavira at face value. You even apply an honorific to him. You arbitrarily regard him as a prophet and can't seem to see why others don't. This just makes you a blind believer. You don't know why you believe what you believe. To you it's just self-evidently true because you've never considered it critically.

Sorry, you seems to be not normal skeptik. Many time I fear how skeptics can get placebo motivatiónal and self healing effects uless A&F thing is available to them which can be quite ràre. Regaining flexibility is good thing, it is sign of life. Since I somewhat understand presenting symptoms on any odd, I feel it is better to be flexinle and some believer bécause science is not yet A&F. One can opt regidity, when it will be A&F.

 

[bruto]

When voting happen in any democratic country, why they base majority? Why they just check qualities & capability of any competent person and make him head of country. Majority is also an authority.

Sorry but it can be bit illogical, when we don't fully know our house, we tend to look other into other's house. Ef Earth vs space & other planets.

So who are the mysterious "they" to whom you would forfeit your choice?

 

[Kumar]

No, you've presented claims. Please actually read posts instead of just banging away at the keyboard.



I have, and i have found plenty of reasons to dispute your claim that the Jainism origin story is indisputably true. When you're ready to address those reasons instead of just pretending they have no effect, let us all know.

How can you claim it? Is it your religion or option? It will become same, as I overclaimed previously. Moreover, I had just quoted for logical discussions, neither claimed nor preached.
Say for Proof of Immorality math sake if I present following logic for sake of discussion, it will not be a claim or proof:
In many calculations 1 and zero are immortal eg 1X1=1 n 0 X 1= 0..so on. Where 1 is self body, 2nd 1 is clone or tissue cultured or veg. Propagated plant, and O is so thought as soul, how it will be illogícal?
Another; If I say soul is last movement emitted energy from live in day, ghost being of dead body died ín dark. To any photo, many if express angel like image, devil like, god like or ghost like, these are true expressions of anyone depending on prevailing conditions. How these will be illogical? Tell me.
Moreover as I had indicated few time, manipulatice, misguided or forced preaching is like violence/sin on jainism like many opt on farming. Many natural unique basis exist in it like, noñ supernaturality or paranormal miracles involvement in creation and maintainance of universe. It just go on by natural principles. Ref previous quote. Hence I base it for its logical, natural and somewhat scientific unique featúres not otherwise.

 

[Pixel42]

I think, It is there in that link provided by Pixel.

Yes, radon gas can build up in mines and unventilated basements, making those particularly dangerous places to live and work. This does not alter the fact that radon gas is 100% natural, and was responsible for deaths from cancer long before we even knew it existed. There are, as JayUtah has pointed out, other natural sources of ionizing radiation for which the same is true.

Are you now ready to concede that there are natural causes of cancer?

 

[Pixel42]

Many time I fear how skeptics can get placebo motivatiónal and self healing effects uless A&F thing is available to them which can be quite ràre.

I assure you the placebo effect works just as well for sceptics as it does for woo believers. The difference is only that for sceptics it's an additional benefit from medical treatments which actually work, as those are the only ones they use.

The necessary condition for the placebo effect is confidence in the treatment and its practitioners. It occurs both when that confidence is justified (e.g. when taking real medicine) and when it is not (e.g. when taking a homeopathic remedy).