Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

You didn't address the point I made. You want to take a selective approach to science. Any time someone points out that the factual claims of your religion are contradicted by science, you remind us that we're debating in the religion section of the forum. You seem to want science to take a back seat while you pontificate. But you don't hesitate to invoke science where you think it supports you. Your approach to science is to accept it only when it confirms what you already believe. Your subsequent dismissal of science is therefore hypocritical.

Please address that point.

Because many understandings of science and religion can match. I accept those scientific understandings which match with religíóus únderstandings in Religion forum and vice versa in Science forum. Eg fasting, meditation, faith effect, physical àctivities etc. However those understandings which are not yet clear in science but mentioned in religions, I do not reject those straight away in one shot. Those uñderstandings which are clear in science in A&F, I accept those without doubt in all forums but which are not yet A&F, those either I accept by taking calculative risk or do not reject but remain bit skeptical. Quite justified.

 

[fagin]

Lord Mahavir.

Er is he still dead?

 

[JayUtah]

Because many understandings of science and religion can match. I accept those scientific understandings which match with religíóus únderstandings in Religion forum and vice versa in Science forum. Eg fasting, meditation, faith effect, physical àctivities etc. However those understandings which are not yet clear in science but mentioned in religions, I do not reject those straight Away in one shot.

h

So yes, you're admitting that you selectively accept science based on whether it agrees with your religion. That's not how science works. But at least you're honestly admitting your hypocrisy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because many understandings of science and religion can match. I accept those scientific understandings which match with religíóus únderstandings in Religion forum and vice versa in Science forum. Eg fasting, meditation, faith effect, physical àctivities etc. However those understandings which are not yet clear in science but mentioned in religions, I do not reject those straight away in one shot. Those uñderstandings which are clear in science in A&F, I accept those without doubt in all forums but which are not yet A&F, those either I accept by taking calculative risk or do not reject but remain bit skeptical. Quite justified.

Uhm, Kumar. Hate to break this to you, but .... we don't give a damn what you accept or not. This is a skeptical forum and ALL that matters is evidence.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Uhm, Kumar. Hate to break this to you, but .... we don't give a damn what you accept or not. This is a skeptical forum and ALL that matters is evidence.

Hans

Yes, A&F evidence. Half truth is often a great lie. You çan be mistaken or dó not understand it well, if an alphanso mango tree ís told other than alphanso mango tree. Refer example. Anything in A&F is accceptable to me in A&F, anywhere.

 

[Kumar]

So yes, you're admitting that you selectively accept science based on whether it agrees with your religion. That's not how science works. But at least you're honestly admitting your hypocrisy.

True. When I expressed that Alphonso Mango tree example, I should have been already clear to you. Simply, A&F truth & lie is very simple, somewhat impossible to argue on these and no end of arguments on otherwise to these.

 

[Kumar]

Er is he still dead?

It is great question. In some sense yes in other not.

 

[JayUtah]

True.

It's cute that you don't realize what you've admitted to. Twice.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll ask again. Are you seriously arguing that just because a story has been written down and is centuries old, it must be true?

I'm giving you another chance to answer this question, Kumar. Please sit and think for a moment before you just hammer away at the keyboard.

 

[Kumar]

It's cute that you don't realize what you've admitted to. Twice.

MPOVs can be there if thing is not A&F and can be interpreted in self interest, ego, dim vision or ignorance. Mango tree example. Also read it for it:

nekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness") refers to the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.[1] It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex, has multiple aspects.[2] Anekantavada has also been interpreted to mean non-absolutism, "intellectual Ahimsa",[3] religious pluralism,[4] as well as a rejection of fanaticism that leads to terror attacks and mass violence.[5]

According to Jainism, no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth. This knowledge (Kevala Jnana), it adds, is comprehended only by the Arihants. Other beings and their statements about absolute truth are incomplete, and at best a partial truth.[6] Anekāntavāda is a fundamental doctrine of Jainism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

 

[JayUtah]

MPOVs can be there if thing is not A&F...

No, that's not how science works. At this point you're just a laughingstock.

 

[Kumar]

I'm giving you another chance to answer this question, Kumar. Please sit and think for a moment before you just hammer away at the keyboard.

Not necessary but that can also be possible. We have to go into A&F science of that. IF A&F science is not available, then it shall be subject to both sides. Till then we can just base logic-inherent knowledge if that exist in mass people.

 

[JayUtah]

Not necessary but that can also be possible. We have to go into A&F science of that. IF A&F science is not available, then it shall be subject to both sides. Till then we can just base logic-inherent knowledge if that exist in mass people.

Wow. I asked you to sit and think about the question before writing. And what did you do? You hammered out yet another completely nonsensical and irrelevant response.

Do you really believe that just because a story is old and has been written down, it must be true? Please answer this question and not some other one.

 

[bruto]

Wow. I asked you to sit and think about the question before writing. And what did you do? You hammered out yet another completely nonsensical and irrelevant response.

Do you really believe that just because a story is old and has been written down, it must be true? Please answer this question and not some other one.

I presume that the "not necessary" there refers to thinking, so in a sense he has answered the question in a way one could have predicted. Thinking is a rare commodity, used only sparingly, and then only succussed to undetectable amounts.

 

[Kumar]

Wow. I asked you to sit and think about the question before writing. And what did you do? You hammered out yet another completely nonsensical and irrelevant response.

Do you really believe that just because a story is old and has been written down, it must be true? Please answer this question and not some other one.

Can be.

 

[Mojo]

Also read it for it:

Looks like a great way to handwave away inconsistencies in supposedly infallible religious texts.

 

[Mojo]

Do you really believe that just because a story is old and has been written down, it must be true? Please answer this question and not some other one.

It doesn't need to be written down, it only needs to be believed by a lot of people. Here's a handy table produced by Zep, a former forum member with considerable experience of Kumar's arguments:

 

[Mojo]

I presume that the "not necessary" there refers to thinking...

I dunno, he also said it "can also be possible".

 

[Kumar]

It doesn't need to be written down, it only needs to be believed by a lot of people. Here's a handy table produced by Zep, a former forum member with considerable experience of Kumar's arguments:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/710457bfee3d0ad4.jpg[/qimg]

, You are endorsing mass existing.

 

[Mojo]

, You are endorsing mass existing.

You are failing to get the point, as usual.