• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

Then prove it by accepting my last post.
Your last post does not address the point of the post which it quotes. Whether certain Jainist teachings can be interpreted in ways which make them consistent with some (not all) current physics is irrelevant to the point JayUtah was making, which was that you criticised people for giving opinions on subjects which were outside their area of expertise and then proceeded to quote as an authority someone giving their opinion on subjects which were outside their area of expertise.

You certainly did do that, Kumar. It was blatant hypocrisy.
 
Your last post does not address the point of the post which it quotes. Whether certain Jainist teachings can be interpreted in ways which make them consistent with some (not all) current physics is irrelevant to the point JayUtah was making, which was that you criticised people for giving opinions on subjects which were outside their area of expertise and then proceeded to quote as an authority someone giving their opinion on subjects which were outside their area of expertise.

You certainly did do that, Kumar. It was blatant hypocrisy.

One sidedness proved. Sorry.
 
Inability to understand plain English proved.

Okay, just yes or no. Whether that post of mine justifying nature, science & logic is correct or not? Eternal, you can take the basic level of all things and beings in nature i.e energy.
 
Okay, just yes or no. Whether that post of mine justifying nature, science & logic is correct or not? Eternal, you can take the basic level of all things and beings in nature i.e energy.

Your post was not coherent enough to be right or wrong.
That's a special kind of wrong.
 
Okay, just yes or no. Whether that post of mine justifying nature, science & logic is correct or not? Eternal, you can take the basic level of all things and beings in nature i.e energy.
All I got from your post (if I ignore the fact that it ignored the point of the post to which it was supposedly a reply) is that there are some Jain writings that can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with modern physics.

I don't understand what you mean when you say the post is "justifying nature, science & logic".
 
All I got from your post (if I ignore the fact that it ignored the point of the post to which it was supposedly a reply) is that there are some Jain writings that can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with modern physics.

I don't understand what you mean when you say the post is "justifying nature, science & logic".

Okay, I agree 'you don't understand'. Obiously when you don't understand, you are not entitles to comment on either side.:o
 
Your last post does not address the point of the post which it quotes. Whether certain Jainist teachings can be interpreted in ways which make them consistent with some (not all) current physics is irrelevant to the point JayUtah was making, which was that you criticised people for giving opinions on subjects which were outside their area of expertise and then proceeded to quote as an authority someone giving their opinion on subjects which were outside their area of expertise.

You certainly did do that, Kumar. It was blatant hypocrisy.


25 TYPES OF WRONG BELIEFS (MITHYATVA)[ in Jainism]
There are twenty-five different types of wrong beliefs:

[...snip...]

8. Agreeing with hypocrites,

[...snip...]

http://jainworld.com/jainbooks/image...ONG_BELIEF.htm


;)
 
Kumar, judging by that list of "wrong beliefs in Jainism" you posted, it is entirely possible that you are the world's worst Jain.

Thanks for certifying me that I am not one sided person. :)
 
Last edited:
No you are lying. You have, insulted me, my religion and all religion in your perception of non-belief.

If you are insulted by fact, then you are in the wrong place. If you demand that your religion be held in high regard regardless of fact, you shouldn't be preaching it to skeptics.

When you claim science is not yet A&F and can never be, you should also accept that it is open to all suspicion and if so, how can we take it as an supreme authority to judge anything.

Asked and answered. Your "absolute and final" standard of proof is absurd. And you don't follow it yourself, as your critics in another thread proved. It's not something useful to gauge knowledge; it's just a club you use to bludgeon anyone who shows you uncomfortable facts. Every fringe claimant, when faced with fact, tries to lash out at science and other observational methods.the reveal that fact. You don't seem to be any different.

AND you are asking me to believe in such non-A&F things.

I'm asking you to believe in facts. For example, Dr. Chandra Bose, in his writings on plants, says absolutely nothing about them having souls or feeling the same emotions as humans. I know because I read them. So when Bhagchandra cites Chandra Bose as scientific confirmation of his Jain beliefs on the subject, that is a lie. Bacteria in drinking water is the only thing abated by distillation. That is a fact.

If your religion can be insulted by facts then it deserves to be insulted by facts. Your religion is being properly judged on its approach to fact.

Another case
...
How?

You tell me; you're the one who put forth the argument that one had to be either a scientist or religious, but couldn't be both. I certainly never made any such argument or claim. About half of all the scientists who work for me are Mormon. The dichotomy works in their personal and professional lives because they aren't as dogmatic about religion as you are. Sounds like the problem is your attitude toward religion.
 
This is your or your's type's assessment may not be applicable on me. Refer wrong beliefs as suggested in Jainism which also apply to me. I can not compare a superior thing with inferior thing. I do not feel, people should get hypnotized by looking popularity of inferior thing currently. Let it be A&F then, I shall really respect it and its followers. Before that, we can just critically discuss its non A&F part in hope, it may become A&F.

Excuses, excuses.
 
Things can also depend on whatever I tried to indicate in my other topic Difference... But truth in any religion should primarily base these. But however both violence & peace can be natural, logical and scientific in sense "nature balances itself" either by creation or by destruction...some like it for eg. 0/1>>7<<13/14
A typical non answer. You said religion does certain things, which it clearly and demonstrably fails to do. So now comes the verbal-nonsense shuffle to say that wrong is right and war is peace, because the one thing that can never happen here is that Kumar might be wrong.
 
One sidedness proved. Sorry.

Actually on the contrary, it fairly proves that you apply one standard to yourself and a much higher standard to others -- a double standard of proof. Your arguments attempting to prove Jainism as a scientifically valid religion reek of hypocrisy and of your own ineptitude. Your unwillingness to resolve the hypocrisy makes it quite comical when you lash out emotionally at your critics for their supposed entrenchment and mean-spiritedness. Most skeptics are unimpressed by religions fanatics who, under fair examination, boil down to nothing more than sanctimonious blowhards.

And you've been given several chances to redeem Bhagchandra, but it seems you're going to do nothing more spectacular than double-down and insist that my refutation of his claims doesn't pass muster, but without being able to substantiate that insistence in any way. It's been apparent for some time that you don't check your references. You don't vet your sources. That is a cardinal sin among skeptics. Three times now -- one with PETA, another with Einstein, and now with Bhagchandra -- you have simply :Googled up something in haste that you thought would be the end of the discussion. When it turns out not to be, your only recourse seems to be throwing a tantrum. You're losing the debate because you are a poor researcher and a poor logician and immature as a litigant, not because your critics are the terrible people you're trying to paint them as.

Which brings us to your other catch-phrase, "one-sidedness." You accused me yesterday or the day before of being disharmonious. This is a debate. Disharmony is the sine qua non of one of those. You seem to think the overriding moral here is that we should just forget our differences and come together in harmony. That's not what skepticism is. You're in a skeptics' forum, a fact you don't seem to have learned despite your many years here. Skeptics aren't going to let you get away with misstating fact or asserting beliefs as fact. They aren't going to let go untested a claim that can be tested, simply to reach for some supposedly higher ideal. I'm really surprised you haven't figured out yet how things work here.
 
Excuses, excuses.

Simple reply to all your nice interpretations are since science is not yet À&F, so nothing can be A&F, consequently, So skeptics can take benéfits from that non A&F part and declare others in front of them as non A&F. It means they can never be satisfied and can argue infinitély due to it. Can you show any referance where skeptícs surrendered on such discussións? It is just their duty to aurgue anyhow and food for it is nón A&F nature of science. On carefully noticing it, I just lost my ínterest for serious discussions bécause I know, end will never come esp in my favour. You should simply care that since science is not yet A&F, no side çan be A&F, so aurguments and TTTTs can continúe infinitely without results. So it will be just waste of tine and relations. So just wait till science become A&F.
 
"A&F" is a nonsensical concept anyway, just words that end up meaning nothing except what you decide they will. Every practitioner of a religion is convinced that his answer to the great mysteries of the universe is absolute and final, and as often as not, that that finality justifies his killing, displacing, or enslaving those who disagree. Nothing in what you say other than your own declaration can convince anyone else that this time you have it right. This is true even if your particular outlook is kind and serene. It is very possible occasionally to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

In the mean time, the demand that nothing can be declared unless everything is "A&F" is monumentally ridiculous, as it means that nobody can know anything about anything. It's true enough that science is not absolute and final, and yet we still expect the sun to rise in the morning, and when we drop a rock we can confidently expect it to fall down, not up.

The fact that we do not know everything does not mean that we know nothing, and the notion that the incompleteness of our knowledge allows us to believe whatever unproven nonsense comes along is not only a mush brained notion, but a large contributing factor to why this world is a shabby place filled with war, famine, corruption and irresponsibility. That is true even if your particular brand of mush is better tasting.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom