43
   

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 5 Dec, 2013 03:03 am
@carnaticmystery,
I didn't google at all, i happen to know the word from my reading in the days before the interwebs, bright boy. Carnatic does not solely refer to a musical style. The point is that this is evidence of your selection bias.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 5 Dec, 2013 03:21 am
This very subject is being debated on BBC Radio 4 right now.

Quote:
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Hindu ideas about the creation of the universe.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 5 Dec, 2013 03:26 am
I doubt that. This joker is claiming that his theistic beliefs, which are clearly based on his interpretation of Hinduism, are universal. He quickly descended into vicious personal reflections when challenged. He has also shown a marked selection bias and selectivity in historical and cultural references. I doubt that that constitutes the subject of your BBC program.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 12:05 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I doubt that. This joker is claiming that his theistic beliefs, which are clearly based on his interpretation of Hinduism, are universal.


haha, all this shows is your inadequate comprehension of the english language. i have NEVER claimed to be a theist, and still do not. i know about the hindu religion because i was raised as a hindu. then, like most people who grow a brain, i developed my own views on life.
Quote:
He quickly descended into vicious personal reflections when challenged. He has also shown a marked selection bias and selectivity in historical and cultural references. I doubt that that constitutes the subject of your BBC program.

everything supposedly 'vicious' that i have said is in response to you. i have no selection bias, i openly admitted that hindus are violent way before you and your idiotic examples. i simply stated that evidence is NOT NEEDED to know that the amount of violence happening in all of human history is significantly more among muslim/christian populations than hindu/buddhist populations. i will not dignify anyone who argues against this with a response.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 12:10 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Carnatic does not solely refer to a musical style. The point is that this is evidence of your selection bias.

lol. you think anyone on earth still uses the word 'carnatic' geographically? seriously, nothing amuses me more than a non-indian thinking he can teach me all about indian things. rofl.
timur
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 08:11 am
@Setanta,
I cannot help thinking of all these words carn related:

Quote:

carnage (s) (noun), carnages (pl)
1. Widespread and indiscriminate slaughter or massacre; especially, of human beings.
2. The savage and excessive killing of many people.
3. Serious injury to a great many people; such as, in a major accident.
4. The slaughter of a great number of people; such as, in battle; butchery; massacre.
5. Etymology: from Old French carnage, from Old Italian carnaggio, "slaughter, murder"; from Medieval Latin carnaticum, "flesh, meat", from Latin carnem or carn-, "flesh".

carnal (adjective)
1. A reference to the desires and appetites of the flesh or body; sensual.
2. Worldly or earthly as opposed to spiritual; temporal: the carnal world.
carnality (s) (noun) (used only as a singular)
A condition in which a person is involved in the appetites and passions of the body; sensual; fleshly; and being the opposite of spirituality.

carnalize (verb), carnalizes; carnalized; carnalizing
To make more materialistic or physical, as opposed to being spiritual.
carnally (adverb), more carnally, most carnally
Referring to the flesh or to baser physical instincts, often referring to sexual desires.

carnifex (s), carnificis (pl)
1. The public executioner at Rome, who executed people of the lowest social status (not Roman citizens); thus, an executioner or hangman.
2. Carnifex comes from Latin caro, carnis, "flesh" and facere, "to make."

This word is also used as a term of reproach; either as "murderer, tormentor", or "scoundrel".

carnificare
To behead or to mangle.

carnification

carnificina (s), carnificinae (pl)
1. In Roman times, the hangman's office.
2. The place where executions and torturing were done.
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 09:14 am
@carnaticmystery,
So you allege that when someone refers to one of the Carnatic wars, they mean a dispute about musical styles carried out with firearms?

Nothing amuses me more than seeing some dip who knows nothing about the world outside his narrow orbit attempting to make universal claims about religion, politics, history, etc.
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 09:15 am
And don't forget one of my all-time favorites, chili con carne . . .

http://www.simplyrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/chili-con-carne-500.jpg
timur
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 09:17 am
Same etymology..
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 09:18 am
Ate a what?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 09:19 am
@Setanta,
Oh man that looks good. I'm getting Chili for lunch Smile
Setanta wrote:

And don't forget one of my all-time favorites, chili con carne . . .

http://www.simplyrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/chili-con-carne-500.jpg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 09:23 am
Now i'm gonna hafta root around for some kidney beans . . .
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 06:31 pm
@Setanta,
The Portuguese word for meet is precisely "carne".
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 11:41 pm
@timur,
Quote:
I cannot help thinking of all these words carn related:

congrats on finding many english words beginning with 'carn', to prove that a sanskrit word 'carnatic', means 'violence'.

actually the word is derived from 'karu' and 'naadu' meaning 'black home'. of course it originally referred to the geographical location of 'south india', but it was british occupation that changed all the names. hence, now nobody refers to the word 'carnatic' geographically, because it doesn't exist anymore, it exists as separate south indian states of tamil nadu, karnataka and andhra pradhesh.

0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Fri 6 Dec, 2013 11:47 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
So you allege that when someone refers to one of the Carnatic wars, they mean a dispute about musical styles carried out with firearms?

no, i allege that nobody uses the term geographically anymore. if you try to tell somebody in the general population today about the carnatic wars, they would ask you 'what/where is that?' . it should not be general knowledge to know all the old, outdated names of places. hence my comment is certainly valid that very few people use the word 'carnatic' geographically anymore.

Quote:
Nothing amuses me more than seeing some dip who knows nothing about the world outside his narrow orbit attempting to make universal claims about religion, politics, history, etc.

i never made any universal claims about any such things. i talked about hinduism and admitted i know little about other religions. i said in my opinion and most hindu's opinions, god=universe, and nonviolence is part of culture. i have no narrow orbit through which i experience the world, i see no difference between the world and me. have fun trying to prove that people still use the word carnatic geographically hahahahah
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 05:14 am
@carnaticmystery,
The pint, which you sedulously avoid is that you identify yourself as very likely Indian with your screen name--and you have demonstrated that the assessment is accurate.

You most certainly did make a universal claim. You stated that all religions were pretty much alike, that theists all believed in the same god and identified that god with the universe.
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 05:19 am
This was your post:

carnaticmystery wrote:
total number of hindus/muslims/buddhists combined in the world significantly outweigh christians. all their philosophies ultimately boil down to a single unified 'god', which is defined as everything in existence. hindus call it brahman, muslims call it allah, buddhists call it buddhahood or enlightenment.


Having excluded Christians, you attempted to claim that everyone else thinks the same way. Wikipedia and other online sources contradict your claims with regard to Hinduism, and you're peddling bullshit about Buddhism. I've already pointed out that the Muslim view of god is much more like the christian view. Essentially, you have a parochial view and you're naïve enough to attempt to claim that it's universal.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 07:51 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
The pint, which you sedulously avoid is that you identify yourself as very likely Indian with your screen name--and you have demonstrated that the assessment is accurate.

never avoided such a fact, nor do i care about your assessment as such.
Quote:
You most certainly did make a universal claim. You stated that all religions were pretty much alike, that theists all believed in the same god and identified that god with the universe.

firstly, i never made any such claim that ALL religions, i said 3 religions, and then conceded i was wrong about some of them. nothing about that is universal buddy.

secondly, i would still claim that 'god=universe' is the intended meaning of god in all religions. only subsequent misinterpretations by people have made god mean other things.

you trying to prove me wrong about it in hinduism has shown me clearly that you will prove it wrong for all religions, so there is no point arguing further. your claim is that hindus believe in millions of gods, therefore god cannot mean the universe in hinduism. this is a classic example of the idiotic reasoning by which you must believe all other religions also do not think god=universe.

so you have fun thinking that hindus are violent killers, christians and muslims are peaceful saints, and nobody on earth thinks that god=universe because it is the most idiotic concept ever conceived.

and i will continue to know that in fact, the intended truth behind all religions is that god=universe. and i will continue to be neither a theist, an atheist or an agnostic.
carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 07:56 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
This was your post:

keep quoting the same post i made earlier even though i already changed my claim...jeez you are too stupid for words.

here let me show you some maths:
1+1 = 3.
2+2 =5.

ohhhh no i made some errors. its actually 1+1=2, 2+2=4.

oh well at least you can quote those errors for the next few weeks or so..
Deaths Bane
 
  0  
Sat 7 Dec, 2013 08:02 am
@igm,
If you ask me, it's completely impossible that there is no divine being, because without which, nothing could exist. I mean, who wrote the laws of science? Who said matter is allowed to exist? It doesn't make sense unless both ideas work in harmony.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:51:58