Is your bullshit detector going off too?

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15908
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Is your bullshit detector going off too?

http://www.mindopenerz.com/holy-man-hasnt-eaten-for-70-years/

Yea and I get blowjobs from Angelina Jolie every day.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
B.S. detector on full alert.

 

 

                          Way back in 1981 the IRA prisoners in British gaols went on a hunger strike, several died because of it. Bobby Sands seems to be the "champion" he lasted 66 days, while laying inert in his cell, before dieing of starvation.  Now this sadhu has far more experience in laying inert between meals, maybe 70  days but sure has hell not 70 years. The article said he was under close observation for 15 days, that  would be as nothing to this sadhu; test him for 70 days and see if he dies. But at age 83 his death would surprise no one and prove nothing.

 

 

     

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
This guy isn't any thing

This guy isn't any thing new. I've followed him off and on for ten years and found he is a mentally disturbed person.

Most notable is the fact that during the studies he became extremely weak. He also lost weight which means his body was eating itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani

(edit)

I am more likely to believe this young man. I recall back in 2004 following him intently and have done so every time he appears from meditation.

He is more honest and sincere than the jokers you see claiming powers and abilities that would make one believe they are super-natural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15908
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:This

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This guy isn't any thing new. I've followed him off and on for ten years and found he is a mentally disturbed person.

Most notable is the fact that during the studies he became extremely weak. He also lost weight which means his body was eating itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani

(edit)

I am more likely to believe this young man. I recall back in 2004 following him intently and have done so every time he appears from meditation.

He is more honest and sincere than the jokers you see claiming powers and abilities that would make one believe they are super-natural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon

 

Look, I really don't care. Human endurance is evolutionary based, not woo or superstition or religion based. Not knowing the training of the trick or how it is done does not make the label valid. Navy Seals are also trained for endurance but no one assigns that to superstitious bullshit.

 

This is the same mental crap that allows people to believe in magic when all it is an illusion. Not knowing HOW something is done, does not mean the woo is valid, it simply means you don't know how they do it.

 

I love Sam Harris but I really hate, especially for a neurologist, he should know better than to give one lick of credibility to Buddhism.

 

Evolution is why people are a range, and endurance can be biological, it is merely a matter of training. Not all people will be able to do it, but to claim it is label specific is absurd.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I love Sam

Brian37 wrote:

I love Sam Harris but I really hate, especially for a neurologist, he should know better than to give one lick of credibility to Buddhism.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

One lick of credibility? I give credit to Christianity and Islam for some of the good they produce, even though there are extremists who warp and manipulate others to do terrible things.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No detector necessary. Both

No detector necessary. Both bullshitters. No food + no drink = no life. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15908
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I love Sam Harris but I really hate, especially for a neurologist, he should know better than to give one lick of credibility to Buddhism.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

One lick of credibility? I give credit to Christianity and Islam for some of the good they produce, even though there are extremists who warp and manipulate others to do terrible things.

 

No, seriously ACTIONS not labels EVOLUTION not labels, explain both the harm and good we do as a species. Morality and biology and even issues of human endurance are naturally explained and are not religion dependent. None of the religions you listed above were around when we started to evolve from other primates, and in the future these comic book clubs will either morph and change or even die out.

 

Victor Stenger "The New Atheism" goes into great detail about why the "credit" is evolution based and common to our existence and NOT label dependent.

 

Saying "religion can do good" is stupid. The fact that good exists in all labels negates the need for them. Otherwise if a label were needed for our evolution or morality to evolve only one religion would exist and the rest would not. Religion is a placebo affect, it fosters group survival, but that same mentality caused the Egyptians to be successful for 3,000 years centered around the FALSE belief that the sun was a deity. I do not give any label a pass, not even atheists.

I often hear atheists say "when WE get to be the majority WE will treat you better than you treated us". NO that is just as absurd an assumption as any other label claiming morality. Atheism is not a moral code anymore than off is a TV channel. We are all the same species and it is when we forget this we are doomed to the same alpha male tribalism that divides us.

 

OUR EVOLUTION fosters the full range of dominance and self interest AND compassion and cooperation. BOTH exist and both can lead to reproduction. This is a fact not even atheists can escape. No human is above nature in doing good or bad. Just because you have a favorite flavor of placebo does not make the placebo valid. It just means you like it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, seriously

Brian37 wrote:
No, seriously ACTIONS not labels EVOLUTION not labels, explain both the harm and good we do as a species. Morality and biology and even issues of human endurance are naturally explained and are not religion dependent. None of the religions you listed above were around when we started to evolve from other primates, and in the future these comic book clubs will either morph and change or even die out.

 

I refuse to attempt wrapping my brain around your logic again. The entire "this or that didn't exist 200,000 years ago is immaterial.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15908
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
No, seriously ACTIONS not labels EVOLUTION not labels, explain both the harm and good we do as a species. Morality and biology and even issues of human endurance are naturally explained and are not religion dependent. None of the religions you listed above were around when we started to evolve from other primates, and in the future these comic book clubs will either morph and change or even die out.

 

I refuse to attempt wrapping my brain around your logic again. The entire "this or that didn't exist 200,000 years ago is immaterial.

 

I should start calling you Isac Hayes, fine with pointing fingers at the logic of others but when it hits close to home then suddenly its "hands off".

It sure as hell matters. You just said "I give credit" in reference to religion doing good. DUH but it is human evolution doing that not the religion itself, the religion is merely a political way of claiming to be the inventor of human morality.

Yes religion can do good, just like believing in the "Christmas spirit"(even the secular) makes people think falsely there is one day or one time of the season we should be good, when "goodness" is not day dependent because you can do good any day of the year.

Religion is a placebo. If you have not read "The New Atheism" READ IT, if you have then you are merely in denial on par with the other religious claims you rightfully reject.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I should start

Brian37 wrote:
I should start calling you Isac Hayes, fine with pointing fingers at the logic of others but when it hits close to home then suddenly its "hands off".

It sure as hell matters. You just said "I give credit" in reference to religion doing good. DUH but it is human evolution doing that not the religion itself, the religion is merely a political way of claiming to be the inventor of human morality.

Yes religion can do good, just like believing in the "Christmas spirit"(even the secular) makes people think falsely there is one day or one time of the season we should be good, when "goodness" is not day dependent because you can do good any day of the year.

Religion is a placebo. If you have not read "The New Atheism" READ IT, if you have then you are merely in denial on par with the other religious claims you rightfully reject.

I hate to point something out to you, but evolution would take place with or with out humans. It isn't any thing spectacular. It's just what it is and a side effect of the environment.

Evolution is just a placebo.

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4246
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Religion is a

Brian37 wrote:

Religion is a placebo. If you have not read "The New Atheism" READ IT, if you have then you are merely in denial on par with the other religious claims you rightfully reject.

religion is a placebo.  so is any other metaphysic.  placebos are therapeutic and so is religion for some people.  if this gentleman harris (i haven't read any of the so-called "new atheist" writers) finds certain elements of buddhism therapeutic on a subjective, aesthetic level, who the fuck are you to pitch a hissy fit about it?  is he pitching a hissy fit about you NOT finding therapeutic value in some sort of metaphysic, buddhist or otherwise?  i don't know, but my guess is no.

i don't dream of a world without religion, i dream of a world where people don't insist their subjective experiences have objective reality.  studying indian religions, particularly buddhism and certain branches of hinduism, have provided me with plenty of therapy for my own type of existential malaise, i.e., pessimism and misanthropy.  i do not accept everything these religions have to offer, and the idea of many theists and atheists that religion is an all-or-nothing deal is, quite frankly, juvenile.  critical discernment is a sign of maturity, black-and-white dichotomies of immaturity. 

i trust science to give me as accurate a picture of empirical reality as is humanly possible, and that is something i think everyone should do.  i fight religions in so far as they try to usurp that role.  i do not trust science to make me feel good about myself because experience has shown me that it does not.  if your experience has been the opposite, great.  my experience, however, is that contemplating a passage from the upanishads or the madhyamika-karika makes me a much better person than contemplating a passage from the bible or stephen hawking.  if harris has a similar experience--if that's what you mean by him "giving credibility to buddhism"--then who are you to say he's wrong?  if, however, harris is saying buddhism gives us an accurate picture of objective existence, then i agree he's being ridiculous.

some people are the best human beings they can be as christians, muslims, jews, hindus, jains, druze, sikhs, or buddhists.  taking them out of that element would make them worse.  as the buddha himself taught, a good doctor knows there are different medicines for different illnesses.  atheism is not the medicine for everybody.  if a sugar pill is enough to make someone feel better, you certainly don't want to give them chemo.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4246
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You just said

Brian37 wrote:

You just said "I give credit" in reference to religion doing good. DUH but it is human evolution doing that not the religion itself, the religion is merely a political way of claiming to be the inventor of human morality.

thinking about evolution is not making me feel good about myself or others, brian!  if it does you, wonderful, but will you stop pulling that word out like some kind of fucking talisman?  knowing everything goes back to evolution is not going to change everybody's life for the better.  no one bit of knowledge is going to change everybody's life for the better.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
It's interesting how things

It's interesting how things are so different in one area and so similar in others. I can disagree on guns with one member but then agree on health care with the same person. It's those people who don't overlap with any of us in any area of interest which scares me.