DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Mantra

**Cnbaapuy** · 05-13-2011, 08:50 AM

.....This is a typical Nara-like interpretation: pinch the child and rock the cradle too. You know very well what I meant when I said "the concept of mantra as a magical phrase has always existed in human consciousness," etc.

Saidevo, please do not ascribe ulterior motives, I am not trying to be deceptive in anyway.

Your explanations now do not throw any more light. Arabian Nights and Harry Potter show that an imaginative human mind can make up fantastic stuff, but not that everything that humans can think of are facts in reality. I don't understand how this is equal to pinching a child and rocking the cradle. This phrase reminds me of a particularly nasty comment somebody made against me that involved you.

It is a convention in science to accept the existing/conventional explanation until a more convincing one is found. So, why not accept the metaphysical explanations of the universe, human mind, soul and existence until science can effectively disprove them? So your stand is, science sometimes gets stuff wrong, so your metaphysical explanation made out of plain cloth for which there is no evidence at all must be accepted?

Which metaphysical explanation one must accept? Abrahamic tradition says their god created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day. They say we all must accept this until science can definitively disprove it. They also make all the arguments you make. But you don't accept everything they say. You don't accept that Jesus died for your sins, do you? Why not, science cannot disprove this. But, without loss of irony, you insist that science can't disprove your position, therefore your view is right.

Scientific knowledge is not a well defined domain, at the boundary there is much speculation, theories are floated, believed to be very likely to be true until proved otherwise. Proving something wrong also adds to scientific knowledge. For religion, there is nothing called proving something wrong.

I don't understand why you even care about science. In your view, science is flawed, so just let it go. You know I also feel science is not flawless, there is lot of bad science that goes on. But the process of science is such that over time the bad science gets exposed or disproved and there is always a forward march.

Thanks, Nara, for helping me find my voice. I don't understand, how so?

Cheers!

05-13-2011, 08:50 AM	#16
Cnbaapuy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 488 Senior Member	.....This is a typical Nara-like interpretation: pinch the child and rock the cradle too. You know very well what I meant when I said "the concept of mantra as a magical phrase has always existed in human consciousness," etc. Saidevo, please do not ascribe ulterior motives, I am not trying to be deceptive in anyway. Your explanations now do not throw any more light. Arabian Nights and Harry Potter show that an imaginative human mind can make up fantastic stuff, but not that everything that humans can think of are facts in reality. I don't understand how this is equal to pinching a child and rocking the cradle. This phrase reminds me of a particularly nasty comment somebody made against me that involved you. It is a convention in science to accept the existing/conventional explanation until a more convincing one is found. So, why not accept the metaphysical explanations of the universe, human mind, soul and existence until science can effectively disprove them? So your stand is, science sometimes gets stuff wrong, so your metaphysical explanation made out of plain cloth for which there is no evidence at all must be accepted? Which metaphysical explanation one must accept? Abrahamic tradition says their god created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day. They say we all must accept this until science can definitively disprove it. They also make all the arguments you make. But you don't accept everything they say. You don't accept that Jesus died for your sins, do you? Why not, science cannot disprove this. But, without loss of irony, you insist that science can't disprove your position, therefore your view is right. Scientific knowledge is not a well defined domain, at the boundary there is much speculation, theories are floated, believed to be very likely to be true until proved otherwise. Proving something wrong also adds to scientific knowledge. For religion, there is nothing called proving something wrong. I don't understand why you even care about science. In your view, science is flawed, so just let it go. You know I also feel science is not flawless, there is lot of bad science that goes on. But the process of science is such that over time the bad science gets exposed or disproved and there is always a forward march. Thanks, Nara, for helping me find my voice. I don't understand, how so? Cheers!
	Quote