========
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: VEDANTA
From: Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu dasa)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:50:20 GMT

star9m@cris.com (Quicksilver) wrote:

>In an effort to shorten this argument, I will not debate every point
>and attempt to contain it to a few vital points. I think that posts
>that are over 100 lines are too long and often not downloaded and
>read.

I think you just skipped the points which you are not comfortable with
and couldn't object to in any intelligible way, like the point of the
inability of atheism to offer any tangible relief to the poor,
disabled and oppressed people of the world. Atheism dictates that you
have no other identity beyond your body. How do you think that sounds
to one who is born blind, or lame, or without arms or legs, eh?

>This is really the meat of this whole dispute. Evangelism is when you
>come here and tell us what we do not know, and that _YOU_ have all the
>answers.

I never said that _I_ had all the answers. I said that the sages of
the Vedas had all the answers. What's wrong with that? You certainly
don't have all the answers, neither does modern science. Does that
mean that nobody has? Did you actually check out some of the solutions
offered in the Vedas?

> You come blundering in here disregarding and disrespecting
>the motivations, morality, and sensitivity of the people and purpose
>that alt.atheism exists for; the concerns of _ATHEISTS_!

Oh the poor misunderstood atheists. My heart is bleeding for you.

> Then, you
>have the arrogance to tell us that we can become civilized if we adopt
>your beliefs.

They are not my beliefs. It's an age old science by which to
understand reality.

Try and look at it my way. I consider Atheism a heinous philosophy
that must be destroyed by all means. You are certainly entitled to
believe what you want. I don't dispute that. But if you want to
propagate your lame dribble in a public forum - where you take a lot
of pleasure in mocking theism - it should certainly not go undisputed.

>>Why shouldn't I use a computer? I have to in order to counteract the
>>brain dead propaganda oozing out from the atheistic propaganda machine
>>like pus from an infested sore.

>I did not say or want to say that you shouldn't use a computer. I was
>pointing out your selective acceptance of which parts of science to
>denounce or conveniently use.

So if some parts of science can be conveniently used, why shouldn't I
do that? I have to cambat this nonsense atheism, and since they set
down rules, what other choice do I have but to fight them by their own
means?

>There is no atheistic propoganda machine. Atheist philosophy:
>1) I do not believe in your god or any others, now leave me alone.

What do you think TV, movies and advertisement are, eh?
In the movies they depict people of the lowest possible character,
expressing themselves with the foulest, coarsest, no brain vocabulary
you can imagine, as some kind of heroes that we should even
sympathyzise with. You know, like John Travolta in Pupl Fiction.

Here we have an utterly useless, dumbass killer junkie with a
vocabulary of a 15 year old  and two cells left in his brain,  who is
being presented as some kind of nice guy with a respectable
occupation. He even has his own little philosophy to deliver.

These are the role models kids grow up with now a days. 
By far the majority of movies to ever come out of Hollywood show role
models who depict low, crude, primitive behavior. People who
constantly smoke cigarettes and drink and eat meat are depicted as
nice guys. Men who run after women as if sex was the highest
attainable goal of life, and who have two words in their vocabulary...
'fuck' and 'you', are presented as real cool persons.. persons that
are worth identifying with.

These are the atheist preachers. And their message is being grinded
out into the ether day and night, non stop in all media. What is their
message?... "You are this body, and the goal of life is to enjoy this
body. There is no higher goal in life. Nobody knows anything so better
just get into it and get the best out of while you can and then screw
the rest of the inhabitants on the planet."

>There are no atheist missionaries. There are no atheist preachers
>conning people out of millions with false promises.

I think it is time you wake up to the facts of life. At least don't
take offense when somebody points out to you that you are in a serious
illusion.

> Atheists neither
>make claims to any specific knowledge

What!? Are they not the ones who say that life is nothing but a
conglomeration of chemicals? Of course you are right in saying that
they have no specific knowledge to back up their ludicrous claims, but
still they preach their demoniac gospel in all the school books and
popular pseudo scientific magazines of the world.

> or threaten eternal damnation on
>those who accept contrary philosophies.

Who does that? In case you haven't found out let me tell you that I
don't represent the Church.

>>There you go again, smart boy. Did you even care to check out the
>>knowledge and philosophy of the Vedas?

>Notice how _YOU_ are the one using the personal attacks with your
>constant mocking reference to me as; 'smart boy'. You are the one to
>assume to know what I don't know and even as to my age and maturity.
>You come here with your superior attitude, and then get offended when
>someone points out obvious flaws in your claims. 

You never pointed out any flaws in my claims other that saying it is
not true. You never offered any reason or argument as to why the
claims of the Vedas are not true. I only attacked you personally after
you called me a crack pot spiritualist and compared me to a limp-dick
Bible thumbing fundamentalist. Hardly anything which could be viewed
as compliments, wouldn't you agree?

What are you whimpering about? If you can't take the heat why are so
eager to give it to others? It's called instant karma. You use abusive
language with me, I'll do the same to you.

>You claim that I know nothing of the variety of religions and then
>prove_MY_ point by being as vindictive and thin-skinned as any fundy
>christian cult.

Who is being thin skinned? Get a grip on yourself.

> What I said must have hit a nerve and caused you to
>question, even if for only a second, the crappola that your
>'all-knowing' guru pontificates from his exalted position of
>omnificence.

What did you say? The only thing you said was how I was not right, and
how I don't know, and how all religion is the same. You never offered
any substantial arguments or philosophy.

>>Because it shows that you too need a religion.

>So you are so all-knowing as to know what I lack?

I don't have to be all knowing to know that everyone needs something
to believe in. Some belief system to justify their actions. Some
belief to rest their lives on. Everyone but animals needs that.

> Isn't it becoming
>obvious why atheists do not need to read your mythology to find out
>that it is as full of crap as any other religion.

Man, listen to yourself. You are one brainwashed clown if I ever knew
one.

> By your own words
>you condemn yourself as to having the same elitist superior arrogance
>as any other evangelizing idealism.

I just claim that the Vedas contain superior knowledge. What's wrong
with that? I can back up my claims with logic and reason.You claim
that science provides us with superior knowledge, but you are not even
able to back back your numb, feeble claims up with anything but saying
that it just is so, because the scientists have proven it. Where is
the proof I ask you? Where is the proof that life comes from
chemicals?

That's what I would call elitist superior arrogance mixed with a good
portion of stupidity. What do you have to back up your claims with?
Since the dawn of Scientism, the world is rapidly going more and more
to hell. And you claim we are making progress. Where is the progress?
Tell me that.

>>In fact you didn't see anyone walking on the moon. Do I have to remind
>>you that your eyes are imperfect and don't have the ability to look
>>all the way to the moon? All you saw was some pictures on your TV
>>screen. Actually I doubt you even saw that. You probably weren't even
>>born in -69. Do you believe anything you see on TV?

>As a matter of fact, 1969 was the year I was honorably discharged from
>the US Navy.

That means you must be older than me. You know, I didn't think that
anyone over 40 would call himself 'quicksilver' unless he is in a
severe identity crisis. This sounds like a name a teenager would come
up with. Sorry if I misjudged you.

> I then went home to Boulder, Colo., as a krishna acolyte
>you should know all about that town. Your group was part of the new
>age wackism 

My, my, what loaded words we employ here. Wackism! And then in the end
you proceed to say that you never had to resort to name calling.

>that ruined what used to be a normal American community.

Normal according to whom? If it is normal to eat dead rotten animals,
I'd rather not be normal. Certainly I wouldn't like to be normal, if
it means to be like you.

>Did you other atheists know that Boulder is where the national
>headquarters for krishna cultists is located(it used to be, at least
>until I moved away)?

>I saw first hand what kind of people that cult sucked in, they were
>mostly burned out acid-heads or people that need a mommy to take care
>of them.  The gurus stripped them of all their material possesions,
>and justified it by vilifying materialism. The leaders then send these
>zombies out to beg or find other emotionally vulnerable victims to
>recruit. Krishna tactics are the same as all the other manipulative
>cults, so why should your mythology be any more right than any other
>belief or lack therof?

That's funny. I never got the impression that this is what Hare
Krishna is about, and I have after all been a full time devotee for 15
years. Don't you think I should know better than you, who has after
all made it obvious to any thinking person that you are completely
incapable of going beneath the exterior of things?

>I did not need to see any of this on TV, another one of your arrogant
>assumptions.

So where did you get this information? Did you actually go to the
temple and speak to the people there? Did you try and figure out why
they do what they do? Did you read any of the books that the devotees
are so eager to sell on the street? Did you ever try and wonder why a
person will give up all kinds of personal comfort and the pursuit of
sense gratification to go out the whole day on the streets amongst
people in a mostly hostile inviroment to present Krishna's message?

Did you ever try and ponder anything in that sorry excuse for a brain
you have?

>You are the one who needs an education. I am a pragmatist who rejects
>wishful thinking idealism. Religion makes promises, science delivers.

What do they deliver? Polution which makes it hell for countless of
other inhabitants of this planet? Is that what you mean? Science can't
even deliver pure water out of the tap anymore. Where I live people
get cancer from tap water and practically every day there are reports
of oil spillings from super tankers that kill off thousands of birds.

What is it that they deliver? Please tell me that.

>Science has saved my life, and has made my life more enjoyable.

They haven't saved your life. You will soon die. Did you forget that?
What you enjoy may be considered poison by someone else.

Certainly many living entities must suffer in order that you may eat a
burger.

>Theists have intruded into my life, insulted me, and then get all
>pissed off when I won't believe their enlightened bullshit.

I don't get pissed off because you won't believe what I say. 
I get pissed off when you can't offer any arguments for your wild
claims.

>It took all my restraint to avoid resorting to name-calling, which you
>with all your vedic idealistic tolerance were unable to do. I did not
>assume to tell you what you knew about any subject, I merely pointed
>out pragmatic disputations of your selective reasoning. Since I was
>able to get your goat without personal attacks or name calling, your
>vaunted vedic wisdom falls a little short of providing you the means
>to logically convince me of the errrors of my ways.

Are you retarded or what? Read your first post to me again, then come
back and tell me you didn't resort to any name calling. Hell, even in
this post you did that several times. You called the Krishnas zombies.
You don't consider that name calling?

>If you want to continue the personal attacks, I can always resurrect
>Infidel and show you what "swearing like a sailor" really means.

You scare me now.

> I
>would prefer it if you would just respect atheist philosophy and go
>away.

Go away? Forget it. This is war, man. If you don't like it crawl back
into the snake hole you emerged from You think you have a monopoly on
insulting people you sorry clown? If you won't discuss philosophy at
least I can insult you.

-Jahnu




>Al B.
>Somewhere in SoCal




http://webcom.com/~ara/col/vv.html
http://www.users.wineasy.se/storm/
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/hkindex.html