I challenge anyone (including Karunanidhi), who doubts the historicity of Ramayana/ Rama; to first prove the existance of his Greatest grand father, who should have lived 6 generations back. Let them provide, DNA samples and other scientific evidence. Krishna
RE:Proving Parentage
by Cool Santh on Apr 14, 2008 09:41 PM Permalink
If he can't prove his ancestor's DNA, will you prove Ram's DNA or atleast your ancestor's DNA for that matter ?
If you guys ask proof of Rama, someone will ask similar questions about you in return.
And then you retort by asking the same question about Rama again? Aren't you going around in circles? Why start it all by asking stupid questions of which you yourself wouldnt know the answer to?
RE:Proving Parentage
by Ha ha hi hi on Apr 14, 2008 10:22 PM Permalink
BJP will ban Biology,Physics and Chemistry.. since fire doesn't burn people, if stone floats on water... if human can fly without wings... and this subjects teaching is un-hindu!!!
Dear Dr.Singh, Darwin's theory is neither unnatural nor unscientific. It is widely accepted by most revered Scientists who actually know Science. It is very convenient for you to name Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson just two men( who by the way are so unimportant that Wikipedia has barely a few words on them) and ignore intellectual giants like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Ernst Mayr and Stephen Gould who are Darwinists. Most Scientists today claim evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Which brings us to your question viz "..the earth is aged between 3.96 and 4.3 billion years. If earth is so old then how can man inhabited it after such a gigantic time gap?" My question to you is what makes you think the purpose of Earth,the Sun and the entire Universe infact is to make man's existence possible? The answer of course is human arrogance,to look at the world and assume it's created for you and your children, when in fact its not. We inhabit one planet among billions of planets. The entire human race can go extinct and the Universe would continue as if nothing had happened. Also if man has been on earth for billions of years did he come in contact with the Dinosaurs( who became extinct 65 million years ago afer occupying the earth for 160 million years)? And how did Man survive the meteor crash that killed all dinosaurs? Dont take on someone like Darwin who unlike you is one of the greatest men who ever lived.
RE:Religious Nonsense
by Gyan Vedi on Apr 14, 2008 09:37 PM Permalink
Actually dr satya has his heart in the right place ... i would rather consider the scientific method which said ram was born in 5000 BC ... in fact, if u read the whole documentary on this dating exercise, u will be more convinced about the historical correctness of Ram,as not only his birth, but his marriage, war with ravana are all dated and found coherent ... thanks
RE:Religious Nonsense
by on Apr 14, 2008 11:25 PM Permalink
As I read one of the articles long ago, dinosaurs could not survive as they could not adapt to change. The scientist, who wrote that article mentioned this in the context of "survival of fittest". As I have seen in the world outside India, I am very much sure that all that the firangis state (especially about India and its culture) is usally wrong. Thank God, I prefer belief over science sometimes as it gives me a sense of satisfaction. Even if I am wrong, I am wrong because of my belief, am not fooled by some cunning firangi.
RE:Religious Nonsense
by Vamshi Ghanapathi on Apr 14, 2008 09:39 PM Permalink
Anyone born abroad with a white skin is an intellectual. Indians of Macauly Education System, can hardly appreciate a brilliant piece of correlation, if written by an Indian. That surely exposes the pre fabricated notion, strictly engulfed in the fallacy and centuries of brainwash. Disown anything, said to be India, to be trumpeted as progressive.
RE:Religious Nonsense
by Masst Ram on Apr 14, 2008 09:53 PM Permalink
Anita,
You are talking to chumps on this message board. Most usenet kind discussions are also very prone to Godwin's law :)
How will these folk, who are so partisan, appreciate Darwin. Even less, how can anyone who applauds this really badly written piece have a coherent nerve in their cranium.
Forget Gould, Dawkins and Sagan - they havent even heard of them. A Nehru or a Raman would be appaled at the 'discussions' here. Save your energy and try zcommunications or egde.org, even pointofinquiry.com for some refreshing discussions.
RE:Religious Nonsense
by anita r on Apr 14, 2008 09:48 PM Permalink
So I should take the word of Dr.Singh commissioner of police, Nagpur over the word of a Richard Dawkins who is actually a Scientist just because Dr.Singh is Indian and dabbles in Ram's historicity when not fighting crime(his real job)? Evolution is a fact and only an idiot would claim that man dates back billions of years ago based on Religious literature. He's similar to Christian Theologists who claim that earth was created 5000 years ago as said in the Bible. I choose science over religion thank God for that!
RE:Religious Nonsense
by Gyan Vedi on Apr 14, 2008 09:53 PM Permalink
Good for u ... then read the Rig Veda and Upanishads, they are the only scientific religious books
The rig veda accurately predicts the speed of light (Verse 1.50) as also the exact time taken by light to reach earth from sun
RE:Concept of God in Hinduism
by Peace on Apr 14, 2008 08:55 PM Permalink
1. Common Concept of God in Hinduism:
Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in multiple Gods. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three gods, some believe in thousands of gods, and some others in thirty three crore i.e. 330 million Gods. However, learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.
The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus%u2019 belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God!
Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is God%u2019s i.e. the word %u2018God%u2019 with an apostrophe %u2018s%u2019. In other words the Muslims believe that everything belongs to God. The trees belong to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the snake belongs to God, the human beings belong to God and everything in this universe belongs to God.
RE:RE:Concept of God in Hinduism
by Peace on Apr 14, 2008 08:58 PM Permalink
The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:
"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."
"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4
RE:RE:RE:Concept of God in Hinduism
by Peace on Apr 14, 2008 08:59 PM Permalink
THE VEDAS Vedas are considered the most sacred of all the Hindu scriptures. There are four principal Vedas: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and Atharvaveda.
Yajurveda The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:
"na tasya pratima asti "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3]5
"shudhama poapvidham" "He is bodyless and pure." [Yajurveda 40:8]6
"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste" "They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti." [Yajurveda 40:9]7
Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.
The Yajurveda contains the following prayer: "Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander." [Yajurveda 40:16]8
RE:RE:Concept of God in Hinduism
by Peace on Apr 14, 2008 08:57 PM Permalink
Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of the apostrophe s. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is Gods.
2. Concept of God according to Hindu Scriptures:
We can gain a better understanding of the concept of God in Hinduism by analysing Hindu scriptures.
BHAGAVAD GITA
The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagavad Gita.
Consider the following verse from the Gita:
"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." [Bhagavad Gita 7:20]
The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. gods besides the True God.
UPANISHADS:
The Upanishads are considered sacred scriptures by the Hindus.
The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:
"Ekam evadvitiyam" "He is One only without a second." [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1
"Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah." "Of Him there are neither parents nor lord." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2
"Na tasya pratima asti" "There is no likeness of Him." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3
RE:How can a set of monkeys build a bridge? Is that logical ?
by Ravan Raj on Apr 14, 2008 09:02 PM Permalink
U understand human being not developed in a single day.using one's backbone no body can crete another.its fool's world.Even now in many african countries peoples are more or less structured to monkeys. They are purely differs from white colors.So in human progress monkeys also can live with human quality.
RE:How can a set of monkeys build a bridge? Is that logical ?
by jack back on Apr 14, 2008 09:06 PM Permalink
Don't you think the existence of smart monkey supports the theory of evolution?
Timeline alsmost coincide with present belief of evolution. Those distinct monkeys of those days were a different spices almost looked like todays' monkeys.
RE:How can a set of monkeys build a bridge? Is that logical ?
by Gyan Vedi on Apr 14, 2008 09:17 PM Permalink
@JOHNSON - Hanuman and sugriva and their army should not be considered monkeys, literally! they were humans with more primordial apish features ... in fact in anthropology, its mentioned of the existence of such a tribe called VAYNAR in south india around 5000 BC ...they were also having apish features , it can be concluded that the term vanar came from that tribe Vaynar
RE:How can a set of monkeys build a bridge? Is that logical ?
by Tranquility on Apr 19, 2008 09:26 AM Permalink
Can you find logic in your Bible? We have some queries too. That is, if you are not a Muslim trying to provoke us against a Christian.
