Oh my.
I’m pretty handsome myself.
Now kneel before ZOD!
I will step out on a limb here and state that “god” is never dead, and since neither of us can prove or disprove this argument through verified facts or proof, neither can prove the other is wrong.
Please feel free to respond as you wish, but note that I expect all counter-arguments to not be personal statements about your opinion, but backed up by facts, sources, or examples.
I am actually revealing trade secrets here as to why Hindus are so successful 
We emulate the best with single minded and burning passion. Modern Hindus have got to where they are today by emulating the West, and now we are even emerging as leaders in the same fields the West started
The Yogis using the same principle emulated their gurus with the same single minded and burning passion and eventually reached their heights.
If you don’t have the humility to recognise the greatness of another you will never succeed in life.
Surya you just throw Neitzche away. As I did. He is garbage. Moronic. Idiotic. His words are Poison for the mind.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34014]Do you recognise that Einstein was smarter than you? Brad Pitt is most probably better looking than you? Buddha was wiser than you? Yes or no?[/QUOTE]
Everyone can do something better than me or you, so why don’t we worship everyone equally. I might do things better than celebrities. I bet I can play the guitar better than Brad Pitt. I bet the Buddha hasn’t had threesomes… they should worship me, should they?
You cannot disprove or prove the claim that Santa clause exists in an invisible dimension at the north pole with his talking reindeers and army of elves working in his toyshop 
Unfalsfiable claims are useless. They are useless because you can’t do anything with them. If you cannot test something to be true either using your perception or logic then it is useless.
[QUOTE=TeeA;34016]I will step out on a limb here and state that “god” is never dead, and since neither of us can prove or disprove this argument through verified facts or proof, neither can prove the other is wrong.
Please feel free to respond as you wish, but note that I expect all counter-arguments to not be personal statements about your opinion, but backed up by facts, sources, or examples.[/QUOTE]
Ahhh yes, but the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim. God is considered a ‘negative’ claim. If I was to tell you I can fly, that would be a ‘negative’ claim. It’s not up to you to prove that I can’t fly, It’s up to me to prove that I can
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34022]Everyone can do something better than me or you, so why don’t we worship everyone equally. I might do things better than celebrities. I bet I can play the guitar better than Brad Pitt. I bet the Buddha hasn’t had threesomes… they should worship me, should they?[/QUOTE]
Well, exactly then and if Brad Pitt knew what was good for him, he would surrender his ego to you and learn the guitar from you. However, why would he do that with you, when he could seek out the best guitarist in the world.
Do you get my point?
so why don’t we worship everyone equally
Bingo. And this is why ultimately we Hindus recognise everybody is actually great and why we say "Namaste - the divine in me greets the divine within you"
However, remember it is only a potential, and no Hindu is going to worship you if you have nothing to show for it. Nobody rewards potential. Only merit is rewarded.
Hi Yogi Adam
I believe there is (or may well be)a legal axiom that probably goes something more like:-
The burden of proof rests on the person wishing to disprove whatever is being claimed , i.e on the prosecution , not what is claimed by the defence.The prosecution’s job is to disprove the claims made by the defendant(innocent until proven guilty and all that). Have you not got things mixed around perhaps then in this respect? i.e the inverse,opposite or back-to front sounds to me more true
i.e Your job might want to be to prove me or anyone else can’t fly.The burden is,and so it should be, on any other position that wishes to challenge.
Surya Deva
Then isn’t stating “God is dead” also a Unfalsfiable claim (since we can’t prove using perception or logic that he/she is actually alive) and therefore useless as well.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34026]Well, exactly then and if Brad Pitt knew what was good for him, he would surrender his ego to you and learn the guitar from you. However, why would he do that with you, when he could seek out the best guitarist in the world.
Do you get my point?[/QUOTE]
No not at all. Define the best guitarist in the world?? I think it’s Yngwie Malmsteen. What do you think?.. do you see my point?
[QUOTE=core789;34028]Hi Yogi Adam
I believe there is (or may well be)a legal axiom that probably goes something more like:-
The burden of proof rests on the person wishing to disprove whatever is being claimed , i.e on the prosecution , not what is claimed by the defence.The prosecution’s job is to disprove the claims made by the defendant(innocent until proven guilty and all that). Have you not got things mixed around perhaps then in this respect? i.e the inverse,opposite or back-to front sounds to me more true
i.e Your job might be to prove me or anyone else can’t fly.[/QUOTE]
We’ll you’d be wrong. This is a logical fallacy. You must believe everything you hear of imagine, if this is the case… you don’t believe everything you hear do you?
[QUOTE=TeeA;34029]Surya Deva
Then isn’t stating “God is dead” also a Unfalsfiable claim (since we can’t prove using perception or logic that he/she is actually alive) and therefore useless as well.[/QUOTE]
As the claim hasn’t been established in the first place there is no reason to even believe such an entity exists. So to declare its non existence is basically stating a fact.
Are you familar with Occams razor? Do not multiply quantities unnecessarily. There is no reason supported either by perception or by logic where we can posit a god.
God is a human concept and this is supported by perception. I only have heard of this concept from humans. Anybody who you talk to who claims to have met god says “I have felt his presence” In other words it is a psychological phenomenon. Another person who does not have a religious bent of mind would label that experience as “esctacy” or “orgasm” or “bliss”
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34031]No not at all. Define the best guitarist in the world?? I think it’s Yngwie Malmsteen. What do you think?.. do you see my point?[/QUOTE]
Your point is that Yngwie Mamsteen may not be the best of them all. However, he is the known best, and he is a billion times better than you. So it is a good point to start with him, even if there is somebody even better.
Greatness is always one better than you(n+1)
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34033]Are you familar with Occams razor? [/QUOTE]
If you brought Occam’s razor into a Yoga forum, you’d slice all the metaphysical nonsense to pieces.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34034]Your point is that Yngwie Mamsteen may not be the best of them all. However, he is the known best, and he is a billion times better than you. So it is a good point to start with him, even if there is somebody even better.
Greatness is always one better than you(n+1)[/QUOTE]
Again, define best. My dad thought that Yngwie Malmsteen was boring, and that Tommy Emmanuel was the best.
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34035]If you brought Occam’s razor into a Yoga forum, you’d slice all the metaphysical nonsense to pieces.[/QUOTE]
Nope actually you would not. As Occams razor says do not multiply quantities unnecessarily and go for the simplest explanation. As there is no explanation within materialism for the mind(this is a widely accepted fact in philosophy of mind and called the hard problem) to posit that the mind is separte from matter is not multiplaying quantities but giving the simplest explanation. If mind cannot be reduced to matter, then mind is not matter.
Just because we Hindus are athiest/impersonalists does not mean we embrace materialism. Materialism is just as illogical to us as theism.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;34037]
Just because we Hindus are athiest/impersonalists does not mean we embrace materialism. Materialism is just as illogical to us as theism.[/QUOTE]
That’s why Hinduism is illogical. It’s all just guessing about the unknown.
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;34036]Again, define best. My dad thought that Yngwie Malmsteen was boring, and that Tommy Emmanuel was the best.[/QUOTE]
The chances are they are both miles better than you.
You are not blind. You know when somebody is better than you in something.
Like I said greatness is always one better than you.
Don’t know about logical fallacy.Not so sure about that.
But, No,True, i don’t necessarily come to any definite truth about anythng i hear. I try to keep an open mind as far as i can, as much as i can if for e.g conditioning ,culture,perspective,prec-conceptions,errors,the balance of evidence and other varaibles may allow.
But if someone claims to say the moon is made of cheese then the burden is on others to prove it may well be not.So if you accuse someone of making up fibs or porkies, i’m sorry but you have to prove it.( whether there are vested interests or not, or over-all leaps for mankind)