Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life -

[Graybeard]

And what are your spiritual master's qualifications?

Aah, just some old Hindu guy who believes in blue people with flutes.  Back in My woo-woo days I had picked up one or two of his books for My collection, but they were so boring I gave them away again.

that is your misfortune that you have taken these only for collection not for reading them.

The Hindu Creation Myth makes the Christian Creation Myth[1] look like cutting edge science:

One of the oldest cosmogonic myth in the Rigveda (RV 10.121) had being come into existence as a cosmic egg, hiranyagarbha (a golden egg). The Purusha Sukta (RV 10.90) narrates that all things were made out of the mangled limbs of Purusha, a magnified non-natural man, who was sacrificed by the gods. In the Puranas, Vishnu, in the shape of a boar, plunged into the cosmic waters and brought forth the earth (Bhumi or Prithivi).

Well, that's fine then, all pretty reasonable so far... or is it all dacoity and rascaldom?

Lop0,
can you explain any of that?

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_mythology

[Ambassador Pony]

Lop0,

Stop posting the same thing. Show us that your god exists - then we will discuss other things. I'm getting the impression that you cannot do this and that thus, very probably, your god is non-existent and a waste of time.

simply tell me what kind of qualification you have got by which you will see god or Krishna the supreme personality of godhead ? and you are so shameless so rascal that without reading anything you are all simply repeating same thing.

you want to see god or krishna without any qualification ? it is called an rascaldom

lop0, Do not reply to this post. I am posting as an admin.

Stop insulting people. If you do not stop your account will be limited.

If you reply to this post, your account will be limited.

[ThatZenoGuy]

yes rascal dog why don't you directly say this thing that i want to see your god without any qualification.

this is another rascaldom.

How surprising, another theist who refuses to prove his god exists.

This must be one of the...what? Sixty thousand denominations of any god that has failed?

[lop0]

Lop0,

Stop posting the same thing. Show us that your god exists - then we will discuss other things. I'm getting the impression that you cannot do this and that thus, very probably, your god is non-existent and a waste of time.

simply tell me what kind of qualification you have got by which you will see god or Krishna the supreme personality of godhead ? and you are so shameless so rascal that without reading anything you are all simply repeating same thing.

you want to see god or krishna without any qualification ? it is called an rascaldom

lop0, Do not reply to this post. I am posting as an admin.

Stop insulting people. If you do not stop your account will be limited.

If you reply to this post, your account will be limited.

You were specifically told not to reply to the Admin's post. Your reply has been deleted
GB Mod

[ThatZenoGuy]

and there is no wonder because it is what ? an fools paradise. all of you are shameless rascals nothing more then that.

I find it deeply ironic that you say that this is "an" fool's paradise, because incorrect grammar is what fools tend to do.

I also find it ironic that you claim we are rascals, when indeed we prefer the polar opposite.

[Mrjason]

just like for example:- Just as you can *judge* whether rice is properly cooked by picking out one small grain, so you can know that person is *Rascal* or Sane by observing one line of his/her matter.

Yup, I couldn't agree more. It is clear from all that you have posted that you are the fruitiest of loops

[wheels5894]

Where I live 'rascals' is a bar that serves delicious burgers and such. Maybe this thread is an indication I should visit it!

[Hatter23]

it is called social convention that you can speak very palatable and flattering and you can't speak unpalatable truth that is called social convention and im preacher therefore i must speak truth that you all so called intelligent atheists are nothing more then rascals, fools, and completely nonsense.
______________

and there is no wonder because it is what ? an fools paradise. all of you are shameless rascals nothing more then that.
_____________________
*************
and whatever you all have been written that is *not enough power-full* to disprove this *Practical Explanation*

just like for example:- Just as you can *judge* whether rice is properly cooked by picking out one small grain, so you can know that person is *Rascal* or Sane by observing one line of his/her matter.

*that is all*.

Social convention:

It was once social convention to lynch black people
It was once social convention to keep slaves
It was once social convention to execute gays
It was once social convention to torture suspected witches
It was once social convention to treat women as property

Therefore it being social convention to believe preachers somehow must tell the truth holds no weight.

You keep calling us rascals, why? Just because we expect you to actually back up your claims with evidence? If someone was a liar or a conman, that would be a common tactic.

What "practical explanation" are you speaking about? That we don't believe your unsubstantiated and fanciful claims, therefore we must be somehow morally inferior? I don't believe your claims because they don't match any evidence.

[Graybeard]

just like for example:- Just as you can *judge* whether rice is properly cooked by picking out one small grain, so you can know that person is *Rascal* or Sane by observing one line of his/her matter.

There's some truth in that... & )

[wheels5894]

Social convention:

It was once social convention to lynch black people
It was once social convention to keep slaves
It was once social convention to execute gays
It was once social convention to torture suspected witches
It was once social convention to treat women as property

Therefore it being social convention to believe preachers somehow must tell the truth holds no weight.

Except that preachers of all sorts feel free to spout anything they like and expect to be believed. In Scotland, its the Church of Scotland and the Catholics who feel free to tell us how sinful gay marriage is for example. They still get some respect, though, so no one much challenges them on this sort of stuff. Sadly for Lop0 this does not apply on an atheist forum where we ask that we have evidence of things claimed.

You keep calling us rascals, why? Just because we expect you to actually back up your claims with evidence? If someone was a liar or a conman, that would be a common tactic.

What "practical explanation" are you speaking about? That we don't believe your unsubstantiated and fanciful claims, therefore we must be somehow morally inferior? I don't believe your claims because they don't match any evidence.

I think he is just disgusted that we don't take his word for whatever he's trying to sell us. To be fair, I'm not even quite sure what it is unless its the book  linked on his first post in this thread.

[lop0]

Social convention:

It was once social convention to lynch black people
It was once social convention to keep slaves
It was once social convention to execute gays
It was once social convention to torture suspected witches
It was once social convention to treat women as property

Therefore it being social convention to believe preachers somehow must tell the truth holds no weight.

Except that preachers of all sorts feel free to spout anything they like and expect to be believed. In Scotland, its the Church of Scotland and the Catholics who feel free to tell us how sinful gay marriage is for example. They still get some respect, though, so no one much challenges them on this sort of stuff. Sadly for Lop0 this does not apply on an atheist forum where we ask that we have evidence of things claimed.

You keep calling us rascals, why? Just because we expect you to actually back up your claims with evidence? If someone was a liar or a conman, that would be a common tactic.

What "practical explanation" are you speaking about? That we don't believe your unsubstantiated and fanciful claims, therefore we must be somehow morally inferior? I don't believe your claims because they don't match any evidence.

I think he is just disgusted that we don't take his word for whatever he's trying to sell us. To be fair, I'm not even quite sure what it is unless its the book  linked on his first post in this thread.

`1st of all when you are been asked that what is your qualification that you will understand and see god or krishna on that time you didn;t answered

so im asking you again what kind of qualification you have got ? by which you will see god or krishna ?
______________

and You can avoid the creator, but you cannot say He doesn't exist. Whether or not you accept the creator's authority is your business; but you cannot say there is no creator.

For example :- there are so many outlaws who say, "We don't want to obey the government." If you don't like the government, that is your business. But there is a government -- you can't deny that.

[Ataraxia]

You can avoid the creator, but you cannot say He doesn't exist. Whether or not you accept the creator's authority is your business; but you cannot say there is no creator.

Oh, we can say "he" doesn't exist, because this being thing you go on about isn't really a male is it? I mean, does it have a cock and balls? Does it pick its nose and fart while watching the footy? Does it watch porn on mute while the wife is in bed? Does it have redundant nipples? In what way is this thing a he compared to a she or an it?

[wheels5894]

`1st of all when you are been asked that what is your qualification that you will understand and see god or krishna on that time you didn;t answered

so im asking you again what kind of qualification you have got ? by which you will see god or krishna ?
______________

and You can avoid the creator, but you cannot say He doesn't exist. Whether or not you accept the creator's authority is your business; but you cannot say there is no creator.

For example :- there are so many outlaws who say, "We don't want to obey the government." If you don't like the government, that is your business. But there is a government -- you can't deny that.

I think we have a language problem here but let's work with it.

1. What on earth do you mean by 'qualification'? Do I need a theology degree for this purpose or what? I really don't think members here understand what you mean.

2. Most people here do not say there is no creator. They say that there is no evidence of one and science has provided quite a detailed explanation how we got here, with some holes in the knowledge in places. Consequently, there appears to be no god and  god wasn't necessary to have this universe it seems to follow that considering the existence of a creator is pointless. You clearly think there is a creator so it is up to you to show your evidence as to why we should believe you. (This isn't personal by the way - I'm sure you are quite sincere but it is the information you are bringing about which we are unsure.) So, come on, post you reasons for believing there is a creator and we can discuss it but no one is going to take you seriously whilst you fail to do so and insult members on the board at the same time.

[lop0]

`1st of all when you are been asked that what is your qualification that you will understand and see god or krishna on that time you didn;t answered

so im asking you again what kind of qualification you have got ? by which you will see god or krishna ?
______________

and You can avoid the creator, but you cannot say He doesn't exist. Whether or not you accept the creator's authority is your business; but you cannot say there is no creator.

For example :- there are so many outlaws who say, "We don't want to obey the government." If you don't like the government, that is your business. But there is a government -- you can't deny that.

I think we have a language problem here but let's work with it.

1. What on earth do you mean by 'qualification'? Do I need a theology degree for this purpose or what? I really don't think members here understand what you mean.

2. Most people here do not say there is no creator. They say that there is no evidence of one and science has provided quite a detailed explanation how we got here, with some holes in the knowledge in places. Consequently, there appears to be no god and  god wasn't necessary to have this universe it seems to follow that considering the existence of a creator is pointless. You clearly think there is a creator so it is up to you to show your evidence as to why we should believe you. (This isn't personal by the way - I'm sure you are quite sincere but it is the information you are bringing about which we are unsure.) So, come on, post you reasons for believing there is a creator and we can discuss it but no one is going to take you seriously whilst you fail to do so and insult members on the board at the same time.

no `1st of all read my all posts i already posted on `1st page that what kind of qualification you need and by which you can see god but you are simply talking nonsense without reading my posts.
_____________

therefore you are simply wasting my time with your rascaldom that is all.

[Graybeard]

no `1st of all read my all posts i already posted on `1st page that what kind of qualification you need and by which you can see god but you are simply talking nonsense without reading my posts.

This qualification... It's not got anything to do with drugs has it? I disapprove of drugs.

If it hasn't, are you simply saying that "to believe in Krishna you first have to believe in him and then you can "see" him?"

Have you seen him? Can't you just tell us what he looks like?

Or is it "all in your mind?"

PS. I love that word "rascaldom".

[jaimehlers]

it is called social convention that you can speak very palatable and flattering and you can't speak unpalatable truth that is called social convention and im preacher therefore i must speak truth that you all so called intelligent atheists are nothing more then rascals, fools, and completely nonsense.

Says the one who evidently hasn't read the forum rules.

Staff instructions must be followed. In-thread discussion of staff instructions or any Moderator action relating to a member is not allowed. Flames, abuse, and impersonation of staff will not be tolerated.

What that means is, you listen to what a moderator (or administrator) says, and you don't discuss it in-thread.  You certainly don't try to justify continuing the behavior which got you warned to begin with.

That's all I have to say on the matter.  I suggest you listen to it this time.

[jdawg70]

no `1st of all read my all posts i already posted on `1st page that what kind of qualification you need and by which you can see god but you are simply talking nonsense without reading my posts.
_____________

therefore you are simply wasting my time with your rascaldom that is all.

Look - you're clearly much smarter and better than the rascals here.  So why don't you help us all out and just complete this sentence for us...

In order to see god or krishna, the qualifications that you need are ________________________

That way, you can help us overcome our rascaldom and we can cease being rascals and making the world more rascal-like with our rascalness in rascaldom.  I suspect that, as you're intelligence is far and above that of a rascal, that trying to communicate with a rascal is a difficult proposition.  Just keep in mind that rascals think in a rascal-like rascally manner, what with all their rascaldom or rascality.

Rascal.

[wheels5894]

I hope you can oblige, Lop0. A review of your posting elsewhere with the same opening thread suggest that this is the only place you have managed to get a discussion at all. Don't abuse it by being awkward. Just tell us the straight answers to straight questions. We haven't all got time to waste going through long and wordy posts.

[Hatter23]

no `1st of all read my all posts i already posted on `1st page that what kind of qualification you need and by which you can see god but you are simply talking nonsense without reading my posts.
_____________

therefore you are simply wasting my time with your rascaldom that is all.

Define "Rascaldom"

Define your "qualifications"

Define "god"

Show evidence that distinguishes your claims from fiction.

And are you aware that bold has a function, and it doen't mean that your words are somehow more true?

[Hatter23]

You have the wrong frequency

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Rapid eye movement?



-Nam

If you don't tell me, I'll have to beat the answer out of Dan Rather. Don't play games you rascally rabbit

[Hatter23]

no `1st of all read my all posts i already posted on `1st page that what kind of qualification you need and by which you can see god but you are simply talking nonsense without reading my posts.
_____________

therefore you are simply wasting my time with your rascaldom that is all.

Look - you're clearly much smarter and better than the rascals here.  So why don't you help us all out and just complete this sentence for us...

In order to see god or krishna, the qualifications that you need are ________________________

That way, you can help us overcome our rascaldom and we can cease being rascals and making the world more rascal-like with our rascalness in rascaldom.  I suspect that, as you're intelligence is far and above that of a rascal, that trying to communicate with a rascal is a difficult proposition.  Just keep in mind that rascals think in a rascal-like rascally manner, what with all their rascaldom or rascality.

Rascal.

you rascally rabbit, with your dry speak and your flouting of social convention! You don't have the quality of  qualification as you are not acknowledging unplateable truth of who can judge as how rice is uncooked in such a fool's paradise

[screwtape]

lop0,

I am an administrator. 

Your problems here are many.  One is that english not your native language.  Another is your failure to understand how things work here.  That second problem is where I can help you.

So far you have made some claims, but you have not given any reason for anyone to accept those claims as true.  We call that preaching.  Nobody is interested in preaching.  And when you have been challenged on that, you have fallen to pieces and called people names.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to provide evidence that what you say is true. 

If you have questions, send me a private message.

[G-Roll]

I get the feeling that he doesn’t want to fix Rascals or save the Rascals. He already mentioned that Krishna wont revile himself/herself and to even have a clue about his god you need some form of on the job training. He hasn’t offered anyone any of that or any other guidance so I don’t think he is here to convert, save, make friends, hand out hugs, or what have you. 
After reading his posts and playing with my decoder ring I have come to the conclusion that he thinks we are Rascals and we need to be told that we are idiots in a fool's paradise  who also need to be told how horrible we are. At most he is just a crappy ambassador to Krishna.. or Krishna is a crappy god.     
In a way he reminds me of snooty intellectuals who sit upon a high horse and talk down to everyone. Only he doesn’t deal with facts.

[Hatter23]

I get the feeling that he doesn’t want to fix Rascals or save the Rascals. He already mentioned that Krishna wont revile himself/herself and to even have a clue about his god you need some form of on the job training. He hasn’t offered anyone any of that or any other guidance so I don’t think he is here to convert, save, make friends, hand out hugs, or what have you. 
After reading his posts and playing with my decoder ring I have come to the conclusion that he thinks we are Rascals and we need to be told that we are idiots in a fool's paradise  who also need to be told how horrible we are. At most he is just a crappy ambassador to Krishna.. or Krishna is a crappy god.     
In a way he reminds me of snooty intellectuals who sit upon a high horse and talk down to everyone. Only he doesn’t deal with facts.

It is a symptom of "Enlightment through Obscurity" If you are to be considered an expert in a field, you need to have studied it for a number of years. Which means you end up internalizing the base assumptions of the field through repeated exposure. For example, to be considered an Elder Rabbi.

[Graybeard]

Define "Rascaldom"

From the Oxford English Dictionary (full on-line version subscription only)
rascaldom, n.

 1. The world of rascals; rascals collectively; a group of rascals. Now rare.
1833   T. Carlyle in Fortn. Q. Rev. 11 296   He walked in the subterranean shades of Rascaldom.
1860   Athenæum 8 Sept. 313   The last Duke of Queensbury, whose death gave such regret to rascaldom.
1909   Times 12 Aug. 7/5   A few capable and reckless men can often brigade the rascaldom which exists in every great city.
1936   Hispania 19 429   Quilp and Fagin hold undisputed places as the supreme caricatures of Rascaldom.


 2. Rascally behaviour.
1851   Times 28 Aug. 4/4   Many forms of fraud..would appear peculiar to the United States' practitioners in rascaldom.
1879   Trollope in 19th Cent. Jan. 35,   I will not say that Barry Lyndon's career has deterred many from rascaldom.
1890   Spectator 22 Nov.,   The proportion of his precipitate of rascaldom which can be cured..in that way, is a very small one.
1970   Redemption Tidings 9 July,   ‘Our evangelical rascaldom’, wrote one Nurnberg reformer, ‘Makes the rascaldom of Roman priests and monks look pious.’
2004   Booklist 1 Feb. 984   Scratch panels highlighted in ocher cast an appropriately jaundiced pall over three intriguingly twisted tales of rascaldom.

[lop0]

lop0,

I am an administrator. 

Your problems here are many.  One is that english not your native language.  Another is your failure to understand how things work here.  That second problem is where I can help you.

So far you have made some claims, but you have not given any reason for anyone to accept those claims as true.  We call that preaching.  Nobody is interested in preaching.  And when you have been challenged on that, you have fallen to pieces and called people names.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to provide evidence that what you say is true. 

If you have questions, send me a private message.

you are suffering from what we call "Doctor Frog's philosophy." There was once a frog who had lived all his life in a well. One day a friend visited him and informed him of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.
   "Oh, what is this Atlantic Ocean?" asked the frog in the well.
   "It is a vast body of water," his friend replied.
   "How vast? ls it double the size of this well?"
   "Oh, no, much larger," his friend replied.
   "How much larger? Ten times the size?"
  In this way the frog went on calculating. But what was the possibility of his ever understanding the depths and far reaches of the great ocean? Our faculties, experience, and powers of speculation are always limited. The frog was always thinking in terms relative to his well. He had no power to think otherwise. Similarly, the scientists are estimating the Absolute Truth, the cause of all causes, with their imperfect senses and minds, and thus they are bound to be bewildered. The essential fault of the so-called scientists is that they have adopted the inductive process to arrive at their conclusions. For example, if a scientist wants to determine whether or not man is mortal by the inductive process, he must study every man to try to discover if some or one of them may be immortal. The scientist says, "I cannot accept the proposition that all men are mortal. There may be some men who are immortal. I have not yet seen every man. Therefore how can I accept that man is mortal?" This is called the inductive process. And the deductive process means that your father, your teacher, or your guru says that man is mortal, and you accept it.

[Graybeard]

lop0,

If an Administrator writes in red font, or a moderator in green font, then you should not reply to that post on the main forum. If you have a problem with these types of message, you should send the administrator or moderator a Personal Message.

An Administrator and a Moderator may also write in black font: if they do this, it is a sign that they are acting only as a member of WWGHA like yourself. You are free to reply to these posts.

Please keep to these simple rules.

Yours

GB Mod.

[screwtape]

lup0,

I asked you to contact me by private message. Use "my messages" near the top.

thanks.

[G-Roll]

I can hear the mighty ban hammer a swingin'!!!

Lol