Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   

Do you believe there is a God ? (Page 14)

souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14199

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 3:06pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Its it logical to retroactively apply laws of today to a period of time when land, people and property belonged to the most powerful conquering king?

If so, honestly how far do we trace conquests and reconquests. We can't just choose arbitrary convenient points?

How do we determine who the rightful owner of something that existed centuries ago is? Migrations, conversions, inter-marriages, adoptions and even rapes within the conquerers and the conquered have taken place. Exactly how do we determine who the rightful owner is?

If we methodically moved back in time destroying everything generated out of conquered people/land and property, we would probably have to nuke the entire world and go back to living in caves.

Most people don't start claiming things back because they know that it is impossible to do so fairly without drawing an arbitrary line favoring one side over another, and the only way to claim back everything in the fullest sense means total destruction.

Instead of just jumping to conclusions like it will cause total destruction, care to elaborate?
What is so wrong in claiming what is yours?

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 22762

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 3:10pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by blue-ice

Yes, because we are not Taliban...
Can you imagine what will happen if people start passing their own judgements according to their own perceptions...
I totally agree with Rehan's answer on this..

RTH - Nazi
BI - Taliban
Care to elaborate how you arrive at such associations. I'm sure it'll be pretty entertaining.



My Nazi reference was in the post here: http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1780832&PID=46851686&#46851686

This post was in response to the theory that Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple.

Just like the Nazis believed their race and religion superior and wanted to prove the dominance of their race and religion, P.N Oak and his compatriots are people who believe their race and religion is superior and everything that is appreciated in the world is a by product of their race and religion. To give P.N Oak credit he only limits himself to writing crazy books. The Nazis went above and beyond to do all sorts of crimes against humanity. The funny thing though is even the Nazis started by just writing crazy propaganda books.

The analogy is not my fault though. I blame Godwin, its Godwin's law.
return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 22762

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 3:15pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by return_to_hades

Its it logical to retroactively apply laws of today to a period of time when land, people and property belonged to the most powerful conquering king?

If so, honestly how far do we trace conquests and reconquests. We can't just choose arbitrary convenient points?

How do we determine who the rightful owner of something that existed centuries ago is? Migrations, conversions, inter-marriages, adoptions and even rapes within the conquerers and the conquered have taken place. Exactly how do we determine who the rightful owner is?

If we methodically moved back in time destroying everything generated out of conquered people/land and property, we would probably have to nuke the entire world and go back to living in caves.

Most people don't start claiming things back because they know that it is impossible to do so fairly without drawing an arbitrary line favoring one side over another, and the only way to claim back everything in the fullest sense means total destruction.

Instead of just jumping to conclusions like it will cause total destruction, care to elaborate?
What is so wrong in claiming what is yours?



It is not jumping to conclusions. Based on your rationale that every conquered property and its result be returned to rightful owners, there is nothing in this world that did not come from something that once belonged to someone else and was conquered.

I have no problem claiming what is mine. The problem is that I'm not sure if it is mine to claim to begin with and how it is more mine than the next persons. There is not sufficient data to prove ownership beyond reasonable doubt.
souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14199

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 3:24pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades


It is not jumping to conclusions. Based on your rationale that every conquered property and its result be returned to rightful owners, there is nothing in this world that did not come from something that once belonged to someone else and was conquered.

I have no problem claiming what is mine. The problem is that I'm not sure if it is mine to claim to begin with and how it is more mine than the next persons. There is not sufficient data to prove ownership beyond reasonable doubt.

And how do you know that there is 'nothing' that has not been conquered (by unfair means)? And if there are properties which have been forcefully acquired and we know about it, why shouldn't we return it?

I'm not an admirer of the philosophy where they say material possessions do not matter. For me it matters. Unless we are ready to believe that nothing in this world belongs to anyone, we might as well recognise that there is a concept of rightful ownership.

souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14199

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 3:28pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

My Nazi reference was in the post here: http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1780832&PID=46851686&#46851686

This post was in response to the theory that Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple.

Just like the Nazis believed their race and religion superior and wanted to prove the dominance of their race and religion, P.N Oak and his compatriots are people who believe their race and religion is superior and everything that is appreciated in the world is a by product of their race and religion. To give P.N Oak credit he only limits himself to writing crazy books. The Nazis went above and beyond to do all sorts of crimes against humanity. The funny thing though is even the Nazis started by just writing crazy propaganda books.

The analogy is not my fault though. I blame Godwin, its Godwin's law.

The discussion was about whether Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple or not.
Whether you like P.N.Oak is something irrelevant. His ideas may not be likeable to you but that does not make it any more false than it makes it true. And it certainly doesn't disprove his claims about Taj Mahal.

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 22762

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 4:22pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by return_to_hades


It is not jumping to conclusions. Based on your rationale that every conquered property and its result be returned to rightful owners, there is nothing in this world that did not come from something that once belonged to someone else and was conquered.

I have no problem claiming what is mine. The problem is that I'm not sure if it is mine to claim to begin with and how it is more mine than the next persons. There is not sufficient data to prove ownership beyond reasonable doubt.

And how do you know that there is 'nothing' that has not been conquered (by unfair means)? And if there are properties which have been forcefully acquired and we know about it, why shouldn't we return it?

I'm not an admirer of the philosophy where they say material possessions do not matter. For me it matters. Unless we are ready to believe that nothing in this world belongs to anyone, we might as well recognise that there is a concept of rightful ownership.



I'm not denying material possession or rightful ownership. I'm all for it.

However, when we stretch beyond our current time frame of reference we do not have sufficient data to prove beyond reasonable dount
- if it was theft and not another rightfully conquered kingdom
- that the ones we are asking to pay are actual true descendants of the thieves
- that the ones staking claim are the actual true descendants of the victims
- that the item actually belonged to those who stake claim and was not stolen from someone before them

After that we need to come to a reasonable conversion system that can convert every disputed possession into a universal agreed upon compensation value.


return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 22762

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 4:27pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by return_to_hades

My Nazi reference was in the post here: http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1780832&PID=46851686&#46851686

This post was in response to the theory that Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple.

Just like the Nazis believed their race and religion superior and wanted to prove the dominance of their race and religion, P.N Oak and his compatriots are people who believe their race and religion is superior and everything that is appreciated in the world is a by product of their race and religion. To give P.N Oak credit he only limits himself to writing crazy books. The Nazis went above and beyond to do all sorts of crimes against humanity. The funny thing though is even the Nazis started by just writing crazy propaganda books.

The analogy is not my fault though. I blame Godwin, its Godwin's law.

The discussion was about whether Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple or not.
Whether you like P.N.Oak is something irrelevant. His ideas may not be likeable to you but that does not make it any more false than it makes it true. And it certainly doesn't disprove his claims about Taj Mahal.



The Nazi's are not evil because we dislike them.
We dislike the Nazis because they are evil.

Our dislike of the Nazis does not justify or demean their actions.
The actions of the Nazis did reflect the type of people they were.

P.N Oak's claims are not false because I dislike him.
I dislike P.N Oak because he makes false claims.

My dislike for him does nothing to the truth value of his claims
The claims he makes does reflect on the type of person he is.
Summer3 IF-Stunnerz
Summer3
Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007
Posts: 44425

Posted: 18 September 2011 at 4:40pm | IP Logged
Interesting read about the Sanskrit language



In ancient India the intention to discover truth was so consuming, that in the process, they discovered perhaps the most perfect tool for fulfilling such a search that the world has ever known — the Sanskrit language.

Of all the discoveries that have occurred and developed in the course of human history, language is the most significant and probably the most taken for granted. Without language, civilization could obviously not exist. On the other hand, to the degree that language becomes sophisticated and accurate in describing the subtlety and complexity of human life, we gain power and effectiveness in meeting its challenges. The access to modern technology which has been designed to give ease, efficiency and enjoyment in meeting our daily needs did not exist at the beginning of the century. It was made possible by accelerated advancement in the field of mathematics, a "language" which has helped us to discover the interrelationship of energy and matter with a high degree of precision. The resulting technology is evidence of the tremendous power that is unleashed simply by being able to make the finer and finer distinction that a language like mathematics affords.

At the same time humankind has fallen far behind the advancements in technology. The precarious state of political and ecological imbalance that we are now experiencing is an obvious sign of the power of technology far exceeding the power of human beings to be in control of it. It could easily be argued that we have fallen far behind the advancements in technology, simply because the languages we use for daily communication do not help us to make the distinctions required to be in balance with the technology that has taken over our lives.

Relevant to this, there has recently been an astounding discovery made at the NASA research center. The following quote is from an article which appeared in AI Magazine (Artificial Intelligence) in Spring of 1985 written NASA researcher, Rick Briggs:

In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor.

But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millennia old.

http://www.americansanskrit.com/read/a_techage.php



Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author: SolidSnake   Replies: 71   Views: 5900

SolidSnake 71 5900 17 September 2010 at 1:42am by _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

Author: shalini1323   Replies: 11   Views: 1102

shalini1323 11 1102 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm by -Believe-
Do you believe in second chances?

2 3

Author: ..RamKiJanaki..   Replies: 22   Views: 2688

..RamKiJanaki.. 22 2688 30 September 2009 at 10:24am by _Angie_
Do you believe in ghost ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 14

Author: _rajnish_   Replies: 104   Views: 6246

_rajnish_ 104 6246 25 September 2009 at 1:50am by Summer3
Do you Believe in GOD?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 24 25

Author: amrit23   Replies: 192   Views: 10844

amrit23 192 10844 13 September 2009 at 4:35am by iTangled_25

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index