Arindam Banerjee
5/31/2010 3:19:00 AM
On May 31, 6:56 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On May 30, 9:20 am, hari.ku...@indero.com wrote:
> >>>> It is impossible to live for even one year without food, much less
> >> 70.
>
> >>> "he is a shiddha, dear."
>
> >>> But sweetie, you were shown the author is a strong atheist. =A0You may
> >>> hang head in shame so well earned now, very good hold it there for a
> >>> bit. =A0Is that a new youga pose, that foot in mouth thing?
>
> >>> The man in question must demonstrate any supernatural claims he makes
> >>> using the rules of science if he wants science to support him.
>
> >>> This has yet to be done.
>
> >> "Then why do so many "strong atheists" silent when Western head of state
> >> kiss ass of respective Popes including the current one, who apart from
> >> heading a protection racket for pedophile, believe in immaculate
> >> conception, dead rising and all sorts of irrationality. Yet there is not
> >> so much of whisper of the news channels, print media or these "strong
> >> atheists" as why such irrationality is being given so much
> >> respectability. Yet when it comes to a harmless hermit volunteering
> >> himself for study it has sent a hot rod up your tail of these strong
> >> atheists?"
>
> >> Are you sure atheists don't complain about riligious activities in civic
> >> settings? If you think so you are greatly uninformed.
>
> >> HThe man in question makes assertions of a scientific nature. He must
> >> then provide evidence as science requires. The test as reported was
> >> greatly flawed. That is the end of it.
>
> >> If some other person says they can on command perform those things you
> >> mention, then they too enter into the setting of scientific enquery and
> >> face the same requirements. But they are not doing so.
>
> >> The original poster tried to tie religious motives to the reporting of
> >> the failure of the test. He proved his own worst enemy for also being
> >> ignorant of that of which he spoke.
>
> >> Should we now give permission to remove his foot from his mouth?
>
> > The test wasn't "greatly flawed". The only negative is that he went
> > out of the CCTV camera range for some time. That amounts to a
> > disqualification, which is very different from being labelled a fraud/
> > scamster which is what the atheists claim.
>
> I agree that this "negative" really means a disqualification. But, then,
> that disqualification means that the original claim remains unproven or
> unsubstantiated.
Perfectly correct. A disqualification is something that occurs to
practically all sportsperson. In this case, it was a technical error
and not the man's fault - he was out of the camera range for a while.
It is really not easy to have perfect conditions for testing,
especially when the subject is a live and highly respected human
being. Still, enough evidence is already available from the many
doctors who saw him throughout this phase, and unless one is a total
racist, bigot or corrupt, it is impossible to declare him a fraud
based upon a mere technical lapse on the monitoring apparatus.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee