Real story of American Dollar v/s Indian Rupee

Dear Friends,

Kindly forward it to all Indian citizens and advice them to buy Indian products to save our nation. Our county leaders are not ready to save our nation. They are doing business for themselves and dollar countries. Politicians are encouraging foreign products because of their commission, they never worry about our nation. Please try to change our-self.

 Real story of American Dollar v/s Indian Rupee

An appeal to all who are worrying about fall of Indian Rupee

Throughout the country please stop using cars except for emergency. Definitely Dollar rate will come down. This is true. The value to dollar is given by petrol only. This is called Derivative Trading. America has stopped valuing its Dollar with Gold 70 years ago.

Americans understood that Petrol is equally valuable as Gold so they made Agreement with all the Middle East countries to sell petrol in Dollars only. That is why Americans print their Dollar as legal tender for debts. This mean if you don't like their American Dollar and go to their Governor and ask for repayment in form of Gold, as in India they won't give you Gold.

You observe Indian Rupee, " I promise to pay the bearer..." is clearly printed along with the signature of Reserve Bank Governor. This mean, if you don't like Indian Rupee and ask for repayment, Reserve Bank of India will pay you back an equal value of gold.(Actually there may be minor differences in the Transaction dealing rules, but for easy comprehension I am explaining this)

Let us see an example. Indian petroleum minister goes to Middle East country to purchase petrol, the Middle East petrol bunk people will say that liter petrol is one Dollar.  But Indians won't have dollars. They have Indian Rupees. So what to do now? So That Indian Minister will ask America to give Dollars. American Federal Reserve will take a white paper , print Dollars on it and give it to the Indian Minister. Like this we get dollars , pay it to petrol bunks and buy petrol.

But there is a fraud here. If you change your mind and want to give back the Dollars to America we can't demand them to pay Gold in return for the Dollars. They will say " Have we promised to return something back to you? Haven't you checked the Dollar ? We clearly printed on the Dollar that it is Debt"
So, Americans don't need any Gold with them to print Dollars. They will print Dollars on white papers as they like.

But what will Americans give to the Middle East countries for selling petrol in Dollars only?

Middle East kings pay rent to America for protecting their kings and heirs. Similarly they are still paying back the Debt to America for constructing Roads and Buildings in their countries. This is the value of American Dollar. That is why Many say some day the Dollar will be destroyed.

At present the problem of India is the result of buying those American Dollars. American white papers are equal to Indian Gold. So if we reduce the consumption of petrol and cars, Dollar will come down

And here is a small thing other than petrol , what we can do to our Indian Rupee

YOU CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO THE INDIAN ECONOMY BY FOLLOWING FEW SIMPLE STEPS:-

Please spare a couple of minutes here for the sake of India.
Here's a small example:-

At 2008 August month 1 US $ = INR Rs 39.40
At 2013 August now 1 $ = INR Rs 62

Do you think US Economy is booming? No, but Indian Economy is Going Down.

Our economy is in your hands.INDIAN economy is in a crisis. Our country like many other ASIAN countries, is undergoing a severe economic crunch. Many INDIAN industries are closing down. The INDIAN economy is in a crisis and if we do not take proper steps to control those, we will be in a critical situation. More than 30,000 crore rupees of foreign exchange are being siphoned out of our country on products such as cosmetics, snacks, tea, beverages, etc. which are grown, produced and consumed here.

A cold drink that costs only 70 / 80 paise to produce, is sold for Rs.9 and a major chunk of profits from these are sent abroad. This is a serious drain on INDIAN economy. We have nothing against Multinational companies, but to protect our own interest we request everybody to use INDIAN products only at least for the next two years. With the rise in petrol prices, if we do not do this, the Rupee will devalue further and we will end up paying much more for the same products in the near future.

What you can do about it?
Buy only products manufactured by WHOLLY INDIAN COMPANIES.Each individual should become a leader for this awareness. This is the only way to save our country from severe economic crisis. You don't need to give-up your lifestyle. You just need to choose an alternate product.

Daily products which are COLD DRINKS,BATHING SOAP ,TOOTH PASTE,TOOTH BRUSH ,SHAVING CREAM,BLADE, TALCUM POWDER ,MILK POWDER ,SHAMPOO , Food Items etc. all you need to do is buy Indian Goods and Make sure Indian rupee is not crossing outside India.

Every INDIAN product you buy makes a big difference. It saves INDIA. Let us take a firm decision today.

We are not anti-multinational. we are trying to save our nation. every day is a struggle for a real freedom. we achieved our independence after losing many lives.
they died painfully to ensure that we live peacefully. the current trend is very threatening.

Multinationals call it globalization of indian economy. for indians like you and me, it is re-colonization of india. the colonist's left india then. but this time, they will make sure they don't make any mistakes.

Russia, S.Korea, Mexico - the list is very long!! let us learn from their experience and from our history. let us do the duty of every true Indian. finally, it's obvious that you can't give up all of the items mentioned below. so give up at least one item for the sake of our country!

Antiestablishmentarianism

Antiestablishmentarianism is a policy or attitude that views a nation's or society's power structure as corrupt, repressive, exploitative or unjust.

Antiestablishmentarians adhere to the doctrine of opposition to the social and political establishment. Their purpose is to subvert from within. This doctrine holds that establishments lose connection with the people and have their own agendas which frequently destroy the things they blindly don't address.

Antiestablishmentarianism has ties to anarchism but should not be confused with antifederalism or antifeudalism.

Modern day use

The modern use of the anti-establishment label became widespread in the 1960s.

The mindset this label describes prospered under the anxiety and frustration/anger with the United States government during the Vietnam war, as well as many other national governments during a similar time frame. Anxiety over the draft led to doubts concerning the implicit purpose of the war effort, and the moral legitimacy of that implicit purpose. The same attitude of doubt and independent moral scrutiny was, during this time period, applied to many established institutions of the day: race relations, gender relations, sexuality, cultural norms, musical creativity, drugs and drug prohibition, as well as various socio-economic concerns.

In this connotation, the phrase has at times been applied retroactively to historical phenomena that occurred before the 1960s; for example, the attitudes of both the German Nazi and Communist parties in the early 1930s; or the American radical movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Hungry Generation

In India the group of writers and painters during 1960s who called themselves Hungryalists are the most important contributors to antiestablishment literature.

Revolution

This talk of revolution is all humbug.  All this can be swept with the same broom into the trash can called "antiestablishmentarianism."  It applies also to religions who claim, "converting to my religion will save you and your family" or "converting to my religion is the only way out for you"..... because your religion is bad/wrong, does not show you the truth.

So you will notice that every antiestablishmentarian scaremonger tries to unleash fear in others, ask you to surrender and give in, by conveying through different nonviolent, not-so-violent, violent, and extremely violent modes, their underlying basic code, i.e. "you have to either comply or perish."

Living in exile in the safe, warm, and cosy comforts of democracy, renegades wrote their manual against democracy and named it communism.  The freedom of speech, of demonstration and protests displayed by coomies around the world are the ones most denied and crushed with a heavy fist under communist regimes.  Do you know anyone in any coomie paradise who did not comply and did not perish?

Humanity has a slow pace, no revolution is as stable and inclusive as evolution.  It is also true that humanity or for that matter animal world cannot exist without disparity.  Lions cannot agree to eat shrubs to establish equality and peace with antelopes.  Similarly, you cannot run a factory that is full of managers who give orders or full of workers who take orders to establish equality.  Phantasmagoric leftist intellectuals who dream of a world where manufacturing price = selling price to stop exploitation simply lack the prudence to exist among humans, forget discussing about economics.

Human thought will not agree to be forced to drive only through the Highway 1 to reach heaven.  The taste and comprehension of every human varies, and so, naturally, everyone agrees with a taste and logic that only he is comfortable with.  Every other imposed demand is unnatural, short-lived, and out-of-sync with the saga of human race.

The unheard and trampled voices of millions and millions of innocent humans crushed in attempts to hoist revolutions around the world simply does not permit civilized humans to sanction such revolutions.  The astonishing silence and coverup of the gruesome torture and killings of millions and millions of innocent men, women and children when revolutions have attempted to replace systems in nations across the world speaks in itself for the evil and failure of these revolutions which are argued to be ultimately for human good.



Revolutions are lead by frustrated renegades who ruin the lives of millions in order to showcase the lives of a few hundreds.  It has always been a failure, it is, and it will be...

The moot question now is the relevance of antiestablishmentarianism.  Inequalities and injustice has been part of human history, and to be prudent, shall be so ever, because we have now come to a point where we can distort any political or social turning point or incident from an inequality/injustice point of view.

Every political ideologue, who looks forward for a political life, knowingly or unknowingly, has been exposed to the practical aspects of antiestablishmentary movements.  The success of a political ideologue lies in his making a niche by finding his own antiestablishmentarian causes.

Quite naturally, antiestablishmentarian issues are not found freely lying by the road.  So what do we do?  Simple! Create one.

Making an issue out of a nonissue, rekindling instances in far forgotten and irrelevant history, distorting contemporary issues, and more dangerously stoking dissent - doing it all the while nestled in the comforts and safety of the establishment.

Antiestablishmentarianism can make even a mass murder like him a posterboy

Madamas' Monologues

Our TV stations are not crying rape anymore and the fiery canine barks have died down.  The rape season seems over and the boyfriends fed up.

Rapes of all hues have happened after the star-studded delhi rape, but none of them have had the oomph to get on prime time.

So now we learned that women comes cheaper if they are not your family member, that mother is the costliest, followed by your sister and wife, and that it does not mean much if she is your lover.... and of course girl-friends come cheapest.

Delhi is not a city that is new to rape.  So what caution did our bravehart couples take when they decided to go for a movie that night in delhi?  Did they factor the risk of trouble under the cover of darkness?  Did anyone ask this?

Do we take our wives to city parks and marine drives to smooch and cuddle her in the open?  So who are those that rape the cityscape with their PDAs?

Indian madamas had shown us placard that said "dont teach us how to dress, but teach your sons not to rape," and not surprisingly there has been quite many takers for this.

Wearing a burqa surely touches the raw nerve of "liberated" women.  They say it is very regressive and they also argue that a maximum coverage dress like burqa or a saree is not 100% rape proof.  Now does that mean wearing a minimum coverage dress makes the picture better for women?  ... how is a woman's "liberation-ness" related to liberation from clothes?

Babe, you are bold, brave, liberated, and modern only if you drop your clothes.  What kind of logic is that?

So we have come of age and accepted that being stupid is very fashionable and with a tinge of commonsense-less-ness you could be an icon or even a braveheart.

The delhi crowd was amazing, but do those numbers represent India?  Well then will you accept the opinions of our babas, minsters, and Bhagwats if they rope in a bigger crowd?

I have a question to our flauntophilic madamas.  What would you do if your prospective son-in-law announces that he would like to lay you rather for your curves than your daugther irrespective of her impressive assets, portfolios, inheritance, and resumes?

You dont see it coming when Abhishek Singvi, ND Tiwari, Gopal Kanda,  Mahipal Maderna, Kunjalikutty, Jalish Khan, PJ Kurien, Sushil Sharma are thriving in the ruling party.  You dont see it coming when the victim and her friend lay on the road naked and bleeding, yet no one from the public came forward for help and now only the police is to be blamed.  You dont see it coming when women want to do what they want and end up having those pregnancies, not supported by their families and boyfriends, and our madamas make their valuable presence felt in our underground dance bars  to make both ends meet.

There is nothing called immoral now a days, because even the mention of the word 'immoral' offends women who do "what they want" to fund their "what they like" liberated lives.  Coincidentally, if you are interested, service providers would come to you in flashy cars and bikes and show you folders full of photos categorized into college students, aunties, NRI wives, divorcee, working girls, models, serial actress, cine actress and a rendezvous facilitated subject to full payment.  Yet, we dont see how men have all the fun by getting women to have a derision for morality, by getting women to be liberated.

You dont see the hypocrisy when bollywood bigwigs who run Indias couch casting wholesale dealership came for delhi braveheart photo shoots.  Did Preeti Jain show up there, heard that name?

When grease oil was splashed on a lady teacher during teachers strike here in kerala, our madamas were missing.  Was it respectful?  When party cadres of one party pee'd on women supporters of another party during election campaign the wide traps were tight shut why?

The likes of Arundathi Roy will attend only rape scenes that would assure her at least a 1000 camera clicks.  Did she ask the maoists why they rape tribals and force sterilize them during her adventure trek to maoist bastion?

 
Heavily wide-mouthed women activists of Tamilnadu are mute as sleeping kitten when Tamil films ship only the fairest Punjabi girls with biggest thighs for heroine roles.  What should a Tamil girl think of herself when Tamil boys prefer to drool at those imported fair bellies?

..no one seems to have problems if "women" show up in our films only for item numbers and masalas.  How many actresses would have a place in Indian cinema if not for their fair thighs, bellies, and boobs?  What have women chairmen of film censor boards done to stop women being displayed as "item girls"?  Can any "woman" in cinema deny couch casting?  Isn't it true that you have no problem being the "keep" until it gets exposed or unless you felt he has been "keeping" you for too long and/or has not paid dividends?

So you let these men do it filmy style, and when get caught it becomes "the smallest thing" ..and yet how many of our braggart women went close enough to him to throw a high heeled at him or sent him pink chaddies? or have these women braggarts come forward to check out what went on during Vijay Mallya's nasty parties?  Where are the Arundathi ammas?

 

What is common between mallika sarabhai, arundathi roy, and meena kandasamy, the courageous women who preaches to indian women about how to live?  Their failed marriages, what else...and why are indian women being taught by these failed women on how to be a good woman and how to run a family?

..and how many of these highly-educated, enlightened women and their male well-wishers and colleagues have fought against sleaze that demeans women, protested against printing pictures of wardrobe malfunctions and who and hows of being snapped panty-less?

Sunny Leone in Siddhivinayak temple and Poonam Pandey in Kumbh Mela is where Bharath meets India and gives future Indian moms an idea how to get their daughters their dream break.

Madamas still have no clue how they are being groomed.

'Cause every woman in here, ever since you were … every guy you met has been trying to f*** you. That's right. Women are offered dick every day. Every woman in here … gets offered dick at least three times a week. Three times a day, shit! That's right, every time a man's being nice to you … all he's doing is offering dick. That's all it is., said Chris Rock.  When boys take you to a pub late night, you dont see this reality.  “Between men and women there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, love, but no friendship.” said Oscar Wilde.  For the flaunters, the pub goers, and party freaks these men are crazy right?

We are told blondes are dumb.  We don't have blondes in India, but arent our madamas equally dumb for shouting and thinking from their vaginas?  Dear..what is the fuss with indian rapes when you have 100 times ours happening in UK, and no fuss?  Your hyperbole left even phoren magazines gawking.  So what is itching you really?

It needs no more proof to realize the reality that our cities are not safe.  In being so, isn't it more prudent to do what is safer than push our women into danger by asking them to test the efficiency of govt machinery with their lives?  Or is our madamas wanting to dress what they want, whenever they want, go where they want, however they want, without or with anyone they want inspite of all these tragedies proving the chauvinists right who believe women are not good enough to take care their own sacred life even?

When Mohan Bhagwat stated the Indian women vs Bharthiya women stuff, there were scores of indian madamas who let loose their wide trap to voice their crap.  Where were they when the First Class Judicial Magistrate Court ordered the police to file a case against Amrutha  who beat up her eve-teasers in kerala.  Where where they when, Sangeetha, an actress was showered abuses by a traffic policeman in broad daylight? 

.. or when an Orissa policewoman was beaten up by a mob of 100s of congressmen.  This police woman is someones daughter, someones sister, someones wife, someones mother  ....  did Arundathi ammachi hear of her?


 
These inconsistencies in the heat period of women activists' conscience suggests that its explanation lies elsewhere.  It depends on what itches you, where, and when.

Some of them have their assets to flaunt, who get the itch to flaunt, and get a high when they get those safe drools from dropping jaws in those malls and coffee bars.  Some are so adept in wardrobe malfunction on demand.  So any demand to cover up itches real bad.

Some of them have some grasp of English, who get the itch to write, and the thought that every page for them is a step closer to becoming a la Arundathi Roy gives them their high.  Some are candid though that their column only has a shelf life of 2 hours before it lands in the chana wallahs trolley.


Some of us have a wide trap, who get the itch to rant, but you cant just rant about everything, so you wait for your kill and puke it if the kill can take all your templated ideas you have built up over the weeks and months you lay waiting.  A good rant is their vent.


Some have a pen drive full of downloaded files, it itches to act when you have read enough, you take your car keys when you know there is a crowd that shouts your kind of slogans and gives your fill of high.


All have the same right to walk free in the forest, but a wise antelope will always keep a distance of many gallops from a napping Jaguar.

If Delhi cop says it is not in his power to police every single woman at 3 a.m. you hate him.  Will you love him if he admits he just does not have the resource to get a policeman on that street at 3 a.m.?  Does the fact that daytime in Delhi is not safe for women make them take safety at night for granted?  Just because women find it erroneous to think that a male-companion is a must have for safety make her rebel against this idea and toy with danger herself?

India fares very badly, among many other things, in rape statistics too, faring a poor 100 among nations of the world.  Authors of foreign magazines who watched our braveheart protests were fluxomed at the passion in Delhi as Indian men are not known to be amorous enough to be credited with such frenzy.

 India nor Indians have any obsession for violating vaginas.  What we see and hear today are just the offshoots of general decandance that has gripped our nation.  Corruption has gone to unimaginable levels and inefficiency has been perfected under the watchful eyes of the corrupt that hapless men on the streets are too meek to take on the babus, and with devil-may-care attitude of our youngsters towards others as well as themselves, who now really cares about drunken driving, molestation or a rape?  Is molesting ever a news for us now?.....  or is molesting okay?

Which of these women do we eulogize daily on TV to help our boys respect women?

 Slowly but surely, we have to learn to come to terms and live with this.  Death penality is good and may deter a few, but low conviction rates and buyable police and inept politicians will hardly help a rapist reach the gallows.

We have fallen for sure, not just the men, but women too in equal measure.  Accept it, for truth is bitter.

We dont see how we have allowed to degenerate as a society, we dont see how we compete with each other to degenerate by denigrating ourselves and others. 

Nothing better speaks the truth than the meme below put up by native indians of USA.

also read:  comodifying women

Orangutans are considered as pests by the palm oil industry

Orangutans are some of our closest relatives, sharing approximately 97% of their DNA with humans. Orangutan means 'Person of the jungle' in the Indonesian language. It is estimated that 6 to 12 of these 'jungle people' are killed each day for palm oil. These gentle creatures are either killed in the deforestation process, when they wonder into a palm oil plantation looking for food, or in the illegal pet trade after they've been captured and kept as pets in extremely poor conditions and provided with extremely poor nutrition.

Orangutans are considered as pests by the palm oil industry. In the deforestation process, workers are told that if wildlife gets in the way, they are to do whatever is necessary in order to dispose them, no matter how inhumane. Often orangutans are run over by logging machinery, beat to death, buried alive or set on fire... all in the name of palm oil.

Did you know that each and everyone of us is fueling one of the world's biggest ecological disasters and acts of primate genocide in history?  

 

Borneo and Sumatra are two of the most bio-diverse regions of the world, yet they have the longest list of endangered species. This list includes the magnificent orangutan. These two South-East Asian islands are extremely rich in life, containing around 20,000 flowering plant species, 3,000 tree species, 300,000 animal species and thousands more being discovered each year. Despite this amazing biodiversity and delicate web of species, an area the size of 300 football fields of rainforest is cleared each hour in Indonesia and Malaysia to make way for the production of one vegetable oil. That's 6 football fields destroyed each minute. This vegetable oil is called palm oil, and is found in hundreds of the everyday products, from baked goods and confectionery, to cosmetics and cleaning agents... many of which you buy in your weekly shopping.  

Due to the massive international demand for palm oil, palm oil plantations are rapidly replacing the rainforest habitat of the critically endangered orangutan; with over 90% of their habitat already destroyed in the last 20 years.

Orangutans are some of our closest relatives, sharing approximately 97% of their DNA with humans. Orangutan means 'Person of the jungle' in the Indonesian language. It is estimated that 6 to 12 of these 'jungle people' are killed each day for palm oil. These gentle creatures are either killed in the deforestation process, when they wonder into a palm oil plantation looking for food, or in the illegal pet trade after they've been captured and kept as pets in extremely poor conditions and provided with extremely poor nutrition.

Orangutans are considered as pests by the palm oil industry. In the deforestation process, workers are told that if wildlife gets in the way, they are to do whatever is necessary in order to dispose them, no matter how inhumane. Often orangutans are run over by logging machinery, beat to death, buried alive or set on fire... all in the name of palm oil.

Government data has shown that over 50,000 orangutans have already died as a result of deforestation due to palm oil in the last two decades. Experts say that if this pattern of destruction and exploitation continues, these intelligent acrobats of the jungle will be extinct in the wild within 3 to 12 years (as early as 2015). It is also thought that their jungle habitat will be completely gone within 20 years (approximately 2033).

Around 50 million tons of palm oil is produced annually; with almost all of that being non-sustainable palm oil, that replaces 12 million hectares of dense, bio-diverse rainforest. That's the equivalent landmass of North Korea deforested each year for palm oil alone!

Palm oil is also having a shocking impact on our planet. The production of this one vegetable oil is not only responsible for polluting rivers and causing land erosion, but when the plantation workers set fire to the remaining trees, shrubs and debris to make way for the oil palms, it produces immense amount of smoke pollution that is toxic to planet earth. This has been found to be the second biggest contributor to greenhouse gas in the world.

By purchasing products that contain crude palm oil, you are helping destroy ancient, pristine rainforest, wipe out species like the orangutan, and create a large-scale ecological disaster. Think of the consequences next time you do your weekly shopping; the consequences not only for orangutans and other animals, but for us as the human race; for we cannot survive without the rainforests either. We have a choice, orangutans do not.

See Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Qfd0H9gmluo 

Read more:

http://www.saynotopalmoil.com/

http://www.occupyforanimals.org/palm-oil.html

More pictures:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150953263103819.438182.764913818&type=1
 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Animal-Cruelty-Exposed/363725540304160 

 

 

Swami Vivekananda on Women

“The soul has neither sex, nor caste nor imperfection.”

“The best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women.”

” There is no chance for the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved.”

“Woman has suffered for aeons, and that has given her infinite patience and infinite preserverance.”

“The idea of perfect womanhood is perfect independence.”

“Soul has no sex, it is neither male nor female. It is only in the body that sex exists, and the man who desires to reach the spirit cannot at the same time hold sex distinctions. (CW ,V.4, P.176)

It is very difficult to understand why in this country [India] so much difference is made between men and women, whereas the Vedanta declares that one and the same conscious Self is present in all beings. You always criticize the women, but say what have you done for their uplift? Writing down Smritis etc., and binding them by hard rules, the men have turned the women into manufacturing machines! If you do not raise the women, who are living embodiment of the Divine Mother, don’t think that you have any other way to rise.

In what scriptures do you find statements that women are not competent for knowledge and devotion? In the period of degeneration, when the priests made the other castes incompetent for the study of the Vedas, they deprived the women also of all their righ ts. Otherwise you will find that in the Vedic or Upanishadic age Maitreyi, Gargi, and other ladies of revered memory have taken places of Rishis through their skill in discussing about Brahman. In an assembly of a thousand Brahmans who were all erudite in the Vedas, Gargi boldly challenged Yagnavalkya in a discussion about Brahman. Since such ideal women were entitled to spiritual knowledge, why shall not the women have same privilege now? What has happened once can certainly happen again. History repeats itself. All nations have attained greatness by paying proper respect to women. That country and that nation which edo not respect women have never become great, nor will ever be in future. The principal reason why your race h! ! ! ! as so much degenerated is that you have no respect for these living images of Shakti. Manu says, “Where women are respected, there the gods delight; and where they are not, there all works and efforts come to naught.” There is no hope of rise for that fam ily or country where there is no estimation of women, where they live in sadness. (V7. p.214-15)

When people are discussing as to what man and woman can do, always the same mistake is made. They think they show man at his best because he can fight, for instance, and undergo tremendous physical exertion; and this is pitted against the physical weak ness and non-combating quality of woman. This is unjust. Woman is as courageous as man. Each is equally good in his of her way. What man can bring up a child with such patience, endurance, and love as the woman can? The one has developed the power of doin g; the other, the power of suffering. If woman cannot act, neither can man suffer. The whole universe is one of perfect balance. (CW V.2,p.25-26)

If you do not allow one to become a lion, he will become a fox. Women are a power, only now it is more evil because man oppresses woman; she is the fox, but when she is no longer oppressed, she will be the lion (CW vol.7,p.22)

[Talking to an American audience] I should very much like our women to have your intellectuality, but not if it must be at the cost of purity. I admire you for all that you know, but I dislike the way that you cover what is bad with roses and call it good. Intellectuality is not the highest good. Morality and spirituality are the things for which we strive. Our women are not so learned, but they are more pure.

Not until you learn to ignore the question of sex and to meet on a common ground of common humanity will your woman really develop. All this is the cause of divorce. Your men bow low and offer a chair, but in another breath they offer compliments. They sa y, ‘Oh, madam, how beautiful are your eyes!’ What right have they to do this? How dare a man venture so far, and how can you women permit it? Such things develop the less noble side of humanity. They do not tend to nobler ideals.

We should not think that we are men and women, but only that we are human beings, born to cherish and to help one another. No sooner are a young man and a young woman left alone than he pays compliments to her, and perhaps before he takes a wife, he has courted two hundred women. Bah! If I belonged to marrying set, I could find a woman to love without all that! (CW Vol. 5, p. 412-413)

Men and women in every country, have different ways of understanding and judging things. Men have one angle of vision, women another; men argue from one standpoint, women from another. Men extenuate women and lay the blame on men; while women exonerate men and heap all the heap on women. (CW V.7, p.378)

“In the West its ideal is wife, in India in the mother”.

“In India the mother is the center of the family and our highest ideal. She is to us the representative of God, as God is the mother of the universe. It was a female sage who first found the unity of God, and laid down this doctrine in one of the first hy mns of the Vedas. Our God is both personal and absolute, the absolute is male, the personal, female. And thus it comes that we now say: ‘The first manifestation of God is the hand that rocks the cradle’.” (CW V.4 p.170)

Comodifying women

Women walked bare-breasted very freely in kerala for ages, but mind you, there is no record of men pouncing and plucking out what they lusted from their bare bodies then.

It was the then english-educated desi madamas who told them that being bare-breasted was unwomanly. Madamas told kerala women to be ashamed of their bodies and told to cover up and even held a rally wearing blouse, but women were so ashamed that the women threw away their new contraption before the finishing line...so the story goes.

Now some 50 years after, kerala's madamas are desperate to flaunt a bit of cleavage there, a bit of curve here.

Infact, I wonder if men could get saline-filled chest muscle implants to level their big bellies in their desperate bid to look macho because if women can get that painful "investment on assets" and yet still be taken seriously, why cant men?

India stands 100th in the world when it comes to rape statistics and France the first. (see World Rape Statistics).

So if rape statistics is anything to go by, aren't Indian women in far better stead here.

Now Indian feudal cultural mindset should be at play even in France, if that is the reason for rape in India, and shall we inherit ideas from France so as to appear unmysogynistic and evolve our upbringing to catch up with the statistics in France, .... if fantasies of Indian men are that bad.

My award dreams asks me to fully support the slut walkers of Delhi, but these rapes tell it was a flop. So what next, a slutier walk or sluttest walk? A slut walk to force men to treat women with more dignity, Yes.

We cannot make this world a better place by pitting misogyny with misandry. Nor should we think the cause of assault is limited to just a handful of factors.

It is not just women who are victims, even men are.   Our media, our intellectuals, our women group are all slaves of hypocrisy.

On one side when they talk about woman's dignity, other side they allow women to be displayed as objects of lust, be it our serials, commercials, or movie so much so that the likes of Kareena Kapoors' future is at stake because Sunny Leone is in town. How much is a porn star on prime time TV helping our society? They tried to rope in another porn star, Priya Rai, but thankfully, she refused.

Morality is a bad word for both boys and girls today. The era of gentlemen is passe.

Lawlessness is the order of the day and we have to learn to live with it.  Enforcement authorities have a million handicaps and poor parenting is only adding to this unimaginable decadence. In this scenario, women wanting to dress the way they want only gives fallen men a chance to vent their heat on the women they can corner. Two to tango. These rave parties, nightclubs, massage parlous serve women cheaply to boys. There are many other instances where women are available cheaply, that I dont want to mention here.

Remember, the victims are not always women who were free to dress or do what they chose. It is the vulnerable who bears the brunt, not the flaunters or the elite.

No matter what, nothing justifies assault on women. I am for death penalty for rape, not that it equals a woman's dignity, but nothing more than that can be extracted from the rapist, and to act as a deterrent, but our govt will not do that because nothing much has happened yet for them to take our women's dignity more seriously.

Understand that even men are victims of exhibitionists and homosexuals.  Men are victims of unsolicited advances from men and is nothing new.  There are some sick men around, what is it that we can do about it? I say it is a medical/psychological case. 

One Cochin madama, as usual, waking up to a media frenzy, this time the Delhi gang-rape, wrote in her blog that she grew up seeing penises directed at her, in the buses, bakeries, flower shops, office, or bus stops.  She then goes on to dynamite her case by saying, she loves "to flaunt her curves whenever she can."  Now it is no crime to dream to be an Arundathi Roy and puke such logic to win applause from a kitty party, at the right timing, like selling peanuts with Christmas cakes.  Does it serve women any good?  No.

Women are equally to blame for the constant comodification, and "flaunting" is just a sugar-coated form of exhibitionism, exactly what those sick men in buses and bakeries want to see.  Anyway .. this is not helping men not see women as objects or commodity.  When you go to a carnival, which kid would'nt want to play with those balloons that that guy flaunts standing next to the mmm.. popcorn stand.  Whom will the dad blame, the kid, the balloons, or the guy who flaunted it - to market it?

So if flaunting is a kind of marketing, what is a woman who flaunt marketing?

She has that she has this, so she is sexy. She does not have that she has this, she is not so sexy. She does not have that, she does not have this, uh she is no good. She is flaunting that, she is flaunting this, hey guys comon let us see if we can get that pastry. That is how these sick guys think.

Yes we have a bad situation here, and playing into the hands of sick men is not going to help improve the situation.

....and what happened in the Delhi bus is ...She is flaunting that, she is flaunting this, but damn that pastry jumped into her car and sped away, but wait guys, see.... there in the bus, there is another pastry with that lone guy. You go get an iron rod, will fix that lonely bitch...

Catwalks, high heels, waxing, plucking, padded bras, bikinis, implants, lipsticks, tights, plunging neck lines and rising hemlines are all tuned to fan fantasies of men by fashion houses who wants linear sales figures be it by comodifying women. These things are sold as "modern, for the free woman, the independent and bold, liberated women" to market it....and the sales figures of these shows that women have fallen for their glamorized comodification.

I am afraid that the level of comodification women have allowed upon themselves had crossed the point of no return long back. Sick men are lapping up every bit of the clumsiness on display.

C strings is the best example of how clumsy a women can be made by comodifiying her in the name of fashion.

This urge to flaunt, please understand, is the response of a comodified womans mind, that wants to pander to the fantasies OF men, prescribed BY men, FOR satiating men who have "groomed" our women to fit themselves into custom built statistics prescribed by men, which the sick men readily exploit. Groomed by the fantasy mafia.

The outburst of "Chicks go Crazy" TV series guy Ed Kurtzman (Rob Schneider) towards the end of the movie "American Virgin" best describes from which rack our modern neoliberal fashion scions would like the product "women" be groomed and displayed and sold.  You may want to write it off as just a movie now ... never see how women are comodified.

You know how harmful how high heels are, you know how risky an implant surgery is, you have no idea what these cosmetics are really made of, dieting yourself to malnourishment...all just to conform to mens fantasy statistics. You dont see the comodification there?

So a man renting a Rolls exclusively to drive his girlfriend to an implant clinic, stopping by a flower shop to buy her her favorite roses, and opening the doors for her appear chivalrous and romantic to you.

A woman is violated only when she is raped.  She does not see the violation when she wears that diamond-studded high heels.

That is how even educated women are neatly taken for a ride, getting groomed and comodified, even when you protest your comodification, so much so that for these madams a day without high heels, waxing, plucking, padded bras, bikinis, C strings, implants, lipsticks, tights, plunging neck lines and rising hemlines is a very suffocating prospect.

Thigh gap is a new fashion among women, but that is an innovation of men who have a weakness of a quickie in car parks and one night stands.  Those days of elaborate undressing are passe.  Who likes to do chores these days anyway .... and who cares if women make their thigh gaps by starving themselves to death?  ..and have you heard about toe-besity surgery and rectal bleaching?

For them, a friend forcing on a woman on the back seat of a car is abominable.  The same man gifting a beautiful cellphone on Valentines day and weeks later going on to bed her in a posh hotel suite is so romantic and acceptable.

There is such a hoarse cry about violation of democratic rights when police whacked women during the antirape protests.  Where were these hoodlums who cry foul now when police made a guerrilla attack at midnight on Baba Ramdev and his supporters who were singing bhajans and patriotic songs in Ramilla, one women succumbed to her injuries following the incident.

Three more gang rapes happened in India after Delhi gang rape in December 2012.  On December 25th a housemaid in Kerala was gang raped in Kasargode and dumped, only to be raped again by an auto driver who offered refuge.  No cameras?

Water cannons on Delhi women protests was the most potent weapon because it smeared mascaras and base coats and lipsticks into a bad mess of a face and the prospects of cameras flashing that mess across TVs was a nightmare.

Comodification of women by price tagging her body parts is equally gruesome.  For eg, you violate feet - 2 points, violate thighs- 10 points, violate navel - 25 points, violate lips 60 points, violate breasts 75 points, violate vagina - 100 points.  Only those violations that score above 75 points will reach our newspapers and elicit mouthings from womens groups.

So what we have is a system that ignores a violation that does not cross the distinction mark.  Any jerk who gets hyper and crosses this lakshman rekha is the bread and butter of our women group and media.

A winker is just a coward and has the same contempt for the dignity of women and is not a mahatma when compared to a rapist.  If a few winks does not elicit a response, he graduates to a whistle.  If a few whistle does not elicit, he graduates to lewd songs or comments getting emboldened with his every attempt.  We groom these future rapists by ignoring/accommodating these whistlers and exhibitionists because they have not scored their 100 yet.

How is a man who secretly films private moments of a woman and uploads the clip to a porn site not equal to a rapist?  Will that women ever be able to live without that trauma haunting her for life?  There is no dearth of such instances, but it is never an issue even today.  Digital rape is no crime in digital era, not yet, even though it is called "revenge porn".

The dignity of women that a society attributes to and the respect women commands is what elevates and maintains a society to a higher civilization.  Swami Vivekananda rightly said "the best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women."

We need to punish those who fail to respect women and protect a woman's dignity, not by price tagging her body parts, not by grading or differentiating the type of violation.

Punish an individual not for the gruesomeness of physical violence against women, but for attempting to compromise womanhood, without a violation/disrespect grading scale.

Nip everything in the bud ... and also not wait for shaven madamas with mascaras and high heels lineup after a gang-rape for photo shoots exclusively for feminist magazines that sell French makeup, British C strings, and promote American implants and surgery clinics.  Madamas are as guilty as the rapists, both have no respect for women.

Enough of hypocrisy!! 

also read:  Madama's Monologues

Atheism buster

A $1 membership in atheist/rationalist group is the first refuge of fools desperate to be taken seriously by others.

Dear friends, when a serious question is posed to an atheist they escape the burden of proving anything by claiming to be a negative claimant.

They pose questions to believers in such a way that believers becomes a positive claimant and is burdened to prove. Inability of believers to prove is taken as a credit of atheists.

An atheist says " You claim something, and the responsibility of proving is upon you." Now he claims that there is no god, but then he has not been able to prove that there is no god by proving that it is someone or something else that gives/sustains life, or makes the difference between "dead and alive."

If any atheist has proven love scientifically, then what is the Unit for measurement of love? When that is posted to an atheist, they have no shame in taking refuge in citing about emotion and mental framework and blah blah ..

Atheists are only mediocre people, whose thinking is limited by their obsession to be in the league of intelligent people. Some rare scientist or inventors have made some rare personal opinion about god, but moved on with their invention or research or studies. Their obsession was never with atheism.  They never cared to organize seminars and rallies on atheism or made themselves busy abusing believers or proved believers have comparatively lesser IQ.


Atheists of today have just hijacked a small list of scientists and inventors to claim legitimacy for atheist chicanery.

The convenient argument of atheists that believers are of lesser intelligence simply proves their frustration and is found wanting in even average intelligence.
 
Atheism is just an escapist mask of unintelligent people who are sore that they are not intelligent.  Atheists on the other hand have hijacked these scientists or inventors to satiate their skewed obsession.


Atheism like nail biting is an obsession. It affects some people. There is also another set of people who are UFO hunters or molesters. If you ask them why you do it, they are at pains to explain and evade an explanation. There is nothing scientific about it. Neither are all intelligent people on earth atheists nor are all atheist intelligent. This fact is quite painful to the atheist horde because by their logic, only atheist should have universal patent to intelligence.


The standard atheist excuse jargons are:
*Responsibility of proving is upon you.
*Hyperactive agency detection.
*Positive claimant.

Atheists have their atheist database to copy paste many links and notes, but that does not prove their intelligence or thinking capabilities. They prove only their copy and paste skills.

At the end of the day, what difference have atheists made in this world as a group or as a movement?.......Simply nothing.

Umteen number of atheist blogs and books smacks such narcissistic opinion of atheists. What is the point in athiesim or agnosticsm when their contribution to society has been all time nill?
 
At least, if we take the last 100 years, we know what atheist can do when they get power, like Stalin, Che Guevara, Pol pot, Mao, Kim Jong to name a few. At the end of the day, the theoretical beauty or perfection of a particular school of thought is not worth nourishing or considering if implications of its practical implementation always leads to most disastrous nightmares in recent human history.

Red flag? Yea like the story of Che Guevara, who is poster boy of ignorant commies who "believe" he is a hero and worthy enough to wear his pic on their T-shirts, when he actually was a murderer who even killed women and children and who begged for life before CIA agents who helped Bolivian army to capture and execute him - another atheist right?

Religion is the outcome of human need for a society and its need for order. It evolved from the day humans began to think of the need for social order. Its evolution stopped when the rules were compiled into books and decided upon by those in power that only these rules shall be followed and the book shall not be altered. So changes in society that has happened in the last 2000 or so years have not been updated or incorporated in these rule books.


Who are atheists to decide on medieval practices. you are only being carried by western thinking that everything Indian is primitive.  If there is any nation which can still teach the world about tolerance and love, it is still only India, and it has its root in your so called medival practices. Again it is the offshoot of that medival practices that you can type in that and still have your hand not chopped off.

Recent research has found that even Bal Thakrey was never summoned by the police or court for a lie detector test. We have a great atheist orator here who is running for cover after a receiving a lie-detector summon for some local genocides. We will have too many eminent, broad-minded, peace-loving, humane, intelligent, contemporary party secretaries running for cover if the court decides to make a detailed list...

When the party tells you to have a trade mark style of your own ..say like chopping a face 51 times and peeing on it or say slashing open an alive mans abdomen and removing his intestines and filling it with mud.... these are okay, very civilized, quite acceptable, is laudable, and something to be proud of... very atheistic.

When one looney rationalist, accused of being party to murder, was arrested in kerala, the whole state was engulfed in violence and destruction of property and forced to shut down. That was in total respect, earned and given, not forced right?

My transaction with god has to do with experience. You are insisting on my belief and what i pray because that is the universal atheist bait and you feel miserable because I am not biting your universal bait.

You put words into my mouth or want to put words into others mouth by sayiing I have never answered what I believe or what I pray. I repeat, it is my experience, not my belief or prayer that proves God to me. For there is God even if I dont pray or go to a temple or church. If I dont pray, if I dont believe and do no rituals, and if i dont go to a temple do I become an atheist? So are yogis in himalayas atheists?

Absence of evidence is NOT and evidence of Absence.

The other synonym of God is "ultimate truth." Now you find and replace "God" with "ultimate truth" and you will be bewildered. How are you going to prove the "ultimate truth" wrong?
Your cock and bull story about logic is perfectly described as "running around in circle" and being a "convenient rationalist" when you can't be a reasonable one. It serves you well.."

Now look at your high logical comprehension. "If it establishes, you will have to agree on the fact that your ignorance is the synonym of god."

If science establishes god, it is the atheist who will have to agree on the fact that their ignorance is the synonym of atheism. If science establishes God, it proves the belivers. Secondly if you are any such brainy, corporates or universities would have picked you up for something better.

Then you also seem to talk about what majority of human beings are able to think and comprehend. So you should have the same vibe as those yogis in himalayas who live in sub-zero temperatures wearing nothing. They, like you, dont have the vibes of the average human (please it is only an analogy and do not construe it as my admission of your intelligence or something).

Your inflated ego and harangue stems from your cohabitation with dimwit $1-dollar-atheist-coupon rationalists who find you their messiah of intelligence maybe, but dont try to enforce that outside your harem, because "you must understand that in the eyes of others" you are just another $1-dollar ruffian.

So check out if you are a ruffian by any chance or if you hangout too much with them. Take a break from them and you will start begining to think clearly.

At the end of the day, what difference have atheists made in this world as a group or as a movement? Simply nothing.

At least if we take the last 100 years, we know what atheist can do when they get power, like Stalin, Che Guevara, Pol pot, Mao, Kim Jong to name a few. At the end of the day, the theoretical beauty or perfection of a particular school of thought is not worth nourishing or considering if implications of its practical implementation always leads to most disastrous nightmares in recent human history.

AK Antony has always assumed office by affirmation rather than by a religious oath because he views all religions equally. Just because he is not religiously hyper may atheists not hijack him. AK Antony he has shown carrots to atheists too to avoid disappointing them. He has participated in many church functions and makes it a point to remember his mother in a very Christian way at St. Mary's Forana Church in Cherthala every September 12th.

Thomas Isaac, did u mean that finance minister in the last atheist-run govt in kerala which murdered TP Chandrasekharan of RMP and 1000s of other UDF, BJP, RSS, IUML, NDF, PDP workers in the past?

Yes when atheist massacre others it is very funny. Atheism is the art of convenience, where the artist never has anything to lose.

Atheism is the absence of belief in god, hence the absence of belief in the sea of humanity that finds solace in God, hence absence of respect for their feelings and emotions and their existence, hence absence of remorse when they are deleted. There is no crime when you delete millions, no need for remorse or regret when you only delete. That is simply how an atheist can have the gall to say "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Do you know this man? 

Atheism is just a charade to deflect attention to something else. No atheist is passionate here about pollution in Ganga or Yamuna by industrial effluents...they are seriously bothered by a sadhu who showed his prick during Kumbh Mela.

India is a cauldron of faiths and beliefs.  Only fools can think of making India a belief-free nation.  They just dont know what India is.  Their thinking is only for academics and seminars and will have no bearing on the streets.

I strongly believe that Muslims in India practice Islam far better than their counterparts do in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and Indian Christians can show Europeans and Americans on how to practice Christianity better.

Yes, what we can do is to keep a check on any sort of exploitation or abuse.  For that, you have to be a good practitioner of that religion first.

  If you could hold God within your fingers, therefore understand and prove Him, He wouldn't be God no? It would be science. Doesn't your approach limit the reasoning you'd require in the first place to prove such a thing scientifically if you could?

I am telling you that you cannot scientifically prove him. Like I said, even if you were able to, a scientific method adopted will be incongruous to the nature of the hypothesis. When you consider the goal of such a scientific experiment, and the hypothesis taken to be true for the sake of the experiment, you will be trying to prove a leaf to be a leaf when the hypothesis is that it is a leaf and you know well that it is aleaf you picked. Scientific much eh?

The reasonable way to measure the truth of this hypothesis is, for the sake of the experiment, to assume it true in the nature of things the hypothesis says it exists. For example in intelligent design, in order, in morality, in history. The most you can scientifically prove is that all of these allude to the hypothesis in more than big enough ways to acknowledge a presence of it.

And God needn't exist only because I can believe in Him. They don't have to be mutual co-exist to exist at all. They can also independently exist. By the very nature of that kind of reasoning, through science, you are denying what you can see an outline of but what you refuse to believe can be true because it is unproven yet. If this was provable, and it was proved, you are contradicting your own scientific outlook.

I explained to you in my last response. It's not possible to prove it scientifically because to do it scientifically you have to make a hypothesis that God does exist and does all the things that we claim he is doing and then unprove that. To do that you have to entertain the fact, which is not what we believe, that God is within/contained by the universe ( which includes you and me which itself) in order to which he will have to be a party within (and smaller to the experiment.

A scientific attempt won't really prove what we're saying in the first place. Tell me if you understand that point first. You seem to stuck in a fix because of your scientific assertion. Everything even science proved was not all provable or proved before it was established scientifically. Answer me this. Does science reject the theories that it will eventually/may support in the future?

If someone says that God helps him achieve material things, how else is it possible to prove that except we do a live testing. To prove that scientifically via a live testing, we have to first scientifically prove that God does exists, that that particular God exists, and ascertain what that claim is of that particular God to match the results of a prayer with. There's just a tiny problem. That God also won't be a machine that works the same way because if we assume Him to exist, for the experiment to be be actually done scientifically, we also have to accept that He does not have a rule to how he gives. He has principles thought and they aren't simplistic - all this according to the basic proposition which we are assuming to be true to be scientific about proving whether God does that indeed.

Would you accept this scientific anomaly 'scientifically'? I would guess not.

If I say God controls my destiny, which I don't, I would have to prove that he created the system within which He does. For that I would have to assume that 1) He exists (problem explained in the first paragraph) 2) that He created that system (which you would know better than me what problems you have with that).

That is what it would take to prove God scientifically. Agree? Is the very basic variable in the hypothesis even scientifically provable? Yes, you think?

I have no responsibility to prove what I claim. You would not make what me or any others on this thread are saying wrong by saying that our beliefs don't pass by your scientific test. God is scientifically unprovable by virtue of what we claim Him to be, as similar or as different as each our individual views are on Him. Whatever the right claim is for a God who does exist in the very form that he does (if he does, according to you) is by nature scientifically impossible to prove.

You can't prove the Universe. You can prove what's in the Universe. Similarly you can't/won't be able to prove God but you can assume that to be right and watch the pattern of what He created. If you are going to ignore belief on the basis of it's unscientific nature, you are building a stone wall and talking to it for scientific proof for which there is none. You've locked yourself in to satisfy the small purview of your scientific knowledge and approach.

Tell me if we were to prove God scientifically, how would science have us do it? What would be the hypothesis and and what would be its basis?

Before that, Dude, think about whether, between the two, hope or doom is scientific enough and which you trust A better place to start to prove semi-rational and probability based theories under the garb of science.

Also for an atheist I didn't think your view of your atheist absence of belief would be apathetic to the cause.

Also would you say reason came first or science? Would reason subscribe to science or science to reason? By reason I mean, in the case of science, the logic and extended logic that comes from observation and also perception?

I apologise on your behalf and on the behalf of the walls that science has built around itself, even these that exclude logical reason, which claim that I must prove the unprovable else it does not exist. It contradicts the very spirit of inquiry. Here's a pin you may use to burst that bubble.

The nature of God cannot be proved by the conditions you smugly refuse to accept it by. If you prick up a grain of sand, you don't set out to prove that it is a grain of sand. You make the assumption that it is and you proceed to backwards to test it to see if it is a grain of sand i.e. you assume it to be true and check to see if it is indeed. To always hold the forward reasoning process to experiments is naturally convenient to science and you like to stand by your weaknesses you allow me to assume. Correct me where I am wrong. Reason with me, if you will. If the science you claim to stand tall by absolves itself of this reason, tell me how.

Therefore, since the very claim of what God is (to me at least) cannot be put to forward test (why?: note the above paragraph, or reason with me, likewise), such a method will not really help prove anything but your stubbornness to utilise your wall conveniently. This same wall is one you will immediately disband when you talk about the assumptions that surround the theory of the Black Hole and you will call perfectly 'sound' assumption via science.

Either Hyperactive Agency Detection is right and therefor we believe in God, or you, by your highly self-lauded scientific means, can prove how things can be created without basic intelligence at least. You are/used to e a writer. Can you tell me the probability of any single sentence that you could ever write that can possibly lack fully intended or wrongly communicated meaning. There cannot be meaninglessness, by logical probability. Everything done must be meant to be done unless it is done by machines, which would also would have to be meant to created before they exist to do that- or they could be an experiment gone wrong (which still means they will do that which their malfunction has them do). At each level of doing, even as I type this, if not induced (designed to be) involuntary action, choices - voluntary, unconscious, subsequential or consequential - are being made. Here's an elongated simplistic breakdown of that - put-theory-put-down. Intelligence, at least, had to be in the first step of putting it together. Science seems to ignore where that order, impetus or design could possibly come from - but no wait, you can't say that because you can't pre-prove that he exists, yes? But then how would you prove that he exists anyway? Has science failed in one certain instance, or do we just write God off because it is science and it cannot fail? Perhaps fail is a bad word. Perhaps a better word to use is 'not acceptable', yes? After all, it's going with the populist impression of the topic, yes?

Science has lots of ground to gain, yes, and it isn't going to get very far by stalling the spirit of inquiry by your "not acceptable" because you can't pre-prove God's existence. Even the scientific reason you use will tell you that it's not possible to do that and the only way forward is to experiment backwards. Does science suddenly lose its adaptability when it comes to that question and place the blame on the inaccessibility to an answer (and therefore the invalidity of the question) fathomable by it? Mighty self-certifying that speaks of the logic in the method you purport. Then you can say anything you want to say and sit smug. Well, I hope populist works for you. I doubt it will much further.

Attributing any unknown thing to God can also be that God does exist and that there is much beyond science to also appreciate and know and it doesn't have to be a false populist victory of thought that contradicts the very spirit of enquiry that's much more easier to believe. Be a convenient rationalist when you can't e a reasonable one. It serves you well.

You're running in circles from inability to extend scientific process to to actually discredit God, thereby placing the 'onus of proof' on the ones who do believe, to psychology which, if you really look up, isn't all that credible in its own reason all the time to convenient logic when you it suits your argument.

Can't the establishment of Hyperactive Agency Detection have to do with the fact that the people who came up with it didn't believe in God? Isn't it convenient that you pick on that particular one because it suits your argument and not one of Freud's understanding of the sub-conscious? Isn't it a strange convenient convenient circle of scientific reasoning that you have chosen to stick with an argument that sounds best on the ear and not so good with the reason behind it? Pray tell. Do you choose populism over reason?

Similarly, your theory is just another one to me which is also is not completely provable. How does that make your stand better than mine? What's important to note is that either stand is not equipped to solve its own problems; those contradictions/unanswered questions are intrinsic to them. It's safe to say that neither you or me can find any answer to the question with wither of these paradigms of approach or reason.

If I was obsessed with my theory, I wouldn't be repeating my logic over and over again allowing for the particular query with each response. You can take the time to note that each response is not simply posing the same questions, like yours are, but they are adapting my perspective to the query. It is also explorative and not deterministic like yours. You have assumed a paradigm of scientific approach and are applying that universally regardless of whether it fits or not. How is (your) scientific approach universally acceptable and not subject to reason and logic and how does it automatically supercede mine which? Who's the stickler here if his outlook is not able to embrace new, perceivable paradigms? Does that make your outlook limited or mine?

I did not for one second say that an intelligent being controls the non-intelligent beings. I said that the very fact there is intelligence anywhere and in any form means that someone or something intelligent in the first place had to create it. That or intelligence was a pre-states. I am stating based on that, that intelligence was exercised and it was, by probability, be a being that exercised choice. I'm not even saying it is God. That is what I chose to believe. I say that because it would have to design it with a purpose for all of it to turn out to be intact and functional. To assume that competition and survival outed all options of existence of non-superior organisms before they could exist for even a few years is absurd proof for the theory of the survival of the fittest and cannot, by reason, outroot the theory of intelligence, yet at least.

Going by the manner in which a theory becomes fact, you should also watch that the ones you lay claim to fall within the same bracket of credibility. Are you aware of the many assumptions even science makes in its many theories? The ones you claim have more proof than mine (and the others) I agree, but that's just more proof. It only gives you more brownie points - qualification enough you say for passing the 'burden of proof' test or just the next best face which still offers no complete conclusion? The very nature of my claim is unprovable, obviously something that people of (your) scientific paradigm of thought won't accept because you are too limited in perspective to link the world with your perspective and check it out. You agree as well. Why should the burden of proof apply when it is clearly not compatible? Isn't it unreasonable then to assert that rule of credibility? Superiority because what? How, then, can the burden of proof test be even acceptable to something that is by nature not acceptable to your paradigm of reason?

 *check it out against other clearly prevalent understanding which even if not proved as a complete external entity shows an influence (the non-God ones) and by which we understand it.

also - " How does it establish the existence of god? If it establishes, you will have to agree on the fact that your ignorance is the synonym of god." - a tribute to the fact that you have pre-decided that God cannot exist? Way to go for your scientific spirit of enquiry.

Also: "If you can’t understand this simple logic, you are unqualified to enter into a discussion that demand high logical comprehension."

I suggest you use high logical comprehension to analyse how you have assumed that God, for what he is claimed to be, can ever be under the purview of science. Just like how science can independently prove that the universe exists while being in, and a small part of, it? Who even knows that it should be called the universe. Maybe it deserves a name which should be derived from the understanding we lack of it? Not a possibility you'd allow? One that's too small-minded for your scientific mind to get around?