Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

[Hicks]

Oh awesome! I didn't know time cube was updating again!

[Hicks]

Practical Explanation ( For Example ) :- `1st of all can you tell me every single seconds detail from that time when you born ?? ( i need every seconds detail ?? that what- what you have thought and done on every single second )

can you tell me every single detail of your `1 cheapest Minute Or your whole hour, day, week, month, year or your whole life ??

if you are not able to tell me about this life then what proof do you have that you didn't forget your past ? and that you will not forget this present life in the future ?

Sweetie... of course we forget the past. Human eye witness testimony has a proven track record of being the most unreliable form of evidence. Have a study.

that is Fact that Supreme Lord Krishna exists but we posses no such intelligence to understand him.

This premise is unsupported by any of your previous statements. Your assertion of fact without proof is a non-sequiter. Indeed, eye witness testimony (such as provided by you about what you believe) as you said *is falsifiable and failing*. If you call into question my experience of my life as *unreal*, and then I agree that personal testimony is error prone with additions and omissions, you cannot then appeal to your own eyewitness testimony to support your 2 unverified claims.

there is also next life. and i already proved you that no scientist, no politician, no so-called intelligent man in this world is able to understand this Truth. cuz they are imagining. and you cannot imagine what is god, who is god, what is after life etc.

You proved no such thing. You asserted that people cannot be sure of their past (a claim I and not you supported), then you asserted that your God exists and that we cannot understand it. But assertations are not proofs. I can assert that there is a snake behind you, but my merely giving my testimony I have not proved there is a snake behind you in actuality.

_______
for example :Your father existed before your birth. you cannot say that before your birth your father don,t exists.

So you have to ask from mother, "Who is my father?" And if she says, "This gentleman is your father," then it is all right. It is easy.
Otherwise, if you makes research, "Who is my father?" go on searching for life; you'll never find your father.

( now maybe...maybe you will say that i will search my father from D.N.A, or i will prove it by photo's, or many other thing's which i will get from my mother and prove it that who is my Real father.{ So you have to believe the authority. who is that authority ? she is your mother. you cannot claim of any photo's, D.N.A or many other things without authority ( or ur mother ).

if you will show D.N.A, photo's, and many other proofs from other women then your mother. then what is use of those proofs ??} )

same you have to follow real authority. "Whatever You have spoken, I accept it," Then there is no difficulty. And You are accepted by Devala, Narada, Vyasa, and You are speaking Yourself, and later on, all the acaryas have accepted. Then I'll follow.
I'll have to follow great personalities. The same reason mother says, this gentleman is my father. That's all. Finish business. Where is the necessity of making research?

Mothers may lie. The reason we *may* believe them is that they are a trusted source of information, who hopefully have a record of saying true statements to you for as long as.... you remember.... and we're right back to your past memory being unverifiable using only the eye witness testimony of yourself. Except one *should not* believe their mothers based solely on their word, but by verifying her statements as true, corroboration with other testimony yes but especially other physical evidence that cannot be misremembered or fabricated. The "necessity of making research" is the part that tests assertations, premises, hypotheses, in the crucible of falsifiable verification through experimentation and evidence.

All authorities accept Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You accept it; then your searching after God is finished.

once again these are unsupported statements. Many people in authority believe in an omnipotent, omniscient intelligence that controls every division and catigory of matter and spacetime from the beginning of time till they decide to end time. Some even believe that God is all loving too; I dont find that to be supported by my religious texts, logically consistant, or verifiable by lived experience, but cognitive dissonance is a thing
(sorry to link to wikipedia, but the studies are paywalls. You can get to them in the citations at the bottom of the page). Anyway, the majority (57%) of the people on the planet believe in either a mono-theistic abrahamic religion, 16% have no religion, 15% Hindu, 10% Buddhist, and the remaining 2% of the world's population believe something else but it is still a religion. Therefore the super majority of the population and their authority figures (85%, 5.95 billion people out of the 7 billion) do not accept Krishna as anything; you cannot rhetorically appeal to the majority of authority when you are in fact a minority. Appealing to authority could be true, but is not neccesarily true until that authority has some factual and falsifiable evidence of actually *being true*. You shouldn't appeal to the majority at all, as it is a logical fallacy to do that and doesn't actually prove your statements true.

Why should you waste your time?
_______
all that is you need is to hear from authority ( same like mother ). and i heard this truth from authority " Srila Prabhupada " he is my spiritual master.
im not talking these all things from my own.

Sweetie.

you have deceived yourself. You heard from a self proclaimed authority... but you did not test it. Nothing you have asserted to be true is true. You let a man say words in your ear, and you took them to heart, and never thought that you cannot trust the word of people without falsifiable testing of their claims. Your opening thesis denounces the authority of your teacher. None of your assertations are supported by anything other than your say so, and your or my or anyone else's say so is asserted to be unreliable by your own opening thesis. You haven't spoken any truth because nothing of what you said has been supported by any reliable evidence of fact.

And that is all I can respond to. Your religious practices have no bearing on the assertation that doing them supports any of your statements. They are just things that you do and we should do them to because it is awesome to have people tell you how to live and not eat onions. Why onions? I like onions.

Now, not to be disingenuous: I have no intention of converting to the religion you practice. I have my own religion I practice, and should I ever logically escape my religious apologetics through biblical theonomy (doubtful), I'm still not converting. Onions are unironically great and delicious.

[Grek]

Dude stop talking to the fucking spambot. It can't talk back.

[Dean]

I actually found Hicks' response to be intelligent and witty enough that it self justifies it's own writing and reading. I'd argue it's not important that the original writer won't read it, cause I enjoyed reading it on it's own merits. It's like how sometimes you'll get a whole great reddit thread from someones initial shitpost.

[Stahlseele]

Also, did we not have a spambot or two some time ago that actually kinda sorta did try and answer?

[shinimasu]

I don't think it responded so much as it just spat out another long string of gibberish on the same thread. "Responding" would imply it referenced the reply in some way.

But I'm pretty sure it's the same spam bot from last time. Same krishna stuff, same weird onion fixation. I am mildly amused that it's managed to set up an account twice now.

[Iduno]

Also, did we not have a spambot or two some time ago that actually kinda sorta did try and answer?

The one that posted about how great Powered by the Apocalypse games were? Definitely sub-human intelligence, but a bit too coherent for a spambot.

[Hicks]

I'm still tripping off of Meat-Onions. Is it an onion stuffed with meat and garlic? Peeling an onion and replacing every other layer with a thin slice of meat infused with garlic, reassembled into a sphere and baked into a sphere? Dude. That second one sounds *delicious*.

[Shrapnel]

Isn't "krishna" that thing where people wear pink pajamas and shave their heads and ask for money in airports? Didn't they stop being a thing after the eighties?

Also, what the fuck is a "trange"? Sounds like some kind of forbidden sex toy from Sumatra. And, by the way, onions make me violently ill if I even smell them, so I'm all for not eating them. But I like illicit s.ex, and I'm not going to ever give that up... if I ever get any.