WHY RELIGION ? [Archive]

Surya

19th July 2006, 03:19 PM

Excellent Thread Nakeeran!!! :clap: :D

ALL RELIGIONS ARE WAYS & MEANS TO ACHIEVE ONE COMMON GOAL - INTEGRAL HUMANISM & BUILD LOVE & SHUN HATRED

Heres another:
Relieving Once self from the Cycle of Life and Death.

Infact....thinking about it...

Hinduism and Buddism has the concept of reincarnation. So their Philosophical Point is that.

Where as Xtianity and Islam don't believe in Reincarnation, so their point is basically to get ppl into heaven.

Xtianity = Don't Commit Sins, Prolitherization, (or however u spell it) Believe that Crist Died For ur Sins, and Live according to the rules of xtianity, and ur in.

Islam = Live according to the rules of islam, Allah isn't for us, we are afor allah. Prolitherization.

I do agree that inhumane acts and hatred are frowned upon in most religions, which hopefully will acheave integral humanism, build love, and shun hatred.

But I do not think that that is the goal of all religions. If so then why did Budha break away from Hinduism? Why did Mohhamad break away from Judaism, and why did the first Apostles preach something other than Judaism?

I think taht each religion has it's own base, it's own Native Juice so to speak, which makes it have a different Goal. :D

crazy

19th July 2006, 03:36 PM

WHY RELIGION?

to teach human to live like a human
to reach God
to live a good life
to understand the truth and meaning of life (not monty python's)
in some case to keepdown people
in some case to keepdown women
in some case to war
in some case to become a prophet
in some case to rule the world
in some case to be God himself
in some case to show hatred towards another religion
in many case to fool people, i guess!!!!!!!!!

SORRY IF IAM WRONG :cry:

Lambretta

19th July 2006, 05:00 PM

:clap: CRA-ZEE CRA-ZEE CRA-ZEE!! :clap:
:notworthy: :thumbsup: :bluejump: :exactly:

Suri- good post from u too! :2thumbsup:

crazy

19th July 2006, 07:26 PM

:clap: CRA-ZEE CRA-ZEE CRA-ZEE!! :clap:
:notworthy: :thumbsup: :bluejump: :exactly:

Suri- good post from u too! :2thumbsup:

:) :) NANDRI lamby :) :ty:

Tia

19th July 2006, 10:05 PM

its just peoples belief in how they think superhumans (gods)are and how they think they should lead their life in cos there are certain rules in religion to lead ur life....

Bipolar

20th July 2006, 03:12 AM

Personally I am not religious. I come from a religious family, i.e., my parents are religious (not very deeply, but they are religious), but personally, I don't think organised religion is a very good thing.

If people turn to religion for moral and spiritual guidance, then that is totally fine, as long as people don't try to stick too strictly to religious principles.

I think problems really start if religion is used as a tool or as an instrument to control individuals and society, or if religion starts to interfere with politics.

One major problem with religion is that everyone has to be "respectful" of it. Anyone who criticises or questions religion - any religion - is accused of being blasphemous or disrespectful - this is used as a way to suppress any expression of doubt or dissent. That is my major objection to organised religion - it is used to control the masses, and they don't even realise it.

That is the major difference between science and religion - science and scientists encourage people who ask questions - they encourage rational thought - no scientist can expect to be above criticism.

Personally, I feel that although the older generations of people all around the world may wish to hold strongly to their beliefs and traditions, in an ideal world, at least the younger generations (my generation) should be unafraid of doing things differently - I'm not saying we should totally discard everything that is old - there is a lot of good in the old, but it's not all perfect - we should therefore carefully examine old cultural traditions and customs, and learn from it all - we can learn from the things that they got right, and also from the mistakes they made - the most important thing is that we should be open-minded. My point is that religion does not encourage open-mindedness, but we can still learn a lot that is of value from religion.

I hope my post made sense to you guys. I think I will come back here with more to say.

Nakeeran

20th July 2006, 01:26 PM

Bipolar

very thoughful post ! nice !

True what you said :

If people turn to religion for moral and spiritual guidance, then that is totally fine, as long as people don't try to stick too strictly to religious principles.

I think problems really start if religion is used as a tool or as an instrument to control individuals and society, or if religion starts to interfere with politics

blahblah

27th July 2006, 10:31 AM

I believe religion should always be a very personal thing.Customs and rituals are only tools to remind as of the goodness of providence so that we may repay that goodness.

Then there are people who earn a living out of this and that is the problem. :x I would not have been a christian if I were born to parents from other communities.Anyone can be a good human without strictly following dictates of any religion,and in the process you find that you actually practice some of it,if not most.

We should probably stop following the religion and insted follow God!

pavalamani pragasam

27th July 2006, 10:46 AM

From an old poem, "Abou Ben Adam":
Love of fellow men love of God.

Braandan

28th July 2006, 10:25 AM

All wars fought in today's world is related one way or the other to religion. The head post of the thread says that "we live in a matured world!!!!" - duh

selvakumar

28th July 2006, 11:46 AM

Hey ! :clap:

Here we go again ! :bluejump:

I am waiting to count the number of posts that will be deleted soon..

I am just looking out whether any ban will happen.

I am just wondering whether the one that is present in the description of MISC TOPICS is till valid :roll:

I am :bluejump: to see more discussions on why this thread should not be locked !

selvakumar

28th July 2006, 12:57 PM

All wars fought in today's world is related one way or the other to religion. The head post of the thread says that "we live in a matured world!!!!" - duh

:rotfl:

thamizhvaanan

28th July 2006, 02:46 PM

nilavupriyan

28th July 2006, 03:09 PM

religion must have stopped human being from eating themselves in the early history by offering some good values of life!

ippo irukura pala per thappu seyya bayapadurathey "kadavul" bayathunalathan!

regarding religious conflicts...all those conflicts are based upon land....kashmir or israel or afganistan..nilathagararu with religious belief as a base....avanunga epdi irundhalum adichikuvainga.. :lol:

Lambretta

28th July 2006, 03:34 PM

All wars fought in today's world is related one way or the other to religion. The head post of the thread says that "we live in a matured world!!!!" - duh

:rotfl:
:roll: :roll:

thamizhvaanan

28th July 2006, 03:37 PM

religion must have stopped human being from eating themselves in the early history by offering some good values of life!

ippo irukura pala per thappu seyya bayapadurathey "kadavul" bayathunalathan!

you must be referring to the things that past religions acheived by the way of obscurity, fear and built upon common man's ignorance. Do you wish to continue that?

Do you wish religions should hold control over men by faking reality, by taking the rationale out of their armory, by counting on their disability to raise questions or even to seek an explanation?

Then the human race would have gone nowhere... it would have been still suffering under the incubation of ignorance, stagnated in primordial beleifs.

A religion shouldnt be as rigid as it is implied, its code of conduct should be a self-discipline nurtured on rational thinking, rather than someone else's "interpretation of morality" , let it be a saint who lived 2000 yrs ago or a person from the current age. When a person relies on someone else's intellect, that is when he is most susceptible, thats when he becomes a toy, that is when evil starts.

So dont imply that fear of God should be the way to control people, rather the love of Him, should be.

selvakumar

28th July 2006, 04:39 PM

All wars fought in today's world is related one way or the other to religion. The head post of the thread says that "we live in a matured world!!!!" - duh

:rotfl:
:roll: :roll:

:D

nilavupriyan

28th July 2006, 06:34 PM

religion must have stopped human being from eating themselves in the early history by offering some good values of life!

ippo irukura pala per thappu seyya bayapadurathey "kadavul" bayathunalathan!

you must be referring to the things that past religions acheived by the way of obscurity, fear and built upon common man's ignorance. Do you wish to continue that?

Do you wish religions should hold control over men by faking reality, by taking the rationale out of their armory, by counting on their disability to raise questions or even to seek an explanation?

Then the human race would have gone nowhere... it would have been still suffering under the incubation of ignorance, stagnated in primordial beleifs.

A religion shouldnt be as rigid as it is implied, its code of conduct should be a self-discipline nurtured on rational thinking, rather than someone else's "interpretation of morality" , let it be a saint who lived 2000 yrs ago or a person from the current age. When a person relies on someone else's intellect, that is when he is most susceptible, thats when he becomes a toy, that is when evil starts.

So dont imply that fear of God should be the way to control people, rather the love of Him, should be.

i dont believe religions make people ignorant!..first of all regarding religions a person must be ignorant as they are not sure abt the Almighty..

but the religions teach us the right things..u must accept it..it each whats wrong and whats right!..

punniyam senja sorgam polamnuthan ippo palaper punniyam seyyaraanga...than nallavana irukanumnungara suyanalamthan podhunalama maarudhu..

thamizhvaanan

31st July 2006, 10:56 PM

i dont believe religions make people ignorant!..first of all regarding religions a person must be ignorant as they are not sure abt the Almighty..

but the religions teach us the right things..u must accept it..it each whats wrong and whats right!..

religion shouldnt teach us right and wrong, it should teach us judgement. because, there is no absolute in this world. It is next to impossible to frame a rigid morality that would hold true in all circumstances. Like, when we frame a law that murder is crime, but still there would be times when murder might seem righteous. Just like that we cant frame things as good and bad always. There is no absolute!!!

great

31st July 2006, 11:34 PM

religion shouldnt teach us right and wrong, it should teach us judgement.

I dont get what you are trying to convey :confused2:

n.rama

1st August 2006, 12:00 AM

Religion teaches one to accept the experiences of others. Spiritality on the other hand asks one to know ones's own truths through personal experience.

nilavupriyan

1st August 2006, 10:13 AM

pavalamani pragasam

1st August 2006, 11:39 AM

Relevance/share of religion in the past ages was very great. Everything was interwoven: social, moral, cultural, architectural, artistic expressions etc. Life was comparitively slow & leisurely. Ample time was available for worship & rituals which were actually occassions of social interactions when moral standards/codes of behaviour were silently established.

In the fast-paced today's world of technology, amidst the hectic rat race for survival old religious practices/holds have taken a back seat with people having hardly any time to spare for social communions.

Also, the change of lifestyles, thought processes are making man totter on slippery grounds when deciding on moral codes suitable for the changed scenario. Social customs have inevitably changed according to the times.

What is important, what should not change is the basic dignity of life, everybody's duty of not harming the happiness of neighbours/fellow beings which is society, & letting the race rise up on the ladder of civilisation values-vice.

Priorities like love for kith & kin, consideration for the less privileged should be maintained. Religion did this in the past. In this enlightened age each individual's conscience can take up this responsibility.

manuel

1st August 2006, 02:25 PM

When people start giving more importance to Religious leaders than the practice of their respective religious beleif's it also turns out to be a problem.
Some times these so called "spiritual leaders" tend to utilize their followers in their own selfish interest and when they tend to project themselves as the sole voice of their community it ends up in major problems.

thamizhvaanan

3rd August 2006, 05:11 PM

religion shouldnt teach us right and wrong, it should teach us judgement.

I dont get what you are trying to convey :confused2:

I meant religion shouldnt categorize what is good and bad. These things are Non-Absolute. A religion should rather give us judgement to discriminate between good and bad. I hope I am clear enough :roll:

Hulkster

4th August 2006, 06:53 AM

First of all let us define what is religion.

Religion is a strong idealogy or belief of a person or group of persons about how humans should lead life/ worship the supernatural(GOD) and etc.

The thing remains is this..religion was created by humans..not GOD and it is their own perception of how we should worship GOD and lead our lives. That means they are not permanent in a human's life and do not have to be followed. Basic fact remains that there is just GOD and humans as in the human race without the inclusion of the man-made categorizations of religions and races.

Humans can still exist without religion. There are values that are born with us such as common sense, logic, morality and the compassionate feelings like care concern love etc. We still can identify what is right and wrong without having to look at religions. In fact religions may or may not be used as a guide to see whether our definition of right or wrong is correct. The thing everyone must realise is...RELIGIONS ARE NOT PERMANENT AND NEITHER ARE THEY CREATED BY GOD.

Let us see logically. Every baby born in this world does not know whether its muslim, hindu, catholic or etc. All it knows is its mother and father. But we categorise them as muslim child hindu child and so on and so forth. God just created us as humans and we are categorised into religions and races by humans when we are born. Tell me is God right or humans right? Cant we see that we are all meant to be as one from the way God creates us?

Remember that God is formless and omnipresent...he can be anyone anywhere at anytime. If u think he looks like shiva or vishnu he will look like that. If u think he is just a soul who has a commanding presence like Allah then he will appear like that. If you think he speaks english tamil etc then he will speak like that. What we perceive GOD as is what will appear to us. People say we must go to temple and worship... they say we must practise like this to worship. Are they telling us that GOD is only found in temples? isnt that totally illogical? Kovilae mettum tappu seinchaal kaduvul paarpaar anaal veliyae seinchaal theriyaatha? GOD is everywhere..you can worship him from your bathroom..bedroom kitchen..anywhere and he will still hear your prayers. And as for worship there is no need to go do poojais or postrate in a certain pose to pray to him....just thinking of him in your heart and praying to him gives you the same benefits of 18 years of penance and etc. I pray to him like that and i have had no sufferings...Thinking that GOD only answers to a certain type of worship is like defining GOD like a human.

Already 3/4 of the world is engulfed in bloodshed and destruction in protection of a belief that is neither permanent nor created by GOD...i wonder what else will happen with humans. atleast if we change ourselves..theres a chance our children and others might follow suit and change the world slowly...ellei na naangalae ulugathai azhichikkavom without the so called asteroids or tsunamis destroying the world.

bingleguy

4th August 2006, 11:24 AM

If people turn to religion for moral and spiritual guidance, then that is totally fine, as long as people don't try to stick too strictly to religious principles.

Bipolar,
RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES are nothing but MORAL and SPIRITUAL teachings :-) anything other than these two are just mooda pazhakkavazhakkangal !
When u say principles u really mean it and ppl adhering to it ... just like LAW .... so how does it make a difference when u say dont strictly stick to law ....
this is just a thought !

I think problems really start if religion is used as a tool or as an instrument to control individuals and society, or if religion starts to interfere with politics.

The reason is WE ! there is no other external reason ... Religion shld be talking about way of life and the importance of the supreme power and the atman and the principles of LIFE ... We are not entitled to use it for selfish purposes .... rightly said .....

One major problem with religion is that everyone has to be "respectful" of it. Anyone who criticises or questions religion - any religion - is accused of being blasphemous or disrespectful - this is used as a way to suppress any expression of doubt or dissent. That is my major objection to organised religion - it is used to control the masses, and they don't even realise it.

..... Controlling self is what it aims at ... u r not bound by the religion, but bound by the principles of LIFE ! CONTROLLING can be done, for instance ... say we are not eligible to kill a life ... which can be a principle that is been thrusted upon ... do u think that is wrong ! RELIGION is mis-used in the name of controlling masses !

That is the major difference between science and religion - science and scientists encourage people who ask questions - they encourage rational thought - no scientist can expect to be above criticism.

who says RELIGION does not encourage to QUESTION it ? :-) NO ... its only the ppl who control in the name of religion ... We shld know how to differentiate between the principles bounded in Religion and the ONES that are thrusted upon in the name of RELIGION by certain forces !
The era has come to relate GOD and SCIENCE ! do you think there exists a difference between GOD and SCIENCE :-) ?

Personally, I feel that although the older generations of people all around the world may wish to hold strongly to their beliefs and traditions, in an ideal world, at least the younger generations (my generation) should be unafraid of doing things differently - I'm not saying we should totally discard everything that is old - there is a lot of good in the old, but it's not all perfect - we should therefore carefully examine old cultural traditions and customs, and learn from it all - we can learn from the things that they got right, and also from the mistakes they made - the most important thing is that we should be open-minded. My point is that religion does not encourage open-mindedness, but we can still learn a lot that is of value from religion.

Again i reiterate ... RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES are not encapsulating you ... it is showing u the righteous path ! IT shows you the way to the supreme abode ! We confuse between foolish superstions and the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES !

DO YOU THINK EVERYTHING U DO TODAY IS CORRECT ? Ys we do ... coz we think Rationally ! so do our elders .... some may not be able to tell u exactly the meaning of certain things in Religion.... doesnt mean that it is absurd .... Search for the answer ...There are many with answers .... its just that we find the right person to get the right answer .... !

Lambretta

4th August 2006, 10:27 PM

Well said, BG!!! :clap: :yes: :thumbsup:
Will revert more in detail later, felling a bit too sleepy now....! :)

thamizhvaanan

9th August 2006, 07:42 PM

When u say principles u really mean it and ppl adhering to it ... just like LAW .... so how does it make a difference when u say dont strictly stick to law .... BG, when you said principles, you forgot to mention "whose" principles you are talking about. You cannot expect people to adhere to "Principles" (Speculative extrapolation of one's sense of morality) of other people. "Principles" are rules formed on morality, that which is built upon reason - purely an individual factor. When you are adhering to someone else's "Principle", you are indirectly feeding on his intellect. How can we call a person who relies on someone else's brain, as a "Self-Thinking" individual?

On the contrary, If a person listens to a philosophy, analyzes it and trusts it, then the Principles that he frames becomes his own. At some point he has to deviate from what is told in religion, a 3rd person's preachings or whatever. I think this is what Bipolar means when he says "Not sticking strictly to religious principles". IMO, anyone who follows anything strictly is "Obstinate" .

The reason is WE ! there is no other external reason This is one more arguement which everybody uses in support of religion. Blaming the user for the dysfunction of an appliance. Remember religion is made for us. If it is not within the inherent capabilities of a "Religion" to deal with wavering human beings, then what is the use in calling "Religion" as a panacea for our ills? Isnt there a fault in the tool which we chose for our support? Then what rights do we have to suggest the same to a human race, which throughout the history has misused, misunderstood and misimplemented a tool, with supposed "Good intentions" particularly when we are unsure of whether the future is going to be any different from the past!!!

We are not entitled to use it for selfish purposes .... rightly said .....Let religion be reserved for some other super-intelligent race, who knows what they are entitled to do and what not to :wink: :D

There are lot more things to say, but i will do that later, not that becoz I am busy (that would be an outrageous lie :lol: ) but coz i am lazy :noteeth:

thamizhvaanan

13th August 2006, 12:50 PM

OK here I am with the continuation :D

say we are not eligible to kill a life ... which can be a principle that is been thrusted upon ... do u think that is wrong !
:yes: I think that is wrong.... anything that is thrusted upon us is wrong!!!

RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES are not encapsulating you ... it is showing u the righteous path ! IT shows you the way to the supreme abode !
Can you please tell me where that "perfect" religion is?? :P

coz we think Rationally ! so do our elders .... some may not be able to tell u exactly the meaning of certain things in Religion.... doesnt mean that it is absurd
Still it doesnt mean that I should trust all the things that I cant make sense of!!! IMO, there is no point in beleiving anything we dont understand or cant fully appreciate...
Throughout the history people have tried to preach us that we dont know anything, that there exists a superior knowledge, we should look for inner meaning if we dont find any "outer" meaning in it :P . This is the weapon, they used to exercise control over mass. By claiming ignorance... by claiming that the general man is ignorant, and he doesnt deserve to question any code. A guiltless man is the most independent man. If one infuses guilt into one's feelings, the guilt of ignorance, he can be made to beleive anything, do anything, a mere puppet sans self-thinking. So this is the end result, when we say there are things, we dont know or cant know, the "exact meaning" and stuff... looking forward to more discussions :)

r_kk

13th August 2006, 05:11 PM

Religion is an insult to human dignity. It is mere a byproduct of human fear, group supremacy and survival. It is a tool to exploit the weak and poor and control the human mind. Religion is only required for the so called inter-mediators those who act as link between so called god and common human beings and gain power supremacy respect and wealth. Most of the religions looks holy but actually they are not (read religious books without any attachments or fear about any supreme power to understand this aspect).

Human race had suffered /is suffering lot due to this concept than any other concept. To be a good human being, we don't need any heavenly Sadam Hussains (Thanks to Antony Flew). Prayer brings only false hope and illusive solutions...

Ignore God... Ignore religions... Respect humanity and love without any expectation... Don't pray or preach...just serve the weak, suppressed and sufferers.... Don't waste your life by following old residue of some one else's thoughts...

Ignore any kind of religions and isms including controlled atheism.... Be free ... you are the light for yourselves (Thanks to Gauthama Buddha)

Ignore the above if you feel it incorrect and don't agree blindly to anything including the above...

Shakthiprabha.

5th October 2006, 03:03 PM

Religion is NOT NECESSARY for matured lot.

There are immatured lot WHO KNOW NOT how to behave..where to curb..how to live.

THEIR DIRE NEED is RELIGION.

Very funny to learn, in most cases, these days, RELIGION makes a man an ANIMAL rather than making him a HUMAN.

NOV

5th October 2006, 06:28 PM

RELIGION makes a man an ANIMAL rather than making him a HUMAN.maybe that is why GOD read backwards is dog. :oops:

Shakthiprabha.

5th October 2006, 07:31 PM

nov,

:)

that probably shows everything if taken in ABSOLUTELY WRONG OR REVERSIBLE SENSE, gives us a different picture.

I remember some spiritual books quoting an incident by a swamiji and his disciple...

sishya who is an atheist talks "GOD IS NOWHERE..."
guruji puts a comma and says

GOD IS NOW,HERE.

Its all in how we take things. How we look at it.
Thought maketh a man :)

kannannn

5th October 2006, 07:35 PM

A parable from one of my favourite books - "One Minute Nonsense"

The master made it his task to systematically destroy every doctrine, every belief, every concept of the divine, for these things, which were originally intended as pointers, were now taken as descriptions. He loved to quote the Eastern saying: "When the sage points at the moon, all that the idiot sees is the finger."

Shakthiprabha.

5th October 2006, 07:36 PM

The things seen are akin to
THE LEVEL THEY STAND :)

Sandeep

6th October 2006, 09:07 AM

All of you are entitled to you believes but why are you insulting others.

thamizhvaanan

6th October 2006, 09:42 AM

who is insulting who? :confused2:

Sandeep

6th October 2006, 11:00 AM

A couple of resent posts invoked my comment.

But more importantly Religion is accused of many bad things as if Religion is a third entity. rkk mentioned religion was born out of fear and insecurity. Removing religion will not remove fear and insecurity. Religion has always been used as an excuse for achieving Goals. Sameway nationality, gender, class, race, language, culture all have been used.

Point is, its Utopian to think that world will be any better without religion. Religion is not the cause of bad things its only a tool. Dont hang the knife for the murder. Also dont blame the majority who are using the knife for cutting vegetables.

Shakthiprabha.

6th October 2006, 12:49 PM

World without a religion would have been MOST BEASTLY and UNCULTURED.

Whatever little peace we have is definitely because of ANY RELIGION which one follows.

(Ironically whatever peace WE DONT HAVE is also because of WRONG understanding of religion)

As I said before RELIGION is necessary at basic stages.. Once u start realising on god, religion becomes NOT SO IMPORTANT.

pavalamani pragasam

6th October 2006, 01:03 PM

SP, do you realise there will a perennial existence of many people at the basic stages you mentioned? Just as some people rise to a higher level of not requiring religion to guide them some others will newly fill the ranks! It is a continuous process. So 'religion' or ANY MORAL AUTHORITY becomes a necessary evil!!! Forgive me for that phrase! We learn our ABCD's first before creating literature, don't we? Whether you believe me or not, religion has helped through some sensible rituals, customs & formalities to regulate man's overall performance, pysically, morally & emotionally.

Shakthiprabha.

6th October 2006, 02:00 PM

PP MAAM...

I think ive said just what u opined as well..

:?

Where is the confusion now?

World without a religion would have been MOST BEASTLY and UNCULTURED.

Whatever little peace we have is definitely because of ANY RELIGION which one follows.

As I said before RELIGION is necessary at basic stages.. Once u start realising on god, religion becomes NOT SO IMPORTANT

pavalamani pragasam

6th October 2006, 02:16 PM

Just that last part of the last quote made me reiterate all that you also have said before! 8-)

Sandeep

6th October 2006, 02:32 PM

If people who have been enlighted with the knowledge of God become disinterested in religion the result will be stagnation. Religion also has to undergo evolution and self correction.

Swami Vivekananda understood God over and above his religion, but instead of leaving the religion and its less fortunate believers back in the dark, he used religion to enlighten.

Shakthiprabha.

6th October 2006, 04:01 PM

Enlightening the less fortunate can be done only by few.
If everybody starts preaching, PPL WONT LISTEN :)

There can be only ONE BUDDHA, OR VIVEKANADA.

But umpteen vivekanandas and buddhas are amidst us quietly living their normal life. They do probably get disinterested in religion to the extent of SUPERSTITIONS but being a normal nice human being THEY ARE FOLLOWING RELIGION more than others.

They probably are least interested in propagating it.

pavalamani pragasam

6th October 2006, 04:32 PM

The first & foremost thing to take into consideration is the wide prevalence/mushrooming of pseudo religious leaders & cults/institutions. We cannot be enough warned about such despicable cheats/villains. The ignorant masses must not like cattle follow false priests. The enlightened among us can educate our masses, create an awareness about true religiosity, can identify rea 'shepherds' who can guide the people. The MEDIA which can be an effective tool for this is doing the opposite by sensationalising the antics of the crooks.

thamizhvaanan

6th October 2006, 04:37 PM

Point is, its Utopian to think that world will be any better without religion. Religion is not the cause of bad things its only a tool. Yes, you are partly right. But indeed world would be a better place without religion. Not all the evil would have been wiped though.

Dont hang the knife for the murder. I have commented about this before.

The reason is WE ! there is no other external reasonThis is one more arguement which everybody uses in support of religion. Blaming the user for the dysfunction of an appliance. Remember religion is made for us. If it is not within the inherent capabilities of a "Religion" to deal with wavering human beings, then what is the use in calling "Religion" as a panacea for our ills? Isnt there a fault in the tool which we chose for our support? Then what rights do we have to suggest the same to a human race, which throughout the history has misused, misunderstood and misimplemented a tool, with supposed "Good intentions" particularly when we are unsure of whether the future is going to be any different from the past!!!

If people who have been enlighted with the knowledge of God become disinterested in religion the result will be stagnation. but how? :huh:

I am against preaching in any form, by anyone. What happens is A preaches something, being a knowledgeful person, with good rational thinking. Let us assume that B is also a rational person, who has good enough judgement to choose a right teacher. Now B preaches the same to his son or daughter. This is where the problem begins. B cant be as good a teacher as A. So he thrusts certain parts of his beleif on his offspring. They become unquestionable policies. And this metamorphises over generations and the final product is what we are seeing in this world right now! When even an atheist like Buddha preaches his philosophy, we have seen that it becomes a religion in due course of time.

thamizhvaanan

6th October 2006, 04:53 PM

Just recently I saw my mom asking my sister to teach her 7 month old baby (the one in my avatar) to kneel down before pooja room, join hands and worship. I opposed vehemently. How fair is it to thrust our beleifs upon our children. Does she have any idea what God is? Then why make her beleive right from the tender age. Even for a simple (relative) decision like voting, the government doesnt trust juveniles. One has to cross 18 before one is considered capable of making a judgement. Then how come we expect the children to have a clear understanding of religion and let them stick to their parents decision?

Every species in this world has got an unique talent. For humans, it is the ability to think. But what we are doing is hindering the exact same process.

Have you seen a mother bird plucking feathers out of its chicks? But this is exactly what we are doing with our children. When a child asks a question, it is taught not to question. Right from childhood it is told that elders are always right. All that we do to our children is teach and preach. This bounded child in future, becomes someone else's puppet.

:D

pavalamani pragasam

6th October 2006, 05:36 PM

The scenario can be viewed from an entirely different angle, admitting of course it is too tender an age to start the training. A lot of wisdom is embedded in each and every little ritual our elders made us follow as a daily routine. In these days when 'yoga' classes are the fashion , even a medically recommended advice, we have come drifted from a healthy routine chalked out for us by our elders. Formerly our nithya kiriyaikaL were based on sound & sane principles.

From my childhood I have been boldly confronting established household customs indulging in endless arguments, breaking into titters when a pious aunt narrates puranic stories to us kids. My maternal grandma, a very intelligent lady ordered me to implicit obedience to my persistent 'why's rebellion. In spite of outward mock hostility we donned we had such respect and admiration for each other! In ripe old age when most of my 'why's are answered through practical experience & worldly wisdom I suspect why the elders never offered explanations, perhaps they wanted us to enjoy the revelations unfolding beautifully, naturally at the appropriate age, stage. But till then...we are children to be led by hand...by experienced hand. A shrewd gardener knows which plant needs sunshine/shade/ water needs, when & how each plant should be pruned. 'kavaaththu' doing his duty, not a cruelty to the plants.

Hulkster

6th October 2006, 05:40 PM

:exactly: TV...that along with my earlier post explains the way children are seen...as to be controlled by parents and not treated as individuals in their own right.

Everyone must understand that no human has right over another. Everyone must be treated equally and given their own right to express their opinion. If their opinion is very flawed like smoking is good for health stuff, we can always tell them the wrong in that.

The job of parents is to raise their children with values of what is right and wrong which should be rational rather than defined by religion and also independently till they are mature enough to realise their surroundings. From then on every decision is made by themselves with no interference from others including parents. Sadly
due to religion being deemed as "permanent" and the way children are brought up this is not realised and rather hidden.

Shakthiprabha.

6th October 2006, 05:48 PM

tv, hulk,

Dont u feel, ITS OKEI for parents to TEACH their beliefs (to be understood different from preaching), then when the boy or girl is mature enought o u nderstand religion she can choose her own path or chose even to disbelieve in religion as per the indivudual choice.

Education in any manner IS NOT PREACHING. Its TEACHING. We are teaching mothertongue/basic theories/morals/academics etc to help as guiding standards. That is not IMPOSING beliefs.

With those academics/morals/ etc one can form their own theory later.

pavalamani pragasam

6th October 2006, 05:51 PM

:exactly:

P_R

6th October 2006, 08:52 PM

How fair is it to thrust our beleifs upon our children. Does she have any idea what God is? Teaching a child to pray is in no way equivalent to thrusting beliefs. The parent is passing on an exisiting tradition which shall give a taste of religion to the child which is useful (if not essential) for it to make future decisions about choosing (if at all) any religious persuasion.

I don't understand why you would vehemently oppose it. It is not unlike you trying to introduce your son to game theoretic puzzles. He may grow up to reject it as trash later but he would have had a taste of it before concluding.
We are teaching mothertongue/basic theories/morals/academics etc to help as guiding standards. That is not IMPOSING beliefs.
:exactly: If a child grows up without knowing his culture, religion, language and literature, the parents are squirely to blame.

kannannn

6th October 2006, 10:32 PM

Teaching a child to pray is in no way equivalent to thrusting beliefs. The parent is passing on an exisiting tradition which shall give a taste of religion to the child which is useful (if not essential) for it to make future decisions about choosing (if at all) any religious persuasion.
And that's when the seeds of prejudice are sown. Equating tradition to religion or vice versa is one of the causes of today's clashes.

To make an informed decision, a person needs access to all choices and options. How many of us teach our children the positives of all religions? We have been made to believe from our childhood that (our) religion is the sole source of morality and ethics. So much so that today athiests face the worst discrimination all over the world, including from their own family.

Dont u feel, ITS OKEI for parents to TEACH their beliefs (to be understood different from preaching), then when the boy or girl is mature enought o u nderstand religion she can choose her own path or chose even to disbelieve in religion as per the indivudual choice.
Unfortunately that does not happen. When the child chooses to become an athiest later, it is looked upon with disgust and disbelief. What accompanies the revelation of athiesm is heart burn for the entire family and strong criticism from relatives. I can assure you that it's not as easy as it seems.

We are teaching mothertongue/basic theories/morals/academics etc to help as guiding standards. That is not IMPOSING beliefs.
I don't understand how the teaching of values and mothertongue is equivalent to teaching a child to pray. For us to come to that conclusion, it is essential to prove that religion is indispensible for every single person on this planet. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that is not possible.

P_R

7th October 2006, 02:43 AM

And that's when the seeds of prejudice are sown. Equating tradition to religion or vice versa is one of the causes of today's clashes. True. That's what one needs to be extremely careful about.But I think nothing makes someone become better than such phenomenal responsibility.

To make an informed decision, a person needs access to all choices and options. How many of us teach our children the positives of all religions? True again. But I have one thing to add here. How many of us know enough about other religions (for that matter about our own). It is a vicious cycle of not knowing feeding into not teaching and so on.

So I think the parent does his best in imparting whatever little knowledge he has (which in most cases is likely to be confined to his religion) to his child. In fact this is the case with nearly verything, not just religion. The child then goes beyond,learns new things, makes decision and may even go on to be a appanukku -paadam-sonna-suppiah.
We have been made to believe from our childhood that (our) religion is the sole source of morality and ethics. So much so that today athiests face the worst discrimination all over the world, including from their own family. The usual attitude of elders (atleast as far as I have seen) is 'the kid will come of age'. As long as the 'atheist' in question does not go about being obnoxious and ridiculing people, I think there is a great degree of tolerance nowadays (again, atleast as far a I have seen).

pavalamani pragasam

7th October 2006, 07:41 AM

:exactly: PR!

thamizhvaanan

7th October 2006, 10:29 AM

Dont u feel, ITS OKEI for parents to TEACH their beliefs (to be understood different from preaching), then when the boy or girl is mature enought o u nderstand religion she can choose her own path or chose even to disbelieve in religion as per the indivudual choice.

Teaching a child to pray is in no way equivalent to thrusting beliefs. The parent is passing on an exisiting tradition which shall give a taste of religion to the child which is useful (if not essential) for it to make future decisions about choosing (if at all) any religious persuasion.
When exactly does this "act of choosing" takes place? :huh: . When one is teachins his/her religion to a child, the child is brought up with a "conditioned thinking" . We are inhibiting its ability to think freely and think out of customs. And by the time it comes to a stage of making decision, its decision is clearly biased and predictable.

That is not IMPOSING beliefs.
Shall I use the phrase "taking advantage of a child's innocence" here. Because I feel it is apt. Suppose if the childs grows into an atheist or a follower of other religion, why cant he or she accuse their parents of making them do something, which they wouldnt have done in their right senses.
I am advocating in favor of "not imposing our religions" because that is when all religions and religious leaders will be made to earn their beleivers. A religion would be made to attract its followers with good deeds and honest intentions. Right now, the religions are growing out of their current population base, resulting in stagnated philosophy and loads of misinterpretations and misunderstanding.

It is not unlike you trying to introduce your son to game theoretic puzzles. :lol: It is unlikely that I would do that :P . But then, both are different. One is about interests, other about beleif. When my son comes and asks me "who is GOD", I will ask him to find it out. If he wants to know more, I will explain the premise of my beleif and I wont state it, as if my beleif is the EMPIRICAL truth.

Education in any manner IS NOT PREACHING Preaching is not education either. It depends upon your idea of education.

thamizhvaanan

7th October 2006, 10:47 AM

A lot of wisdom is embedded in each and every little ritual our elders made us follow as a daily routine. That is a very generic statement that you are making, PP madam :D . Often, truth is anything but generic.

And I think my opinion is being misunderstood.... :roll: I am not against parents guiding their children... infact that is very crucial to a child's development as an individual. I am also not against parents exercising any sort of control over the child. appadi pannaati avan porambokka thaan valaruvaan :lol2:.
But my opinion is that teaching religion is not a part of this guiding process. As is my opinion that religion is not a requirement for this society.

there will a perennial existence of many people at the basic stages you mentioned?
So 'religion' or ANY MORAL AUTHORITY becomes a necessary evil!!! IMO religion is the reason for existence of these ppl at those basic stages. It is because of the religion and the "determinism" that it advocates, that people shy away from moral responsibility and look for loopholes in rule books (religious texts :D ). Now, will the society get better with such irresponsible people ? :D

crazy

7th October 2006, 06:57 PM

Tread still alive :shock:

Child and Parents...........hm I will teach my children my religion (If God Will). I dont think I have any reason to avoid teaching my religion, morals and ethical values to the next generation. I feel, to know ones religion is very important these days then ever before.

Whatever as longs as we dont hurt/ kill/ suppress each other, every religion is ok, I guess!

But I dont care much about these things, I believe (wish) so much that this earth is going to ruin very soon, so I dont care in which way its happening, either we kill each other in the name of religion/ ethic or in the name of weapon, its just the same for me!

:) :) :) :) :)

P_R

8th October 2006, 02:45 AM

When one is teachins his/her religion to a child, the child is brought up with a "conditioned thinking" . We are inhibiting its ability to think freely and think out of customs. And by the time it comes to a stage of making decision, its decision is clearly biased and predictable. Couldn't disagree more. If learning inhibits free thought there is something radically wrong in the way it was taught, not what was taught.

It is not unlike you trying to introduce your son to game theoretic puzzles.Laughing It is unlikely that I would do tha :? I don't understand. Why would you not introduce your son to game theory ? Who else could you possibly be more eager to share your interests with ???

But then, both are different. One is about interests, other about beleif. Yes they are different. But not as different as one may think. I can have beliefs and opinions only about things I am interested in.
When my son comes and asks me "who is GOD", I will ask him to find it out. If he wants to know more, I will explain the premise of my beleif and I wont state it, as if my beleif is the EMPIRICAL truth. Good, but the question is when the question is asked.Much as I'd love to, I would be really unequal to telling a 4 yr old kid, to see God in the harmony of nature (kOdayile iLaippARRi koLLum vagaik kidaittha kuLir tharuvE , tharu nizhalE etc.). I trust the kid will get there in a while. I may believe only in a subset of what I received from my parents. But I am anxious to pass on not just what I believe in, but the whole set I received, so that he has as much atleast as much basis as I had to make his conclusions.

Nearly all of us have been introduced to God thus 'thappu paNNA saami kaNNai kutthum'. Though this is retrospectively grotesque it would be ridiculous to say it makes the child grow up in mortal fear. Over time the child grows to see God not as a vindictive power but as an embodiment of Love. (which is where the parent comes in feeding his curiosity by gauging what the child can digest). As he grows he would be equal to contemplating the 'usefulness of the concept' whether he finds a God necessary at all in his scheme of things.

Suppose if the childs grows into an atheist or a follower of other religion, why cant he or she accuse their parents of making them do something, which they wouldnt have done in their right senses. Again this applies to a whole lot things but it seems to stand out to you because the issue is religion. I think the atheist should thank the parents for providing him experiences of things that helped him arrive at the 'correct' decision.

When exactly does this "act of choosing" takes place? It doesn't happen one fine morning. Over time you see certain things to be vacuous and certain things to be meaningful and important to you. You continue what you feel close to, assimilate new practices and ideas that were hitherto not part of what was passed on and drop things that do not appeal to you. It is a lot more subtle than I have put it here.

P_R

8th October 2006, 02:47 AM

Roshan

9th October 2006, 05:07 AM

But I dont care much about these things, I believe (wish) so much that this earth is going to ruin very soon, so I dont care in which way its happening, either we kill each other in the name of religion/ ethic or in the name of weapon, its just the same for me!

:) :) :) :) :) wish-a ? :shock: And then smileys ???

PR,
athaan 'crazy'-nu pEr vechirukaangaLE... :P

BTW, I am enjoying the debates between you and Thamizhvanan. Both, please do continue. interesting-A irukku :)

Badri

9th October 2006, 05:35 AM

Watched the movie Dogma over the weekend. Loads of coarse language and a slightly crazy premise apart, there was one little thing that certainly struck me.

The "13th Apostle" Rufus tells the movie's heroine something on the lines of

"It is better to have an idea than a belief, because you can change an idea easily, but changing a belief can kill you"

kannannn

9th October 2006, 06:21 AM

"It is better to have an idea than a belief, because you can change an idea easily, but changing a belief can kill you"
Let me follow that up with an anecdote from "One Minute Nonsense"

---------------------------
The disciples in the monastry were talking about the religious man who lost his life in a suicide raid.

While no one approved of the man's action, they said they admired his faith.

"Faith?", asked the Master.

"He had the courage of his convictions, didn't he?"

"That's fanaticism, not faith. Faith demands still greater courage - to reexamine one's convictions and reject them if they do not fit the facts"

------------
Unfortunately, in today's world strong fanaticism of one's belief is taken as a virtue, while in effect it is a sign of fear and weakness.

pavalamani pragasam

9th October 2006, 07:04 AM

That is the problem with faith! It very easily turns to fanaticism! And truly it needs courage to not to be fanatic about beliefs/ideas!

dsath

9th October 2006, 07:08 PM

[tscii:d9385725d3]It’s very difficult not to pass on our beliefs, values and culture to our children, not only on a personal level but also on a society level.
This is from my personal experience. Here goes my story - We always visit temples and light lamps at home, but never consciously told our kids we are Hindus or for that matter anything about religion. My oldest one identifies Christmas as Jesus's birthday.
So i was surprised when one fine day, i was informed by his school that as part of class work he has talked about his religion. I wanted to know what my son has exactly told his class .It brought me a smile on my face when I found out what he told his class. 'I go on the motor way to the temple and eat dinner at the temple. There are some pictures of God in our home and mummy lights a fire sometimes'. The fact that surprised me most was that he had told the names of the God as Sita and Rama. I am sure i have not told about Rama or Sita to my children nor do we have photos/pictures of Rama or Sita. Where from he knew the name, I will never know. So my son found out that he was a Hindu at school, not at home. I don't blame the school, as they wanted the children to know abt all religion and learn to live in harmony.
My point is that, we cannot shun or not teach our children our belief. It’s built into the system and its up to the individual’s intellect to change/continue the belief when he/she grows up.
This system of passing on to the next generation has kept our culture very much alive through the millennia.[/tscii:d9385725d3]

P_R

10th October 2006, 12:15 AM

Nic eanecdote kannannn. This is the second time you are quotig from that book. Sounds very interesting, I must try and get hold of it sometime.

The anecdote reminded me of an Oscar Wilde line which is brutally stylish in his signature way :
No man dies for what he knows to be true. Men die for what they want to be true, for what some terror in their hearts tells them is not true-Wilde

As always it is impossible to agree with him but impossible to completely disagree either

kannannn

10th October 2006, 06:05 AM

Sounds very interesting, I must try and get hold of it sometime.
Please do. The tales are short and deeply philosophical. "One Minute Nonsense" is a part of a collection of S. J. de Mello's works, all of which make excellent reading (more about the author here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_de_Mello_%28priest%29).

The anecdote reminded me of an Oscar Wilde line which is brutally stylish in his signature way :
No man dies for what he knows to be true. Men die for what they want to be true, for what some terror in their hearts tells them is not true-Wilde
You seem to be a fan of Oscar Wilde :). Ireland seems to have a way of producing literary geniuses.

joe

20th October 2006, 11:37 AM

பல நூல் படித்து நீ அறியும் கல்வி
பொது நலம் நினைத்து நீ வழங்கும் செல்வம்
பிறர் உயர்வினிலே உனக்கிருக்கும் இன்பம்
இவை அனைத்திலுமே இருப்பது தான் தெய்வம்

பாசமுள்ள பார்வையிலே கடவுள் வாழ்கிறான்
அவன் கருணையுள்ள நெஞ்சினிலே கோவில் கொள்கிறான்.
-கண்ணதாசன்

அன்பே சிவம்! ஆமென்!

thamizhvaanan

20th October 2006, 01:26 PM

If learning inhibits free thought there is something radically wrong in the way it was taught, not what was taught. :thumbsup: this pretty much sums up the whole thing. may be you are right. religion may be a part of the learning package that a child deserves. It is just a matter of opinion.

Again this applies to a whole lot things but it seems to stand out to you because the issue is religion. :-? agreed... :roll: :)

"It is better to have an idea than a belief, because you can change an idea easily, but changing a belief can kill you" :exactly:

That is the problem with faith! It very easily turns to fanaticism! And truly it needs courage to not to be fanatic about beliefs/ideas! This reminds me of a funny explanation for the word "faith" in Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose bierce.

Faith
n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

no need to curse, it is from devil's dictionary afterall :devil:

jaiganes

23rd October 2006, 12:53 PM

I am deeply religious.
However my religious beliefs never taught me to be irrational.
They never made me hate someone or plot someone's downfall.
I have been courteous to people who are weaker than me, poorer than me.
My beliefs have constantly told me not to go overboard in joy or get crushed by depression in times of sorrow.
my belief has consistently guided me on the path of Love, never on the path of hatred.
I know for a fact that these are the set goals of religion, any religion for that matter. Whenever a religion asks someone to got for his/her neighbour's blood or property then we call that religion as cult not conforming the basic premises of the concept of religion.
If you compare actions of people and judge a religion, then you are making a mistake for you are confusing the fire with the person who holds it in a torch to burn a house. Please view religion when it is applied in the right way and then see how it can be so essential to human betterment.
We can question science, society, politics and business in the same way as religion, however the conclusion should be based on what they acieve when the right people use it for the right things and not how crazy people use it for a wrong thing.

Religion is the diluted form of a core philosophical thoughts so that even the simplest person who is busy doing his/her daily work can benefit from the thought. Thus religion does a transformation of a superior thought and approach to thinking into set of easily practiceable rituals and prayers, without losing the power of the original thought. For it to succeed, the person must hold a sincere attention and stick to his/her method of prayer/meditation earnestly. It is easy for us to become rude and arrogant if we keep doing only our work and constantly immersed in the fruits of our labour unmindful of what happens around and within us. Religion and the spirituality it encompasses is a easy way of finding oneself and one's sensitivity to surroundings. If that connection is made, then the individual is changed and the society is benefitted as hundreds and thousands of such individuals make up our modern society. The ultimate aim of religion is to make the individual see the divinity that he finds in himself or what he is aspiring to achieve in all things/beings around him. That is when the ultimate unification where caste, social, religious and status barriers are totally eliminated. Such a level of unification is not possible even with United Nations. Therein lies the importance of religion for human society. However corruption that is inherent in everything is also prevalent in religion as it is one of the things that is powerful in bringing together thousands of people. The lure of power to control such a mass has given rise to fake gurus and fake teachers of religion who mislead the innocent and lead to ultimate subversion of the original philosphical thought and its spiritual benefits. No religion in the history of mankind is free from such subversion. However the belief of mankind in the power of religion to uplift and improve its kin is still intact, even on the face of severe onslaught of modern individualism and scienticism.

Badri

23rd October 2006, 01:05 PM

:clap:

What an excellent piece of writing! JG, you have really surpassed yourself, and more than made up for the faux pas in the other thread, if I may say so!

crazy

23rd October 2006, 09:53 PM

jaiganes :notworthy: :clap: :thumbsup:

c4ramesh

24th October 2006, 10:32 AM

My signature says it all!

Rohit

25th October 2006, 04:42 PM

jaiganes

25th October 2006, 05:57 PM

The ultimate aim of religion is to make the individual see the divinity that he finds in himself .........
It is only those who frantically want to believe in the existence of divinity are in a dire need of religion, otherwise no divine being would ever need the dogma of religion. The supposed divine being in need of a religion to guide itself through the thorny realities of the world is a self-contradictory proposition, a fallacy that begs the question.

Those who once trap themselves in such regressive arguments, leave no room for any escape from such cognitive regression but they keep committing more and more forms of fallacies in order to defend their baseless beliefs.

The whole scenario turns into nothing but the fallacy of non-sequitur whereby the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises; and the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit!
Offcourse I want to believe and therefore believe. However my belief hasn't made me blind and added to that my religious beliefs have given me some peace of mind. I never said that religion is better than rationalism. If it satisfies you, please open a thread on rationalism and talk abt it. I would love to learn more of that.
Baseless beliefs!! If that is how you you would like to call it, so be it. However I am indebted to correct you that religion is based on set of beliefs and belief is something that you do not base on a rational thought. As anything based on rational thought is nothing but a hypothesis or an argument. Rational thought has to be constantly proven while a belief need not be.
It is a strange thing, religion is based on beliefs that do not have any basis (rationally speaking). It is do something with feelings and spirituality more and less with intellectualizing rational thoughts. That is why in religion the most earnest devotee who could be the most dumbest guy intellectually is considered to be higher than the most evocative and deep thinking rationalist intellectual. Of course one has to understand the implied meaning of the words of Jesus when he says one can enter the kingom of GOD only as a child. That is a clear proof that one's thinking abilities and one's fruitful presence in religion and spirituality need not be inferred.
Religion can have rational thought however rationalism is so dogmatic that it cannot tolerate religion.
Ample proof of dogmatic conditioning is obtained if we analyse the statement, religious persons can be free thinking intellectuals, while a rationalist can never associate himself/herself with religion. Who is more dogmatic?

r_kk

25th October 2006, 07:07 PM

Dear Jaiganes,
Your postings are very nice but you are trying to give nice meaning to the religions according to your views by mixing two things, i.e., sprituality and religion. Sprituality is something common to most of the religion but beyond the religion. Even athiest can be spritual (like Buddha and Mahaveer). But what we are talking under this thread is the requirement of organsied religion. Most of us put the balme on followers and ignore the root cause of the disease. For example, we quote few good things from some holy books and ignore major non-rationalistic thought. For example, you have quoted some thing from the so-called son of God. Before quoting something like this just go through the same person's other statements given in Revelation 2:22 &23, Luke19:27 and Matthew 15:21-28.

In the last 100 years, the number of people died due to religion might be much more than any disease (Rwandan Genocide, India-Pak separation, Jewish killing during second world war etc). I can write lot about each religion, its so-called holy books and how it is affected the entire humanity, but I fear that such post will make the entire thread locked.

Rohit

25th October 2006, 07:39 PM

Offcourse I want to believe and therefore believe. However my belief hasn't made me blind and added to that my religious beliefs have given me some peace of mind. I never said that religion is better than rationalism. If it satisfies you, please open a thread on rationalism and talk abt it. I would love to learn more of that.

Baseless beliefs!! If that is how you you would like to call it, so be it. However I am indebted to correct you that religion is based on set of beliefs and belief is something that you do not base on a rational thought. As anything based on rational thought is nothing but a hypothesis or an argument. Rational thought has to be constantly proven while a belief need not be.

It is a strange thing, religion is based on beliefs that do not have any basis (rationally speaking). It is do something with feelings and spirituality more and less with intellectualizing rational thoughts. That is why in religion the most earnest devotee who could be the most dumbest guy intellectually is considered to be higher than the most evocative and deep thinking rationalist intellectual. Of course one has to understand the implied meaning of the words of Jesus when he says one can enter the kingom of GOD only as a child. That is a clear proof that one's thinking abilities and one's fruitful presence in religion and spirituality need not be inferred.

Religion can have rational thought however rationalism is so dogmatic that it cannot tolerate religion.

Ample proof of dogmatic conditioning is obtained if we analyse the statement, religious persons can be free thinking intellectuals, while a rationalist can never associate himself/herself with religion.
Well, that is how NLP based beliefs work for some; good luck to them; but surely such approaches are not at all the signs of divine discourse.

Why Religion? is the title of the thread with a big question mark and answering that question, maybe a dogmatic belief system is just sufficient for some; but then, why raise the question in the first place anyway, when it requires nothing more than just a baseless belief?

Who is more dogmatic? Of course, the one who attempts to answer the question."Why Religion?" with a set of dogmatic beliefs; and I am pretty sure that I am not doing that.

Anyway like I said, the whole scenario turns into nothing but the fallacy of non-sequitur whereby the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises; and the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.

:) :thumbsup:

goodsense

25th October 2006, 08:10 PM

"That is why in religion the most earnest devotee who could be the most dumbest guy intellectually is considered to be higher than the most evocative and deep thinking rationalist intellectual. "

I beg to differ. Knowledge helps to put religious beliefs into perspective which involves rationality. There is also, a direct relationship between intellect and knowledge. To use it rightly in attaining a higher standard, thoughts and actions must be pure in thinking through and justifying the end results which should be consistent with the religious beliefs which involves rationality.

We all have intellectual abilities, but not to the same degrees. For some, knowledge and intellect is misused and here is where you will find as you put it "the most earnest devotee; the dumbest intellectually is considered higher"; his thoughts and actions would be purer and not corrupted and may not always think of whether the end result is justified. It's more of a simple pure mind operating rather than a complex pure mind. And here is where the end result is more a concern to the complex pure mind and the set of religious beliefs is more likely to be found in the end result and not always in the beginning or the middle where the simple pure mind operates.

Religion or set of beliefs, is a path; a means to an end. The simple mind to not understand the complication that could arise in the path and try to rationalise in overcoming it. To rationalize, here, I mean to be able to do some shifting around without thwarting or disturbing the set of beliefs.

The difference is not to follow blindly at all times, but to understand why you are doing what you are doing and be able to justify modifications in applying a rational mind when necessary or realize the outcome in accordance with the respective religious practices. :thumbsup:

Rohit

25th October 2006, 09:19 PM

Of course one has to understand the implied meaning of the words of Jesus when he says one can enter the kingdom of GOD only as a child.
Then every child, and not an adult as a child, must be entitled to enter the kingdom of God, if at all there was one. Why one should wait to grow up to the adulthood and then behave like a child or as a child to be able to enter what otherwise would be signposted with No-Entry :!: :?:

But the factual reality tells it otherwise; every child in the entire world is born with none whatsoever concept or idea, the question of any belief in anything doesn' arise at all. All concepts, ideas, beliefs etc. are evolved over the time, which are, then flushed into the minds of next generations as time moves on. This is the precise phase of cognitive development of every child, and it takes one to go through a little bit of intellectual analysis to get rid off the fallacies from the hotchpotch of multifarious cognition and then discern the actual reality as it is. However, only a few can do such a thorough intellectual analysis and come out of the vicious spiral of cognitive degeneration. That is all there is to it nothing more, nothing less.

:) :thumbsup:

goodsense

25th October 2006, 09:51 PM

We have law and order to achieve certain objectives as the end results. From time to time, even aspects of them are modified to meet the very same objectives, while the core remains the same. The rational mind is at work all the time here and this is why when we are judged, the "intention" behidn it all, is always sought. I can take this even further, but not really in that mood, perhaps at a later time. :)

avii

25th October 2006, 10:27 PM

religion and law are very similar , both cannot be taken at face value, but must be looked at closer . In law there are judges to listen to cases : motives , frame of mind in time of action ,etc . there is no black or white in law or religion. each case is different and must be treated as such . there is a point when a child gets older and begins to question everyting , if the answer does not please the person ,then maybe it may not be right

Rohit

25th October 2006, 10:54 PM

In fact, all religions were invented to enforce social law and order that were justified to be equitable by those who could justify them as such at those times. Now, as the cognitive development of humanity advanced over the time and social structures are better managed by even more dynamic and equitable legal institutes, the role of religions to furnish that function has diminished to such an extent that they have become redundant and are on the verge of extinction.

:) :thumbsup:

goodsense

25th October 2006, 11:29 PM

The teaching of religion is an institution on its own, the practice or enforcement of it is separate which mainly occurs elsewhere including other institutions. There will always be need for the teachings (and its reinforcement) as a separate institutionalized entity. It's the same as a student in university for three or four years or more, then going out in the real world to put theory into practice and build a reputation of his/her own based on his/her individuality that emerged from it all (theory and practice).

The teaching and practice of law and order is far from reality; one hard thing a law student discovers. It's not about truth and it only serves to maintain certain boundaries, convenient for the status quo in a particular period. The same man who is caste as a criminal/prisoner today, is a hero tomorrow. :boo: :lol: Can we say the same for religion?

goodsense

26th October 2006, 12:19 AM

Coming back to religious path and rationality, what happens when man finds it diffcult to follow the path even through rationality or no rationality? Isn't this the time when he turns to faith? Do all you can do and leave the rest to the devine.

Rohit

26th October 2006, 04:11 AM

Exactly the opposite happens in religious institutes. The hero of yesterdays becomes a dangerous criminal/prisoner of today.

Leaving the rest to the divine is no longer a genuine option for all but just a matter of blind belief for some. That is fine as long as such NLP based beliefs work for them and bring some psychological relief or benifits in their lives as often admitted by the belivers.

:) :thumbsup:

goodsense

26th October 2006, 05:28 AM

I didn't realize that so much were already discussed in earlier pages. For example, thamizhvaanan wrote:

"religion shouldnt teach us right and wrong, it should teach us judgment. "

I think what Thamiz is trying to say is - what is right and wrong varies from circumstances to circumstances. This is why each situation must be judged separately. What may be wrong for you in your circumstances might be right for me in my circumstances. Religion can't possibly teach us what is right and wrong in all circumstances in determining how one should behave in each. New circumstances evolved all the time and we have to identify what is constant from what is not. This is why when we are judged, we are judged or should be judged according to our individual circumstances and the climate of the time.

**********
Any way I have been escaping here from serious work (not that my discussions here are not serious) on my head. :( Can't do it anymore. So see you all later. :wink:

jaiganes

26th October 2006, 10:57 AM

Well!
Interesting posts from Rohit and good sense.
I now understand that religion is something that cannot be proven or justified to a rationalist. All I can say is that it works for me fine. As a hindu, I am not controlled by any shankaracharya or any other pontiff. So in a way my religion so far hasn't controlled my thoughts or actions. Conditioning , I have felt has come more from peers and teachers. Conditioning and so called social law is something you will eventually feel even if the whole world turned rationalist overnight, coz then the "in-thing" would be to be "rational" and atheist. Religion , organised religion is offcourse having some bureaucracy. However that is never to be mistaken for a tightly bound ruling. In fact I have sat through numerous discussions between my father and my uncle where they have been discussing how the rituals and laws (which Rohit calls Dogma) are so flexible taking into account the situation and the benefit it derives in the way they are applied. Even Law can be applied leniently( I hope you have read the short essay 'All about the dog'). So to say that religion stifles free opinion and thought is to simply blame it for ones own inability to think freely.
All the instances of religious violence you have quoted are political manipulation of religious feelings. Offcourse such bloodshed stems from compartmentalization of people from mingling with each other. The secular tradition that is taking root across the world is the right way we as modern citizens show our children how to co exist in harmony with religion as a tool for spiritual existence and progress and not a weapon to politically group together and quarrell.
As far as your(rohit) comments on the statement entering kingdom of heaven as children, it is not to be confused with the intellectual context. Here a child is used as a metaphor for being "innocent" and loving.
Buddha was an atheist and a free thinker. However the problem is not everyone in this world have the time to be like a buddha. For those ordinary mortals who want time and a simpler path, it is the religion that thier ancestors have followed for centuries that is best suited to their mental and physical conditioning.
Even Buddha left his wife and children and then went on a spiritual path. I know many rationalists who would call such a person on a spiritual quest as "selfish" and an escapist. However religious people understand the greatness of this act of Buddha and have tried preserve it in the scriptures and imbibed them encoded in many meditative rituals that "followers of buddhist religion" follow till date. Had buddhism not evolved as a religion, its concepts and learnings would have long vanished with the passage of time.

dsath

26th October 2006, 02:52 PM

Religion can't possibly teach us what is right and wrong in all circumstances in determining how one should behave in each. New circumstances evolved all the time and we have to identify what is constant from what is not. This is why when we are judged, we are judged or should be judged according to our individual circumstances and the climate of the time.

That is the reason why we have so many different religions evolving from the same regions (geographically). When one becomes outdated and cannot be related to the prevailing circumstances a new one is formed to match it or a branch is evolved. The founding principles - core of a religion might be the same, but the peripherals require changing all the time. Amazingly what we would like to call the rigid principles are mostly cultural.
Yes there are wars fought over religion, but then there are wars fought not over religion. As everyone is aware its just plain greed and power that leads to war. Religion like race, commodity etc are used as tools. So religion cannot be blamed for everything bad that happens in our society. If not religion, there will always be something else to exploit the people with.
As to the question why religion - it provides solace in extraordinarily difficult circumstances to normal people in their everyday lives. Remember not everyone in this world are rationalists.Even Einstein couldn't accept quantum physics.

Rohit

26th October 2006, 05:39 PM

Had Buddhism not evolved as a religion, its concepts and learning would have long vanished with the passage of time.
Buddha never intended to formulate an organised religion as such as it was in the past and as it is today; but at the same time he couldn't let his enlightened knowledge disappear into oblivion; so he shared his knowledge with his friends and disciples.

Buddha did not search for knowledge out of some baseless and wishful thinking, but he based his inquiry of Truth on ground realities. What he realised is absolutely coded in the nature itself as dhama (the natural, universal law of cause and effect). What Buddha did was, he integrated his knowledge into a coherent doctrine that not only corresponds to the factual reality, but also provides pragmatic value within the human social structures. That is why Buddha's teaching is impossible to erase, no matter how much futile effort his rivals put into erasing it or distorting it.

:) :thumbsup:

Rohit

26th October 2006, 06:38 PM

As far as your (rohit) comments on the statement entering kingdom of heaven as children, it is not to be confused with the intellectual context. Here a child is used as a metaphor for being "innocent" and loving.
Whatever the context maybe, whether intellectual one or a child used as a metaphor, the child is absolutely at the centre of the theme. Then why go beyond that central reference anyway, unless there is an inherent incompatibility within the whole scenario itself?

Nonetheless, such intentional use of metaphors cannot hide the inherent fallacy imbedded in such arguments, I am afraid.

:) :thumbsup:

goodsense

28th October 2006, 08:01 AM

JG, just something to add to what I was saying about the point you made about the ordinary man vs the intellectual man. I had introduce the point of knowledge relating to intellect which can be used in a positive way without falling in either extremes.

"Thus Deepavali must be understood in its wider context. The festival of lights does not simply mean lighting lamps. Hearts must be enlightened with goodwill for peaceful co-existence with fellow human beings and the rest of creation. Enlightenment (light of knowledge) leads to the dispelling of spiritual ignorance".

I think this is what I meant by saying not to follow blindly at all times, but when to use what; be selective in applying the rational mind. Thus, the use of knowledge can't be separated from rationality.

See last paragraph of this site:

http://www.vishnumandir.com/htm/fest-diwali.htm

bulb_mani

10th November 2006, 01:24 AM

Hello peeps... this seems to be a topic of my interest for which i have written many articles in a famous website run by an irani... but i would not like to get into its details... if u want to discuss / argue with me u can PM me .

By the way regarding religion :

I will post some quotes that i really enjoyed and agree with

bulb_mani

10th November 2006, 01:28 AM

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

Religion, like poetry, is simply a concerted effort to deny the most obvious realities.

Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. [...] If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.

Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.

and my all time favourite from Voltaire :

Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool. :lol:

Sorry theists... but i just posted quotes which reflect my idea about religion.

When u wanna encourage a person feeling down u say " be confident...have self-confidence... and not be confident that GOD will do it for you..."

Coz the GOD if is almighty should solve rather than help.

Hope you understood and once again sorry to theists... its my opinion :D

Tia

10th November 2006, 02:43 AM

I have no opinions on religion i.e if god its true, let it, if god isn't true, let it be like that. I believe inmyself and i should go with the flow of my life in my own way yet just incase god is true lets just pray and u know, it aint ogna harm.

but the main reason why i LOVE religion is cos i'm a hindu and i LOVE LOVE LOVE going to temple heheheheheheeeeeeeeeeee :P

thamizhvaanan

10th November 2006, 07:01 AM

and i LOVE LOVE LOVE going to temple heheheheheheeeeeeeeeeee :P :evil: and I know the real intentions behind that! :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

goodsense

10th November 2006, 07:48 AM

:lol: If you are thinking what I am thinking, it happens in all places of worship. :D

Tia

10th November 2006, 11:29 PM

:rotfl: yes yes i know that you know that i know that you know why i'm intrested in temple :lol:

and i LOVE LOVE LOVE going to temple heheheheheheeeeeeeeeeee :P :evil: and I know the real intentions behind that! :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Tia

10th November 2006, 11:29 PM

What are you thinking about? :roll:

:lol: If you are thinking what I am thinking, it happens in all places of worship. :D

Rohit

11th November 2006, 02:14 AM

Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first foolAnd surprisingly, there is no shortage of both even today :!:

bulb_mani

11th November 2006, 02:57 AM

Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first foolAnd surprisingly, there is no shortage of both even today :!:

Yeah a fool like TIA and a Scoundrel like me :lol:

Hey TIA just jwkn :wink:

Rohit

11th November 2006, 03:44 AM

Yeah a fool like TIA and a Scoundrel like me.

Hey TIA just jwkn :wink:
:wink:

bulb_mani

11th November 2006, 03:46 AM

Yeah a fool like TIA and a Scoundrel like me.

Hey TIA just jwkn :wink:
:wink:

:lol:

Tia

11th November 2006, 03:58 AM

yoo u beta be! :lol:

Surya

11th November 2006, 04:00 AM

yoo u beta be! :lol:

They woudln't want u to go "lakalaka" on them now! :wink: :rotfl:

Tia

11th November 2006, 04:09 AM

and put my baby cm avatar up! :lol:

bulb_mani

11th November 2006, 04:26 AM

TIA shut up this is a serious TOPIC for wehich ur too young and gentile to comment on :evil: :evil: Plz cooperate and stop posting fun stuff :evil:

Tia

11th November 2006, 04:34 AM

:cry2: :lol: :shhh:

Temple is a very social place where you can find many friends and have fun :D

Rohit

11th November 2006, 05:11 AM

:cry2: :lol: :shhh:Tia, you are trying to deceive people by these sings; please don’t continue to do that, if you really want to be a good human being.

Tia

11th November 2006, 05:16 AM

:roll: how can this make me a bad human being! this is harsh rohit! :shock: i'm outta here!

Tia

11th November 2006, 05:21 AM

Please come to the coffee corner Rohit in the hubbers lounge section

Rohit

11th November 2006, 05:31 AM

Please come to the coffee corner Rohit in the hubbers lounge sectionI shall try!

Tia

11th November 2006, 09:02 PM

So why don't u believe in god rohit? can u prove to me that god isn't true?

bulb_mani

11th November 2006, 09:15 PM

So why don't u believe in god rohit? can u prove to me that god isn't true?

Can you prove that GOD exists?? Darkness doesnt exist... its just absence of LIGHT. Light exists bcoz a source for it exists... but there is no source for Darkness...

Hence God Doesnt Exist :lol: :lol:

Tia

11th November 2006, 09:20 PM

bulb_mani

11th November 2006, 09:41 PM

I never said i believed in god! :banghead: :lol:

i said i dont care if god exists or not :huh: i just want to knw how he can prove god doesnt exist!

I believe in myself and it wil make no difference in life if i believe or not cos i believe in maself :yup: but u know i still go to temple to sight adiku boys and also pray...u know theres nothing wrong in that! lolz

One doesnt need to prove there isnt GOD... its wrong theory... rather one should prove there is GOD for anyone to believe in :?

Only when something is proved obviously everyone would believe it... so for someone not to believe in GOD it doesnt require proof... for someone to believe in it of course it requires :D

Of course one doesnt need to insult others places of worship as u do. :huh: .. i think u can prefer to remain silent rather than just throwing mud and mucks on others places of sanctity :?

Rohit

11th November 2006, 10:06 PM

can u prove to me that god isn't true?
Yes; and I have proved that many times in various threads; please go to "Does God Exist?", "Do you believe in Creation (God) or Evolution", "Understanding "I" - Vedanta" and so many other threads on this FH. :) :thumbsup:

Tia

12th November 2006, 01:38 AM

Tia

12th November 2006, 01:39 AM

lolz ok rohit, but can u post one of ur maths equations to prove, cos i really want to see!

bulb_mani

12th November 2006, 01:41 AM

Bulby you dont know why i'm asking that question do u? :rotfl: i'm not intrested in knowing wether god is true or not, :rotfl:i just wanted rohit to show me sum maths forumlas to prove it, cos someone said he can use maths to prove god isn't tru!

I got ur question TIA but u dint understand a part of my answer :lol: :lol:

Maths Formula To Disprove GOD :? :? :? :!: :?:

Tia

12th November 2006, 04:19 AM

summat i duno, but ya someone told me he has maths forumlas to prove god aint true!

thamizhvaanan

12th November 2006, 07:54 AM

Since when you started worrying abt maths gaayu? :?

dinesh2002

12th November 2006, 03:32 PM

interesting topic.... :smokesmirk:

Tia

13th November 2006, 12:16 AM

:confused2: i'll tell u the answer when i start worrying about it :lol:

Since when you started worrying abt maths gaayu? :?

nilavupriyan

13th November 2006, 12:28 AM

koindhaa...indha threadla ukanenna vela

bulb_mani

13th November 2006, 12:32 AM

koindhaa...indha threadla ukanenna vela

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

Sanguine Sridhar

13th November 2006, 12:32 AM

Arandha vaalungala.... :P Oru serious topic-a ippadi comedy time-a maatheetengala!! :lol: ... Ungga thonda appadiye Indian History Culture-la poi pannunga...angellam ellam Narasimarao maadhri :evil: :x ippadi thaan pesipaanga!! :roll:

nilavupriyan

13th November 2006, 12:35 AM

Tia

14th November 2006, 02:33 AM

i should be allowed into this thread since i love going to temple :yup:

bulb_mani

14th November 2006, 05:36 AM

i should be allowed into this thread since i love going to temple :yup:

Temple is a place of sight seeing and hooking guys for u :evil:

Religion is a matter of Alter EGO and Life or Death for many... have u ever heard about CRUSADERS and MUSLIMS and their fight for ISRAEL?? :?

U cannot fool around on the pretext of being just 13... think responsibly and not like someone spoilt and irritate people in serious conversations please TIA.. its my request bcoz there is a limit to everything... Please stop posting in this thread unless u really have a relevant and sensible question. :evil:

Surya

14th November 2006, 05:36 AM

i should be allowed into this thread since i love going to temple :yup:

But u like going to temple for Sight aduchufying boys! :banghead: :banghead:

I'm hoping that ur reasons for going to a temple will change as u mature! :twisted: :P

goodsense

14th November 2006, 07:24 AM

At least she is being honest even if it is in ignorance and immaturity knowing teens these days, especially in the west. We should at least give her credit for her honesty and help her with the rest.

This kind of behaviour or attitude is quite common even in villages; it was the only social place (other than weddings) that young boys and girls can meet (but no talking to each other allowed, only see and go) and it is all they can think of going to temple for including the prasad. I have seen many of them changed for the better as they matured. And I have heard of cases of married men and women going to temples to take away the spouses of others. :oops:

What about Christian churches? Many of the people that goes there find wives and husbands there; people they know from childhood going to church. It happens even in the temples. There is that say, only the good people go to such holy places. A bit off topic, but had it in mind.

Surya

14th November 2006, 07:31 AM

I grew up in the west..:roll:

But yeah, @ 13 I wasn't all pious either....but I wasn't checking chicks out...:P

I guess her spirituality will grow as she matures...:D

:clap: for gaayu kutti's Honesty!! :P

Now back to the topic!! :P

goodsense

14th November 2006, 07:34 AM

Yea I was surprised at the age of 13, but again, we can't compare a 13 year old of today with those in our times. The concept of a boyfriend or girlfriend. :roll: Are you kidding? :wink:

Surya

14th November 2006, 07:50 AM

Yea I was surprised at the age of 13, but again, we can't compare a 13 year old of today with those in our times. The concept of a boyfriend or girlfriend. :roll: Are you kidding? :wink:

I'm 19...so my 13 was just 6 years ago....I didn't have a gf until I was 17...

13..I don't even think I knew what the GF BF relationship was then..:lol2: :oops:

goodsense

14th November 2006, 07:54 AM

My God, you are getting younger. I read somewhere that you were 24 about a year ago or something like you and Lamby are about the same age. :D

Surya

14th November 2006, 07:57 AM

My God, you are getting younger. I read somewhere that you were 24 about a year ago or something like you and Lamby are about the same age. :D

Ask NOV! He's seen my ID Card! :lol:

Yeah...To Get The Credentials to Be A Soldier In A Few Holy Wars In the OLD HUB, I said I was a few years Older. :P

Tia

15th November 2006, 02:14 AM

hahhaa actually no, i do pray and i do know a bit about the maint 7 religions since i learn them at school and this thread is basically what we are doing in school now, god : true or not? therefore i can participate :poke: reading and posting comments when i feel like it

i should be allowed into this thread since i love going to temple :yup:

Temple is a place of sight seeing and hooking guys for u :evil:

Religion is a matter of Alter EGO and Life or Death for many... have u ever heard about CRUSADERS and MUSLIMS and their fight for ISRAEL?? :?

U cannot fool around on the pretext of being just 13... think responsibly and not like someone spoilt and irritate people in serious conversations please TIA.. its my request bcoz there is a limit to everything... Please stop posting in this thread unless u really have a relevant and sensible question. :evil:

Tia

15th November 2006, 02:15 AM

Hmmmm maybe :huh:

i should be allowed into this thread since i love going to temple :yup:

But u like going to temple for Sight aduchufying boys! :banghead: :banghead:

I'm hoping that ur reasons for going to a temple will change as u mature! :twisted: :P

Tia

15th November 2006, 02:34 AM

I used to be agnostic until this academic year started, we got handouts of old philosophers back in the 1600's etc with their "proof" that god exists.

one was thomaa aquinas o summat and the other one is Anselm, aNSELM said that he was having their breakfast 31s july (i think) and that god appeared to them and said.....

what do we mean by god?

something perfect in all ways, we oculd not think of anything more perfect.

but suppose god does nto exist.

Then he is not the most perfect thing we can think of.

So if god is the most perfect thing we can think of, then he must exist.

(simplified version of the argument)
:banhgead; RUBBISH ARGUEMENT which made me an Atheist. :S

but no, i changed back after going to temple the next day :D :rotfl:

And thomas Aquinas has 5 arguements but they all come back to the same point and they areee rubbish, schools trying to make me atheist i think and now we gotta prove that god is true which is very hard....ne evidence? :huh:

c4ramesh

15th November 2006, 06:45 PM

And thomas Aquinas has 5 arguements but they all come back to the same point and they areee rubbish, schools trying to make me atheist i think and now we gotta prove that god is true which is very hard....ne evidence? :huh:

Thomas Aquinas's arguments aren't that much rubbish but doesn't hold water under close examination.

Tia

17th November 2006, 03:26 AM

they are IMPOV! it doesnt go anywhere...answer is scienceeeeeee

Madurai Veeran

25th November 2006, 10:52 AM

I once had a room-mate from mainland China. During the course of our conversation trying to understand each other's culture, I asked him if he was a Buddhist. He said he does not have a religion and that his parents used to worship foxes and snakes. And then he said: 'Religion is for weak minded people. Strong minded ones do not need a religion!'.

I often claim I am a Hindu because I am born to parents who are Hindu - for want of a better description. The only reason I claim I am a Hindu is because, if I am a Hindu I do not have to accept any religion, including Hinduism.
If I do not accept Hinduism, does it make me a lesser Hindu? Who is going to question me about my Hindu-ness or lack thereof?

Any takers?

Madurai Veeran
(yeah.. the same old one)

Madurai Veeran

25th November 2006, 10:56 AM

Hello Rohit,

How are my dear friend? Continue with your crusades, my dear friend. I salute your courage and conviction.

May your tribe increase.

I do not see any of my other old friends.

Best regards,
Madurai Veeran

bulb_mani

25th November 2006, 11:36 AM

The MODs have written STRICTLY no RELIGION or CASTE related stuff... how come they havent locked this thread? :? :roll:

Rohit

26th November 2006, 03:34 AM

Hello Rohit,

How are (you) my dear friend?
I am just fine, my friend. Hope you and your loved ones too are in good shape. It's a long time since I read your last post; and it's a great pleasure to read you again. Please keep visiting and posting.

Continue with your crusades, my dear friend.
I am sorry, but I failed to understand; what exactly did you mean by crusades? There are no crusades, my friend; but just intercepts, engagements and then, accomplishments. :)

I am just engaged in removing the age-old distortions of facts and reality; and then, in presenting the relevant facts and reality as they really are. The most positive thing about all these is; those who grasp them well; they also understand the real objective behind them well.

I salute your courage and conviction.
Thank you for the honour. I cherish such compliments.

May your tribe increase.
Again, I failed to understand this 'tribal' thing. Should I feel sorry for my lack of belief in such things?

I do not see any of my other old friends
Yes, neither do I. Perhaps, your regular visits and posts may bring them back.

Regards :)

goodsense

26th November 2006, 10:19 AM

"engaged in removing the age-old distortions of facts and reality; and then, in presenting the relevant facts and reality as they really are". Yet to be convinced. :roll: Distorted by whom? The source of the old age facts please! I noticed time and again you make reference to Buddha. Is he the source and of old age facts or new age facts?

I was planning to come here after next week, but can't resist this! You are certainly strong in your convictions Rohit and so are others in their convictions more on the contrary. I am not as knowledgeable as Pradheep and SRS to challenge you, but I am slowly learing and this hub is certainly not my one and only source. :wink: :D

Rohit

26th November 2006, 03:26 PM

Psychoanalysis:

When I have not mentioned Buddha or Buddhism even once in my above post; then why would anyone want to mention them? Why would anyone make such associations between the two, if not relevant? Why an Advaitin, whenever he speaks about Advaita, invariably takes refuge in Buddha and Buddhism?

As they rightly say, there can be no smoke without fire.

Only the terribly confused Buddhists would deny that.

And the following facts prove that, unequivocally.

Only for those who are genuinely interested in facts

Advaita Vedanta is nothing but Buddhism in disguise

- GauDapAda is the first historically known author in the Advaita VedAnta tradition.

- GauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of Govinda BhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya.

- GauDapAda composed the GgauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad.

1. The philosophy of Sankaracarya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, as explained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, which appear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Sankara and his followers.

3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of Sunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themselves.

4. Buddhism had exercised a profound influence on Sankara's mind to the extent that the tradition opposed to Sankara holds that he is a Buddhist in disguise and his mayavada but crypto-Buddhism.

5. It is well known that Sankara is criticised by his opponents as a "Buddhist in disguise" (pracchanna-bauddha) and his philosophy as mayavada [1] which is but crypto-Buddhism.

6. Among the Vedantins, Bhaskara (750-800) is probably one of the earliest critics against Sankara. He called the Mayavadin "one who depends on the doctrine of the Buddhist" (Buddhamatavalambin), and says that this position has been negated by the author of Brahmasutra.[2] Afterwards, Yamuna (918-1038), Ramanuja (1017-1037), Madhva (1197-1276), Vallabha (1473-1531) and other Vedantins severely criticize the Advaita Vedanta, pointing out that it is in essence nothing but a Buddhist doctrine.[3]

7. Then, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, Vijnanabhiksu of the Samkhya school shows in his Samkhyapravacanabhasya that the mayavada of the Vedantins is of the same standpoint as that of the Vijnanavadin's [4] and criticizes the Vedanta school as a whole. In justifying his criticism, he quotes a verse from the Padmapurana which states that the mayavada is an incorrect theory and is Buddhist doctrine.[5]

Sources:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada.htm

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/05/02/stories/2004050200170400.htm

http://www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/backissues/vol11/v11sankara.htm
.
.
.

:D :) :thumbsup:

bulb_mani

26th November 2006, 03:29 PM

Does anyone have what OSHO an indian settled in US said? Seems to be a controversial guy :?

temporary sori-Observer

26th November 2006, 09:05 PM

Rohit,

This thread is not for spreading Buddhism, or converting people to any religion. This thread is not for discussing any specific religion, and how it is greater than others. It is for people to ask why belief in God, or religion is needed. Please edit, or delete your post.

When I have not mentioned Buddha or Buddhism even once in my above post; then why would anyone want to mention them? Why would anyone make such associations between the two, if not relevant? Why an Advaitin, whenever he speaks about Advaita, invariably takes refuge in Buddha and Buddhism?

As they rightly say, there can be no smoke without fire.

Only the terribly confused Buddhists would deny that.

And the following facts prove that, unequivocally.[/color]

Only for those who are genuinely interested in facts

Advaita Vedanta is nothing but Buddhism in disguise

- GauDapAda is the first historically known author in the Advaita VedAnta tradition.

- GauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of Govinda BhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya.

- GauDapAda composed the GgauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad.

1. The philosophy of Sankaracarya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, as explained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, which appear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Sankara and his followers.

3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of Sunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themselves.

4. Buddhism had exercised a profound influence on Sankara's mind to the extent that the tradition opposed to Sankara holds that he is a Buddhist in disguise and his mayavada but crypto-Buddhism.

5. It is well known that Sankara is criticised by his opponents as a "Buddhist in disguise" (pracchanna-bauddha) and his philosophy as mayavada [1] which is but crypto-Buddhism.

Rohit

27th November 2006, 01:56 AM

Rohit,

This thread is not for spreading Buddhism, or converting people to any religion. This thread is not for discussing any specific religion, and how it is greater than others. It is for people to ask why belief in God, or religion is needed. Please edit, or delete your post.
Dear temporary sori-Observer,

First of all, the God of different religions are different; both in their forms and functions. The question, as you have put it, "It is for people to ask why a belief in God, or religion is needed." cannot be answered without referring to religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or without identifying the followers of those religions as Jewish, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc.

And as you might already know, Buddhism does not prescribe to a belief in God of any form or function, which makes it completely unique as a religion; and therefore, it requires a unique treatment while referring or answering to such questions.

However; I think, your observation; or shall I say, the lack of it, seems too critical about my posts and less so about those of others. I don't know why that is so, but it certainly comes across that way; and that is a little bit more of a concern to people like me who may not fall in line with your way of making observations. Please go and check the entire thread and then first ask all those people who have made references to specific religions, specific persons identified with specific religions and so on....., to delete or edit their posts wherever they have made such references. :)

Irrespective of all that; however, I have no intentions, none whatsoever, to spread any religion; the question of converting people to any religion doesn't arise at all.

Now let me respond to such 'Observations' of yours, as clearly as I can.

I have just responded to the following aberrant remarks; which, not surprisingly, you have managed to miss it from your sphere of observation. Shouldn't you be really sorry about that?

"engaged in removing the age-old distortions of facts and reality; and then, in presenting the relevant facts and reality as they really are". Yet to be convinced. :roll: Distorted by whom? The source of the old age facts please! I noticed time and again you make reference to Buddha. Is he the source and of old age facts or new age facts?

If you care to observe, I began my response to the above remark with the following specific statement:

When I have not mentioned Buddha or Buddhism even once in my above post; then why would anyone want to mention them?..

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

27th November 2006, 03:16 AM

Rohit,

Your reply to Goodsense ended in the first paragrpah. Everything after that seems to be that you are using responding to Goodsense as an excuse to praise Buddhism. This is what is called in Tamil as 'sandhil sindhu paaduthal'.

What is the relationship between what you see as Goodsense's accusation, and all your quotes, and links and other things about Buddhism's praise? How do those relevent to even the thread's topic?

It is fine in this thread if someone refers to a religion, but it is not fine if one tries to prove that his religion is superior to the other, or throw insults other faiths.

I did not say anything to Goodsense because she refered to Buddhism but did not insult it.
You seem to be posting things about "how karma theory is disproved", and such things in threads such as Astrology, Science for common man, etc which appears like you are simply using anything as an excuse to post your propaganda.

Rohit

27th November 2006, 03:33 AM

Rohit,

Your reply to Goodsense ended in the first paragrpah.
That may be so according to your understanding, but not to mine. I would not want to use your understanding to reply to such remarks. Should I?

Anyway, my response fully addresses the stated remarks, highlighted in red. Nothing less than what I have stated with facts and evidences would fully address such aberrant remarks. I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to see that.

"engaged in removing the age-old distortions of facts and reality; and then, in presenting the relevant facts and reality as they really are". Yet to be convinced. :roll: Distorted by whom? The source of the old age facts please! I noticed time and again you make reference to Buddha. Is he the source and of old age facts or new age facts?
I cannot agree with the rest of your contentions and accusations, I am afraid. :)

goodsense

27th November 2006, 04:08 AM

One is right and one is wrong only to the extent that one is focused on the part of the conditions which is necessary to answer the questions. 8-)

temporary sori-Observer

27th November 2006, 04:10 AM

I am just engaged in removing the age-old distortions of facts and reality; and then, in presenting the relevant facts and reality as they really are. The most positive thing about all these is; those who grasp them well; they also understand the real objective behind them well.
A hub member came and praised your good work. You are replying that you are removing some age-old distrotions of facts and reality.
It proves that you think that a lot of us here are believing some distortions and you are here to show us the path to nirvaNa. It proves that you are involved in some propaganda.

goodsense

27th November 2006, 04:15 AM

"It proves that you think that a lot of us here are believing some distortions and you are here to show us the path tonirvaNa". :lol: :lol2:

Rohit

27th November 2006, 04:28 AM

A hub member came and praised your good work. You are replying that you are removing some age-old distrotions of facts and reality.
It proves that you think that a lot of us here are believing some distortions and you are here to show us the path to nirvaNa.
If that is how you understand it; then let it be so. I can do nothing to alter that. :)

My reply was just that, which you have correctly quoted, but in full. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am just engaged in removing the age-old distortions of facts and reality; and then, in presenting the relevant facts and reality as they really are. The most positive thing about all these is; those who grasp them well; they also understand the real objective behind them well.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

27th November 2006, 04:37 AM

:D :) :thumbsup:
:lol: :wink: :thumbsup:

Rohit

27th November 2006, 04:39 AM

:lol: :wink: :thumbsup:
:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

27th November 2006, 09:39 PM

[Digr]

Rohit,

GS asked whether you were referring to Buddha and whether he was the source of all facts.

"Distorted by whom? The source of the old age facts please! I noticed time and again you make reference to Buddha. Is he the source and of old age facts or new age facts?
You replied GS and gave some links and "examples".
It proves that you are trying to say that Buddha is the source of all facts.
If that is the case, you have to prove that Buddha is the source of all the facts of all the religions such as Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism etc. Otherwise you can not say that Buddha is the source of all facts. Your proof is wrong.
:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 01:16 AM

Your proof is wrong.
No, it is not, I am afraid.

The facts and evidences were produced just to prove that Advaita is nothing but Buddhism in disguise; and they unequivocally prove that perfectly, as intended.

Therefore Advaita and its associated beliefs, which GS keeps arguing about, are false and cannot be the source of any facts as asserted precisely by Buddha. That is all my post intended to prove.

It sounds that you have already made up your mind about other religions you have listed in your post that they make far more sense than Advaita and its associated beliefs. In that case, it only proves what I have already proved; and I would not want to alter that conclusion of yours. Thank you! :wink:

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 01:31 AM

The facts and evidences were produced just to prove that Advaita is nothing but Buddhism in disguise;
That was not GS's question. GS's question was whether Buddha was the source of all the facts

Therefore Advaita and its associated beliefs, which GS keeps arguing about, are false and cannot be the source of any facts whatsoever.
What are these "associated" beliefs? Are you talking about Vishishtadvaita, and Dvaita? If so, are you saying all sects of Hinduism are false, and can not be the source of facts. Why dont you give me the names of these "associated" faiths?

It sounds that you have already made up your mind about other religions you have listed in your post that they make far more sense than Advaita and its associated beliefs.
This statement does not make any sense. There is no logic. This is what is "Sandhil Sindhu paaduthal". Are you trying to say that "it makes far more sense that the source of those religions I listed, is Buddha" also?
:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 01:39 AM

GS's question was whether Buddha was the source of all the facts
What are these 'all the facts'; please list them all, precisely; only then I can comment.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 01:43 AM

What are these 'all the facts'; please list them all, precisely; only then I can comment
Niravana Nayakan Rohit,

Even before understanding what the facts are that GS was asking about you posted a big "logical" reply along with "evidences" and "proofs". Now you are saying, "please list all the facts, only then I can comment"?
If you did not undertand what facts GS was asking about, you should first ask her about that, before you posted that reply. It proves that you are simply using her post as an excuse to post your propaganda.
Also you have not replied to my questions I asked about what are these "associated beliefs" that you are referring to.

Rohit

28th November 2006, 02:01 AM

you should first ask her about that
Hello GS's Representative,

I am asking you as GS's representaive, since you have now taken over GS's post.

What are these 'all the facts', anyway? Please list them all, precisely; only then I can comment on the rest of the contents of your post.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 02:10 AM

What are these 'all the facts', anyway? Please list them all, precisely; only then I can comment on the rest of the contents of your post.
You have already commented, posted a "logical" reply even before knowing what the facts were that GS was mentioning. That is the fact.
If you want to talk with me you have to talk logically, and clearly. How did you answer before understanding the question.

Whatever may be the facts she asked for, the fact is that you responded before understanding it.

goodsense

28th November 2006, 02:10 AM

Temporary Sori-Observer,

You made some very intelligent comments and asked some very intelligent questions and you have been quite consistent not loosing focus. In addition to that you maintained a good sense of humor. After so many months, the recent post in this thread has caused you to change your avatar in a matter of minutes. Moreover, your signature which (you added today) relates to your makes it even "funnier". The quote from your post from yesterday had me laughing for hours or at least when I think about it (even until now), until I had tummy aches last night. :lol: :lol: :lol:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 02:13 AM

Goodsense, :notworthy: :D :D.

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 02:18 AM

Rohit

28th November 2006, 02:29 AM

If you want to talk with me you have to talk logically, and clearly. How did you answer before understanding the question.
Your avoidance to list "All the facts" itself makes my original understanding and reply based on that, fully compliant. I cannot be more logical than that. Unlike you, I don't like the inversions of logic and then call it logic. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 02:34 AM

Rohit,

Can you answer the following questions-

Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Christianity?
Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Islam?
Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Taoism?
Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Confucianism?
Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Bahai?
Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Zoroastrianism?
Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Jainism?
Do you think Buddha is the source of facts for Sikhism?

Can you answer them directly without any confusing statements?

Which 'facts' of the listed faiths?

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 02:39 AM

Your avoidance to list "All the facts" itself makes my original understanding and reply based on that, fully compliant
How is your "understanding" dependent on my "avoidance". Your "understanding" came first, and my "avoidance" came later. How can something that came later affect something that came before? Are you saying that your "understanding" of GS's questions depends on my actions? This is not logical.

I cannot be more logical than that. Unlike you, I don't like the inversions of logic and then call it logic.
A lot of hubbers read this thread. And they can clearly see how you are struglging with simple logic and trying to say that the other person has inverted the logic. Is it the same way that you think you know the path to nirvaNa and we all follow some distortions?

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 02:42 AM

Rohit

28th November 2006, 02:55 AM

Your "understanding" came first, and my "avoidance" came later.
Exactly; and therefore, I standby with my original understanding and maintain my reply based on that. Your avoidance is now totally irrelevant and your arguments, completely redundant.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 03:03 AM

Exactly; and therefore, I standby with my original understanding and maintain my reply based on that. Your avoidance is now totally irrelevant and your arguments, completely redundant.
If my "avoidance" is totally irrelevent, and redundant how did it affect your original "understanding" and make it "fully compliant"?.

Your avoidance to list "All the facts" itself makes my original understanding and reply based on that, fully compliant.

Rohit

28th November 2006, 03:04 AM

Good, this time you are asking what is meant by the facts before answering.
Wrong.

I am simply asking, "Which 'facts' of the listed faiths?" :)

If you haven't grasped it yet, philosophies alone cannot be counted as facts.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 03:09 AM

If you haven't grasped it yet, philosophies alone cannot be counted as facts.
If philosophies are not the facts, then what other facts about these religions do you think came from Buddha?

Rohit

28th November 2006, 03:17 AM

If my "avoidance" is totally irrelevent, and redundant how did it affect your original "understanding"......?
It didn't and it doesn't. However, your avoidance did make your posts irrelevant and absolutely redundant. That's all there is to it.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 03:24 AM

If philosophies (alone) are not the facts, then what other facts about these religions do you think came from Buddha?

I am asking you again, "What facts" are you talking about? Please! :)

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 03:26 AM

Rohit

28th November 2006, 03:37 AM

Rohit,

Thank you. Now I will wait until the other hubbers participate, comment on your "logic" and make their posts also.
I have not talked with you very much in the past, and from your posts I have clearly understood your "logical ways" of arguing. From the debate I think it will be easy for the other hubbers now to understand you also.
Like I said; unlike you, I don't like the inversions or reversals of logic, which you have clearly demonstrated; and in return, you received the responses accordingly; which I don't think, any logical minded person will miss to observe.

Thank you for your valuable demonstration.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 03:42 AM

Like I said; unlike you, I don't like the inversions or reversals of logic, which you have clearly demonstrated; and in return, you received the responses accordingly; which I don't think, any logical minded person will miss to observe.

Thank you for your valuable demonstration.
Thank you for your posts Rohit. The logical minded hubbers will definitely observe.

Rohit

28th November 2006, 03:51 AM

The logical minded hubbers will definitely observe.

Of course, only if at all they are logical minded, which would be clearly verifiable from the history of their logical mindedness or the lack of it.

:D :) :thumbsup:

goodsense

28th November 2006, 03:57 AM

TSO,

You did a good job in running Rohit and have him boxed into a corner. Through the debate, I thought this was the objective and you seem to have succeeded. It seems to be a good way in solving what we see as an ongoing problem, which Rohit may not be aware of.

Rohit, we are talking about the undistorted facts you were referring to earlier which I commented on and asked questions. I also leave this to other hubbers to comment in addition to the fact that it is not a good time for me to be hubbing too much.

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 04:00 AM

The logical minded hubbers will definitely observe.
Of course, only if at all they are logical minded, which would be clearly verifiable from the history of their logical mindedness or the lack of it.
Do not worry about how logical the others are Rohit. There are a lot of logical minded hubbers here.

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 04:03 AM

Goodsense :mrgreen: :smokesmile:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 04:18 AM

Through the debate, I thought this was the objective and you seem to have succeeded. It seems to be a good way in solving what we see as an ongoing problem, which Rohit may not be aware of.

Rohit, we are talking about the undistorted facts you were referring to earlier which I commented on and asked questions.
I was expecting such group-planned, disonance-ridden, lacking facts comments anyway. Such comments have no value, none whatsoever, in light of the factual reality, which I was referring to. The bulk of history proves that fact clearly, I am afraid.

:D :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 04:30 AM

There are a lot of (il)logical minded hubbers here.
Yes, I know the members of 'the company' you are referring to. One of them has already commented accordingly; and the next one is about due, to do so. :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 04:37 AM

Rohit

28th November 2006, 04:57 AM

It seems to be a good way in solving what we see as an ongoing problem, which Rohit may not be aware of.
Goodsense,

Which "ongoing problem" are you refering referring to? Please eaborate on that to avoid lengthy, irrelevant and redundant episodes of useless debates like we just had between TSO and me and you had no choice but to comment with positive fidelity, which is in accordance with what can be expected from you, anyway.

Rohit

28th November 2006, 05:05 AM

There are a lot of (il)logical minded hubbers here.
Rohit, now you have gone to the level of editing my post in the quote to mean exactly the opposite of what I posted? Is this the easiest "logical" way to disprove someone? Is it the "inversion of logic" (editing the word 'logical' and making it 'illogical') you were mentioning before?

Yes, I know the members of 'the company' you are referring to. One of them has already commented accordingly; and the next one is about due, to do so.
Yes, I think they will all comment :shaking:

So, you can observe! Good. Anyway; yes, I was just trying your approach to prove precisely that point. That is all, please don't take it to your heart and shiver. :wink:

All of that was part of the digression infatuated by you, anyway.

The digression, which was accompanied by the fallacy of Diversion i.e. changing the issue in the middle of an argument and the Straw Man’s Fallacy i.e. distortion of opponent’s position, usually by stating it in an oversimplified or extreme form, and then attempt to refute the distorted position, not the real one.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 06:05 AM

:smokesmile:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 06:09 AM

:notthatway: :fatigue:

:D :) :thumbsup:

goodsense

28th November 2006, 06:44 AM

Rohit,

I don't have the time to research the threads. But quite recently I commented on your arguments referring to students I came across with similar problem. You would never take cirticism positively it seems, you must win no matter what and you must have the last tat.

You started with distorted facts, wanting to show the undistorted facts and even made reference to evidence. When asked for source, you made reference to Buddha. In the end of the circular argument, you don't know which facts; you kept asking. While your premise and conclusion are the same, there is no support for either. In the end you yourself didn't know what you are talking about. But it is clear to me and TSO and perhaps others, that you are holding Buddha as the source for the undistorted facts and when TSO made mention of sects of Hinduism that can be found in Buddhism where those sects would be source of facts (even if you want to call it old facts), you had nothing to say. Then the argument continues, that being the case where Buddhism is relatively new compared to Hindusim and had adopted sects of Hindusim, then how and who could have distorted, the facts. These are the quesitons we needed answers to, but you had none. The obvious problem is, you often tried not to get "pinned" down for specific answers in proving your point and recognizing this problem, TSO tried to pin you down and once he got to that point, he was satisfied cause the rest is easy.

The debate is here for those who can see it for what it is. There has been no planning in this. I didn't ask TSO to start it with you or no one has asked me to make those initial comments about source etc. And I don't know what bulk of history you are making reference to. Can you be specific; that would help, or is that another way of making points that lend no support but serve as an escape. :wink:

Any way, since this is your approach to things; always want to win or think you have it all right and ready to redicule instead of being appeciative, I have no further interest in dicussing with you. It is not my approach to life and I wish you the BEST OF LUCK. I treated you with respect all along, despite the fact you are an atheist, Buddhist, whatever, and welcome your posts, but as of now it will be different. One thing you should realize, is that I didn't go out of my way to injure you in any way. :wink:

Really got to go. :roll:

And TSO, don't make me die. I noticed you have accordingly changed your signature from "I am the source of all facts", to "Whatever are the facts, I am the source of all facts". You have me laughing so much. I didn't laugh this way for a long long time.

Rohit

28th November 2006, 07:23 AM

When asked for source, you made reference to Buddha.
Goodsense,

It is not me who mentioned Buddha, it is you who did that. Please go and check your post and confirm it for yourself.

The bulk of history I am referring to is not a handy stuff to which I can provide you links; but it is all about the distortions of facts that I have referred to.

Your comment about taking criticism positively is a very subjective notion. Quite often, it is very easy for someone to pass egocentric criticisms without understanding the whole scenario. Precisely this, what constitutes the fallacies of false dichotomies. If someone can figure out the missing options or possibilities; and facts and evidences to support them, how could you expect him/her to accept such half-baked and/or fallacious views as true or facts? I am sorry, but that is not my way of analysing and accepting truths and facts. On the contrary, the reverse is true, it is you and people like you who cannot absorb such fatual situations.

goodsense

28th November 2006, 12:27 PM

And I notice, it's always a problem on forum when women challenge men, but it's ok when men and only men challenge men. Please continue.... :(

Rohit

28th November 2006, 01:04 PM

And I notice, it's always a problem on forum when women challenge men, but it's ok when men and only men challenge men. Please continue.... :(
No, you have got all these wrong, my dear. It is not at all about challenging. Anyone can challenge anyone, irrespective of the gender.

But challenges without substance are like playing tennis without a racket. And then, the game becomes a child's play, where and when the rules of the game become irrelevant; as they did and still do. :)

Rohit

28th November 2006, 03:11 PM

Rohit

28th November 2006, 05:12 PM

Rohit,

You started with distorted facts, wanting to show the undistorted facts and even made reference to evidence. When asked for source, you made reference to Buddha. In the end of the circular argument, you don't know which facts; you kept asking. While your premise and conclusion are the same, there is no support for either. In the end you yourself didn't know what you are talking about. But it is clear to me and TSO and perhaps others, that you are holding Buddha as the source for the undistorted facts and when TSO made mention of sects of Hinduism that can be found in Buddhism where those sects would be source of facts (even if you want to call it old facts), you had nothing to say. Then the argument continues, that being the case where Buddhism is relatively new compared to Hindusim and had adopted sects of Hindusim, then how and who could have distorted, the facts. These are the quesitons we needed answers to, but you had none.

Despite my repeated requests, TSO avoided or declined to present anything that could be considered as even the raw material for constituting facts. The result was, he locked the whole discussion in a vicious circle; and I had no option but to keep asking him precisely what or which facts he was talking about; so that I could comment. Since; you have specifically posted your version of facts, which I had already figured it out and responded accordingly in my first post with facts and evidences; and now, I can also have a specific response that thoroughly nullifies your this version of so-called facts.

First of all, no one can be held responsible for such utter lack of the grasps of real facts, except one's own egocentric biases. Let me show you how and why.

The chronological developments of philosophical doctrines in India, and based on that, the developments and evolution of religions in India, evidently show that the current forms of Hinduism - i.e. Advaita, VishithaAdvaita, Dvaita, Bhagavad-Gita etc.- all came long after Buddha; except the four Vedas and a few minor Upanishads, the status and contents of which Buddha had categorically rejected long before gaining his world-famous enlightenment. In fact, Buddha was the first man on earth ever to have gained such status; and ironically, the Hindus themselves have treated him as Supreme God, the 10th avatar of Vishnu, which evidently proves the tremendous influence he commanded on the philosophical thinking of his time, long after that; and so he does that, even today.

Since its establishment as the prime religion of India, Buddhism remained the prime source of all knowledge for most intellectuals, common masses of India and foreign students from abroad like Burma, Tibet, China, Japan and other eastern countries for over a millennia and half; and that way, Buddhism has greatly influenced Taoism, Confucianism and other eastern philosophies too.

After the great emperor Ashok adopted Buddhism, he spread Buddhism far beyond the boundaries of his huge empire. It were the Buddhists who founded the first two great universities of the world, namely Nalanda and Taxila Vishwa Vidyalayas, where studies in all branches of knowledge and intellectual inquiries were conducted and taught.

Buddhism is a major religious and ethical force in the world today, and it is the fastest-growing religion in Europe, North America; and even in India, it is coming back as a major force among the intellectual circles.

Unlike those fallacious claims, as quoted above, simply based on wishful thinking, these are the real and authentic facts about Buddha and Buddhism, accompanied by the references and clear evidences that were produced in support; and ironically, they are very well verified by the very people who were/are intolerant and antagonistic towards Buddha and Buddhism as taught by him.

Therefore, there is no room for any fuss; unless one has envious grudges towards the authenticity and great successes of the Buddhist doctrines, which opponents were more than happy to copy with their egocentric distortions but didn't want to accept them as they really are.

Isn't that disgraceful? I think, it really is.

That is all I have to say for now.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 09:59 PM

:fishgrin:

Rohit

28th November 2006, 10:15 PM

Hello temporary sori-Observer,

How are you now? :)

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 10:28 PM

Despite my repeated requests, TSO avoided or declined to present anything that could be considered as even the raw material for constituting facts. The result was, he locked the whole discussion in a vicious circle; and I had no option but to keep asking him precisely what or which facts he was talking about; so that I could comment. Since; you have specifically posted your version of facts, which I had already figured it out and responded accordingly in my first post with facts and evidences; and now, I can also have a specific response that thoroughly nullifies your this version of so-called facts.

First of all, no one can be held responsible for such utter lack of the grasps of real facts, except one's own egocentric biases. Let me show you how and why.

The chronological developments of philosophical doctrines in India, and based on that, the developments and evolution of religions in India, evidently show that the current forms of Hinduism - i.e. Advaita, VishithaAdvaita, Dvaita, Bhagavad-Gita etc.- all came long after Buddha; except the four Vedas and a few minor Upanishads, the status and contents of which Buddha had categorically rejected long before gaining his world-famous enlightenment. In fact, Buddha was the first man on earth ever to have gained such status; and ironically, the Hindus themselves have treated him as Supreme God, the 10th avatar of Vishnu, which evidently proves the tremendous influence he commanded on the philosophical thinking of his time, long after that; and so he does that, even today.

Since its establishment as the prime religion of India, Buddhism remained the prime source of all knowledge for most intellectuals, common masses of India and foreign students from abroad like Burma, Tibet, China, Japan and other eastern countries for over a millennia and half; and that way, Buddhism has greatly influenced Taoism, Confucianism and other eastern philosophies too.

After the great emperor Ashok adopted Buddhism, he spread Buddhism far beyond the boundaries of his huge empire. It were the Buddhists who founded the first two great universities of the world, namely Nalanda and Taxila Vishwa Vidyalayas, where studies in all branches of knowledge and intellectual inquiries were conducted and taught.

Buddhism is a major religious and ethical force in the world today, and it is the fastest-growing religion in Europe, North America; and even in India, it is coming back as a major force among the intellectual circles.

Unlike those fallacious claims, as quoted above, simply based on wishful thinking, these are the real and authentic facts about Buddha and Buddhism, accompanied by the references and clear evidences that were produced in support; and ironically, they are very well verified by the very people who were/are intolerant and antagonistic towards Buddha and Buddhism as taught by him.

Therefore, there is no room for any fuss; unless one has envious grudges towards the authenticity and great successes of the Buddhist doctrines, which opponents were more than happy to copy with their egocentric distortions but didn't want to accept them as they really are.

Rohit, this is a very good post, which clearly explains what your point of view is. This is what I was requesting from you yesterday. I asked what you mean by the "associated" faiths of Advaita and whether they all came from Buddhism. You have answered them today. I also asked whether the philosophies of Taoism, and Confuscianism etc derived from Buddhism. Instead of answering that you told "philosophies alone are not facts". And today you are saying that the "philosophies" of those two religions were greatly "influenced" by Buddhism. Anyway, I dont want to argue about that because it may be just a careless mistake. And also arguing about that will distract the the original issue we are discussing.

Now your point is clear. You are saying that Buddhism has the undistorted truth. Therefore it is superior. The other faiths not only derived from Buddhism, they also distorted the truth, because the founders of those faiths were egocentric.

I dont agree with your first paragraph. We dont have argue that again. It is a distraction. I was just asking how did your post respond to Goodsense's question. Now you have posted your views as a separate post. I will post my questions to you. It is a clear post :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 10:28 PM

Hello temporary sori-Observer,

How are you now? :)
Rohit, I am doing fine. Please read my post. And I will post some questions later.

Rohit

28th November 2006, 10:51 PM

Rohit, I am doing fine.
I am glad to hear that. :)

Please read my post.
Yes, I have read your post and it says how you have interpreted my post. Before we begin, just confirm that this is how you want to maintain your interpretation of my post. If yes, then I have already answered that in my response to GS. :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 10:57 PM

Yes, I have read your post and it says how you have interpreted my post. Before we begin, just confirm that this is how you want to maintain your interpretation of my post. If yes, then I have already answered that in my response to GS.
Have I understood correctly or not? If I have not understood your post correctly then our discussion will have no use.

temporary sori-Observer

28th November 2006, 11:35 PM

Rohit, I am doing fine. Please read my post. And I will post some questions later.

Yes, I have read your post and it says how you have interpreted my post. Before we begin, just confirm that this is how you want to maintain your interpretation of my post. If yes, then I have already answered that in my response to GS.
Rohit, Please tell me whether I have understood your post correctly. I have not asked any questions based on your post. I dont know how you have answered alrready.

goodsense

28th November 2006, 11:47 PM

TSO,

I think you will make an excellent PROSECUTOR one day. I don't even have to wait to see your questions to say that. :D

Rohit

29th November 2006, 12:43 AM

Rohit, this is a very good post, which clearly explains what your point of view is. This is what I was requesting from you yesterday. I asked what you mean by the "associated" faiths of Advaita and whether they all came from Buddhism. You have answered them today. I also asked whether the philosophies of Taoism, and Confuscianism etc derived from Buddhism. Instead of answering that you told "philosophies alone are not facts". And today you are saying that the "philosophies" of those two religions were greatly "influenced" by Buddhism. Anyway, I dont want to argue about that because it may be just a careless mistake. And also arguing about that will distract the the original issue we are discussing.

Now your point is clear. You are saying that Buddhism has the undistorted truth. Therefore it is superior. The other faiths not only derived from Buddhism, they also distorted the truth, because the founders of those faiths were egocentric.

All came from Buddhism: This is your distorted interpretation; I did not say such thing in my post, but said Buddhism preceded all those versions by more than a millennia and half.

Taoism and Confucianism etc. derived from Buddhism: This is your distorted interpretation; I did not say such thing in my post. I said, they were greatly "influenced" by Buddhism. However, Advaita is derived from Buddhism and presented as distorted version of it; and as a result, earned itself the title of 'Buddhism in disguise'

Were greatly "influenced" by Buddhism: Yes, and I have mentioned which philosophies were influenced.

You are saying that Buddhism has the undistorted truth: I was referring to the distortion of Buddhism by those who presented plagiarised but distorted version of it - i.e. Advaita.

Therefore it is superior: This is your distorted interpretation; I did not say such thing in my post. There is no debate about which is superior, but the debate is about what is original and what is derivative.

"philosophies alone are not facts": I still maintain my assertion.

Other faiths not only derived from Buddhism they also distorted the truth: True, with reference to Advaita.

Because the founders of those faiths were egocentric: True, with reference to Advaita.

And I have already answered everything relevant in realtion to your points where I have corrected them as your distorted interpretations. If your questions are in ralation to those points, then don't bother posting them. However, if you have entirely diffferent or new questions, please fire them away; I shall try to answer them to your satisfaction.

:D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

29th November 2006, 12:59 AM

Rohit, I am not distorting anything intentionally. I posted what I have understood and asked you whether it was correct. If I want to distort, I will not ask you whether my understanding is correct. I will simply start arguing from my distorted view. And after an hour and 45 minutes :wink: I am happy that you have responded. I will post the questions when I am not busy.

And I have already answered everything relevant in realtion to your points where I have corrected them as your distorted interpretations.

Rohit

29th November 2006, 01:14 AM

temporary sori-Observer

29th November 2006, 01:19 AM

That is good Rohit. I will post later.

Rohit

29th November 2006, 03:32 AM

TSO,

I think you will make an excellent PROSECUTOR one day. I don't even have to wait to see your questions to say that. :D
Dear temporary sori-Observer,

I too wish you good luck in demonstrating exactly what GS expects you to be. I really do wish that for you. :)

Good luck! :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

29th November 2006, 03:37 AM

Thank you Rohit :)

temporary sori-Observer

29th November 2006, 07:44 AM

Buddhism is a major religious and ethical force in the world today, and it is the fastest-growing religion in Europe, North America; and even in India, it is coming back as a major force among the intellectual circles
Nirvana Nayakan Rohit,
I will post my questions one by one, otherwise the discussion may get very tough. You have mentioned that Buddhism is the fastest religion in Europe, and North America. This is factually wrong. The religion that is fastest growing in Europe and North America is Islam. In fact the growth of Islam in Europe is so big that there is some fear in Europe that it may affect their native culture.

Rohit

29th November 2006, 01:17 PM

c4ramesh

29th November 2006, 01:32 PM

Nirvana Nayakan Rohit,
I will post my questions one by one, otherwise the discussion may get very tough. You have mentioned that Buddhism is the fastest religion in Europe, and North America. This is factually wrong. The religion that is fastest growing in Europe and North America is Islam. In fact the growth of Islam in Europe is so big that there is some fear in Europe that it may affect their native culture.

Actually this is due to the high birth rate among muslims.

Rohit

29th November 2006, 01:44 PM

Rohit

29th November 2006, 01:56 PM

Rohit

29th November 2006, 02:19 PM

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
I entirely agree with the statement in your signature, c4ramesh. All depends on the individuals' cognitive development and the state of their conscience as the result. However some; in fact many, do need guidance as explained below.

The belief, that human "goodness" or morality is the sole responsibility of religion, is obviously proving fallacious from all that have been revealing from experience. All it proves is, along with all these "ugliness" and "dirtiness", the human "goodness" or "ethics/morality" must have existed before religions (or Gods) were invented.

There are several cognitive rationales explaining the psychological aspects of moral judgement in humans. There are three main progressive stages of human morality, ethics or "goodness".

1. Pre-conventional morality: Involves compliance with rules to avoid punishment and gain rewards. (early stages)
2. Conventional: Involves conformity to rules that are defined by the authority or society (or religion).
3. Post-conventional: Involves moral reasoning on the basis of individual principles and conscience.

As one can see, each subsequent stage of moral development relies on higher cognitive abilities on the part of society or individual than the preceding stage; and it is the last stage, the Post-conventional stage, where the actual judgement of morality is left to the intellectual abilities of individuals.

I don't blame religions as institutions, but I do blame people who use religion as the tool to serve their own vested interests by exploiting peoples' ignorance and blindness. I also blame people who blindly follow religion without even raising a question about the legitimacy of religious scriptures and their preaching/teaching to the masses.

:D :) :thumbsup:

goodsense

1st December 2006, 04:44 AM

[tscii]
If TSO is acting as my representative, it certainly wasn’t out of an agreement with me. I though he independently and unknowingly took the position of a prosecutor in trying to ascertain the truth of the matter. One person can't take on role of representative and prosecutor and at the same time.

To set aside all the accusations and find out what the real problems is, the cause and who is responsible, there is a test that can be used to make such checks. But before that, it is necessary to do a point-by-point summary of the discussions since my initial questions. Further the debaters (in this case Rohit and TSO) would have to come to an agreement as to the correctness of that summary (A final chance to clarify what is really meant in relation to the questions. This would not be possible after the test is applied and final result or conclusion reached). Even if you two don’t come to an agreement, you need to say why with an attempt to make the necessary corrections. In that process itself, the problems will be highlighted which will make things a lot easier when the test is applied. :thumbsup:

When I am less busy, I will post that test. In the meantime, you two can do the summary point by point and come to an agreement on it.

It is not wise at this stage to make an attempt to argue further on the initial questions. I believe that time has passed. :)

Rohit

1st December 2006, 09:44 PM

Time's up. The game is over. It is time to read and enjoy all forms of fallacies; and have fun.

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

temporary sori-Observer

2nd December 2006, 10:30 PM

This is a new post for hubbers to read.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/08/opinion/opinion_30018366.php

goodsense

3rd December 2006, 03:27 AM

[tscii]Wow! Talk about relevance of your new avatar. Where is the body? You are right. He had none to support his argument. :ashamed: It's not how much you write, but how much is "relevant" to the questions asked and what is argued. These fallacies you are suddenly referring to, are you trying to say you didn't know they existed all along in your arguments? It’s a serious matter and there is no easy way out nor is it a laughing matter after wasting our good time. :wink: :yakyak: :hammer:

You are the one claiming that nothing beats or can surpass what you have to say when questioned why you were using this one :thumbsup: all the time. It was you who accused people of being incapable of grasping what you had to say, as the reason for not accepting your claims. It is you who always rank yourself higher in saying the right thing; the truth etc. You were always defensive when had to deal with he real issue. One time you said many of us here are illogical as defense, now it is that all of us are fallacious, not only you. You never made such a claim before I indicated my intention to post that test as a pointer to what and where the problem is and why. You accused us of planning it all, and that I caused TSO to come here and argue with you. I guess you don’t find it easy to see your own faults, but instead quick to find ways to divert the attention. I guess too you must have realized that you can’t continue on like this, which seems to many of us being a propagandist. There is no other obvious explanation for what you were doing now that we have sent he end.

Have lots more to say but will wait until I recover from that break through today. Need a good night rest to begin with.

I for one feel victorious :victory: and you can't deny me that as you seems to be trying to do. What is earned can't be easily taken away. :wink:

Rohit

3rd December 2006, 02:40 PM

As it invariably happens; here goes 'the terribly confused Buddhists" completely :x .

Help is already at hand, only if they stop their egocentric nonsense. So far, all their posts have proved them nothing more than just egocentric kids who are adamant to have lollipops before yielding to the facts. :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, please carryon, as it is time to just read and enjoy all forms of dissonance-ridden fallacies; and have fun.

Please.....keep them coming. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:victory: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :thumbsup:

Madurai Veeran

26th December 2006, 11:19 AM

Rohit

26th December 2006, 05:46 PM

Dear Rohit,

My choice of words might have been less than appropriate. I will never say anything to insult you. You are one of those I truly admire and will always admire. Our brief cyber association is something I always cherish.

Best regards
Madurai Veeran

No my dear MV, your words were not insulting at all; but rather they were more binding. Your words of true appreciation mean far more to me than anything else. So, please don't sound so regretful.

Thank you

:D :) :thumbsup:

blahblah

30th December 2006, 04:04 PM

I think this thread has become more of an exchange of words between certain hubbers and a digression from the topic.Religion infact is a blessing for the weak hearted and the insecure and has no place in an intellectual mind. God is not a proven truth.It is a myth.If there is a God it is high time he proves himself.He cannot be another Virender Sehvag forever.Performance pals-thats what we demand from the guy.If you want a big fan following,show yourself and do things that others are incapable of doing.Save expat Indians who are facing discrimination-Guyanese for example :D .

goodsense

30th December 2006, 06:57 PM

Opinions and beliefs differ, based on difference in knowledge, experiences and elevation of mind. Religion relating to the existence of a superior force happen to be only one aspect of that.

http://www.vishnumandir.com/htm/hindu-resources.htm

http://www.vishnumandir.com/htm/qna-sanatan.htm

For more insights to components of beliefs:

http://www.vishnumandir.com/htm/qna.htm#a29

goodsense

3rd June 2007, 10:28 PM

It is because of "Ego" and Bigotry" they claim the world's superiortiy in every aspects of life and history, some of us are being pursued. It is obvious even when they "falsely" try to make it warranted. Hope this helps to clarify any confusion caused in other threads I am unable to comment on further at this time.

For those suffering from "Ego" and "Bigotry" while distorting sources to hide full truth in wrongly punishing people and hiding true reasons for punishment.

If wasn't for these bigots, I may not have spent so much time on hub as I did in my earlier time here, to the point where people were suspicious of my purpose on this hub.

*****

Enjoy - why religion?

http://www.panoramatv.ca/panorama/panorama.php?video=060%20Pravachan%20-%20Pt.%20Jairam%20%28part%201%29%20%28June%2002%29/video.wmv

Shekhar

4th June 2007, 09:45 AM

thamiz

4th June 2007, 09:48 AM

Typical atheist's religious view! :D

Why not religion? :lol:

Roshan

4th June 2007, 02:11 PM

Religion infact is a blessing for the weak hearted and the insecure and has no place in an intellectual mind. God is not a proven truth.It is a myth.

:exactly:

I am an atheist. My intellect, my rationale does not allow me to be otherwise.

Religion is more like an opium. It gives you high, absolve you of your responsibility, makes you addicted to it.
It is like a crutch, the more you use it, the more debilitated you are.

Shekhar,

For that matter any belief - including rationalistic belief (that is believing there is no religion and God) can be categorised like that. Anything if over used, ends up as an addiction - no matter you are an atheist or not. In fact I can very well see that addiction and obsession in some of our hubbers who come from both groups. It's all up to the individuals to strike a balance with what they believe and uphold.

goodsense

4th June 2007, 03:40 PM

Some of the hubbers need to distinguish between the purpose of religious discussions by some hubbers and religious addictions of
same. :wink:

Rohit

4th June 2007, 08:14 PM

[tscii:8d8925e4c6]

Religion infact is a blessing for the weak hearted and the insecure and has no place in an intellectual mind. God is not a proven truth.It is a myth.

:exactly:

I am an atheist. My intellect, my rationale does not allow me to be otherwise.

Religion is more like an opium. It gives you high, absolve you of your responsibility, makes you addicted to it.
It is like a crutch, the more you use it, the more debilitated you are.

Shekhar,

For that matter any belief - including rationalistic belief (that is believing there is no religion and God) can be categorised like that. Anything if over used, ends up as an addiction - no matter you are an atheist or not. In fact I can very well see that addiction and obsession in some of our hubbers who come from both groups. It's all up to the individuals to strike a balance with what they believe and uphold.
Hi Roshan,

Glad to read your views on such issues. :D

From your above response, I understand you are implying that whatever maybe the mode of one’s thinking, at the end it is just a belief, regardless of whether it is rational or irrational. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If not, I wish I could agree with your views, irrespective the belief you hold.

Whatever maybe the case, I could not resist saying something to distinguish between rationality and irrationality.

Rationality is a feature of cognitive faculty that is exhibited when one adopts the mode of thinking on the basis of appropriate reasoning.

Aristotle maintained that rationality is the key feature that distinguishes human beings from other animals.

The adjective "rational" is used to characterise both the cognitive faculty as well as specific mode of thinking. In both cases the rationality can be contrasted with non-rationality or irrationality.

A stone or tree is non-rational because it is not capable of carrying out rational assessment.

A being who is capable of being rational but who regularly violates the principles of rational assessment is irrational.

Among rational beings some modes of thinking are non-rational or irrational since they are matters of taste and therefore no reasons are required in supporting them. Therefore, a mode of thinking that is contrary to the dictates of reason is irrational.

Ironically, rational mode of thinking has been contrasted with beliefs arrived at through emotion, faith, and authority or by arbitrary choice.

Therefore, whenever there is a discussion about religion; people, whether religious or non-religious, invariably associate religion with the issues such as origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of evil, ethics, morality, suffering, set of guidelines, philosophy, principles, way of life, system of belief, doctrine, origin of faith, creed, god assurance, dogma, reliance, tenets, etc. etc. not necessarily all inclusively at the same time, but when it is either convenient to do so by the holders of a particular belief or at the time when factual realities rigorously contradict or conflict with the held beliefs by providing strong evidences that are to the contrary. It is the accumulated occurrences of such situations that eventually give rise to serious disagreements with the held beliefs and push the entire belief system to the point of sheer irrationality.

Therefore, there always is a danger embedded in the belief system that has no basis of appropriate reasoning.

Having said that, I must honestly declare that I mean no offence to anyone holding any belief, whatever it maybe. I am just expressing what I think is the basis of rationality.

:D :) :thumbsup:[/tscii:8d8925e4c6]

goodsense

5th June 2007, 05:11 AM

Religion has no place in an intellectual mind.

Only for a time. Such people eventually fall and do so forever. Everything seems to be going well for them, but in the end they crumble with no opportunity to know GOD. At that stage they are most desperate to know God, but its too late. Many of such kinds cry out for God in their dying beds. I have seen it. It is the one who wants to know GOD for the right reasons, that is taken in a certain path to know him. That is when what seems like trouble starts. After that, you are well grounded to know more of him and to receive the rewards. There is no crumbling in the end, with all lost, nothing gain. It is the person that give up some, that wins all in the end. This is why success means different thing to different people and at different stages of life.

For many, it is not the intellectual mind that speaks of no God, it is the Ego. For them, they are it, lacking widsom, discipline and sacrifice. You see they way they behave, relate to others, act superior, think they can be creeps etc. and still be respected, go unnoticed, not remembered etc. But this is only for certain eyes and ears. We can all act this way, but not all of use want to be this way; it will be minus to our elevation, achieved with hard work.

God is not a proven truth.It is a myth.

God has nothing to prove to us. Otherwise, we will all be believers. There would not be the special few where many are called, but few chosen as it was always expected to be. It was/is also expected that the intellectual mind would not be for God.

Even in the Christian scriptures, Jesus Christ was asked to prove himself. He was asked to perform miracles etc. to show his power. What good is it for a believer or what reward is there for anyone after putting God to the test in this manner?

Only few are able to control an intellectual mind in still believing in God. I came across many persuaders (intellectuals who are women, the intellectual authenticity of whom I was able to confirm and was also able to confirm their claim of no GOD was not based on EGO or want of recognition etc) in my time; years before gracing this forum (I mean in my early 20s) and they haven't succeeded, why now?

It is our duty to find, know and realize GOD and it is our consciousness that leads us in achieving this:P

This is all I wanted to say and had to say it. I think I have said enough over the years in old hub. I didn't just know or learn those things in a short time. They have been with me for years, believe it or not.

PS. At no time am I insinuating that we must just believe. To believe means to live and act in a certain manner - how we treat and relate to others and the rules and principles we adhere to. At times this can be damn hard to do, but we try and we strive and we do this repeatedly to achieve perfection. Perfection doesn't come easily and cheaply. Most of the time it comes with lots and lots of pain. I always use the analogy of the processing of Gold. It only shines brightly after...? So it's not holding on to religion as a clutch. There is hard work involved with duties and responsibilities. :wink:

goodsense

5th June 2007, 08:25 AM

Furthermore, I somewhat indicated that my post here yesterday, related to that post I made in the speech thread. I didn't give all my reasons because I know people here would not understand. It was not done out of "obsession" or "addiction" as people here thought. Another hubber was not satisfied with the thoughts he shared here about my post and was presumptuous enough to take it elsewhere. It was like he was feeling some time back; being so sure of himself and privileged over another hubber, enough to give moderators instructions to act upon (and in the past the mods did act on such instruction and this is one of the reasons why Caesar said some of the things he said, which I know some people were not happy with). Even then, he was wrong, because the moderators made it clear that such concerns of hubbers should be put in PM to them. :sigh2:

c4ramesh

5th June 2007, 08:37 AM

Only for a time. Such people eventually fall and do so forever. Everything seems to be going well for them, but in the end they crumble with no opportunity to know GOD. At that stage they are most desperate to know God, but its too late. Many of such kinds cry out for God in their dying beds. I have seen it. It is the one who wants to know GOD for the right reasons, that is taken in a certain path to know him. That is when what seems like trouble starts. After that, you are well grounded to know more of him and to receive the rewards. There is no crumbling in the end, with all lost, nothing gain. It is the person that give up some, that wins all in the end. This is why success means different thing to different people and at different stages of life.

Proves nothing in the way to prove the existence of god. You said about some people crying for God in death bed. Of course, it doesn't surprise me. At the end of life, people start to think about what happens after death, they can't possibly digest the probability of they being no more. This fear overcomes their rationale. This is mostly the reason why they call for GOD.

The moment they do this they fail to qualify as an intellectual. They say "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom", I can't disagree more...

For many, it is not the intellectual mind that speaks of no God, it is the Ego. For them, they are it, lacking widsom, discipline and sacrifice.

Its their opinion without any basis, and it needs no response. This is similar to their belief in GOD, unsubstantiated.

God has nothing to prove to us. Otherwise, we will all be believers. There would not be the special few where many are called, but few chosen as it was always expected to be. It was/is also expected that the intellectual mind would not be for God.

That would only qualify for a deistic God. but a theistic God demands worship, loyalty from us. If GOD expects this, he must at least prove to us he is a reality.

Even in the Christian scriptures, Jesus Christ was asked to prove himself. He was asked to perform miracles etc. to show his power. What good is it for a believer or what reward is there for anyone after putting God to the test in this manner?

This presumes a lot of things, it first presumes the scriptures are a true account of history. But since this will be out of the scope of discussion let me come to the second assumption.

This also presumes that Jesus being God is obvious, which is not. People tested Jesus because they were not sure if he was. To believe in someones claim without testing him will be nothing more than a gullible act.

Now I claim to be God, do believe in me. Don't try to test my claim. What is there in believing after I prove to you... are willing to accept me as your deity?

Only few are able to control an intellectual mind in still believing in God. I came across many persuaders (intellectuals who are women, the intellectual authenticity of whom I was able to confirm and was also able to confirm their claim of no GOD was not based on EGO or want of recognition etc) in my time; years before gracing this forum (I mean in my early 20s) and they haven't succeeded, why now?

Resorting to Ad hominem tactics don't prove the existence of God.

Calling people who say their is no god as egoists is just Ad hominem rather than any proof to prove the existence of GOD.

It is our duty to find, know and realize GOD and it is our consciousness that leads us in achieving this:P

May be, but for a theistic God. He must make his presence felt.

This is all I wanted to say and had to say it. I think I have said enough over the years in old hub. I didn't just know or learn those things in a short time. They have been with me for years, believe it or not.

My humble opinion is you have given with your emotion a free ride rather than your intellect.

PS. At no time am I insinuating that we must just believe. To believe means to live and act in a certain manner - how we treat and relate to others and the rules and principles we adhere to. At times this can be damn hard to do, but we try and we strive and we do this repeatedly to achieve perfection. Perfection doesn't come easily and cheaply. Most of the time it comes with lots and lots of pain. I always use the analogy of the processing of Gold. It only shines brightly after...? So it's not holding on to religion as a clutch. There is hard work involved with duties and responsibilities. :wink:

People want GOD because the want some one help them. This is what the history of God/religion will tell you. When using a clutch of course you have to hold it and it won't hold you automatically...

goodsense

5th June 2007, 08:45 AM

That is your opinion. I also remember what you had in your signature about God, so I am not surprised about your response.

I am taking specifically about yesterday's post and responses. Please read, my last post which apparently crossed with yours.

goodsense

5th June 2007, 08:50 AM

c4ramesh

5th June 2007, 08:53 AM

That is your opinion. I also remember what you had in your signature about God, so I am not surprised about your response.

I never meant some of the things I have stated to be anything more than my opinion. That I have clearly stated.

But the validity of opinion doesn't rely on the opinion itself. That will be circumstantial Ad hominiem.

I am taking specifically about yesterday's post and responses. Please read, my last post which apparently crossed with yours.

Well, just saw that. But could you care to explain how that makes my response void?

c4ramesh

5th June 2007, 08:58 AM

That would only qualify for a deistic God. but a theistic God demands worship, loyalty from us. If GOD expects this, he must at least prove to us he is a reality.

I was speaking in the context of non-believers asking God to show his power. A believer has the right to ask God to show his power when needed "after", living up to expectations.

Why doesn't a non believer has the right to so?

A non believer can be moral, can also do good things and one fine day he thinks he needs help and though he is not sure about the presence of GOD, he asks for his help.

Why must GOD deny him help if GOD is true? One valid reason please.

goodsense

5th June 2007, 09:04 AM

But could you care to explain how that makes my response void?

It would appear that you made a particular statement based on a response from the hubber in question when you wrote" People want GOD because the want some one help them. This is what the history of God/religion will tell you. When using a clutch of course you have to hold it and it won't hold you automatically...". The hubber made reference to obsession, addiction and God as a clutch and I believe your response supports that when in fact it is false as already stated, my post of yesterday and previous ones on the subject, has no correlation with any of this and only time may prove this as has been the case on numerous occasions here.

c4ramesh

5th June 2007, 09:09 AM

goodsense

5th June 2007, 09:16 AM

Why doesn't a non believer has the right to so? A non believer can be moral, can also do good things and one fine day he thinks he needs help and though he is not sure about the presence of GOD, he asks for his help. Why must GOD deny him help if GOD is true? One valid reason please.

Like in anything, more is owed to those who conform to formalities when such formalities exist with clear sandards, set out for certain purpose. Those who confirm to such formalities and standards, can't and shouldn't be compared with those who don't or didn't in being treated as equals. To meet standards, one must know and follow the formalities set out.

When we are given a syllabus, it is not just for no reason. A student can't expect to pass and pass well if he or she fails to follow it. A syllabus sets the scope, guidelines and even sources in some cases.

Someone other hubber may have a better explanation.