In past several posts we have critically analyzed two of the major doctrines of the world and found the following:
a. Both contain blatant internal contradictions.
b. Both contain concepts that are blatantly against proven science.
c. Both contain concepts on issues of human rights, gender rights and morality that can put any sensible person to shame.
In addition, both have a same common theme running across:
– Once upon a time, God thought of creating universe and humans from nowhere. (What caused God to do this one time exercise when he has been existing since infinity and will exist till infinity, is beyond these superstitious texts!)
– Then God sent some Adam and some Eve (whom he made from rib of Eve) who used to roam around naked. Once they ate some fruit of a tree where they were stationed by God. This petty act irritated God so much that He chose to curse Adam/ Eve and his progeny forever with pain and grief.
– God created some Satan also who would trouble other creations of God.
– God has pre-decided fate of everyone born and everyone yet to be born.
– God sends his divine knowledge through some book on some persons. Those who believe in that book and person blindly alone, will go to a Paradise. Rest will burn in Hell forever.
– Different sects claim a different set of divine book(s) and their prophets. There is no way to decide conclusively which set is true. But if you make a mistake, you are doomed to Hell forever.
– To add to complexity, God decided to not provide any mechanism for conservation of the divine book. Perhaps because modern storage methods were not yet devised when these books were launched, and hence God too was ignorant! But still if you make a mistake, Hell is waiting! There are countless Bibles, and Quran was compiled 20 years after death of its Prophet by those who were fighting for each others’ lives. In fact Quran was not even called Quran till its compilation, and the earliest available Quran is 300 years later to its Prophet’s death.
– The only supporting evidences to justify authenticity of a divine book are miracles that have been performed by the magicians called Prophets who broadcasted the contents of the book. Now there is no way to deduce if the miracle actually happened, but unless you choose to believe in the right book and right Prophet from among so many bidding for faith of humans, you are destined to burn in Hell!
– There will be another miracle when world ends. God will then have a court-proceeding along with his chosen Prophet to decide whom to send to Hell and whom to Heaven. God does not know that right now and has to do a drama.
In summary, blind belief in a particular book and stories associated with the book, along with its broadcasting Prophet is the only way for escaping Hell. What more the God as per these books is
– whimsical
– inconsistent
– deliberately confuses people
– has already decided who shall go to Hell and who shall go to Heaven even before people take birth,
– has created a Satan to add to confusion of people
– tests some people for decades and sends others to Heaven directly from womb
– at times himself acts like a Satan to trouble people and make them ignorant
– chooses such people as Prophets who are murderers, rapists, pedophiles, preach hatred, self-obsessed and psychopaths. Some Prophets have symptoms exactly of Temporal Lobe Epilsepy
– and most importantly, has prewritten fate of everyone. Free-will is simply an illusion of free-will
This is the case with all the dominant religious ideologies and associated scriptures of the world.
Under such a situation, it makes more sense for someone with a mind that can think, to be an Atheist than believe in such a book and such a God, among many in the market.
Typically those who believe in one of these blind faiths belong to one or more of following categories:
a. They were born in a family or society following a particular faith.
b. They came to read book(s) of their family faith, saw the junk, got irritated and hence opted for a different faith in the market. For example, I bought a Motorola mobile, it crashed one day and hence I decided to never use Motorola and choose Nokia instead!
c. They want to feel important and know that if they change faith, they will get greater importance in new society of blind-followers
d. They want to be liberal in relations with opposite/same gender and marriages.
e. They know that they would have to face grave harm from society if they turn apostates.
f. They have limited intelligence, or are too emotional and thus got swayed by marketing hype and social hatred/preference.
But for a rational person, who is also brave, atheism seems to be the only option in a world where people do not have any reason to believe what they believe in. Atheism is a natural reaction mechanism to hoax of a religion that has no logical foundation and is based merely on blindness of minds. Atheism is the next step of evolution of intellect from tendency for blind belief and believing without reason.
The above holds true not only for Islam and Christianity, but also for majority of Hindus comprising Sanatanis, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and so many other big and small cults and sects. We see many Muslims being Muslims because they hate Christians and Hindus. And many fanatic Hindus call themselves as proud Hindus primarily because Islam has been a barbaric nuisance in this subcontinent and largest factory of terrorism production since its inception (competed closely by Christianity in its early phase).
And then we have an entire cult of Secularists who deliberately or unknowingly refuse to explore and merely shout that all religions are equal merely because all have some good elements and all have more or less fraud elements as well. These secular businessmen who tend to benefit from the religious confusion in the society like the jackals of the jungle, only add to the prevailing confusion.
We see a society where emotions run high, people tend to follow what they are used to, or rebel abruptly, tend to mix social and religious beliefs, have given up any element of logic to support their belief systems and have no reason to explain why I am a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew or Sickular! A more sensible person turns Atheist. A more evolved thinker goes a step ahead and becomes Agnostic – I don’t know! May be God exists, may be not. Who cares! And Why?
Agniveer also had the opportunity to become an Atheist or Agnostic. It rejects all popular religious texts as full of defects listed above. However, in same vein as Agniveer rejects these religious texts, it has no option but to trash the Atheist or Agnostic school of thought.
The reasons are as follows:
a. Despite the hype created by false texts, the fact remans that I exist. And I cannot be a chemical reaction or inanimate entity. If that be so, how could I demonstrate the characteristics of happiness, sorrow, attraction, repulsion, efforts, intellect. I agree that different parts of brain enable these functions. But who is the source? Who is the driver of the car? Who, even after a deep sleep, wakes to say that I slept peacefully? Who feels the peace? Who gets the urge to be Agniveer. Who feel the ‘I”? If it were a purely physiochemical world, only inanimate objects would have existed and there would not have been ‘You’, ‘Me’, ‘He’ or ‘She’ debating this very topic!
Presence of ‘I’ cannot be denied. The very act of denial proves that an “I’ exists that is denying!
b. Further, there is no cause for this ‘I’ to get destroyed. Since ‘I’ is not a physical entity, ‘I’ cannot be worn off or damaged by other physical entities. Apart from the change in association of ‘I’ with other physical entities like body, nothing can change in ‘I’. ‘I’ don’t need a proof to know that ‘I’ exists!
c. If ‘I’ is imperishable, how come rest of the physical entities work together in unison to create appropriate environment for ‘I’ to exist, enjoy, act and think? ‘I’ know that ‘I’ did nothing to manage it. Yet I know a grand conspiracy is constantly at work to suit my requirements of survival with physical world and enjoy the same. I get a body whose wonderful mechanism is not yet understood, a brain about which we know nothing much except that there is nothing more mysterious than it, the food I eat, the society I live in, the earth, the solar system, the universe ….
‘I’ know ‘I’ did not manage all these complexities. ‘I’ know that inanimate particles and waves cannot create a corporate body and allocate responsibilities to make all this happen like in a factory. There is some other entity who is managing it all. This entity has to be living/animate like me or else it cannot manage innumerable ‘I’s like me.
This introspection suddenly destroys the very foundation of Atheism. And it challenges Agnostic to admit that you are Agnostic only because your intellect has a limited capacity today.
d. I know clearly that three entities exist right now – ‘I’, inanimate particles/waves, and the manager of it all. Lets call them soul, nature and Ishwar (God).
While the God of Quran or Bible has been trashed by an intelligent soul, the presence of these three entities cannot be denied and hence no rational soul can be an atheist.
All leading scientists have refused to be Atheist and have admitted that a manager Ishwar has to exist.
e. Some skeptics may argue further and say that there is no Ishwar but only laws of nature which lead to creation of everything in world. But this is only a false excuse to get out of clutches of Bible or Quran. This cannot stand reason of scientific spirit because:
– What we call as law of nature is nothing except something being repeated in most perfect manner without deviations. For example, Yajurveda says that “Ishwar has held every entity and moves them perfectly as per unchangeable laws.” Because He does so with perfection, we call it to be a law. Let us take example of Law of Gravitation. Two objects at a distance tend to attract towards each other as per a defined formula. Now if there is no entity managing the whole show, what caused the objects to get attracted? Scientists call it Fundamental Law because they cannot answer it further.
An analogy would be a mother of a deaf-blind child. Whenever the child wept, mother gave him food. And she did it in most perfect manner. A few years later, the child was communicated through some language that her mother has been very nice to him and gave him food every time he wept. The child laughed, “What a joke! I don’t know any mother. Its a fundamental law of nature, that when I weep, some food comes to me!” An Atheist is a nothing but such a deaf-blind child!
– They cannot explain why would certain physical entities suddenly start having a feeling of ‘I’. They cannot even explain which particular physical entity is feeling this ‘I’. For example, scientists are baffled on whether there is a specific seat of consciousness in human brain, or many neurons together form ‘consciousness’. If yes, how and why? And why does that consciousness repels against death and its destruction? Why that consciousness seeks peace and wants to avoid frustrations and grief?
So called Atheist scientists have no answer. And they also don’t know how they can answer it except admitting existence of another intelligent entity apart from their own jungle of neurons in their respective brains!
Their claims are equally ridiculous compared to claim of Allah of Quran saying ‘Kun’ and creating Adam from mud and God of Bible making Light first and then creating Sun and Stars!
f. What more, I find that my thoughts control my destiny to large extent. By moulding my thoughts and resolving for anything, automatically I get surrounded by situations and people that help me move towards my resolve. There is an art through which all the inanimate and animate entities of the world seem to working as per my thought processes. If I tend to be negative, negative events happen with me and negative people surround me. If I tend to be enthusiastic, I get more enthusing opportunities. Recently a bestseller book “The Secret” was written on this principle. (This is nothing but first step of foundations of Vedas and Yog).
g. Further, if there is no permanent ‘I’ and no just manager of everything, all the concepts of ethics, morality, peace, honesty go for a toss. Then even punishment of criminals is wrong. Incest is also justified. Murder is also justified. Insanity is also justified. Nothing remains unjustified except the curious urge of an Atheist to expose frauds of religious cults and propagate Atheism!
‘I’ know I exist, and unless there is an entity managing all this for me, ‘I’ know that nothing at all will make any sense!
A brief scratching of surface brings us to yet another conclusion:
That Atheism or Agnosticism is as insane an ideology as Islam, Christianity and other cults based on stories of miracles and Prophetism.
Despite disillusionment with the various cults and sects, a rational ‘I’ can still not be an Atheist.
g. There may be some smaller sects who agree with conclusions till this point, but would want to present their own ideology to be true. For example some sects that claim that there is no absolute God and only those souls who reach high levels of spiritualism become God. We did not spend much time to reject these cults because these cults are not intolerant like cults of Bible and Quran and at least share a common ground of tolerance and opportunity for all.
However the basic flaws of these cults are their scriptures. If one reads them, one finds huge number of descriptions which are proven to be false. For example, flat earth, wrong description of earth, universe etc, wrong descriptions of human size etc. So we ignore proponents of these cults as those mindsets who are misled to believe in a cult due to reasons mentioned earlier in the article. Finally we are left with a firm belief that despite all the confusion created by these false texts and baseless ideologies:
a. God still exists
b. ‘I’ also exist
c. If at all God is just and rational:
– His knowledge and path for total bliss relevant for me should be intuitive to my intellect
– This knowledge cannot be left to be based on my own intellect, because that is limited. So it has to be a benchmark, I can look up to, throughout my progress, without doubting whether I am being fooled by my limited intellect.
– This knowledge has to be unchangeable. There should be some mechanism to ensure that the knowledge is preserved in same format as since inception.
– This knowledge has to be available since dawn of human civilization and not have emerged suddenly through some self-proclaiming prophet and his gang or some self-proclaimed saint. The saint may at best present this same knowledge in more reasonable manner for my consumption.
– The life should exist in a cycle of birth and death because I can do nothing without a supporting body and intellect, and one single life is too less a time to achieve the final desired state of bliss. Also if there is only one life, if I fail to achieve ultimate level of bliss in one single life, still some more opportunities have to be provided to me since I still exist. And if there is no such additional opportunity provided, then life itself has no meaning. This knowledge should remain same in all lives.
– This knowledge should not be in a vernacular language
– This knowledge should be an ultimate benchmark but not something which has to be mandatorily believed in blindly to escape wrath of God. I should have the opportunity to explore the truth myself and reach the knowledge through process of efforts and evaluation. There should be no force of blind compulsion.
– This knowledge should not have internal contradictions.
– This knowledge should not have contradictions with established facts and observations of science.
– This knowledge should not contain time or geography specific knowledge that are not relevant for all ages and all locations.
– This knowledge should be devoid of superstitious stories and false claims.
– This knowledge should be based on tolerance, equality, peace, bliss and purposefulness that is so intuitive to ‘I’.
Despite being shaken by frauds of Bible, Quran et al, I still believe in Ishwar or God, and aspire to seek and lead my life as per such source of knowledge as described above.
I reject the God of Bible or Allah or Quran completely. But I am not an Atheist. I am also not an Agnostic.
I believe in an Ishwar who is existent, animate, blissful, formless, omnisicient, unborn, endless, unchangeable, beginningless, the support of all, the master of all, omnipresent, permanent, unageing, immortal, fearless, eternal, and holy, and the maker of all.
I believe in an Ishwar who exists with me always – right from beginninglessness (Anadi) to endlessness (Anant).
I am Vedic. I am seeker of Truth and Truth alone!
When you will analyse puranas? They are trash like Islam and Christianity.
May God give light to you Dharma. To understand Puranas – you need to have understanding of Vedas. If you dont have that – you can misinterpret them.
Let us establish the Vedic foundations first.
I confess that Ishwar is always exist with you. My best wishes and support for establishment of Vedic foundations to The Agniveer.
Please explain why " This knowledge should not be in a vernacular language".
Thanks
@Arjun
Namaste bhai,
It is because of equality for all.
these knowledge are present in more then one's mothr tongue but however they are not as acurate as it is in the original language. for example some english words cant be repllaced with another single word in japanese…and so on…
mean while the puranas have many interpretations. usually people are merely satisfied by the mythycal stories and do not seek for the further interpretations.
very good article
"Now if ‘I’ is imperishable,"
But the "I" is perishable. Death destroys the "I", modifying the brain changes the "I", amnesia changes the "I" radically "who am I?". Drinking coffee a stimulant, seems to make the "I" more alert, being over fed makes the "I" sleepy, hurting the body makes the "I" hurt, when asleep and you get colder, your body wakes up the "I" to solve the problem. In the morning, your brain and body wakes up the "I" to deal with the challenge of a new day.
"why does that consciousness repels against death and its destruction?"
Because the body is evolved and selected that way. Hominids that failed this test didn't reproduce.
"By moulding my thoughts and resolving for anything, automatically I get surrounded by situations and people that help me move towards my resolve."
That's right. You've made your subconscious aware of opportunities to move towards your goal. The same with negative thoughts, your subconscious alerts you to opportunities to move to your goal of being more negative. It's not that you've changed your reality, but you've changed what you recognise as opportunities.
Morality comes from evolution; it's because of our social nature, we work better in groups. This has been proven scientifically recently, see Moral Minds.
So we're left with no reason or need for God. The only explanation for God is a over active sense of agency in the workings of the world around us. This has been recently shown to be true scientifically. Agency isn't selected against by evolution as it actually helps us in the world.
1. How do you know death destroys 'I'? Do you even know what 'I' is, as per modern innovations that you call science?
2. Why should 'I' feel pain and pleasure if I is nothing but inert matter combined in specific manner?
3. Why did body evolve in certain manner? What inspired inert matter to conspire and come together in such specific manner that one organism had male part, and other female; milk evolved before child was born, lungs were created before child came out of womb? How do inert matter particles do such great planning?
4. What exactly is a thought? Can you map process of thinking to fundamental forces of nature?
5. You oft repeat the word scientifically. Can you elaborate more on that? Until you have witnessed evolution yourself, or can explain logic behind evolution, or even know what exactly is life, claiming evolution of life from inert
to be scientific, is yet another superstition. At best a scientific but myopic person may claim, "I don't know!"
6. Evolution is nothing but a set of fancy theories developed from some petty set of evidences and ignoring the rest. It is perhaps fine so far it is restricted to realm of inanimate world and body structure (I really don't know!). But moment it is used to deliberately used to thrust some personal views on things like life, consciousness and management of universe, when what we know (scientifically) is blatantly contradicting and full of ignorance, it becomes a superstition. And perhaps the most dangerous form of superstition. The believers in this cult want to define origin of things that they don't even know (life, consciousness etc).
Its however simple for them, anything unexplainable – blame it on evolution and say "It has been proven scientifically"!
So why we believe in God – "We are evolved to do so"! Why we have law and order – "We are evolved to do so!". Why we question our own existence and want to seek truth? – "We are evolved to do so!". Why suddenly inert became living and felt need for group living? – "because we are evolved to do so!".
And who is this "we"? "We are evolved to ask such questions!".
Indeed, a most humorous cult of blinded sub-atomic particles grouped together to call themselves "Atheists"!!
@Angela
You hold a pen in your hand and refer to it as "This is my pen". (Pen is different and foriegn to you)
But, you also point out various parts of your physical body and say as "This is my head, These are my hands, eyes and legs etc". What does it means? (When you are actually, only a physical body with various parts, then again where is the quoestion of refering it as yours again as though you are different from it.) Are you not subconsciously differentiating your physical body from you. There lies the secret of "I". And this "I" will not get destroyed, but escape from our physical body (temporary vehicle for this birth)
Hence, it is necessary first to know "Who am "I", rather than just identifying our selves with our teporary physical body or the name and position belongs to it.
@Angela
Morality comes with evolution! Can you prove morality without the concept of a perfect moral being? How can you say morality level has increased or decreased if you dont have an ultimate moral benchmark? And forget about high or low morality, how will you define morality? If one kills an innocent, how is it immoral? By your logic, killer was evolved that way! Why then you need police and judiciary system? Why not set the killer free as his act was a mere consequence of evolution of his mind that very way? You wrote here on this article and showed your disagreement, why? Why did not you accept this article as another consequence of evolution of mind of Agniveer ji? Since evolution of mind of Agniveer Ji is being carried out by "perfect laws of evolution", which have been proven "scientifically", why dont you accept his views? You can say that you have been evolved differently, fine. Then at the most, you can just say that for you, your thoughts, and for him, his! But you dont have "moral" right to disagree with him!
do god has ability of changing laws of nature?like i am at a risk..i m a devoted beliver now can god change natural law for me??what if i dont pray to him,will he give me favour?or he is a attention seeker from devotees?
Oppotto,
check this http://www.agniveer.com/power-of-now/
Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), Indian spiritualist
On 9/11/1893 at World Parliament of Religions, Chicago he said to the gathering
“We who had come from the east have sat here day after day and have been told in a patronizing way that we ought to accept Christianity because Christian nations are the most prosperous. We look about us and we see England the most prosperous Christian nation in the world, with her foot upon the neck of 250,000,000 Asiatics. We look back into history and see that the prosperity of Christian Europe begin with Spain. Spain’s prosperity began with the invasion of Mexico. Christianity wins its prosperity by cutting the throats of its fellow men. At such a price the Hindoo will not have prosperity.
They come to my country and abuse my forefathers, my religion, and everything; they walk near a temple and say ‘you idolators, you will go to hell’, but they dare not do this to the Mohammedans of India, for the sword will be out, but the Hindu is too mild.
And may I ask you, Europeans, what country you have ever raised to better conditions? Wherever you have found weaker races, you have exterminated them by the roots, as it were. You have settled on their lands, and they are gone for ever. What is the history of your America, your Australia, and New Zealand, your Pacific Islands and South Africa? Where are the aboriginal races there today? They have all been exterminated, you have killed them outright, as if they were wild beasts. It is only where you have not the power to do so, and there only, that other nations are still alive.
If Christianity is a saving power in itself, why has it not saved the Ethiopians, the Abyssinians?”
//God of Bible making Light first and then creating Sun and Stars!//
Sorry to burst your “scientific” bubble, but light existed before Suns or Stars were formed. Look up “cosmic background radiation”.
It also indicates that you are no more “scientific” than the Muslims or Christians. You are just another Hindu trying to sound “scientifically refined”.
This is also evident from your rejection of evolution which has time and again verified through experiment and observation.
Namaste brother.
You can say evolution has been proven, but only if you’re willing to disregard the massive gaps and holes in the theory.
It’s a theory, and by no means fact.
Evolution is as much a theory as theory of gravitation.
The normal issue raised against theory of evolution is that we don’t have ALL the fossils that record EACH species that evolved. Asking for such evidence is naive – fossils are really difficult to form and to expect fossils for each species is insane.
But with the existing fossils it is sufficient to deduce the truth of natural evolution.
@Vijay
the theory of evolution and the theories of gravity are not comparable.
when newtonian theory failed , general relativity took over to explain the mercury anamoly.
The theory of evolution on the other hand..has a strong allergy to be rechristened..(thanks to it’s history of church versus science wars) ..it wont give away it’s name no matter how many hypothesis fail..and thats not good from a scientific point of view
also the cosmic background radiation that you talked about is a post big-bang phenomenon…not a pre big-bang phenomenon.. so there’s no scientific basis to the light came first argument..rather CMBR again refutes the bible theory
act by historical/archeological evidences.india was happy even before the introduction vedas.we are now born and brought up with concepts of god and religion by our parents.our ancesters were existing and lived happily without the concepts god and religion in prehistoric india 6000 years back.remove your religious goggles and wear scientific goggles.even the first samrat chandra guptha maurya joined jainism and died at chandra gutta near sravanabelagola in karnataka..i am not saying anyone is not correct.we have to find truth and remove our myths.our lovely planet has 450 crore years of history.our universe has 13.7 billions of history.try to know what really happened in our previous history.try to predict the scientific facts of future of our humans atleast. with best wishes for you
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-history-of-god/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIUtaSljRHw&feature=related
@ash51 : Why dont you refute the article above with logic ,rather than excuses?!
dont know what you know by the introduction of the Veda.
.Veda is not about Religion(it just shows you have no clue about veda, may be you are judging veda with the likes of other contemporary religions like modern Hinduism,Christianity,Islam and others)
Veda means knowledge and without Knowledge there can be no civilization.
when you say prehistoric india about 6000 years back , you show that you have 0 knowledge of the actual past of Bharat.
and chandragupt was the first king of India, you make me Laugh…
have you hear of the King Bharata(after whom the name bharatvarsh came into being)
So please stop following the Western indologists and learn your History form your own People, you are just fooling yourself and letting yourself stay in the dark.
if someone says dont touch the burning fire, and others listen to him, does that form a Cult(NO-fire touching cult LOL)?
in the same way veda is in no way similar to, as you rightly say, the prevailing cults of contemporary Hinduism,Christianity, Islam etc.
have you ever read the Upanishads,Vedanta and shiv sutras they are the glowing example of scientific thinking of the vedic followers which still baffles the western thought.
Om Tat Sat.
Can you please elaborate more on this “knowledge” of the Vedas? I am a very inquisitive person and love knowing about nature. Can the Vedas tell me why the Sun shines? How magnets work? Why is it that human genome is riddled with corpses of viral DNA?
And what exactly is the “scientific thinking” of the Vedas assuming the standard definition of science?
@Anir : if you love knowing about nature then you are at the wrong place and asking the wrong questions,
I think you take me as a person who does not believe in science and its achievements, that is not the case.
BTW the bing bang there had already been prospected by the followers of vedic culture as “bindu sphota” (if you may not be aware)
Can science tell me who created the contents of the sun which makes it shine; being inquisitive as you are is the basis of any science be it material or spiritual .
Veda teaches this attitude of inquisitiveness
Can Science tell me what is the source of consciousness ?
Can Science tell me what is death as a phenomenon(with no assumptions).?
Bro science and veda go hand in hand, suggest you not be prejudiced and keep learning both in the spiritual and the materialistic (scientific) realm
Om Tat Sat
Science cannot explain consciousness, but neither can the Vedas. Whatever claims they make are untestable and sometimes unfalsifiable. It makes as much sense to say that Vedas can explain consciousness as saying that The Invisible Pink Unicorn can explain everything. Science is at least humble in accepting that it can’t explain everything, unlike the followers of Vedas who claim that Vedas can, but when asked for specifics, point the finger at the inability of science to explain.
Take the examples I have given. Why does the Sun shine? Science gives me very precise answers involving nuclear fusion, energy mass equivalence (fully quantified instead of vague statements) and electromagnetic radiation. Of course, if you go deep enough, science does hit a wall as to why matter exists, but what it important is that Vedas hit a wall much much before science hits a wall. What is the point in calling something scientific if it can’t even model nature at least to a degree like basic particles as known from physics?
And no. Science and Vedas don’t go hand in hand. You wouldn’t say that if you knew about the philosophy of science. Science is all about making testable hypotheses and making them into theories if they can model nature successfully. Vedas on the other hand proclaim a supernatural origin (“revealed”) and make untestable claims and fail in modeling nature.
@Anir : Bro when i said that science and veda go hand in hand i meant materialistically and spiritually respectively.
Veda themselves do not proclaim to be or supernatural origin ( its their infallible nature that gives them this status)
can science explain the Turya state?
Can you simulate the state of samadhi in a a lab environment?
Science cannot prove the existence of the 7 chakras in the body , but they are there and its a individual experience.
the supreme power is something that is not a question of debate but an experience. that too and individual one
Science can only quantify or reason (modeling nature as you say)on subjects that appeal to the outward sense of a human body, nothing more.
and to be honest, whatever modern western science has achieved till date is just mere convenience(a big one though) to the the humankind and not a necessity (medicine is already in the ayurveda and yogic sutras)
whatever causes the sun to shine or night and day to fall, has no effect on the life of a human as such , its just the ego humans carry that tries to shun his ignorance about things.(give this a thought)
finally. having faith and science is not a reason to shun the vedic knowledge, its not dogma like other prominent faiths.
Om tat Sat
You miss the point of my arguments and go on to make more claims which lack any sort of evidence.
Let me try to put the crux of my argument in a more crude form:
Of course science cannot explain samadhi or chakras or whatever. You know what else science cannot explain? Harry Potter. Enlightened souls tell of a hidden world were magic is possible. All one has to do is accept that the Harry Potter books are infallible. Vedas too fail in explaining the power of the mantras like Avada Kedavra, Expecto Patronum and Expelliarmus. In fact these mantras, when incanted with the right constitution, leads one to the kind of enlightenment that Vedas cannot. The Harry Potter books are a treasure trove of spiritual knowledge albeit in a coded form which requires that the mind be in a receptive state. People who have miraculous abilities, like David Blaine, have got them from the knowledge of Harry Potter.
Finally, Vedic knowledge is just as dogmatic as other faiths. You say it is infallible without giving a sufficient reason other than that it is a personal experience, something which has been proven to be fallible. If personal experience is all that is needed, my personal experience tells me that Vedic knowledge will not get one anywhere.
And yet, based on personal experience you go on to deride science (which btw is not western. Calling it such is an insult to all civilizations that have contributed to it). You dogmatically assert that science based medicine is only a convenience and not a necessity as ayurveda already exists. I think the millions of people who get infected by diseases like cholera and yet survive would love to differ on that kind of dogma.
@Anir : your tunnel vision amazes me.(may be not!)
the diseases that exist in the modern wold are the result of the human behavior itself, if life is lived as per the tenets of the veda there would be no disease,
I did not insult science, having a scientific out look is not the same as being an atheist , i think you are confused or something, and are hell bent of shoving your opinion on the rest of the world,
I think you dont know what dogma is or what veda contain; the knowledge of veda is not a dogma coz it can be linked to an experience that too personal , nothing is more convincing than that.
Now if you compare the existence of the spiritual FACTS like samadhi, chakras and turya to someones imagination like harry potter, then it only shows your ignorance about spiritual science, i dont blame you , i too used to hold the same perspective as you have today.Being an Atheist is the first step taken to being a follower of the absolute truth.
Why dont you put to test all these concepts and “experience” for yourself? if you dont want to do that.. no body is forcing you.. you can continue to have a partial human life.
Science cannot disprove a higher entity and for sure cannot prove it
Om Tat Sat
“the diseases that exist in the modern wold are the result of the human behavior itself”
Did you Vedic knowledge tell you about that? Bacteria would love to differ with that view. You seem to think humans have some special abilities and have brought about diseases upon themselves (some yes, but not all). It is the other way around. Disease causing agents existed well before humans did.
“if life is lived as per the tenets of the veda there would be no disease”
Evidence please. People throughout history (including the Vedic period) have died of disease.
“I did not insult science, having a scientific out look is not the same as being an atheist , i think you are confused or something, and are hell bent of shoving your opinion on the rest of the world”
Yes you did _deride_ science. You said it is merely a convenience, not a necessity when in fact at least as far as medicine is concerned, it is a necessity.
And I am shoving my opinion on the rest of the world? Wow, I must have some sort of superpowers. I am just a nobody who can’t even influence policy and yet magically I seem to have the power to shove something into everyone. It looks like you can’t take criticism. I am just expressing my opinion. I am NOT forcing you to accept them. You are free to not read my comments or even get my comments removed if you find them distasteful. I wouldn’t mind in the least bit. (And where did I say that having a scientific outlook is the same as being an atheist?)
As to your spiritual facts, they are just as true as the miraculous abilities of the great Harry Potter follower, David Blaine. Unlike the things you speak of, David Blaine’s miracles have been extensively documented on film. Search on Youtube for them.
And as said earlier, I could argue that my personal experience tells me that Vedas contain only primitive knowledge. It is my personal experience which convinces me of the non-existence of a the supernatural. I have put to test all the concepts that you speak of and found them wanting.
But I’m honest and will tell you that I did none of those. But had I made those claims with absolute conviction, you would have had no way to telling whether I’m telling the truth or not. You seem to have some difficulty understanding this concept. Science is currently the best way to judge the truth value of such experiences.
Also, don’t go around presuming that I have a “partial” human life. Unlike Vedic knowledge, science reveals how beautifully life is interconnected on Earth and I am grateful in knowing that my body carries the genes from all of its ancestors all the way back to the first life form.
As to “Science cannot disprove a higher entity and for sure cannot prove it”, of course science can’t prove or disprove a negative. When did I say that it could?
i said that if vedas are followed to the core, there will be no disease in the society, if the people died in vedic society of disease, how would you claim that they followed the veda?
“science reveals how beautifully life is interconnected on Earth”
Do you really believe that or it jsut on paper and formulae, have you experienced the connecetion, when you say everthing does it include you, if yes, what you you mean by your identity and if no are you not included in everthing?
science cannot judge spirituality or quantify it in any means that are available to science,
as one cannot measure volume in two dimenstions.
may be science has hit a wall in terms of spirituality long before veda has ?
and could you please respond to bro Arya as well
Om Tat Sat
Namaste Anir
Please clarify your beliefs. Do you believe in God? If yes/no, why/why not? You may have problems with the claims of Vedic followers but why getting so angry on Vedas? Einstein was greatest scientist, but could not manage to take care of his wives properly! Does that mean science teaches you to treat your wife badly? No. Never say bad or good about something which you have never read. Have you read Vedas?
I would like to continue this discussion until this matter gets resolved at least in terms of arguments if not in terms of everybody’s satisfaction.
Dhanyawad
Do I believe in god? No. And that includes all classes of god – the god who answers prayers, the judgmental god, the Brahman of the Advaita Vedanta, the entity who manages affairs, the supreme power and any other form which is not naturalistic.
If you want to resolve this discussion, these are my points of contention:
1. Vedic knowledge is not as complete as the knowledge given by science.
2. Vedic knowledge is not scientific going by the definition of science.
3. Belief in the Vedas as an infallible source of knowledge is dogmatic because it is not evidence based, but rather it is faith based.
And please don’t setup the strawman of “Have you read the Vedas?” I don’t need to read the Principia Mathematica to understand gravity or The Origin of Species to understand evolution. People have been making specific claims about Vedas and science and it is those I’m questioning. And no, I’m not angry with the Vedas. But I do have an issue with the conflating of Vedas with scientific thinking.
@Anir
Namaste
Since you dont believe in God, please share with us your views on how the universe (including everything which is called natural) came into being? Also, while answering this by “natural laws”, please give an example of any object which exists but does not need a creator. Remember, my stand is that anything including “natural” bodies need creator and I give the examples from our world that since fan, table, chair, computer, etc could have not existed if their manufacturers would not made them and you will accept it. Similarly sun, moon, earth and everything called “natural” would have not existed if any creator would have not made them. Now you give me such examples, as I gave you in support of my argument.
all the best
If everything needs a creator, who created the creator?
@Anir
I have written somewhere else that there is no cause to the ultimate cause. Creation is required for the entities which are constituted by smaller units or in other words, which need adjoining of matter/energy. But things like energy/smallest particle, which can be considered as smallest form of matter are never created. That is why I asked about objects (which are the result of adjoining of smallest units) or bodies and not any eternal creator! BTW, I believe in a God, who is unchangeable, omnipresent and formless and does not need any cause to be existent.
I ask again, who created the physical objects (which need cause to be existent)?
The actual answer? I don’t know. I can tell you the causal chain till the Big Bang, but not beyond that, I’m as clueless as anybody else. But I believe that beyond the Big Bang, there is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.
@Anir
Please go through my second last reply (December 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM) again. I asked you, why do you believe that there is no maker of universe when we see nothing in this world as without maker? Please take my question in the light of my last reply. I mean changeable objects (undergoing adjoining/disjoining) when I say any object and not something like energy/smallest unit of matter.
Are you clear about my belief? Please go through http://agniveer.com/1985/why-did-god-create-us/. It would help you know about our beliefs of Eeshvar/God and the creation.
@Anir
I agree that claims of blind followers of any book regarding science and knowledge contained in it are as dangerous as the claims of blind followers of science about science itself!
You did not understand my question Brother. I asked, when you have not read Vedas and claimed that it does not have scientific knowledge, are not you on the same level of ignorance as of those people who claim without reading Vedas that they contain all science?
And please correct yourself, if you want to know about Evolution proposed by Darwin (actually no term in science is permanent as their meanings/interpretations keep on changing every time), you have to read Origin of Species definitely. Without doing that, you will be dependent on interpretations of others about Darwin’s work which may many times be biased and not present in front of you the clear picture about Evolution of Darwin. Do you know that “Evolution” itself has changed its form since its inception and still changing? Evolution as understood today is not ultimate law, it is changing and will continue to be so till humans exist!
Always remember, science etc have their own assumptions and starting points from which they try to understand the things around. You can always land on better understanding if you rectify your assumptions. So science can never claim itself to be ultimate, it can be improved and even can get destroyed when goes into the clutches of blind followers, just like religion today has gone into the hands of fools and irrationals.
And please correct yourself, if you want to know about Evolution proposed by Darwin (actually no term in science is permanent as their meanings/interpretations keep on changing every time), you have to read Origin of Species definitely.
I *stand* by my assertion. If Darwin’s words are misinterpreted, they can easily be corrected by experiments like this. That’s the way science works.
You accuse me of commenting on something which I do not understand. I stated my specific points of contention. They are related to science and evidence. If you claim something that falls under the domain of science, I am fully equipped to deal with it as I understand science. Now if I make a claim that lies in the spiritual domain, then you can accuse me of not understanding on what I’m commenting.
Now you have made a specific claim about one requiring to read The Origin of Species to understand evolution, which is a provably false statement. I now accuse you of not understanding what science is and yet commenting on it.
Anir,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Mr. MLECCHA……………………………… I know you are some kind of Muslim boy who trying to discuss Atheism by using a Hindu Name…………. GO to Hell…………..If you Dont belive in Vedas den dont corrupt Hinduism………. make your own religion by ur stuuuuuuupid mind but by law…………THOSE WHO HATE HINDUISM CANT LEAVE HINDUISM……….!
By the way……………..WHY DONT YOU DEBATE WITH DR. ZAKIR NAIK WHO IS PROVING THEISM ? ONLY WITH AGNIVEER
AND ANOTHER THING IS WHILE GIVING COMMENT ONLY BY USING HINDU SCRIPTURES …..THAT MEANS YOU NOT HINDU………………….. ONLY FOR DEBATING YOU TRYING TO PROVE ATHEISM BUT STILL YOU GIVE FIVE TIME NAMAZ AT HOME……………..
GET OUT FROM HINDUISM IF YOU TRULY HINDU…………………..DONT BE A NOMINAL HINDU……..IF YOU BELIEVE IN VEDAS THEN STAY OR ELSE GET OUT…………………………
AND DONT SAY ,”iTS MY WISH!” BECAUSE YOU ARE CORRUPTING ENITIRE HINDU SOCIETY …………….GET IT MR. ANIR BONEHEAD”
tHE PREVIOUS COMMENT IS A LITTLE MISTAKE
Anir,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Mr. MLECCHA……………………………… I know you are some kind of Muslim boy who trying to discuss Atheism by using a Hindu Name…………. GO to Hell…………..If you Dont belive in Vedas den dont corrupt Hinduism………. make your own religion by ur stuuuuuuupid mind but by law…………THOSE WHO HATE HINDUISM CAN LEAVE HINDUISM……….!
By the way……………..WHY DONT YOU DEBATE WITH DR. ZAKIR NAIK WHO IS PROVING THEISM ? BUT ONLY WITH AGNIVEER
AND ANOTHER THING IS THAT WHILE GIVING COMMENT YOU ONLY USING HINDU SCRIPTURES …..THAT MEANS YOU NOT HINDU…………BECAUSE A TRUE ATHEIST WILL DEBATE WITH ALL SCRIPTURES……….. ONLY FOR DEBATING YOU TRYING TO PROVE ATHEISM BY SHOWING YOURSELF A NOMINAL HINDU BUT STILL YOU GIVE FIVE TIME NAMAZ AT HOME…………BECAUSE YOU ARE USING WRONG NAME…..
GET OUT FROM HINDUISM IF YOU ARE NOT TRUE HINDU…………………..DONT BE A NOMINAL HINDU……..IF YOU BELIEVE IN VEDAS THEN STAY OR ELSE GET OUT…………………………
AND DONT SAY ,”iTS MY WISH!” BECAUSE YOU ARE CORRUPTING ENITIRE HINDU SOCIETY …………….GET IT MR. ANIR BONEHEAD”
FAKE COMMENTOR
Reply
@Ash/ Anir: Are you Jain? Only Jain philosophy is most scientific and has concepts that modern science agrees to.
No I’m not Jain. And if you read my previous comments you will see what is required for something to be said to agree with science.
“science reveals how beautifully life is interconnected on Earth”
Do you really believe that or it jsut on paper and formulae, have you experienced the connecetion, when you say everthing does it include you, if yes, what you you mean by your identity and if no are you not included in everthing?
Is it so hard for you to accept that I see beauty in life when looked through the lens of science? Please read this. It will answer your question in detail.
@Anir : Now that its clear you are an atheist and your intellect has no spiritual bent lets see…
“Is it so hard for you to accept that I see beauty in life when looked through the lens of science”
now if i say that
“Is it so hard for you to accept that I experience beauty in life when looked through the lens of Vedic knowledge”
how would you respond.
Now that its clear you are an atheist and your intellect has no spiritual bent lets see…
I wonder if you had even read what I had linked to.
“Is it so hard for you to accept that I experience beauty in life when looked through the lens of Vedic knowledge”
How would I respond? Of course I agree with that. It’s your own subjective experience. Who am I to question that? People find beauty in all manner of things. Science cannot make any judgements on that. As long as you agree that your spiritual experiences are your own and that in no way endows infallibility on some source of knowledge, I have no problem with that. But you have been making claims on things that fall outside of your subjective experiences and it is to that I object. I have said earlier that you seem to have difficulty in understanding this distinction.
@Anir : you are right.. i have a difficulty to understand what you are trying to portray.
if there are a thousand people who have similar experience by imbibing the same knowledge source, then it does imply that already a proven science, i think its you who cannot differentiate between spirituality and science coz you know nothing of spirituality ( dhyan&sadhna) and have a biased opinion,otherwise you would not have made the statements that you have made.
Its an assumption that the modern scientists(how long is the history of modern science BTW) make that the people before them were foolish/uneducated/ignorant (i.e the people who did not apply the same modeling methods as they are familiar with )
if there are a thousand people who have similar experience by imbibing the same knowledge source, then it does imply that already a proven science,
Do you even evaluate what your line of reasoning implies? If the criteria for saying that something is science is the number of people who have experienced it, then the Bible and Quran are more sciency than the Vedas. After all, more people have experienced what the Bible and Quran say than those who have experienced the knowledge of the Vedas.
And please stop using science to mean whatever you think it is. It has a precise definition. Repeatedly calling something science doesn’t make it science.
i think its you who cannot differentiate between spirituality and science coz you know nothing of spirituality ( dhyan&sadhna) and have a biased opinion,otherwise you would not have made the statements that you have made.
How do I not know the difference between science and spirituality? What statements of mine have given you that impression?
Its an assumption that the modern scientists(how long is the history of modern science BTW) make that the people before them were foolish/uneducated/ignorant (i.e the people who did not apply the same modeling methods as they are familiar with )
Strawman. I don’t care about personal opinions of scientists. And I have not made any argument that implies what you said.
@Anir : i think you are a person who does not understand logic and cannot infer things. when you compare veda with moder science and in that context ask a question that veda does not tell me how the sun shines, you seriously have something going wrong in your head.
i think you dont not understand what experience means in the context it used by me ; for you just it means what you have captured in your head on the way to this place , that may be used for a judgment to be made in future; and what i mean is what one experiences at a subtle level within.( obviously you did not understand and hence the analogy of numbers) which makes me laugh.
you are just some idiosyncratic individual who is in denial.(coz of ignorance)
if its said by doing a particular Kriya( i hope you know what i mean) a chakra will be activated and it happens in the exact same was as has been documented; would that not fall under the definition of science?
when you compare truya, chakra and samadhi with harry potter it exactly shows you have no” practical “idea of spirituality.
Bro you have made your point that you dont believe in God thats alright. Did you even read the article above on which you are commenting?I would suggest you use science to prove that being a theist is not logical, rather than using an anti science approach.
OM Tat Sat
i think you are a person who does not understand logic and cannot infer things. when you compare veda with moder science and in that context ask a question that veda does not tell me how the sun shines, you seriously have something going wrong in your head.
i think you dont not understand what experience means in the context it used by me ; for you just it means what you have captured in your head on the way to this place , that may be used for a judgment to be made in future; and what i mean is what one experiences at a subtle level within.( obviously you did not understand and hence the analogy of numbers) which makes me laugh.
You were the one who made the claim that Vedas are scientific. I said that they are not based on the definition of science. But yet you seem to cling on to your definition of science according to which if “if there are a thousand people who have similar experience by imbibing the same knowledge source, then it does imply that already a proven science” (your words, not mine). I showed where that argument leads to. I also tried to tell you about subjective experience and how that does not lead to science. Instead of addressing those points, you took the easy way out, which is to make snide remarks my what goes on in my vision or in my head or about how much I don’t know.
when you compare truya, chakra and samadhi with harry potter it exactly shows you have no” practical “idea of spirituality.
I made the Harry Potter comparison to show that truya, chakra and samadhi or whatever are not scientific ideas as no evidence exists for them. In the absence of the requirement of evidence, any idea can attain scientific validity. Perhaps I should also explain the nature of evidence that science demands. Read and understand this. (Do you find anything about the validity of personal experience in that?)
if its said by doing a particular Kriya( i hope you know what i mean) a chakra will be activated and it happens in the exact same was as has been documented; would that not fall under the definition of science?
Of course it will. When you have evidence generated by the scientific method.
I would suggest you use science to prove that being a theist is not logical, rather than using an anti science approach.
Science can only evaluate fact propositions. It does not say anything about a theist being logical or not. Again, stop making up arguments that I have never made.
If you can’t make arguments without resorting to ad hominems and setting up strawmen, please don’t bother to reply.
@Anir : “Of course it will. When you have evidence generated by the scientific method.”
i think you did not get the intention of why i put the question to which you gave this answer.I meant its a fact, if science is not aware of that fact, it does not cease to exist.
I told you over and again the spiritual science cannot be carried out in a lab environment, its environment is the inner space, which is nothing physical (with which the science that you talk about deals)
If you cannnot understand this then i would suggest you are right there is no need to reply.
Fine, make up your own facts. But don’t misuse the word “science”. That is all I’m saying.
Actually you are right, its would not be science,i mistakenly expanded the horizon of the term “Science” to include AtmaGnyan and was unknowingly degrading the latter by referring it with the term that applies only in the material aspect of the universe.
And yes Vedas are infallible wrt AtmaGnyan and Science (to the extent and detail its present in it)
There is NO blind Belief involved.
Om Tat Sat
@ anir,
1. Vedic knowledge is not as complete as the knowledge given by science.
2. Vedic knowledge is not scientific going by the definition of science.
3. Belief in the Vedas as an infallible source of knowledge is dogmatic because it is not evidence based, but rather it is faith based.
how do you know?
how do you know?
1. Vedas can’t even explain something like why the Sun shines. They can’t tell how important bacteria are in the cycle of life. I could give a litany of such things, but I think you get the point.
2. Did you even read my previous comments? Never mind, I’ll save you the trouble – Science is all about making testable hypotheses and making them into theories if they can model nature successfully.
3. आर्यव्रतस्थ implied that Vedas are infallible source of knowledge without backing it with any evidence for it. That makes it a faith based argument.
seriously mate, all your questions are answered on this website if you actually look for it rather than make angry comments.
Then enlighten me. Take my arguments and give the links on this website that answer them.
PS: THIS IS ANGRY. This is not. Don’t make assumptions about my state of mind.
Please go through my second last reply (December 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM) again. I asked you, why do you believe that there is no maker of universe when we see nothing in this world as without maker?
Firstly, I never said that I do not believe that there is event that caused the Universe. I specifically stated the classes of god that I do not believe in, but looks like you have taken that to mean I rejected the causation of the Universe.
I also said that I can get the you “maker” of all things by going back to the Big Bang. Beyond that, since nobody has any evidence of what happened before, I picked the The Invisible Pink Unicorn as the causation event of the Universe.
Hope that answers your question.
Anir
Brother, I just want to know, do you believe in any entity which is controlling and managing this causal chain? Do you see any purpose behind this universe (of course, if you dont believe in a conscious entity as maker/manager of causal chain, you wont agree with the purpose).
No, I do not believe that some entity is controlling the causal chain. There is no evidence for that.
As to the purpose of the Universe, I do not know. Knowing about the causative agent of the Universe may answer that question for me.
@Anir
This is what I was saying. Causal chain is seen in every process. Your process of writing comment itself has causal chain. Some force is being exerted on the keys of keyboard of your computer and comment is the result. I agree. But who is the one exerting force on keys? Question is that, can any change happen without any agent? You cant provide a single evidence from this world in its support.
What causes a force to be exerted on the keyboard? Me. What caused me? Evolution. What caused evolution? The Big Bang. There is evidence till this point. What caused the Big Bang? Here is where we differ. You think the evidence points to Ishwar. I think it points to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
@Anir
Brother, after this you will not have anything to say! I am stopping myself here from giving arguments in support of theism for now. Now I am going by your theory.
I am also the result of Big Bang and whatever I am writing is again completely “natural” and thus you should be OK with it! Now I ask you some questions
1. Why did you come here to debate and question Vedas when you know that Vedas are yet another “natural” effect of “natural” Big Bang just like your arguments written here?
2. Why do you question those who dont believe in today’s science when unbelievers of science are again evolved that very way which is again “natural”?
3. How do you know that believing in science is good and bad otherwise?
4. Is there any good or bad anyway in as per your theory? Isn’t it that science and superstition both being the result of “natural” Big Bang should be given equal weight?
5. If someone does bad with you or your family (I hope it never happens), will you oppose it? If yes, why to oppose a thing which is the effect of “natural” Big Bang? If you say that your retaliation would be again “natural” then tell me, why do two “natural” things oppose?
6. Dont you think that when everything is already decided because “natural” Big Bang has occurred already and now everything including your consciousness is governed by that process, everything happening in this world is fixed?
First understand what a naturalistic fallacy actually means and then you will understand what is good or bad and how it is related to the word natural that are ever so fond of putting in quotes.
this argument is circular. again repeating same old same old. so who was the catalyst behind the big bang?? you say it was pink unicorn, the mature intellectuals say an entity that is called god , muslims call it allah, so whatt if you wanna call him a unicorn, the fact remains that there MUST be causative agent. call it what you want.
When did I deny a causative agent? And as you said, I will call it what I want.
you did deny existence of a causative agent, oh unless you arent atheist .
@Einstein : i went through the chain of discussions
for sure Knowledge is power..
Bro.. may the search for truth continue.
Om Tat Sat
Stop putting words into my mouth. Go back and read my comments. I never denied that the Universe had a causative agent. What I did deny was a supernatural causative agent.
@Anir : “Supernatural causative agent ” you don’t deny it but you wont have any admiration for that agent . no doubt “Scientific” Atheists are foolishly illogical.
I think i know what your respond will be, lets see whether i know your thought process before hand 🙂
What? Please go back and read my previous response again.
Sorry bro.. my bad..
Despite the author’s rant against Christians and Muslims, his own ideologies come across as just as dogmatic. To start with;
Life began at the most primordial level when unicellular organisms starting replicating themselves millions of years ago. Nervous systems advanced to deal with the advancement in the size and complexity of living things; ultimately to the point that we gradually gained the ability to be aware of ourselves. Consciousness does not imply the need for a creator.
The second argument on the basis of a required first cause is paradoxical in itself. What caused god? What created this god? If god is eternal why can’t we assume that existence is eternal? The only correct answer at this point in time is *we don’t know*. Throwing our hands up and saying ‘goddidit!!!’ in reply to every question in cosmology doesn’t answer any questions; it only further complicates issues.
And as for the bit on ‘morality’; I thought only Christians ever played that flawed card. Frankly is the idea of ‘divine punishment’ the only thing that’s keeping you from picking up a gun and shooting down your own parents? Or burning down the local hospital?
Morality evolved as a safeguard for the continuation of our species. Life forms that aren’t empathetic and don’t follow a general rule of ‘life is precious and I mustn’t do unto others what I’d hate to happen to myself’ jeopardize their own existence.
On a final note, I find it appalling that you’d rant against Abrahamic religions yet defend Hinduism. A religion responsible for the caste system (institutionalized racism, if you will), condoned the burning alive of innocent widows as recently as a couple of centuries ago, and reveres people like Shiva, a megalomaniac that didn’t think twice before murdering a tiny tot because he *didn’t let him pass* as deities.
You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Namaste Kartik
———–Despite the author’s rant against Christians and Muslims, his own ideologies come across as just as dogmatic.———-
Christianity and Islam are criticized here based on their beliefs in a moody God and fixed destiny of souls. It has nothing to do with science.
———–Life began at the most primordial level when unicellular organisms starting replicating themselves millions of years ago. Nervous systems advanced to deal with the advancement in the size and complexity of living things; ultimately to the point that we gradually gained the ability to be aware of ourselves.———-
Did you see anything in the article which supports/opposes whatever you wrote? Was it an issue raised in the article at all? Did Agniveer claim that life did not begin at the most primordial level….? If no, why such aggression?
————-Consciousness does not imply the need for a creator.———–
Article does not claim it either!
————–The second argument on the basis of a required first cause is paradoxical in itself. What caused god? What created this god? If god is eternal why can’t we assume that existence is eternal? The only correct answer at this point in time is *we don’t know*. ————-
Article does not claim God to be the first cause, does it? No one created God. Please visit http://agniveer.com/1985/why-did-god-create-us/. You will have your answers. And BTW, we agree that existence is eternal, but what is the point?
—————–Throwing our hands up and saying ‘goddidit!!!’ in reply to every question in cosmology doesn’t answer any questions; it only further complicates issues.——————
This article is not specific to cosmology, please understand that. You should also remember that behind any action/change there are two causes. One which gets changed and second which makes it change. If you want to introduce acceleration/retardation in a body, you have to put an external force. This law applies everywhere. If you need to make computer, you will need material for it. Material or you alone cant make computer but both have to be there. So any change requires two causes. Thus this changing world made up of physical entities needs someone who can introduce changes in it.
So throwing up our hands up and saying “we dont need god” or “god does not exist” in philosophy, spirituality and even science does not answer any question!
————–And as for the bit on ‘morality’; I thought only Christians ever played that flawed card. Frankly is the idea of ‘divine punishment’ the only thing that’s keeping you from picking up a gun and shooting down your own parents? Or burning down the local hospital?
Morality evolved as a safeguard for the continuation of our species. Life forms that aren’t empathetic and don’t follow a general rule of ‘life is precious and I mustn’t do unto others what I’d hate to happen to myself’ jeopardize their own existence.—————
1. You can talk to Christians on divine punishment but here it is useless as we dont believe in their version of reward or punishment.
2. How will you define morality in the absence of an ultimate moral entity?
3. How do you know that morality is evolving or devolving unless you know a benchmark of morality?
4. When acts falling under morality or immorality both are the results of chemical reactions happening inside the body, why there should be punishment for immoral people and reward for moral?
5. How can you even use the terms moral, immoral, right, wrong, scientific, superstitious when all these things are the results of big bang (as per naturalists)? Why is science more reliable for you than superstition? Why truth is more dearer to you than falsehood when both are the results of same big bang?
6. How can one hate someone who has raped his dear one? After all desire of doing sex is quite natural as per naturalists and a mere result of the chemical reactions happening in one’s body!
—————-On a final note, I find it appalling that you’d rant against Abrahamic religions yet defend Hinduism. A religion responsible for the caste system (institutionalized racism, if you will), condoned the burning alive of innocent widows as recently as a couple of centuries ago, and reveres people like Shiva, a megalomaniac that didn’t think twice before murdering a tiny tot because he *didn’t let him pass* as deities.————-
Before bashing Hinduism here, you would have landed on http://agniveer.com/1634/vedic-religion/ so that you would know that this is a Vedic site and not stupid caste defender or superstitious one. Our belief is Vedas, so talk about them. Anyway before comparing Hinduism with Islam and Christianity, you should have studied some facts about the conquers, loots, rapes, genocides by Islamic Ghazis to non Muslim nations specially India. Hinduism got polluted for sure and it requires reforms, but a truth lover should condemn killing, loot, rape, slavery etc of Islam 100 times more than discrimination in Hindus. He should be bothered much about the hatred of Muslims towards Kafirs, according to which all non Muslims will burn in hellfire for eternity, than any stupid Hindu who is not touching a person because of his so called caste. Burning alive of widows prevailed when Muslim Ghazis used to abduct women of defeated Hindus and send them to Arab as sex slaves. Later it became custom in few places and now it is totally gone. Story of Shiva is baseless and need not to be believed.
Here I would suggest that dont conclude about the things which you dont know much about. Please refrain from writing on history if you dont know it.
————You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.————
which claim?
Will share two links which will help you understand the basics of philosophy of Vedas which, you are, right now, totally unaware of.
best regards
Kartik
Helpful links, first on Vedic philosophy and second on caste system in Hinduism
http://agniveer.com/series/vedic-lessons/
http://agniveer.com/888/caste-vedas/
@Kartik
My friend you are judging everything through the lens of SCIENCE. Please appreciate this fact that SCIENCE HAS LIMITATIONS, there are phenomenons not yet explained by science BUT that does not make them incorrect. The problem with people “infatuated” by Modern Science is that they simply trash everything NOT explained by science and YET they claim to be “Open-minded” Rationalists!
Let me Illustrate: When Albert EINSTEIN proposed “Theory of Relativity” ONLY a dozen Scientists agreed with his thesis and the Rest -simply- dumped the theory as the creation of “IRRATIONAL” mind!! BUT today we know how important this theory is to modern science, all our satellites and GPRS systems employ the principles of this theory.
Like-wise scientists/Rationalists claim that there is no phenomenon of RE-BIRTH. But then they are unable to explain cases wherein the Child had accurately described the events of his previous births TO THE SATISFACTION OF RATIONALISTS. (I have pasted a video link in the forum-“Why rebirth is necessary?”, SEE that) Not one case but hundreds of such cases and most have been tested as Authentic. Now as per science Consciousness ends with death, hence they are unable to explain what appears to them as “extra-ordinary”.
Regarding your doubt about the GOD as to why he created it or what caused him– I would say that why don’t try and find out the answer. These are the questions the answers to which have to found out by the man HIMSELF. Religion acts as a guide just as in PhD thesis you NEED a guide to assist you. This is the SOLE purpose of religion. But don’t Mistake yourself by thinking that simply because today god is not explainable to you, God does not exist! The problem with you is that you what take a PRACTICAL READINGS of God on SOME SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT to convince your senses!!
Regarding your BIASED Views on Hinduism– You are fooling yourself by believing in Mis-conceptions about Hinduism propagated by vested interests. You so casually labeled all Hindus as Castists/racist without bothering to see the ACTUAL facts such as: What was the original Vedic concept of caste and how “some” Male-fide Hindus gave a TWIST to the notion, completely changing the nature of the original.
Qua “Morality” Vedic Opinion is different from your so-called Rational Concept of MERE “PRESERVATION”. Vedic view is that what you sow so shall you reap through the cycles of birth. The word “Divine Punishment” is a Misnomer. It is actually the HARVEST of the Karma of our own previous birth. GOD HAS NO ROLE IN IT (Please refer to Gita where Krishna explicitly says that he does not Punish or reward any person, there is a Mechanism for that purpose).
So Think and act like a Scientist should.
@Kartik
Your questioning of god is good. Even in vedas there are quotes which question even the existance of god.
In a dialouge with yajnavalkya gargi argued what is beyond the brahman and was silenced just becauase people are not ready to accept the god beyond the ultimate god hiranyagarbha. By this questioning and argument we can consider vedas as science.
However you cant scientifically deny that any particular thing does not exist. Could you please supply proof of non existance of god. Dont hide on the fact that religion cant proove existance of god. It is for the science to proove that there is no GOD. On the religious front the threee basic axioms are GOD, ME and WORLD. It is not for the religions to proove the existance of GOD as GOD is the first axiom.
It is for you as a scientist to proove that there is flaw in our axioms. Scientifically GOD is an imaginary number. Do you question the existance of imaginary number i ?
>>Life forms that aren’t empathetic and don’t follow a general rule of ‘life is precious and I mustn’t do unto others what I’d hate to happen to myself’ jeopardize their own existence.
Snakes eat even there own species and humans morality hasnt got any relevance for them. But they still exist. How can you argue that? Even in humans, Is an american life as equal as indian life?
You are correct in the conclusion that consciousness is just an evolution in human species.
But you havent progressed beyond that. Advaitans and buddhists have progresses beyond that. They came to the conclusion that GOD is of secondary importance,Of most important thing is what we call ourself as I. They came to conclusion that human thought as it is today is also of no importance to the existance of human species. They came to conclusion that all striving for reaching happiness is misery. They came to conclusion that material things cannot give immense happiness. And this is what vedas point to. Vedas point to that stat of human being called turiya in which thought functions only when required.
Some persons have found imaginary number as quiet useful and some persons have found it useless.But how can you deny the existance of an imaginary entity. Atheism is just doing that. Better follow agonism if you dont care about god.
@Kartik:
Atheism vs theism debate is *mostly* pointless. Yet let me try to address some of the points you raise (all of which seem to be straight out of The God Delusion I might add.)
At a philosophical level, science suffers from a certain type of unresolvable dogma too. This relates to the assumption that every scientific experiment will be reproduceable and one would obtain the same result every time. (See The Problem of Induction. I grant you that at a practical level this is not that much of a problem. Science has clearly helped humankind over the years but still there are possibly unresolvable philosophical issues related to its epistemology.
Personally, I hold that the question of who/what created the creator is not justified. Explanation has to stop somewhere whether it be theists or atheists. For Sanatana Dharmists, it is Nirgun Brahman. For scientists it is fundamental particles within the atom. Who created the creator is akin to asking what is more fundamental than the fundamental particle within the atom known to science.
Do you agree that the best proof of anything is self-experience? For instance, unless I PERSONALLY work with equations such as x*x + 1 = 0, I will never be convinced of the utility of complex numbers, right? Spiritual aspects of Sanatana Dharma (SD) are likewise self-experiential.
This website is staunchly against the practices that you cite (Caste system, Sati, etc.). Shiva/Vishnu/Krishna/Rama are probably allegorical (in my opinion). Yet, wouldnt you concede that despite having such megalomaniacs (your word) in the mix, Hindus rarely embark on grand evangelizing schemes around the world? There is no concept of apostasy/blasphemy/eternal hellfire/exclusive prophet, etc. within Hinduism. The burden of proof is on me ONLY if I ASK/FORCE you to believe in it. (I do not represent Agniveer’s team. I am personally agnostic, but yet find a spiritual home within SD PURELY because it lets me be AND is not dogmatic.)
So, despite your attempts to create an equivalence between Islam/Christianity and Hinduism, the gulf between them is simply too vast. There is no equivalence at all. Atheism has a very strong case against Islam/Christianity because of their aggressive proselytizing nature. The case of atheism against SD is weak, in my opinion. None of the practices you cite are a result of a sacred line in a holy book.
Namaste Kal Bhairav Ji
an absolute delight to read this articulate response from you !
Well, TY Indian Agnostic! But I gotta say…the atheists DO have excellent arguments on their side too. That makes debating with them quite a challenge. Yet it is a much more pleasurable experience than debating the Muslim lot.
couldn’t agree more!
Albeit, atheists also come in as many shades as the usual muslim lot.
the “lack of belief” definition of atheism is so broad that it can accommodate a a person who lacks the spirit of rational enquiry on one hand to the one who has walked the whole nine yards and hence discards belief on the other.
The latter , indeed, is a tough nut to crack .You end up sharing stiff like this http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/divide_chittaranjan.htm with them 🙂
Didnt close the a href tag…but you can get the message.
@Pratap
<>
Yes science has limitations. There are questions that science is yet to answer. But the difference is that whereas science recognizes its limits and constantly changes to adapt to new discoveries, religion claims to have objective answers to questions that are equally beyond its realm of knowledge. Also, a premise isn’t rendered correct only on the basis of the lack of any contradictory evidence. There is no end to the number of baseless conjecture that would be validated by this illogical process. Do I own an invisible unicorn? Prove I don’t! Is there a tiny asteroid shaped like Anne Hathaway orbiting Betelgeuse? Prove there isn’t! Did Zeus actually exist? Prove he didn’t!
<>
I didn’t. I only tried to point out that like almost all other religions, Hindu doctrines have at times been used to justify acts and ideologies that are intrinsically evil by any modern moral standards. There’s a difference in attacking an ideology (which is what I did) and attacking those that *subscribe* to that ideology.
<>
There isn’t any physical evidence of a process by which souls can travel to another body after death; plus the vast majority of claims about reincarnation seem to originate in societies where the idea of rebirth is deeply ingrained in the dominant religious ideology (read: right here in India) which does bring confirmation bias into the picture. There are anecdotal accounts of alien abductions and sightings of the Loch Ness monster, too.
<>
But don’t Mistake yourself by thinking that simply because today His Holy Noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not explainable to you, His Holy Noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist! The problem with you is that you what take a PRACTICAL READINGS of His Holy Noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster on SOME SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT to convince your senses!!
Go figure.
@Kartik:
…whereas science recognizes its limits and constantly changes to adapt to new discoveries, religion claims to have objective answers to questions that are equally beyond its realm of knowledge..
Same old same old. The Vedas are NOT scientific treatises. The Vedas dont state “The force of gravitation of earth is NOT 9.8 m/s/s. Instead It is ___ m/s/s”. It is not EITHER Science OR Hinduism. They can and do serve DIFFERENT purposes for an individual.
There are questions that science is yet to answer.
and the point of this statement is? I can mention one VERY important issue that I think science will NEVER be able to answer:
Can science prove that things (roads/chair/table in a room) exist when there is NO observer observing these things?
Also, please let me know what according to you the purpose of life is, and how being a theist will make one less equipped to achieve this purpose.
@Kartik
What sort of evidence of God you want to convince yourself? My simple assertion was that it is a flawed thinking that just because you cannot prove something, it does not exist! That is NOT at all the thinking of a “rational” mind.
How Science works: Step 1: First a hypothesis is proposed, Step 2: Then a probable explanations are suggested, Step 3: Thereafter the explanations are tested on the touchstone of Experiment and confirmed. You are not even ready to take it as a hypothesis that God exists–END OF THE EXPERIMENT!!!!
There are three things in Science: “Proved”, “Dis-Proved” and “NOT-Proved”. Learn to appreciate the SUBTLE difference b/w “Disproved” and “NOT proved”. There is a HUGE difference.
Please clear your DOUBTS about Re-incarnation. I request you to see the video that I pasted on the forum- “Why re-birth is necessary?” SEE for yourself how “RATIONAL” Christians and “Atheists” of Western world are understanding the “Science” behind Re-Births. This is a TRUE account of a young boy who -distinctively- remembered his previous Birth as a World War II Fighter Pilot. By the way the News is broadcast by your atheist/rational channel- The Fox news in it’s PRIME TIME! So it is NOT Baba Ramdev or the Saffron Brigade claiming it.
Please don’t call an ultra-right wing conservative propaganda machine like Fox News an ‘atheist/rational’ channel! They once had a debate regarding whether or not Obama’s reference to atheists in his inaugural speech (“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, of Jews and Hindus, and non-believers”) was ‘offensive to American values’. Apparently even *acknowledging the existence* of atheists amounts to a moral transgression for the prudes at Fox.
What kind of proof do you want that god *doesn’t* exist? Lack of contradictory evidence is a very shaky foundation to base a premise on. You can accord the benefit of doubt to an infinitesimal number of seemingly obtuse ideas on this very basis (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell’s teapot, and leprechauns, I may add). I do not make an objective claim that god does not exist; but I do believe that the probability of there being a divine power is extremely low. You could say I’m ‘agnostic’ about the existence of god to the same degree that I’m agnostic about the tooth fairy. I can’t disprove either of them, but I assume by default that they don’t exist.
As for what kind of evidence I want for the existence of god or the afterlife, just the slightest amount of valid, tangible, credible evidence would suffice, or even any logic would do. Heck, you could even say I *want* to believe in the afterlife, I’m not scared of my own death but the idea that those that I care for would simply cease to exist on any realm whatsoever after their death is terribly devastating for me. I’d probably be downright happy if the scientific community ever reaches a consensus in favor of reincarnation. But reality isn’t determined by what we want or what we like.
Much of religion and metaphysics is based on this very wishful thinking, that death isn’t the end, that we still have a chance to reunite with people that mattered to us, that people that suffered great agony will be ensured eternal bliss. Our ego-centric nature makes us see the universe as made for us, it makes us think of ourselves as beyond mere self-replicating bits of matter; we want to accord some kind of significance to our existence beyond the unglamorous, nondescript ones as dictated by evolutionary principles.
But in reality, we are just one amongst millions of species sharing space on a tiny lump of rock orbiting an average star in a down-market neighborhood of an average galaxy. Our galaxy is one amongst trillions, our universe may even be one amongst several. And as the Kepler telescope has recently shown by spotting 35 Earth-like planets (‘Earth-like’ in the sense ‘lying within the ‘Goldilocks zone’ of their respective stars’) in 1/400th of the night time sky within our very own galaxy, our planet isn’t even quite as unique as we thought.
To think that creatures so incomprehensibly insignificant in an unimaginably gigantic sphere of existence are all here by ‘divine purpose’, that our lives have meaning beyond those dictated by our Earthly existence isn’t just wishful thinking bordering on insanity, it’s also terribly arrogant.
The truth, in my opinion, is that our duty as living beings is to simply safeguard the one little blue-dot we call ‘home’, to make it a veritable utopia for our future generations to prosper in; alongside other species that contribute to its diversity. The tragedy is that many of us are simply seeking bliss on other dimensions while we create hell right here on Earth.
Your comments have so far been interesting to read, thanks! As for the bit on reincarnation, I guess I’ve gone from being a naysayer to a fence-sitter.
Namaste Brother Kartik and all Brothers
With no intention of interfering the discussion between Brother Kartik and Brother Pratap, I would like to share the logic with you all which made me believe in some creator
——-As for what kind of evidence I want for the existence of god or the afterlife, just the slightest amount of valid, tangible, credible evidence would suffice, or even any logic would do.———-
I try to put the logic in the form of discussion b/w Theist and Atheist
Henceforth I will use the word “creator” for someone who assembles matter/energy to form a purposeful entity (universe) and “creation” for something which is prone to changes, i.e. which is changing its form due to interaction of matter/energy within it. For example, water kept in the bucket is continuously interacting with the surroundings and thus changing its mass, temperature, internal energy etc every moment. In fact every moment a new creation comes into existence which has smooth relationship with the previous creation of the past moment.This holds good for all physical entities.
Theistic stand (T)- There is some creator of the universe
Atheistic stand (A)- There is no creator of the universe, i.e. it has been changing its form on its own
Atheist- No one created this universe.
Theist- There has to be creator for every creation.
A- If so, who created creator?
T- Creator is not a creation and thus does not require further creator.
A- How do you say that creator is not a creation?
T- Creation is something which is prone to changes, i.e. which is changing its form due to interaction of matter/energy within it. So if any unchangeable, non physical (which is not composed of matter/energy) entity exists, it wont be a creation. At this juncture lets consider both cases one by one,
Case 1. If such entity (unchangeable, non physical, omnipresent) exists then it is something which does not need creator. Hence such creator cant be asked for his creator if he exists at all.
Case 2. If such entity (unchangeable, non physical, omnipresent) does not exist then
T- Universe could have not existed in the form as it is now because universe (continuously changing) requires someone to bring in changes
A- No, no one is required to bring those changes in it
T- Can you give any example from the REAL OBSERVABLE WORLD where any change occurs without any active conscious entity?
A- Oh! Of course. Wind is blowing, sun is shining, earth, moon, sun, galaxies all are moving without anyone.
T- Your argument is fallacious because all these examples you gave already assume what you are supposed to prove, i.e. God does not exist! When you say, wind, sun, earth, galaxies (in other words universe) are working without anyone, ultimately your logic is- God does not exist because “Universe is without creator/sustainer ” or in other words, God does not exist because God does not exist! What if I say, God exists because wind can not flow, sun cant shine… etc without any creator and sustainer? So your logic was as foolish as this one!
A- What real observable world examples do you have in your argument’s support that someone is required for bringing in changes in any system?
T- Just divide the changes happening around in the universe into two possible categories
Category 1. changes which everyone (A and T both) agrees to be the results of action of conscious entities. It includes all the created things by humans or living beings- right from bread, cloths, houses, cars, planes, nests etc. In other words, all the things which are called as artificial and also which are made by any living creature.
Category 2. changes over which we have dispute, A claims that these are not performed by anyone but T claims that these too require someone. All trees, wind, soil, mountains, rivers, seas, earth, moon, stars, galaxies and thus universe fall under this category.
Now with only these two possible categories, with one undisputed and other disputed, question comes how to deal with 2? Logically, the fact established by 1, i.e. all changes require a conscious agent deserves more to be applied on 2 rather than the unproven fact of 2 (that no conscious agent is required for changes) on 2 itself! At least the argument of T about 2 (that since 1 requires agent, probability of 2 requiring the same is more than the probability of no requirement of the same) has its basis on the facts established in 1 but argument of A about 2 (that no agent is required because we dont see any in 2) has no basis whatsoever on any established fact!
This conversation proves that believing in any conscious agent is more logical than discarding him outrightly. So it is more rational to believe in a conscious omnipresent non physical entity which is creator, sustainer and which does not require any further creator than this universe without creator and sustainer. I dont/cant claim to prove any God here, but what I can say is that arguments in favor of theism are stronger than that of atheism.
I welcome the questions and discussions on these views. I will be very happy to rectify my beliefs if someone comes up with better logic.
Hope we all explore more and reach closer to the truth.
Thanks
For some reason all my quotations disappeared when I posted the comment! I hope you’ll be able to figure out which parts of your comment I was addressing!
@Vajra
“2. How will you define morality in the absence of an ultimate moral entity?”
The results of our human attributes of empathy and ethics; which in turn evolved from a primal human desire to ensure a positive environment for the continuation of the species.
“3. How do you know that morality is evolving or devolving unless you know a benchmark of morality?”
It’s an observable fact that morality is changing. As for whether it’s changing for the better or worse; that’s a subjective perception, not an objective truth. My idea of morality tells me that more civil rights for the LGBT communities is an improvement in morality, while many religious fundamentalists vehemently disagree.
“4. When acts falling under morality or immorality both are the results of chemical reactions happening inside the body, why there should be punishment for immoral people and reward for moral?”
‘What’s the point in eating pizza while watching Chinese ballet when it doesn’t snow in south eastern Bangladesh?’
What’s the connection between ‘chemical reactions’ and punishment for immoral behavior? Unlike most other sentient beings, our mental capacity has evolved to the point that we can weigh the consequences of our actions rather than be slaves to our instincts. We have the ability to empathize and thus we refrain from doing something to anyone else that we would rather not have them do back to us. Our moral code, for the most part extends only to our own species. It isn’t considered a big deal to kill bacterias to escape infections, to kill goats for food, or to exterminate birds en masse to contain the spread of a certain infection. Why? Because morality for each species is defined by an evolutionary desire to create a safe environment for the continuation of its OWN kind. Granted, human beings have developed the ability to empathize with other species to a limited extant; but even so killing, maiming or (contorts face) raping an animal is not considered anywhere near as grave an offense as doing the same to a fellow human being.
“5. How can you even use the terms moral, immoral, right, wrong, scientific, superstitious when all these things are the results of big bang (as per naturalists)? Why is science more reliable for you than superstition? Why truth is more dearer to you than falsehood when both are the results of same big bang?”
Again a horrendously baseless juxtaposition. ‘Why does Sushmita Sen use lipstick when tribes in Sub-Saharan Africa have dancing rituals every year to celebrate circumcision?’. See above.
“6 How can one hate someone who has raped his dear one? After all desire of doing sex is quite natural as per naturalists and a mere result of the chemical reactions happening in one’s body!”
Non-consensual sex causes grave emotional, physical and psychological harm to the victim; and thus it amounts to a gigantic transgression of our basic moral code of not harming fellow human beings.
Frankly this comment of yours made me wander for a moment whether you’re trying to troll me.
Namaste Kartik
“The results of our human attributes of empathy and ethics; which in turn evolved from a primal human desire to ensure a positive environment for the continuation of the species.”
Why do humans desire to ensure a positive environment instead of negative? Why do they want to be continued generation after generation? And why all humans are not seen ensuring this positive environment which is supposed to be the primal human desire? Why these differences among the people, some is killer another is protector, one is pervert other is saint, one is traitor other is patriot, why?
““3. How do you know that morality is evolving or devolving unless you know a benchmark of morality?”
It’s an observable fact that morality is changing. As for whether it’s changing for the better or worse; that’s a subjective perception, not an objective truth. My idea of morality tells me that more civil rights for the LGBT communities is an improvement in morality, while many religious fundamentalists vehemently disagree.”
So evolution in morality for you can be seen as devolution by many! How will you now decide logically which one is correct? If someone’s idea is to condemn LGBT community and yours is to defend them, how do I decide which one is to follow? How will the laws be made in this regard, on what bases?
““4. When acts falling under morality or immorality both are the results of chemical reactions happening inside the body, why there should be punishment for immoral people and reward for moral?”
‘What’s the point in eating pizza while watching Chinese ballet when it doesn’t snow in south eastern Bangladesh?’”
Non of the two of these three- Eating Pizza, watching Chinese ballet, and Bangladesh have CAUSE EFFECT relationship with each other, but the chemical reactions happening inside our body and the acts we perform are definitely related as CAUSE and EFFECT with each other, and then any reward or punishment we get is again related with CAUSE EFFECT relationship with our acts. Thus ultimately, chemical reactions are cause and reward or punishment are effects.
When one has no control over the reactions going on in his/her body, he/she cant be responsible for any of his/her act. But if you believe that one has control over its reactions, and its his/her own consciousness which becomes the cause for chemical reactions in his/her body depending upon his/her thinking and not that chemical reactions are cause of his/her consciousness, we are in agreement.
““5. How can you even use the terms moral, immoral, right, wrong, scientific, superstitious when all these things are the results of big bang (as per naturalists)? Why is science more reliable for you than superstition? Why truth is more dearer to you than falsehood when both are the results of same big bang?”
Again a horrendously baseless juxtaposition. ‘Why does Sushmita Sen use lipstick when tribes in Sub-Saharan Africa have dancing rituals every year to celebrate circumcision?’. See above.”
Sushmita’s lipstick does not have cause effect relationship with people celebrating circumcision 😉
I have discussed it already
“Non-consensual sex causes grave emotional, physical and psychological harm to the victim; and thus it amounts to a gigantic transgression of our basic moral code of not harming fellow human beings.”
What if a mother and her son do consensual sex? Which basic moral code of evolutionists is violated in this process?
“Frankly this comment of yours made me wander for a moment whether you’re trying to troll me.”
Please let me know if you still have the same opinion
best regards
Please educate yourself on contemporary morality and ethics instead of setting up strawman arguments against those who don’t subscribe to your kind of ethics, i.e. deontological ethics. Singer’s practical ethics, which espouses utilitarianism, is a good starting point.
Namaste Brother Anir
I question very terms like “morality” and “ethics” used by naturalists as they believe everything to be the effect of Big Bang including our freewill, emotions, actions etc. Thus apart from our already frozen destiny (since any act of ours has to be an outcome of the big bang which we have no control over), they fail to explain that why do they believe morality to be good and bad otherwise. Even they fail to explain that why “good” is good and “bad” is bad when everything happening around is the essential outcome of big bang with absolutely no freewill for anyone.
And coining the terms less known to most of the people is something which should be avoided in public discussions, what say? Beauty of the argument is in its simplicity and its ability to express what it has been given for, i.e. to communicate your thoughts to others in understandable words.
You did not respond to Arya’s comment on the same page. You just coined another term “naturalistic fallacy” in your reply instead of giving him arguments. You can try that out too
As I have said elsewhere on this site, moral philosophy isn’t easy to grasp. The kind of arguments you use seem pretty primitive to me much like how someone saying Vedas justify the caste system would seem primitive to you. You aren’t going to convince atheists like me with arguments like that. Whatever I have linked to or the terms I used are quite accessible. As to my reply to Arya, in another page I had asked him to go through Wikipedia’s article on naturalistic fallacy and let me know if he didn’t understand it. Instead he made more comments committing the same error. The article is short to read and I don’t think I was unreasonable in asking him that.
While Greene’s critique of deontological ethics is long to read, you could have looked it up in wikipedia. In the age of Internet, saying that less known terms shouldn’t be introduced sounds terribly weak. A few hours on the Internet should get you some basic understanding. If you want to debate on morality with atheists, terms like deontological, utilitarianism or consequentialism are basic terminology.
Namaste Anir
What I observed from your comments is that blind faith is not the copyright of Jihadis/missionaries alone. Jihadi visitors of this site say the same thing that we are wrong, away from truth, illogical etc. They also give the link of Quran and say it is the truth and rest is false. Its the same thing you are doing! If my logic is primitive, you can always give advanced counter logic to refute my logic. Calling any logic primitive without giving reason is more primitive in itself, I guess.
After so much of discussion you have still not understood the fallacies in your arguments. I repeat that you can not use the terms unnatural, unscientific, morality, fallacy, good, bad, logical, illogical, primitive, matured or any other term which is regarded as either favorable or unfavorable because even favor and disfavor have no relevance in dealing with mere chemical reactions and their consequences. Now first convince me logically that visiting those links you gave is of any worth by proving first that how a naturalist can use these very terms!
I did not put any prerequisite for you to debate unlike you who wants me to read n number of theories. Why cant you debate with your own logic based on those theories? Do you know what I believe, which God, what are His qualities? No. Now look at your hypocrisy! You want me to go into details of each of the term you coin here but yourself dont know even iota of what you are refuting! Have you gone through the articles on Eeshvar and Vedas on the site? If yes, start refuting those logically. If no, why trying to be the expert of everything and teaching me what is correct or what is incorrect without even knowing my stand?
If you still have just links of some theories to offer, let me know this time! I will provide you some terms from my side too which I recommend you in order to understand Vedic view CORRECTLY. Few of them are- “Karya Kaaran Sambandh, Vyaapya Vyaapak Sambandh, Srishta Srishti Sambandh, Swa Swami Bhaav Sambandh, Asteya, Aparigraha, Pranidhaan, Pratyaahaar, Dharanaa, Haan, Haanopaay, Samprajyaat, Ayaskaantmani, Asamprajyaat, Chitt, Nirodh, Klishtaaklisht, Sanskaar, Pramaan Vritti, Anumaan, Aagam, Viparyay Vritti, Vikalp Vritti, Smriti Vritti, Nidra Vritti, Graahya Grahanobhayaakaar, Raag, Dwesh, Moh, Nirodh, Abhyaas, Stithi, Vairaagya, Dwividhvishay, Bhav Pratyaya, Upaaya Pratyaya……..”
You can see those in Yog Darshan by Rishi Patanjali. The book is easily available on any Vedic book shop. A few days reading of the book should get you some basic understanding. If you want to debate on morality with Vedic theists, terms like Karya Kaaran Sambandh, Vyaapya Vyaapak Sambandh, Srishta Srishti Sambandh, Swa Swami Bhaav Sambandh, Asteya, Aparigraha, Pranidhaan, Pratyaahaar, Dharanaa, Haan, Haanopaay…. are basic terminology.
thanks
That’s quite a few strawmen arguments you put in there.
You made a number a false assumptions:
1. That I said your logic is primitive.
2. That I do not use my own logic.
3. That my original reply to you was about refuting this site stands for.
4. That I should care about what you believe.
5. That I should care about the Vedic view.
And here is why they are false:
1. I did not say your logic is primitive. I said your arguments are primitive. Big difference. You assumed I was insulting your logic. No, I was merely pointing out your ignorance on certain topics.
2. See 1.
3. My only intention in replying to you was to show that your arguments like those based on fatalism and contra-causal free will against naturalism are untenable and hence are primitive.
4. See 3.
5. See 3.
Anir
1. Please replace “logic” by “arguments” in my previous post and read that again!
2. Of course you dont! Please point out a single logic you gave in your entire discussion.
3. You are free to believe any X, Y, or Z to be my basis! It will be your responsibility to interpret my arguments within the boundaries of those. But never say that I argued against X, Y, Z because i never claimed to have my bases on X, Y, Z. And BTW, I listed few terms from Yog Darshan which your arguments are not based on. So what to do now?
4,5. You should always care about what other believes, because without it, you wont be even able to recognize which person you should refute and why 😉
If you are lazy enough to even google the terms you don’t understand, that’s not my problem. I’m under no obligation to regurgitate arguments which are readily available on the Internet. If you want to do the same, I’m not going to complain.
Anir
After all it was “natural” big bang which made me so lazy, who is to blame? 🙁
In case you are blessed with activeness by the Big Bang 🙂 search for Yog Darshan and Nyay Darshan which contain philosophy of Yog and arguments against naturalism respectively.
As an example of primitiveness of your arguments, you show fatalism (“since any act of ours has to be an outcome of the big bang which we have no control over”) as a counter argument to naturalism. Are you familiar with these arguments against fatalism?
Well, you have got to understand one thing and that it takes a lot in terms of time, energy to juggle with diverse subjects like history, comparative religion, religious scriptures, commentaries of different religious experts, etc. We have been doing our bit to fend off the onslaught of religious missions/missionaries with the megalomaniac intent of proselytizing the hindu populace by pointing out the vagaries of their faith. We have to spend a helluva time in trying to get things in the right perspective. Well, to begin with, I think this portal was not intended to take on the atheists to begin with, but possibly with the sole intent of defending the faith against the machinations of Islamic and Christian evangelists (I am daring to speak on Agniveer’s behalf and hoping not to dilute his/her/their intent). Some (participants) of our comments (with regards to atheism versus theism debate with the exception of KalBhairav, of course) may come at great lengths and sometimes may appear a bit puerile in nature, but, hey, we are still trying to parry with the atheists (a first in our endeavors, at least, for most of us, I believe).
I understand that this site’s priorities are concerned with debating the likes of Zakir Naik, but if people here are trying to put down atheism and defend a dharmic worldview, it is only in their interest that they understand the philosophy of science, scientific naturalism and cultural naturalism. Gone are the days where atheism stemmed from the likes of Marx’s dialectical materialism or Rand’s objectivism.
When you see gnu atheists like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens argue against Christianity and Islam, you need to understand that the philosophy from which they do so are antithetical to not just Christianity and Islam, but to Sanatan Dharma as well. They might not explicitly say so as their priorities are combating the rabid ideologies of abrahamic faiths. But that should not be mistaken to mean that their arguments for atheism hold no water when compared to SD. Agniveer did just that in this article – a false premise that atheism is tenable only when viewed against abhrahamic faiths. That is a strawman argument. Modern day atheism draws a lot from naturalism. Instead of addressing that, people here present only weak arguments like fatalism, the sick and twisted meaning of secularism and feeble attempts at defending contra-causal free will. As I said in reply to Indian Agnostics free will can be refuted even without resorting to naturalism. For it to exist, one has to be a self made self, the cause of one’s own self.
Even arguing from the point of view of consciousness, the arguments in the present article are woefully dated. The real arguments that need addressing are those put forth by cognitive philosophers like Dan Dennett or by neurophilosophy. One of the virtues of modern day rationalism is scholarship.
Another thing people here should note is, by citing arguments based on Christian creationism (like those of Plantinga) to refute naturalistic evolution, you are begging to be not taken seriously. Creationism is a fake explanation. To fully counter naturalistic evolution, you’d have to present an alternative theory that at the minimum has the same explanatory power of theory of evolution down to the level of genes.
Namaste Anir
if people here are trying to put down atheism and defend a dharmic worldview,it is only in their interest that they understand the philosophy of science, scientific naturalism and cultural naturalism.
science has no answers on consciousness and reality yet. To create ‘naturalism’ castles on this shaky ground is itself unscientific.
As I said in reply to Indian Agnostics free will can be refuted even without resorting to naturalism. For it to exist, one has to be a self made self, the cause of one’s own self.
You presumed my response to be against your argument on contra-causal free-will.it was not.
what i presented was platingas EVOLUTIONARY (not creationist) argument against naturalism
till you keep naturalism out , i am with you (ontologically) on contra-causal free will
Even arguing from the point of view of consciousness, the arguments in the present article are woefully dated
we are still in the neanderthal period of empirically understanding consciousness.
the mirror neuron theories are biting the dust (thanks to science by the way) and so is any social philosophy built upon this now debunked hypothesis.
and its at this juncture that i invite you explore SD ..specially the vivarna school of advaita vedanta
Another thing people here should note is, by citing arguments based on Christian creationism (like those of Plantinga) to refute naturalistic evolution, you are begging to be not taken seriously
adhominem!
please focus on the subject argument.There are many things i dont like about plantinga – but that is besides the point
Dhanyawad
science has no answers on consciousness and reality yet. To create ‘naturalism’ castles on this shaky ground is itself unscientific.
See, this is what I meant. Science is the epistemology of naturalism. In view of that, your statement is a non-sequitur.
You presumed my response to be against your argument on contra-causal free-will.it was not.
what i presented was platingas EVOLUTIONARY (not creationist) argument against naturalism
Fair enough. Here you go.
we are still in the neanderthal period of empirically understanding consciousness.
the mirror neuron theories are biting the dust (thanks to science by the way) and so is any social philosophy built upon this now debunked hypothesis.
Citing a specific case doesn’t do the least bit to undermine my statement. But my statement was an observation without specifics. So I’ll let this be.
and its at this juncture that i invite you explore SD ..specially the vivarna school of advaita vedanta
Thanks. I will.
adhominem!
please focus on the subject argument.There are many things i dont like about plantinga – but that is besides the point
The fallacy you are looking for is “strawman argument”. And that is not a strawman because I wasn’t responding to you, but was making a general observation. People here have presented me with arguments straight out of Christian creationism while trying to refute the theory of evolution.
This statement got mangled in italics:
See, this is what I meant. Science is the epistemology of naturalism. In view of that, your statement is a non-sequitur.
Please read it as a response to
science has no answers on consciousness and reality yet. To create ‘naturalism’ castles on this shaky ground is itself unscientific.
Anir why dont you put your philosophy and logic to practical use of gaining something like stock markets. Is there any logic in denying a unicorn.
As far as philosophies go what use is an extensive theory which denies unicorn? It gives no material benefits and is of no use either spiritually as it denies the same.
On the arguments with atheists there is already a caution given for believers of god. http://scriptures.ru/tripura1.htm#CHAPTER VI
Namste Anir
See, this is what I meant. Science is the epistemology of naturalism.
And that exactly is its undoing.The case against naturalized epistemology is well established .The radicals have been shown the door (replacement naturalism ) and moderates are concocting one thing or another to keep the dead horse alive
SD (indian) epistemology deserves a critical seeker like you and hence the suggestion
Dhanyawad
Anir
As an example of primitiveness of your arguments, you show “Naastikta” as a counter argument to theism 🙂 Are you familiar with arguments of Nyay Darshan against Naastikta?
You can get Nyay Darshan on any Vedic book shop.
And in saying that humans have an agency that goes beyond natural causes, you are subscribing to contra-causal free will, something which even most atheists subscribe to and hence is called as atheism’s little god. More on why contra-causal free will is untenable.
Namaste Anir
a naturalism link must always be read with the plantiga caveat
An evolutionary argument against naturalism P( R/N&E)
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/an_evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism.pdf
Dhanyawad
Contra-causal free will can be proved to be untenable even without arguing from naturalism. (The article from Routledge encyclopedia has that argument).
And seriously, Plantinga? Can I take it that you endorse Christian epistemology? Because without the validity of that, Plantinga’s arguments fall apart.
@KalBairav
That’s an extremely well-written post and forced me to re-evaluate my own stances. I’m still an atheist but I do think I ought to research a bit further into the doctrines of SD; purely for the philosophical and spiritual tenets even if my standing on theology remains unchanged. Whatever I know of my parent’s religion is through mythological tales I heard from the elder members of my family.
Perhaps you could give me an idea as to where should I start?
Thanks for your comment.
@Kartik:
SD is actually quite difficult to pin down exactly and that may explain why atheism does NOT have a very strong case against it. There is no single book/single prophet/one holy place within it. There are as many paths as there are seekers. Take that Islam/Christianity.
In any case, I would suggest Adi Shankara’s commentary on the Vedas called the Brahmasutras. (I subscribe to his philosophy. There are OTHER commentaries on the Vedas coming from different, and sometimes seemingly contradictory, perspectives.) Another good read is Patanjali’s Yogasutras. This piece of work lays the philosophical groundwork for Yoga/Pranayama. English translations of both of these should be available for free online.
Again, let me state that (in my opinion as a hybrid agnostic-theist) atheism IS quite natural. But I am not willing to simply equate the philosophy of Brahman to the Loch Ness Monster or Pink Unicorn. This is because, I *do* experience benefits from Yoga/Pranayama that I am unable to experience from elsewhere. Sorry if this does not seem convincing to you. It is what it is. In any case, I am not here to convince you or convert you.
Thanks.
If a wise man says that if you travel through this tunnel at the end of tunnel you will find a honey pot,some people who have not tasted honey at all will believe his words and enjoy the honey,some people will not take the words seriously,some people argue that there is no honey at all (Atheists).
How can some one argue that there is no honey when they dont know anything about honey.It is sheer stupidity.
Any way author though your points are good you are laying more emphasis on ethics and morality and I, which is only the satva guna aspect of Iswar where as ishwar is both saguna and gunateeta the indescrible subtratum.
@Vajra,
After all it was “natural” big bang which made me so lazy, who is to blame? 🙁
In case you are blessed with activeness by the Big Bang 🙂 search for Yog Darshan and Nyay Darshan which contain philosophy of Yog and arguments against naturalism respectively.
Thanks for proving my point. You are using a primitive argument based on fatalism.
@adolf
Anir why dont you put your philosophy and logic to practical use of gaining something like stock markets. Is there any logic in denying a unicorn.
As far as philosophies go what use is an extensive theory which denies unicorn? It gives no material benefits and is of no use either spiritually as it denies the same.
On the arguments with atheists there is already a caution given for believers of god. http://scriptures.ru/tripura1.htm#CHAPTER VI
How I use my philosophy should be none of your business. Refute my arguments if you can. But if you are so interested in what my philosophy entails, this is a good sample. And you are making a false assumption that atheists must somehow be empty “inside”. However hard it may be for you to believe it, my personal experience with my philosophy is pretty fulfilling and rewarding and I have reaped a lot of benefits from it. But you assume something contrary about me. That is due to your arrogance stemming from your absolutist position that everybody has to have your kind of personal experience (that is what god boils down to, personal experience). If they don’t have such an experience or find it inferior, then their philosophy can’t be useful for them in their lives.
The link you gave uses words like “facts” and “truth”. For you, personal experience is the basis for facts and truths. For me it is not. This again goes back to my point about people here setting up strawman arguments about atheism without bothering to understand the underlying epistemology. I try not to make any value judgements as to how people lead their lives or how moral they are, but time and again, people here can’t wait to make such judgements based on their ignorance of moral philosophy or when presented with an argument they are not familiar with.
@Anir:
But if you are so interested in what my philosophy entails, this is a good sample
Appreciate the link.
The author (and by extension, you, since you linked to this) seems to disparage non-naturalistic means of spiritual experiences by claiming without proving:
The physical becomes the merely physical – it assumes a second class metaphysical status. This in turn leads to alienation from our physical selves and indeed from the material world as a whole.
I think this is patently false. I would guess most people world over (regardless of their belief in versions of theism/atheism and belief in the existence/non-existence of a supernatural spiritual realm) are more or less equally ambitious and DO attempt to achieve what they want to achieve and to improve their lot in this earthly life. For SDs, specifically, Krishna’s exhortation to Arjuna in the Bhagawad Gita is a call to action. Many Westeners tend to fall in love with India simply because there is so much freaking stuff happening ALL THE TIME. No alienation from any physical selves whatsoever for me or my fellow Indians, I would venture to guess.
The author seems to be possessed of militantly evangelical and missionary zeal:
Naturalists must infiltrate these congregations, form committees over coffee, and lobby for less God and more naturalism in the liturgy.
Putting that aside , the rest of the article basically seemed to steal ideas from many theistic (mostly eastern) traditions and provide a naturalistic garb to it. The author acknowledge as much:
Whatever their origins, we can adopt such skills and techniques without necessarily adopting the tradition within which they arose, unless, of course, we find that tradition to our liking.
So, in summary, there was nothing new for me here. The philosophical foundations of Yoga/meditation/spiritual practice were laid down millenia ago and summarized by Patanjali. The Yogasutras seek to achieve union with “Brahman”. Naturalistic spirituality seeks to achieve union with the “ultimate constituents of this world” which the article defines as those described the standard model of particle physics. SDs believe that the “ultimate constituents of this world” IS Brahman! Plus, the author seems to be well read and well aware of Advaita (non-dualism) philosophy of Hinduism. The article seemed to be a summary of Advaita philosophy minus Brahman, for obvious reasons.
Given his heavy dependence on eastern philosophical ideas, I wonder if the author could have come up with this piece of work WITHOUT knowledge of existing theistic spiritual practices.
In any case, since you DO subscribe to the authors ideas, could you please let me know how you achieve “spiritual union” with the ultimate constitutents of this world (leptons, quarks, photons, gluons and Higgs Boson) as described by standard model of particle physics? That is, if you dont mind, please describe how YOU engage in spiritual practice – the physical and mental details of it…do you sit in a chair, do you lie down, do you sit in Padmasana, and if possible, also, how you then go about quietening your mind, do you chant any mantra, and if so which one, etc. A link may also suffice.
Thanks.
My intention was not to show that naturalistic spirituality is superior, but to show that atheists are quite capable of having a fulfilling life. Spirituality is ultimately a value judgement. If you find something beautiful, just go ahead and savor it. My only contention is with making those value judgments universal and making arguments like adolf did.
As to your response to Clark’s statement on the physical world, you need to understand the context. For example an idea I come across on this site is that the physical world is not desirable, but a reification is. And then there is the epistemic difference in calling what is real and what is not. Clark is arguing in that context.
And of course he has “militant missionary” zeal. He is one of the leading advocates of naturalism. But the question that needs to be answered is, how militant is he given that he is also a secular humanist?
Your final question illustrates my point, that you don’t make value judgments on people’s private personal experiences. I have my own ways of experiencing beauty and serenity and I don’t expect everybody else to feel the same. To answer to your question, firstly I wouldn’t call what I experience as spirituality given that it has a well established meaning . And you are trying to see my private experiences with your idea of spirituality. Your personal experiences will always seem more dear to you than mine. So whatever I say, you will have some difficulty in seeing why I feel the way I feel, just like I would have difficulty about your experiences. That is the very nature of personal experiences.
@Anir:
For example an idea I come across on this site is that the physical world is not desirable, but a reification is.
I just gave you counter-examples: scripturally within SD Krishna’s exhortation to Arjuna is one of the greatest calls to action in this physical world ever. I also gave you an argument from day-to-day life that indicates that Indians are fully engaged in this earthly realm.
But the question that needs to be answered is, how militant is he given that he is also a secular humanist?
You are sounding like an apologist for your position now. I am wary of labels. As you pointed out elsewhere secular humanists dont have the same opinion on each and every issue. However much you may have a liking for secular humanism as a philosophy, it does not behoove its leading advocate to use inflitration, lobbying, etc. I *do* respect naturalism but also hold that the ends do NOT justify such underhand means. Would you advocate such practices also?
Your final question illustrates my point, that you don’t make value judgments on people’s private personal experiences…snip…whatever I say, you will have some difficulty in seeing why I feel the way I feel, just like I would have difficulty about your experiences.
I never made any value judgement of any sort. Since YOU provided a link to an article on spiritual practices within a naturalistic framework, it was not unreasonable for me to probe you on that line further. Also, this probing was not with the idea of comparing notes and grading – this is hardly the basis of spirituality.Plus the article explicitly mentioned that the underlying basis for naturalistic spirituality was the fundamental particles as defined by the standard physics model. If you know anything about the Hindu way of life, you would probably appreciate the fact that we dont go about dissing another man’s version of God/nature/beauty (unless we are dealing with Islam/Christian intellectual terrorists on Agniveer trying to push their unidimensional agenda). Hinduism holds that there is a very broad means of achieving peace in life and no one way is better/worse off than another.
To answer to your question, firstly I wouldn’t call what I experience as spirituality given that it has a well established meaning…Your personal experiences will always seem more dear to you than mine.
This is unclear. Do you engage in any type of spiritual practices that Clark alludes to in his article? If not, I would like to know why not? If you have OTHER means of experiencing beauty and serenity (outside the purview of Clark’s article) I would still like to know about them. Hopefully, my previous point regarding the broad judgemental flexibility inherent in Hinduism/Hindus would encourage you to divulge what helps you attain serenity.
I just gave you counter-examples: scripturally within SD Krishna’s exhortation to Arjuna is one of the greatest calls to action in this physical world ever. I also gave you an argument from day-to-day life that indicates that Indians are fully engaged in this earthly realm.
I only gave you a context for Clark’s views. Do you deny that seeking the reification called Brahman is an undesirable goal vis-a-vis seeing beauty in the physical world as understood through science? No need to answer it. It is a rhetorical question.
You are sounding like an apologist for your position now. I am wary of labels. As you pointed out elsewhere secular humanists dont have the same opinion on each and every issue. However much you may have a liking for secular humanism as a philosophy, it does not behoove its leading advocate to use inflitration, lobbying, etc. I *do* respect naturalism but also hold that the ends do NOT justify such underhand means. Would you advocate such practices also?
Secular humanism isn’t a vacuous label pulled out of thin air. There are philosophcal arguments for it. People who subscribe to it have to agree on somethings, one of which is the freedom to practice ones religion. If you don’t believe that, you are not a secular humanist. It is as simple as that. Clark’s statment may even be tongue in cheek (“committees over coffee”) as a nod to religious proselytization. And I don’t understand what you mean by “underhand means”. Clark is laying out his views in the open. His philosophy is well known and as a naturalist he is open to change his views based on evidence. So if you think he is any threat to your way of life, you can just present evidence on why he shouldn’t do so. Where does question of “underhanded” means arise from? I have to say that you need to read more on Clark’s views on the naturalism.org site before you conclude something like that.
I never made any value judgement of any sort.
I didn’t say you did. That was intended at the sort of arguments adolf made.
Since YOU provided a link to an article on spiritual practices within a naturalistic framework, it was not unreasonable for me to probe you on that line further.
Agreed.
Also, this probing was not with the idea of comparing notes and grading – this is hardly the basis of spirituality
Again, agreed. I’m glad that you say that.
Plus the article explicitly mentioned that the underlying basis for naturalistic spirituality was the fundamental particles as defined by the standard physics model.
Of course Clark does say that, but with this caveat: “though the scientific conception of these constituents may change as physical theory progresses, the necessity of their inter-connection will not, since the demonstration of such connection is what science does. This is why, as much as Intelligent Design theorists argue otherwise, science will never countenance “theories” that posit a separate supernatural realm containing causally privileged entities.”
If you know anything about the Hindu way of life, you would probably appreciate the fact that we dont go about dissing another man’s version of God/nature/beauty (unless we are dealing with Islam/Christian intellectual terrorists on Agniveer trying to push their unidimensional agenda). Hinduism holds that there is a very broad means of achieving peace in life and no one way is better/worse off than another.
You didn’t, but adolf did. And others before him by making up ridiculous assumptions about my morals.
This is unclear. Do you engage in any type of spiritual practices that Clark alludes to in his article? If not, I would like to know why not?
Of course I do. But as I said I won’t call it spirituality to maintain clarity in view of what you would call as spiritulity.
If not, I would like to know why not? If you have OTHER means of experiencing beauty and serenity (outside the purview of Clark’s article) I would still like to know about them. Hopefully, my previous point regarding the broad judgemental flexibility inherent in Hinduism/Hindus would encourage you to divulge what helps you attain serenity.
I see science showing unity in unprecedented detail. I know you will say Brahman tantamounts to something similar, but I’m a sucker for detail. For example, Neil DeGrasse when asked for what he finds as profound, says that the most abundant elements in the Universe (H, C, O, N excluding He which is chemically inert) are also the main elements that make up life. So life reflects the Universe. And then there is naturalistic evolution which shows that life had a common, replicator based origin. When asked what is the strongest evidence for evolution, Dawkins says that one can take a particular gene like FOXP2 from different species and compare the mutation rates (how distant they are from a chosen base version) and plot the distances, what one gets is the tree of life. That is a very simplistic way of putting it. The actual case is that it is a more of ring of life, given horizontal gene transfer in which bacteria and virsus excel at. I probably could write on this for hours, but I think you get the point. You may not fully appreciate the examples I gave (especially if you are an evolution denier) and I don’t expect you to. That was the point in my previous reply.
And how does science make me serene? It tells me that there is no such thing as free will or the supernatural and that we are the result of genes, environment and stochasticism (I’ll link to it in a new comment as comments have a two link restriction). That means I won’t fret over questions like “Why did this happen to me”. (Duh. Stochasticism) It also means I’m also not a retributivist. I’m sure you could find the same in Hinduism (fate, duty to love or have compassion), but as I said, I’m a sucker for detail that is intersubjective and verifiable as I am quite wary of cognitive biases and would like to hold views that are immune to such biases.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf
@Anir:
Do you deny that seeking the reification called Brahman is an undesirable goal vis-a-vis seeing beauty in the physical world as understood through science?
False dichotomy. In my case I will sure experience the latter AND may possibly see that as a manifestation of the former.(I am a mathematician by profession and that is what helps put food on my family’s table. I see no conflict between this vocation and belief in Brahman.)
Sure. I will study secular humanism when I get free time. I am glad you indicate that Clark may not really want to infiltrate church groups and lobby for his position. Sheesh…cant people simply state what they mean? Would have saved some bandwidth.
I see science showing unity in unprecedented detail. I know you will say Brahman tantamounts to something similar, but I’m a sucker for detail.
Is an unstated assumption here that somehow I disagree with the need for detail? Vedas are NOT scientific treaties (in the usual definition of science). For me it is not science vs SD (a false dichotomy atheists usually push). It is AND. Evangelical atheists (I dont know if you are one) seem unable to grasp this.
False dichotomy. In my case I will sure experience the latter AND may possibly see that as a manifestation of the former.(I am a mathematician by profession and that is what helps put food on my family’s table. I see no conflict between this vocation and belief in Brahman.)
Well, if you don’t dismiss something as “merely” physical in favor of Brahman, I don’t see a good reason for why my rhetorical question isn’t a false dichotomy. Good point.
Sheesh…cant people simply state what they mean? Would have saved some bandwidth.
Heh. If only people used mathematically unambiguos language to communicate. But I suppose our brains haven’t evolved for that.
Is an unstated assumption here that somehow I disagree with the need for detail? Vedas are NOT scientific treaties (in the usual definition of science). For me it is not science vs SD (a false dichotomy atheists usually push). It is AND. Evangelical atheists (I dont know if you are one) seem unable to grasp this.
I suppose I am an evangelical atheist though I detest the term “evangelical” given the connotations it evokes in me – Christian hegemonic destruction of a wide range of cultural memes without even the pretense of preserving them for at least providing a historical context for posterity.
Also, I don’t see how SD and science are compatible given the epistemolgies involved. One favors personal experience while the other demands intersubjective and verifiable evidence. For both to be compatible, you’d have to present evidence on SD that conforms to science. So can you elucidate more on how is it a false dichotomy? You may believe that it is a false dichotomy and that it is your personal opinion and I won’t question it, but we are talking about science, which deals with the non-personal realm. Can you, for the sake of an example, interpret something like Brahman using bayesian rationality while taking into consideration our various cognitive biases? Since you are a professional mathematician and I’m only a dilettante when it comes to mathematics, I’d be very interested on your take on this.
@Anir:
Where did I say SD and science *are* compatible in the sense that they provide possible answers to the same question? How do YOU know what purpose SD serves for me?
Science/math are precisely the wrong tools to use to analyze/dissect spirituality. In the many thousands of years that math has been around, I am pretty sure folks could have settled the atheism vs theism issue once and for all if they could. I may read the bayesian rationality argument later on, but dont wait for my take on it.
Given that you are evangelical and I am not, I hold that the burden of proof shifts over to you. You may not. Still, I need to ask, why are you evangelical?
Where did I say SD and science *are* compatible in the sense that they provide possible answers to the same question? How do YOU know what purpose SD serves for me?
Then why did you say that it was a false dichotomy? In an AND operation you can’t have two opposite values and yet get a true value. Science vs SD is *not* a false dichotomy. They oppose each other when it comes to detemining what is real and what is not.
Science/math are precisely the wrong tools to use to analyze/dissect spirituality.
When did I say that they are? Science is pretty useless in making value judgements. To cite an example, Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape, makes a good case study.
Given that you are evangelical and I am not, I hold that the burden of proof shifts over to you. You may not. Still, I need to ask, why are you evangelical?
I said “I suppose I am an evangelical..” and then went to say why I prefer not to use that term. Of course I have a vested interest in seeing my kind of atheism gaining more ground. But do you remember that I’m also a secular humanist? Now in view of that how valid is your assumption?
@Anir:
Science vs SD is *not* a false dichotomy.
For me, they answer different questions. It works for ME. I dont expect it to work for you. Let me repeat – How do YOU know what purpose SD serves for me?
Of course I have a vested interest in seeing my kind of atheism gaining more ground.
Why?
@KalBhairav
For me, they answer different questions. It works for ME. I dont expect it to work for you. Let me repeat – How do YOU know what purpose SD serves for me?
I am not interested in what purpose SD serves for you. But when you say science AND SD evaluate to true, you need to show how. If you eliminate science from your arguments, there wouldn’t be any grounds for me to discuss on this.
Of course I have a vested interest in seeing my kind of atheism gaining more ground.
Why?
Why did you reply to my comment in this page in the first place when it wasn’t even addressed to you in particular?
@Anir:
But when you say science AND SD evaluate to true, you need to show how.
I say science and SD evaluate to true *FOR ME*. Let me repeat *FOR ME*. Why do I need to show YOU anything? In any case, you make your intention clear about how you will treat ANY response from me in this regard when you state
I am not interested in what purpose SD serves for you.
The reason why I responded to you was you provided a link to naturalistic spiritualism and I had to point out the many issues within that (borrowing from eastern traditions, borrowing from Advaita philosophy without bothering to give due credit, infiltration, lobbying, etc.). It was a substandard piece of journalism/scholarship in my opinion.
Now answer why you have a vested interest in seeing YOUR kind of atheism gaining more ground a.k.a gaining more converts. If you can, make positive argument for your position instead of trying to piggy back on others’ arguments. Since YOU want to gain converts, I would like to understand your thought process more. BURDEN OF PROOF/EFFICACY OF YOUR SYSTEM AS COMPARED TO OTHER SYSTEMS SQUARELY IN YOUR COURT NOW BUDDY.
>>You didn’t, but adolf did. And others before him by making up ridiculous assumptions about my morals.
no i am not making any assumptions on you or your morality. Morality has no meaning to mean.I am just behaving moral way because society punishes. I am here to pursue what is called god and i am just arguing for the proof of statement that there is no god.
To add more how is naturalism different from what uddalaka has said in Chandogya Upanishad?
I am just a curious seeker who wants to know why people want to invent theories to keep the mind busy promising that one day thy will become something other than what they already are.
>>How I use my philosophy should be none of your business
Ofcourse It is my business to find out the truth. Agniveer states that god exists and I will get peace if i believe in Iswhar. Now you are comming and saying god doesnt exist. So inorder to evaluate why and how you are saying that unknow entity called GOD does not exist I must ask know about your philosophy and what use it is to me in general.
This article mentions two things that I exists and there exists an entity called GOD. And he asks me to follow some steps so that I can reach god. Ofcourse i havent followed those steps but i am thinking of taking my first step.
I dont know about god and gods existance is just an indication to me.
Atheism say that there is no entity called god. I want to know how atheism came to conclusion that there is no entity called GOD. Scientifically we havent even proved that there is no other planet in galaxy which can have life. So how do you scientifcally proove that there is no god?
Dont ask me to proove god as i am saying that i am not sure about the existance of god.
Now that i knew you are naturalist could you please tell me what is the purpose of life? ( I am dumb i cant skim the whole website in half an hour). Is there any purpose to life?
Also I stick to my belief that philosophy must be helpful to me in particular or to any other entity in general.
Now that i want to know the benfits of naturalism
can I assume the below
1. I (if i say I am the this physical body as per naturalism) is part of nature and it doesnt get any benefit from discussing naturalism.
2. I (the this physical body) is made up of basic constituents of nature and there is no need to seek or crave for unifying again.
3. I can have all my sexual cravings satisfied in a way that doesnt causes pain i.e I can use date rape drug for this purpose.
Waiting to hear your answers on scientifical proving of non existance of god and the above three answers. Well though i am dumb i can understand that scientifcally proving of non existance of god does not prove the existance of god.
Thanks
aham atma gudakesha sarva-bhutasaya-sthitah aham adis ca madhyam ca bhutanam anta eva ca
Atheism say that there is no entity called god. I want to know how atheism came to conclusion that there is no entity called GOD. Scientifically we havent even proved that there is no other planet in galaxy which can have life. So how do you scientifcally proove that there is no god?
Why are you misrepresenting science? Unless you understand the philosophy of science, no answer that I give will make any sense to you.
Now that i knew you are naturalist could you please tell me what is the purpose of life? ( I am dumb i cant skim the whole website in half an hour). Is there any purpose to life?
There is no absolutist purpose of life, if that is what is you are looking for. Biologically, the purpose of life is to make sure that your genes survive (“The Selfish Gene”). But when it comes to humans, cultural memes have modified our behavior to such an extent finding answers in biology would be committing the naturalistic fallacy. I’m sorry, but I can’t give you a simple answer that you won’t misrepresent unless you understand naturalistic philosophy.
Also I stick to my belief that philosophy must be helpful to me in particular or to any other entity in general.
Good. But please don’t make presumptions about other’s philosophies without understanding what they entail.
1. I (if i say I am the this physical body as per naturalism) is part of nature and it doesnt get any benefit from discussing naturalism.
2. I (the this physical body) is made up of basic constituents of nature and there is no need to seek or crave for unifying again.
Read the last part of my response to KalBhairav (you can see it above your response).
3. I can have all my sexual cravings satisfied in a way that doesnt causes pain i.e I can use date rape drug for this purpose.
*Idiotic* presumption stemming from ignorance of contemporary moral philosophies. I wonder why is that everything has to come down to sexual perversities with you guys?
>>Why are you misrepresenting science
No it absolutely doesn’t make sense to me. It is like some one proclaiming to me that i discovered solution to P = NP? problem without giving any proofs. I am not misrepresenting science. There is nothing in science which is like misrepresentation. My father told me that god as vishnu existed at North Star. Now i want to find out whether that statement is true. As i lack any instrument to go there and verify or see in telescope and verify i am asking you as you scientifically came to conclusion that god does not exist
>>*Idiotic* presumption stemming from ignorance of contemporary moral philosophies. I wonder why is that everything has to come down to sexual perversities with you guys?
No morality hasn’t got any meaning to me. All i want is to propagate my genes and my selfish gene is insisting that i should have good looking offspring so that it can survive well. But as no good looking girl is ready to marry me because i am black i just wanted to know whether i can date rape a good looking girl who has a belief in immorality of abortion. But permanent hell is preventing me to do that. If i can follow naturalism then i can do that i suppose?
@adolf:
Atheists do NOT have a proof of God’s non-existence. Anir cannot provide you with one.
@adolf:
This may shed further light on the issue.
To quote one of the posters there:
…I share your frustration concerning the lack of arguments FOR the atheist position. They do seem to be “piggy-backing” off theistic arguments by refuting them, then asserting atheism as the default position for belief in the existence in deities, and then concluding that atheism wins. I think that this brand of atheism is quite dogmatic and intellectually uninspiring.
This, I think, summarizes many a theists’ frustration with evangelical atheists.
of course i knew that from your other posts. I just argue in basic terms just to show that all the arguments and philosophies whatever naturalism or atheism proclaim to propose are already discussed in upanishads. For example uddalaka proposed a similar theory to naturalism ascribing the unexplainable part to something( which is the same as alpha,beta,theta which scientist put forward)
I personally believe in ajatavada. I argue here because i neither gain nor loose anything by arguing. I am that I am.
no i am not making any assumptions on you or your morality.
I didn’t say you did, but others did. But you did make a value judgement on my personal life.
To add more how is naturalism different from what uddalaka has said in Chandogya Upanishad?
I’d appreciate it if you link to what you mean, not because I’m lazy to read up on it, but that there are different commentaries and I want to read from a source that you consider as definitive.
Naturalism demands intersubjective and verifiable evidencce. In light of that, I fail to see how Uddalaka’s arguments are in anyway related to naturalism. His arguments are metaphysical and do not meet evidential criteria demanded by naturalism, and sometimes are unfalisifiable. Unfalsifiables propositions are unscientific ans hence are not naturalistic.
>>I didn’t say you did, but others did. But you did make a value judgement on my personal life.
my personal judgment or any others accusing doesn’t make a damn about your real life. If you think you are so mean that you get disturbed by dog barks let us know. Also if the peace or happiness or whatever you got by naturalism can be disturbed by some dog barks let us not discuss any further as the people here are in search of perfect peace(Shanti) which will not get disturbed even when the body is getting boiled ( the case of many sikhs and hindu saints)
Are you a naturalist or atheist? If naturalist and you are proposing a position like evolution created the consciousness in human beings then i assume you don’t need to argue for non existence of god (I saw in Wikipedia)
>> Regarding uddalaka you can see some other view.
http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2010/11/who-was-uddalaka-aruni-part-two-2-of-3.htm
Could you post what naturalism postulates. We can argue on whether the philosophy of naturalism has any flaws later. Isn’t it common to propose a theorem first and prove later.
Also come up with why do we need to follow naturalism and what will we gain by it.
@anir, if you think carefully about your atheistic temperement (you, richard dawkins, and others)then you will have to conclude that atheism is a blind belief. this is certainly a fact since you do not have any evidence for the non existenxce of god. Which ultimately means you should at the bare minimum be agnostic and not a blind faithed atheist. As regards creationsim, i would suggest you dump garbage like koran and bible and focus AWAY from the notion that all creationism implies the same old adam and eve concepts. However at this point i would like to ask you what evidence do you have against SD that it is false?
My atheism is the denial of existence of the supernatural. God is just a subset of it.
As to the rest of your comment: Argument from ignorance. Burden of proof.
And before someone points out that my statement sounds like faith, I deny the supernatural in view of lack of evidence. If there is evidence, I’d gladly accept it. That caveat is implicit in the kind of atheism I subscribe as it comes from naturalism. But I suppose that won’t make any difference to einstein’s conclusion that atheism is blind belief.
Dawkins lost my respect the minute he used a book by Max Jammer to suggest Albert Einstein was an atheist. In that book Einstein stated quite explicitly, “I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I am a Pantheist.”
Yet, Dawkins continues to spread this falsehood. He also misuses a survey from the NAS to suggest a correlation between high intellgence and atheism.
This guy is just another priest preachng his own religon, except he is wearing a labcoat.
@Indian Agnostic
And that exactly is its undoing.The case against naturalized epistemology is well established .The radicals have been shown the door (replacement naturalism ) and moderates are concocting one thing or another to keep the dead horse alive
Can you tell you what your idea of naturalism is? I see some unstated premises in your statement.
Namaste Anir
Can you tell you what your idea of naturalism is? I see some unstated premises in your statement.
metaphysical naturalism as i understand is an oxymoron .
its a crude attempt of marrying philosophy and empiricism.The divorce is guaranteed by the recent findings of science itself specially the ones highlighted in Why Us? James le Fano 🙂
as @Kal Bhairav observed , i also felt that the folks at naturalism.org ( case in point: http://www.naturalism.org/tolle.htm ) are doing nothing other than plagiarizing from a very articulate/tested theological treatise, tailoring it to the religion of naturalism and using the same against the source.
This is despicable at many levels
Dhanyawad
*correction : Why Us? James Le Fanu
http://www.jameslefanu.com/books
@IA:
Naturalism’s take on Tolle (I have no idea who he is but he seems to be a Western/English translator of Eastern philosophies) was an interesting read.
On the one hand, Clark’s liking for the concept mentioned in the link stems from:
The revelation isn’t that one encounters one’s true nature as Being or Pure Consciousness, as Tolle supposes, but that it’s possible (according to reliable reports by accomplished meditators) to be fully conscious without feeling like a separate conscious entity. This is a radical refreshment indeed.
So, Tolle’s claims are merely his own *suppositions* worthy of dismissal but to buttress *their* claims they resort to reliable reports by accomplished meditators? How does Clark verify that the reports are reliable and the meditators are accomplished? I note he omits providing citations to these reports.
Another trash-worthy part was:
Tolle of course interprets his experience in the light of the Perennial Philosophy handed down by generations of mystics and sages, but this philosophy is just that which claims that properly trained subjective experience is a reliable guide to reality. Each successive generation of mystics, the latest of which Tolle is a member, reiterates the claim, but that doesn’t help to make it plausible.
As indicated before, I wonder whether this question of plausibility was applied to the accomplished meditators cited above.
Namaste Kal Bhairav Ji
Tolle is one of the few western practitioners of the direct method ( advaita vichara marga) who is respected as a Guru not only in the west but in India too
Clark’s treatment of the subject deserves just one credit – that he honestly exposes his dishonesty
@IA:
Indeed…I actually respect the adherence-to-science component of naturalism. Clark should stick to that. He should stay the hell out of spirituality (and remove links pertaining to that from his website) if he wants to come across as an honest person instead of a foolish thieving plagiarist that he is.
Well…I guess I am finding myself in the mood to make personal adhominems…I will give it some rest.
So, Tolle’s claims are merely his own *suppositions* worthy of dismissal but to buttress *their* claims they resort to reliable reports by accomplished meditators? How does Clark verify that the reports are reliable and the meditators are accomplished? I note he omits providing citations to these reports.
You are quote mining. Clark then goes on to say this:
But such an explanation doesn’t explain away the profound attractions such an experience reportedly holds; there’s a reason monks spend a good percentage of their lives sitting still on round cushions. Nor does it change the fact that in having it we non-cognitively feel what cognition says is the case: that we are fully embedded in the natural world. So the naturalist can avail herself of the same experience as Tolle describes, but interpret it in a way that integrates it seamlessly into her science-based worldview. Although she doesn’t take the experience of no self as a direct knowing of reality, it can be transformative by virtue of emulating the reality of her complete connection to nature as science describes it.
He isn’t making any absolutist claims about enlightenment. He notes that everyone can have deep personal experiences and people who use science to determine reality, can interpret those experiences within science itself (based on a non-dualist brain-is-consciousness model).
As indicated before, I wonder whether this question of plausibility was applied to the accomplished mediators cited above.
Here you fail to notice that Clark is arguing from subjective experience. “accomplished mediators” are accomplished as determined by the claimants subjective experience unless of course you have some objective measure for determining such things (remember this?). You and IA may feel appalled at Clarks’s views, but I feel (correct me if I’m wrong) that the reason for such a feeling is your belief that deep personal experiences are possible only by subscribing to your spirituality. Happiness is the sole domain of SD, isn’t it? If people like Clark use other means (science) to interpret happiness they experience without prostrating before SD and singing praises of it, then they must inherently be dishonest and plagiarists.
@Anir:
Not that I care but I want to ask, are you Clark? That would be nice 😉
He isn’t making any absolutist claims about enlightenment. He notes that everyone can have deep personal experiences and people who use science to determine reality, can interpret those experiences within science itself (based on a non-dualist brain-is-consciousness model).
Of course he is not. He is probably clueless on this. He is doing exactly what you say he is doing and that is still only trying to rationalize spiritual experiences in terms of science. Remove Tolle from the picture. This article (and the other article you linked to about spirituality without faith) couldnt have been written. Thats my point. Thats why I called him a thief with no original thought.
You and IA may feel appalled at Clarks’s views, but I feel (correct me if I’m wrong) that the reason for such a feeling is your belief that deep personal experiences are possible only by subscribing to your spirituality.
Speaking for myself, you are wrong. Reread my comments regarding the Hindu way of life and how it is not in us to diss the other’s view of spirituality. I did not just write it for the sake of argument but I truly believe it to be the case for Hindus and KNOW it to be the case for me.
If people like Clark use other means (science) to interpret happiness they experience without prostrating before SD and singing praises of it, then they must inherently be dishonest and plagiarists.
No problems with his interpretations. I am not dissing them nor the underlying experiences that these interpretations are trying to rationalize. My point is that his interpretation is after-the-fact. I would have more respect for him if he, on his own, comes up with a new means of spiritual experience unknown to mankind thus far. That I used personal adhominems against him also probably stems from my disgust and anger that he (and you) are self-proclaimed evangelicals who feel their POV should gain ground (at the expense of other POVs – how else does a POV gain ground?) even though there is no scientific basis for this (you agreed it was a value judgement driving your POV – which I dismissed as a false dichotomy anyway). I hold that an evangelical of any stripe shoulders the burden of proof. If Clark (and you) are trying to push your agenda around, I would like to see some original stuff in it instead of mere rationalizations after-the-fact.
Come to magic mushroomism. A new ism which promises deep spiritual experiences,of course they are spiritual experiences becuase I state them as spritual ( dont bring your objective measures here as they will be rejected). And more over we will interpret your experiences scientifically.
Was immer du sagst, mein Führer.
Peace Be Upon You scientifically
Not that I care but I want to ask, are you Clark? That would be nice 😉
No. I’m not Clark.
Of course he is not. He is probably clueless on this. He is doing exactly what you say he is doing and that is still only trying to rationalize spiritual experiences in terms of science. Remove Tolle from the picture. This article (and the other article you linked to about spirituality without faith) couldnt have been written. Thats my point. Thats why I called him a thief with no original thought.
No you need not remove Tolle from the picture. You need to remove spirituality which claims a supernatural basis and then Clark doesn’t need to write those articles at all. Completely unnecessary. There are people who garb deep personal experiences with a supernatural veneer and then argue that god exists and that their way of life is the one true way and then go about corrupting policy with their ideas. I definitely don’t mean you when I say that, but there are people like that and Clark’s articles are a response to them – that deep personal experiences have a natural cause.
Speaking for myself, you are wrong.
Agreed, for your case.
That I used personal adhominems against him also probably stems from my disgust and anger that he (and you) are self-proclaimed evangelicals who feel their POV should gain ground (at the expense of other POVs – how else does a POV gain ground?). I hold that an evangelical of any stripe shoulders the burden of proof. If Clark (and you) are trying to push your agenda around, I would like to see some original stuff in it instead of mere rationalizations after-the-fact.
I am a secular humanist first and then a naturalist (or as you are so fond of calling me – an “Evangelical” atheist). You are setting up a false equivalence between my stating my personal views and my scheming to push them on others. As per secular humanism, everybody has the right to chose and practice their religion. For what you say to be correct, I would *not* have to be a secular humanist. I believe in discussing ideas, just like how ancient Indians used to do (How did Adi Shankaracharya’s views “gain ground”?). You are *completely free* to ignore my views or even get them deleted them from this website. I have said that here before and I would have no issues with that. If you think somebody expressing their views is “evangelizing” then note that you are also doing the same.
@Anir:
I definitely don’t mean you when I say that, but there are people like that and Clark’s articles are a response to them – that deep personal experiences have a natural cause.
Thanks. Appreciate the differentiation. So, Clark is evangelizing against evangelicals. Trying to figure out right from wrong when two wrongs are being committed is certainly going to lead us to a better place. As I say (and you already know) I hate evangelicals of ALL stripes.
You are *completely free* to ignore my views or even get them deleted them from this website.
I would never do that. You are one of the more intelligent and articulate folks “from the other side”.
You may find this surprising but I DO have respect for the atheist position. My only point of contention is that neither side in the atheist/theist debate can anyway prove their position. (Hereis a recent discussion I started trying to get the atheist view about BOP. (The evangelical atheist I quote there is you…hope you dont mind)). I hate it when they come as holier than thou.
I am not here to convince people of atheism over theism. That wouldn’t be possible as there is no common ground upon which such a discussion to take place. My intention was to point to out the flawed arguments used against science and atheism. And I haven’t purposefully made any judgements here on how people should live their lives, or how happy or sad, or how moral or immoral they are because of their world views. That is what evangelicals would do – “live life the only way, my way”. So no offense taken over that thread you started. But I’m of the view that ideas need to be critiqued, especially by paying attention to detail. Arguing at a higher level yields nothing useful, as we found out. As a result of these discussions I have a better understanding and appreciation of your views. With that I’ll end this. Nice talking to you.
As a result of these discussions I have a better understanding and appreciation of your views. With that I’ll end this. Nice talking to you.
Ditto. Au revoir.
its a crude attempt of marrying philosophy and empiricism. The divorce is guaranteed by the recent findings of science itself specially the ones highlighted in Why Us? James le Fano
Huh? How is empiricism not based on philosophy? What do you think philosophy is? Let me repeat this again. Science is fallible. It doesn’t make high headed proclamations that it is “eternal”, “perfect” or other such absolutist claims. And naturalism is based on science.
And James le Fano’s book is for people who don’t understand the philosophy of science or for those who feel that science destroys wonder.
So your statements on naturalism are based on false premises.
@ anir please do not take things so personally.(lighten up this is a friendly discussion) i am on your side. i want the truth and nothing but the truth.
You see i studied sciences as chosen subjects at college and totally conform to science and technology as the way forward to discover more and more things to help society. so just wanted to clarify to you and everyone i am not anti science. i am pro science.
and thanks for sending the links . however the second link claims that ‘burden of proof sometimes falls onto the wrong side’. now this is a little bit unfair. when a theist claims something to be true then the atheist wants the evidence. but when an atheist claims there is no god then should he not be expected to provide evidence of the same too? so this is the correct and fair procedure. not that the burden of proof falls on the wrong side or whatever.
“But I suppose that won’t make any difference to einstein’s conclusion that atheism is blind belief.”
so is it proven or what?
I too am against those fanatics that claim islam and christianty to be true when we see so much vulgarity within their scriptures. i do not believe in their treatises of god. that god does not exist.(this is what richard dawkins confesses to and i agree with him on that point)
And you said your atheism stems from naturalism. please can you explain what kind of atheism you subscribe to please? What evidence you have your belief is right?
@ anir please do not take things so personally.(lighten up this is a friendly discussion) i am on your side. i want the truth and nothing but the truth.
I make a distinction between ideas and people and as such have a thick skin when it comes to what I take personally (didn’t I tell you something similar before? Or was it to dragunov? Are you both the same?)
You see i studied sciences as chosen subjects at college and totally conform to science and technology as the way forward to discover more and more things to help society. so just wanted to clarify to you and everyone i am not anti science. i am pro science.
College doesn’t teach you the philosohy of science.
and thanks for sending the links . however the second link claims that ‘burden of proof sometimes falls onto the wrong side’. now this is a little bit unfair. when a theist claims something to be true then the atheist wants the evidence. but when an atheist claims there is no god then should he not be expected to provide evidence of the same too? so this is the correct and fair procedure. not that the burden of proof falls on the wrong side or whatever.
Prove to me that The Invisible Pink Unicorn (or the Flying Spahetti Monster. Or Russel’s teapot) didn’t cause the Universe. Then we can bandy about whose burden of proof it is or complain about what is fair and what is not.
so is it proven or what?
No it is not. Hence the qualifier “I suppose”.
I too am against those fanatics that claim islam and christianty to be true when we see so much vulgarity within their scriptures. i do not believe in their treatises of god. that god does not exist.(this is what richard dawkins confesses to and i agree with him on that point)
No. Dawkins arguments stem from scientific naturalism which in turn fuels philosophical naturalism. So you may have to reconsider on what you agree with Dawkins.
And you said your atheism stems from naturalism. please can you explain what kind of atheism you subscribe to please? What evidence you have your belief is right?
I already stated it and the caveat that goes along with it. What part of it didn’t you understand? And evidence? Despite me stating my epistemology explicitly (science), you are still asking for evidence? My belief is right as long as evidence supports it. And defeasibility is inherent in my belief system. Can you say that yours does?
@adolf
Given statements like this in the article you linked to:
According to Uddalaka, there is nothing that is unmixed in the material world. All matter is derived from three primordial elements (dhatus: fire, water and earth) combined in various proportions. Again, each of these elements has in it some traces of the other two. And, every material substance is composed of infinite number of extremely small particles (anu), so tightly packed they appear as a continuous whole leaving no scope for void. Each of these particles, according to him, is qualitatively different from the other; and is infinitely divisible. Each minute particle (anu) is in a churning motion within itself, by virtue of which it spontaneously unfolds or evolves; each according to its quality or nature.
Jiva or Atman is the living principle in individual beings, plants and matter; and it is identical in almost every respect with the universal spirit (Sat). It animates, in varying degrees, all kinds of matter. The various distinct objects, their varied natures as also their names and forms (nama-rupa) that one comes across in this world of conditional existence are conceptions of the mind and verbal identifications to enable one to distinguish one object from the other. But the proof of the existence of One subtle –force (Sat) which gives birth to and sustains all life is beyond the realm of subjective sense-cognition. It is possible understand That only through reasoning, grasped in faith
and given natualism, the answer to your question “To add more how is naturalism different from what uddalaka has said in Chandogya Upanishad?” is obvious. That naturalism is *very* different from what Uddalaka says.
Also come up with why do we need to follow naturalism and what will we gain by it.
I don’t care if you follow naturalism or not. As I said, my intention in replying to Vajra in this page was to point out that ignorance of contemporary moral philosophy is not an excuse to setup strawman arguments against atheism. And then you had to make the *idiotic* (please don’t construe that as I being disturbed. It is just an observation) assumption that atheists can’t have a fulfilling life and my response to that to that was to show you that atheists do have a fulfilling life. Unlike you, I don’t take absolutist stances.
@KalBhairav
I say science and SD evaluate to true *FOR ME*. Let me repeat *FOR ME*. Why do I need to show YOU anything? In any case, you make your intention clear about how you will treat ANY response from me in this regard when you state.
Okay, fine. You seem to have your own meaning of science, which you should have made explicit before. If we were using the same meaning, it would be illogical if we didn’t come to an agreement.
Now answer why you have a vested interest in seeing YOUR kind of atheism gaining more ground a.k.a gaining more converts. If you can, make positive argument for your position instead of trying to piggy back on others’ arguments. Since YOU want to gain converts, I would like to understand your thought process more. BURDEN OF PROOF/EFFICACY OF YOUR SYSTEM AS COMPARED TO OTHER SYSTEMS SQUARELY IN YOUR COURT NOW BUDDY.
Not admitting that I have a vested interest would be hypocritical. I was just being honest. Everybody has a vested interest. Why did you feel compelled to point out how, in your opinion (which I’d like to point out, makes an apriori non-evidential assumption that theism precludes deep personal experiences), you had issues with an article I linked to. What do you care about what someone thinks about eastern philosophies?
Did I say anywhere *here* that I want to “convert” people? Was I the one who made value judgements of a belief system? You butted into an discussion that was centered on value judgements. Pay close attention to my premises. After all, there is the *high* prior probablity of you misunderstanding my statements. So, I request you to not misconstrue my statements and then shout on them.
@Anir:
Okay, fine.
Thanks.
You seem to have your own meaning of science, which you should have made explicit before.
Non sequitur. Science and SD serve *TWO DIFFERENT* purposes for me.The realms they operate on for me are mutually exclusive. Since you are hellbent on denying the existence of a spiritual realm (correct me if I am wrong…you link to naturalistic spirituality yet shy away from calling your own experiences spiritual) you then go about pointing fingers at something where science draws a naught. For me, no such contradiction exists. A spiritual realm (that is separate from the normal definition of the scientific realm) exists for me. Disprove this.
I am still waiting to hear good arguments from you as to WHY you have a vested interest in seeing your kind of atheism gain ground (you did NOT explicitly state that you want to “convert” people, but why isnt this a valid inference?). The best shot you have thus far is that everybody has a vested interest. Is that all?
You butted into an discussion…
This is a public forum. If you dont like varied opinion on the stuff you post here invite the members to a one-on-one by email. Many of our Muslim friends attempt exactly that.
Non sequitur. Science and SD serve *TWO DIFFERENT* purposes for me.The realms they operate on for me are mutually exclusive. Since you are hellbent on denying the existence of a spiritual realm (correct me if I am wrong…you link to naturalistic spirituality yet shy away from calling your own experiences spiritual) you then go about pointing fingers at something where science draws a naught. For me, no such contradiction exists. A spiritual realm (that is separate from the normal definition of the scientific realm) exists for me. Disprove this.
I gave you a reason in my next sentence which you haven’t addressed. You need to see my statement in that context alone and not misinterpret it to mean that I deny your spiritual experiences, which would be absurd given what I have been saying all along.
I am still waiting to hear good arguments from you as to WHY you have a vested interest in seeing your kind of atheism gain ground
Because I want more people to use science to explore the Universe instead of wasting their time on reifications. But that is my value judgment. So I don’t care whether you think it is a good argument or not.
(you did NOT explicitly state that you want to “convert” people, but why isnt this a valid inference?). The best shot you have thus far is that everybody has a vested interest.
You pulled the “convert” thing out of nowhere, despite me saying why I don’t like the “evangelical” label. So fo course, any inference you draw out of it will be valid to you.
The best shot you have thus far is that everybody has a vested interest. Is that all?
Again, I don’t care whether you think “Is that all” or is that my best shot.
This is a public forum. If you dont like varied opinion on the stuff you post here invite the members to a one-on-one by email. Many of our Muslim friends attempt exactly that.
You are taking my statement out of context. Where did you get the idea that I don’t welcome varied opinions?
@Anir:
We *are* using the same definition of science. The contradiction exists only in your mind. Not mine. You can continue to flog this dead horse if you so choose.
But that is my value judgment.
Indeed. Thanks for making that explicit. Value judgements are subjective. As you have mentioned many a times in your various posts, science is useless in making these judgements. Yet you just did. Which is also fine. I have *no problems* with it. But, your world view/vested interest (you want more/*other* people to use science instead of wasting their *personal* time on reifications – which I hopefully empirically established was a straw man for me/SDs/Indians, and a false dichotomy since SDs/Indians do not go about it in terms of “merely” physical in favour of Brahman) is based on this value judgement.
Yes, you are right. I did misunderstand your views on science and SD.
Despite me saying that I pay attention to detail, I failed to notice this statement of yours:
Is an unstated assumption here that somehow I disagree with the need for detail?
It wasn’t an unstated assumption. It was based on our past discussion on homosexuality. You were completely at a loss at why I so easily dismissed your hypothesis. I was stressing on detail right from the beginning, owing to my bayesian rationality, but you were adamant in clinging to your hypothesis despite that..
Whatever my foibles are, I try to be consistent to the views I hold. When I am not, I admit it.
@Anir:
Thanks.
In hindsight, our discussion on homosexuality went off at a tangent due to my inability to articulate clearly my main argument there in the early stages.
You are consistent and I hope we have been able to establish “evangelical” (those who like to see their POV gain ground in the world) atheists/Muslims/Christians/Hindus ALL employ value judgements that are unsupported by science.
Science and Vedas are two different things!
– A) “Veda” [collectively] is a rational ideology and an “Art of Living human/social/moral life”.
– B) “Science” [collectively] is a rational fact and a “Medium or Channel to help human to live his/her life.”
A) Let’s Analyze A) :
When Veda alone is followed without any objective and subjective requirements then we would lead a nomadic life. Vedas never say to avoid using science. Veda means that you are Social-being and human being with ethics and moral. If I would follow Veda [collectively] as a book then I would make my life miserable.
If I follow Veda as an “Art of living life”, then I would definitively use science and all the available resources in positive manner. For me car would hold importance and on the same manner horses if there are no mode of communication/processed-materials available. even in this condition, I should treat animals with utmost care and free them when science invents a material which gets processed as a CAR/Bicycle etc.
B) Let’s Analyze B) :
If we follow Science blindly without any ethical or moral characteristics in any life form, then Son would be a Matter for his Mother and vice-versa. This has started in west, where people are losing grounds on their social and moral responsibilities. They are oriented towards achieving pleasure/ecstasy because science says that these are harmonal/bio-chemical reactions. No doubt that people with these mindsets are least concerned about what a child of 6 year would think if a poster of any nude person is postered in his schoolbus. Science says that the poster is a matter [collectively] and the naked [human] is another complex-matter [collectively].
Summary:
—————
I hope this is clear that apart from following “Kriya”, there should be “Karak/Karta” and “Quality/Type of kriya [Karm]”. This approach helps the child to not to be offensive when the same schoolbus get a naked puppy postered on it – instead of nude [person].
>>Because I want more people to use science to explore the Universe instead of wasting their time on reifications. But that is my value judgment. So I don’t care whether you think it is a good argument or not.
What do people get by exploring universe? If we gain a new planet does it make any happier?
Does your philosophy of naturalism makes many people scientists? Instead of exploring the universe the universe you are suggesting us to not waste time on reifications, and by doing that you are indirectly wasting time on reification. Better follow what you preach. I will be the most happiest if some one whom i chatted with is another Einstein.
Also is it not the genetic code which determines the level of brain functionality and wasting time.
@Anir
>>And then you had to make the *idiotic* (please don’t construe that as I being disturbed. It is just an observation) assumption that atheists can’t have a fulfilling life and my response to that to that was to show you that atheists do have a fulfilling life. Unlike you, I don’t take absolutist stances.
When did i make the assumption or claim that atheist cant have a fulfilling life?
The documents related to tripura rahasya is for the people reading comments.Not for you or an atheist.
don’t deny the fact that you are disturbed.The fact that you are defending indicates that you are disturbed or i can imagine only one more reason
that is that you want to be a missionary in propagating naturalism.
>>Tenet Responsibility and morality
“However, naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment.”
Why to call this into question. Isn’t the response itself a natural one arising from the genetic and neurotic response from the judge?
All your other tenets are ok and nothing to add or deny.
Now some questions to naturalism
1. Why do we need to take naturalism into account as it does not give us anything new?
2 Why are you instead of accepting naturalism and being happy,come here to give us information on naturalism?
. If you answer that naturalism makes people happy.Do you think that people in the world are unhappy now? Is there any need of an additional prophet?
Is there any guarantee that the same thinking process if applied to different human being makes him happy? Is it not again a stochastic process with very less probability?
. Or do you want us to praise who ever has proposed naturalism? Charvaka has proposed atheism long back and any praises will go to him.
@ anir
“To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.”
so whats new here? i already knew thats what science is about. lol
the methodological naturalism offers nothing new to the imagination other than childish arguments.
anir said; Prove to me that The Invisible Pink Unicorn (or the Flying Spahetti Monster. Or Russel’s teapot) didn’t cause the Universe. Then we can bandy about whose burden of proof it is or complain about what is fair and what is not.”
no. you dont get it. if god has shape then how can he be infinite??? i am not asking what caused the universe. instead i am asking you to justify why atheism is your choice of belief and what justifies you believing in atheism? Purely because as we all know science hasnt proved or even disproved gods existence. Please excuse me if you have already mentioned but but i cannot find that comment so i ask you here instead. So at the bare minimum you have to be agnostic.
anir said;I deny the supernatural in view of lack of evidence. If there is evidence, I’d gladly accept it
I doubt it. also, on your link there is mention of an ontological argument as the atheists vain attempt at rebuttal of gods existence. please note these are all words. there is a need to get back to the root of discussion. i will tell you the truth now.
theres is absolutely NO WAY that that existence can spring up from non existence. I love science but i understand its limitations.
so whats new here? i already knew thats what science is about. lol
This is how well you understand science. That is why I had to point out that college doesn’t teach you the philosophy of science.
@ anir please do not accuse kalbhairv or others of “butting in”.(its just plain bad manners) he has provided logical arguments in other posts aswell as this one
>>Naturalism – Control: Understanding how we are caused to behave as we do gives us increased powers of prediction and control. Instead of supposing people can simply will themselves to be otherwise,
As if the circumstances which lead people to search or want o become what they are in the naturalists hand. After all people behave like that because of their genes,and neurotic responses to external world. And more over what will a Muslim or a christian gain if they stop believing that they wont go to heaven one day? Do they live a little longer? Does it solve any physical problems?
>> Naturalism – Control: we concentrate our energies on creating the conditions which promote constructive personal and social change. The ethics of compassion is matched by a practical efficacy based in scientific knowledge.
What is constructive social change? Half of the world is searching for something physical it either be food or a house. Can naturalism solve the problem? Can naturalism take out the gene which caused the rich people and rich countries to earn more than what is required? It can only be solved by genetic engineering not some ism which wants to replace some other ism.
Most of the other half of the world whose physical needs are satisfied are happy irrespective of their beliefs. They are susceptible to mental problems, and for solving mental problems a generalized solution cannot be found. In history many religions have come in place suggesting solutions to mental problems, but the success rate of the religions is very low.
I recommend naturalist as they think scientifically to concentrate on solving the physical problems so that they will be more helpful to people who are really in need like those of people in Africa.
A small step in this regard is to create awareness in usa no to waste more food and not to attack other countries. Naturalists are more than welcome to join me in Africa.
Thanks
Adolf Hitler
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PfhV_Hns4
The justification for his beliefs are an argument from incredulity fallacy.
No matter the sophistication of the concept nor the effective presentation of it – still amounts to a supernatural belief based on no evidence except one’s own befuddlement and inability to say – “we don’t know yet.”
I would also point out – that you have a bit of a misunderstanding about the terms atheist and agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive or two different sides of a coin.
Almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist – do you understand what i mean by that?
Jaspreet here actually has a good article that covers this
http://www.supportatheism.com/2011/atheism/to-all-agnostics/
Yes, the article comes of as arrogant at times I can see that – actually some of it is REALLy arrogant – but a lot of atheists fall into that hole as well. As an atheist that can be hard to stomach when someone tries to project rational/intellectual authority – then promptly relates their belief in magical spirits or sky ghosts.
He also completely fails in claims that atheism is an ideology. People project their own limitations onto atheism – the have to pretend it is like a religion or moral code. They just can’t fathom that morality is separate and has nothing to do with belief in or rejection of supernatural claims.
Ok now I am proposing a new/old religion
1. sun and other innumerable stars with sun as the head is our GOD.
2.he is the cause of all life forms on earth and is not effected by the life forms.
3. We pay or respect to sun just because of our love to sun but not because of any concept like hell.
could you explain the words theist, atheist and agnostic in relation to the above religion.
@adolf
🙂
Let me attempt:
theist – per your definition 1-3
agnostic – who gives a shit. I dont know and I dont care. I just wanna drink beer and watch TV.
atheist – well…prove to me that the moon is not the God.
>>atheist – well…prove to me that the moon is not the God.
BOP lies on the atheist and in defining the word God wrt moon.
As per the above religion GOD and Sun are synonyms.
Any case you will be starting a new religion with moon and god as synonyms.
What will the definitions be if after X number of years sun explodes into a black hole whose present attributes are not scientifically know (because of the limitation of our intellect) ?
Does all agnostic persons who are valid before and after the occurence of the above event must support atheist position which seems to be logically valid only after the event?
assumption-atheistic position is not valid before the event,will be true unless proved otherwise.
@adolf:
Hey, I dont know. I just thought I would put myself in the shoes of an atheist and try to answer the questions honestly 😉
Stuff like this is why I think the debate is pointless. Things get muddled in a sea of semantics and unsolvable thought experiments and nothing worthwhile comes about.
Since you brought up BOP, here are two links on atheistforums about BOP (Link1, Link2).
As you see, there is no one atheist consensus on BOP.
And your comment didn’t even rebut his points, and you have failed to grasp the essence of the article. The idea is – can you explain what is this subjective feeling of the self – ‘I’? Any scientific approach fails, because it is objective and assumes a duality between perceiver (‘I’) and the object/concept that is perceived.
Another religious apologist. Spiritual imposition of god and beliefs!
Get a life! You fear something which never existed, doesn’t exists and will never exist.
Reason your beliefs and doubt everything.
The good thing about science is that, it’s open to doubts and some theories have already been proven false!
The only good thing about Hinduism is that it can’t be imposed on others, I appreciate this.
Atheism is valid in Hinduism, I even appreciate this.
But there’s no point becoming a believer just because the mythological stories sound scientific.
The first victims of any religion are its followers.
Nice trying to lump every religious person in one category me racist. You have no idea what we follow. And just pure western science has no morality. So get educated dummy.
*Mr.
Dear Ashutosh
All scientific men believe in GOD only when they encounter the impossible, the unexplained phenomenon. In present day, a place called ” Shivgange” approx 60 kms from Bangalore has an ancient Shiva Temple on a hill top. Offerings of ghee turns to butter when applied on the Shiva Lingam (idol). The same butter gets served as prasadam to the devotees.
I appreciate if your kind of scientific men explain the phenomenon using Modern day science. The Inference is Today’s science can’t explain such small miracles occurring in nature and how does it propound the absence of God. God is nothing but The Discipline, The Energy which balances the entire cosmos which we identify & relate through different prophets, Saints, Gurus, Sacred chants, God & Goddesses. I bless you with the extreme agony, pain so that your propelled towards the Virat Purusha and finally receive his grace.
Hello Agniveer
I belong to Jain community but I believe in Advaitavaad or Purnavaad of Hinduism and not in Anekantavaad of Jainism and Shunyavaad of Buddhism.
[…] Why I am not an Atheist […]