irreligious youngsters

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

All the religions preach certain basic values like ahimsa, charity, sathyam etc.,
No religion asks you to steal or kill, they all say do not do these acts. One cannot
deny that values are taught by all the religions. At the sametime one cant say
that those who do not believe in religion are bad or sinners. Equally, we cant
say that people who appear to be religious have all the virtues, some are bad.

Next is the example pointed out - Ravana and others. These puranas say finally
that those who fall a prey to kama, krodha etc will be annihilated. This is a lesson
we must take note of.

Nowadays, we do see people use their ill-gotten money to build temples etc
and they do prosper. I guess they will come to grief ultimatley.

 

[C RAVI]

I do agree with this corollary of sorts, even though from logic POV the corollary does not follow from the statement.

The statement is about being moral, but the corollary is about being immoral -- while these are related, being not one does not necessarily make the other true or false. In other words, being not moral does not necessarily imply immoral. Religion having nothing to do with making a person moral, which was my point, does not follow that religion must then not make a person immoral as well.

But, as I said, I do agree with the corollary, religion can't make a person immoral. However, it can surely force, and does force, a moral person act in immoral ways just to follow the prescribed religious rules. This is why religion must be rejected.

If the criticism was only that religion does not make a person moral, then that is not a sufficient reason to reject religion. But, the criticism is that religion makes a moral person act in immoral ways and this is surely sufficient reason to reject religion.

I welcome any rational rebuttal of what I have stated and would love the opportunity to have a civil and meaningful debate on the issues.

Cheers!

Professor Nara,

I don't understand as how belief system can fully influence the mere humans with all their senses?

Doesn't matter how relgious/spiritual a person is; doesn't matter how scientific a person is, discarding Religion/God/Spirituality; doesn't matter how rational a person is; doesn't matter how emotional a person is; doesn't matter how competent a person is in his/her profession; doesn't matter what the physical appearance of a person is; doesn't matter what his/her eating habits are etc..etc., can not substantiate any sort of claims that points out the immoral ways of a person, based on his/her belief systems.

Humans are humans irrespective of the life they been offered or acquired to live until death. Human's driving force to live and survive are - "NEEDS", "WANTS", "FULFILL", "SELF SATISFACTION", "ASPIRE", "SUCCEED", "ACHEIVE", ACHEIVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE", "SUSTAIN", "PASS ON TO KITH AND KIN", "SHARE WITH OTHERS AS POSSIBLE".

With long list of goals and targets, humans tend to act and react as per one's possibilities, capabilities and necessities. This process towards accomplishment makes humans deal with many internal and external forces. Either considering the "Low of the Land" or "The Theory of Karma", humans are surviving with the prime motive of self fulfillment, living along with fellow humans.

All the way towards accomplishment, humans tend to perceive/adopt different strategies to ensure as much success as possible towards attaining goals. No doubt, with the inbuild natural tendencies of selfishness (in the sense of self protection / acheivements / fulfillment etc), inbuild human psychology and rational brain. These inbuild factors are basically seldom influenced by one's belief systems that are in some way or the other for personal motives. Whatever the belief system may be, humans want a wholesome life with comfort, safety, security and the sense of fulfillment.

The crucial point here is, how humans are utilising or manupulating with all inbuild factors along with the feelings and emotions in order to acheive a desired wholesome life?

Humans with super brain and selfish genes are going to any extent when it comes to self, from the time immemorial. A religious and righteous person turns out to be cruel, crooked and disastreous and in reverse a non believer and or crude person turns out to be a humble, considerate, helpful, righteous and ethical. Humans seems to be changing colors during the passage of time, living their life.


Religion/God/Spirituality are aimed towards refining the qualities of mere humans. They were/are instumental in converting immoral people (theif, rapist, criminals etc) to lead a moral way of life. It helps humans to remain composed and righteous. These Religion/God/Spirituality are presented as a tool to attain refinement, righteousness, ethics etc..At the most, a sense of confidence, patience, hopes, considerations towards others and the tendencies to remain composed at any given circumstances.

Just because "mere humans" turns out to be immoral at any point of time in their life, can not subtantiate your claim that - "it (RELIGION) can surely force, and does force, a moral person act in immoral ways just to follow the prescribed religious rules. This is why religion must be rejected", IMHO.

Rejecting Religion/God/Spirituality based on "mere" human's negative tendencies, actions and reactions, can not be justified in support of rejections, IMO.

Religion/God/Spirituality is to attain inner purity to the best possible level and lead a righteous life with one's conscience and consciousness.

Off course Atheists have their right to reject the above statement. But accusing Religion/God/Spirituality for the crooked, wicked and immoral actions of humans (that can be found among Atheists too) can not be justified with assertion.

Humans are in plenty, humans are in different mask, humans are in different colors. It all just depends what they do to themselves and to others, positively or negatively. It just depends how and what efforts they make towards acquiring inner purity and be role models to others. Neither theism nor atheism can stand guarantee for the existence of righteous humans altogether on this Earth.

Theism provides individual opportunities to attain inner purity and self realizations.

 

[Nara]

....Just because "mere humans" turns out to be immoral at any point of time in their life, can not subtantiate your claim that - "it (RELIGION) can surely force, and does force, a moral person act in immoral ways just to follow the prescribed religious rules. This is why religion must be rejected", IMHO.

Ravi, I have said so many times, this is not about human frailty. I have no problem accepting that all humans, believers and non-believers alike, act in good ways and bad ways. I also agree that bad actions of humans must not be posited upon their religion and condemned. I agree with all this and I have said so myself, perhaps you are not listening to what I am saying. One more thing, I am also not talking about religions teaching good moral values, they do (aside: but such moral values are independent of religion and as I have argued earlier, these moral values have been co-opted by those formulating religious beliefs. Also religion is not necessary for being a moral person or raising a child to be moral person.)

Please understand my argument -- as I have said so innumerable times, all I am saying is even if a person is supremely moral, if he/she intends to follow his/her chosen religion diligently, then they will be forced to do immoral things off and on.

I have given several examples earlier. Let me cite a couple of more examples here. Mahabharatham -- an epic with the status of 5th Veda, one that is supposed to squeeze the essence of Vedas in a fashion easily understandable to common folks -- says Lord Sri Krishna Himself asked Yudishtra, one who is supposed to be an immensely moral person, to tell lies. Yudishtra, the epitome of righteousness, not some random human, was forced to act in an immoral fashion by God himself. Further, this God also resorted to all kinds of dishonest methods for the sake of securing victory for his chosen side, none of which can be considered moral, but the bhaktas are forced to accept them as supremely moral to the extent they sing the praise of such "divinely" deceitful acts.

Take the case of the God of Abrahamic religions, He commanded His chosen people to put to sword all men they conquered and take all women, children, cattle, and everything else in the defeated cities for themselves as booty (see Deuteronomy 20:13-15). Not only are these acts not moral, but would be considered supremely immoral by even half-witted persons. Yet, the followers of these religions are forced to see them as moral acts because it was their God who said so.

So, I ask you to please understand, I am not trying to hold religion responsible for the actions of some misguided humans. My point is not about actions of human beings, it is about religion forcing perfectly moral people do immoral things in order to be true believers.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Professor Nara,

I don't understand as how belief system can fully influence the mere humans with all their senses?

Doesn't matter how relgious/spiritual a person is; doesn't matter how scientific a person is, discarding Religion/God/Spirituality; doesn't matter how rational a person is; doesn't matter how emotional a person is; doesn't matter how competent a person is in his/her profession; doesn't matter what the physical appearance of a person is; doesn't matter what his/her eating habits are etc..etc., can not substantiate any sort of claims that points out the immoral ways of a person, based on his/her belief systems.

Humans are humans irrespective of the life they been offered or acquired to live until death. Human's driving force to live and survive are - "NEEDS", "WANTS", "FULFILL", "SELF SATISFACTION", "ASPIRE", "SUCCEED", "ACHEIVE", ACHEIVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE", "SUSTAIN", "PASS ON TO KITH AND KIN", "SHARE WITH OTHERS AS POSSIBLE".

With long list of goals and targets, humans tend to act and react as per one's possibilities, capabilities and necessities. This process towards accomplishment makes humans deal with many internal and external forces. Either considering the "Low of the Land" or "The Theory of Karma", humans are surviving with the prime motive of self fulfillment, living along with fellow humans.

All the way towards accomplishment, humans tend to perceive/adopt different strategies to ensure as much success as possible towards attaining goals. No doubt, with the inbuild natural tendencies of selfishness (in the sense of self protection / acheivements / fulfillment etc), inbuild human psychology and rational brain. These inbuild factors are basically seldom influenced by one's belief systems that are in some way or the other for personal motives. Whatever the belief system may be, humans want a wholesome life with comfort, safety, security and the sense of fulfillment.

The crucial point here is, how humans are utilising or manupulating with all inbuild factors along with the feelings and emotions in order to acheive a desired wholesome life?

Humans with super brain and selfish genes are going to any extent when it comes to self, from the time immemorial. A religious and righteous person turns out to be cruel, crooked and disastreous and in reverse a non believer and or crude person turns out to be a humble, considerate, helpful, righteous and ethical. Humans seems to be changing colors during the passage of time, living their life.


Religion/God/Spirituality are aimed towards refining the qualities of mere humans. They were/are instumental in converting immoral people (theif, rapist, criminals etc) to lead a moral way of life. It helps humans to remain composed and righteous. These Religion/God/Spirituality are presented as a tool to attain refinement, righteousness, ethics etc..At the most, a sense of confidence, patience, hopes, considerations towards others and the tendencies to remain composed at any given circumstances.

Just because "mere humans" turns out to be immoral at any point of time in their life, can not subtantiate your claim that - "it (RELIGION) can surely force, and does force, a moral person act in immoral ways just to follow the prescribed religious rules. This is why religion must be rejected", IMHO.

Rejecting Religion/God/Spirituality based on "mere" human's negative tendencies, actions and reactions, can not be justified in support of rejections, IMO.

Religion/God/Spirituality is to attain inner purity to the best possible level and lead a righteous life with one's conscience and consciousness.

Off course Atheists have their right to reject the above statement. But accusing Religion/God/Spirituality for the crooked, wicked and immoral actions of humans (that can be found among Atheists too) can not be justified with assertion.

Humans are in plenty, humans are in different mask, humans are in different colors. It all just depends what they do to themselves and to others, positively or negatively. It just depends how and what efforts they make towards acquiring inner purity and be role models to others. Neither theism nor atheism can stand guarantee for the existence of righteous humans altogether on this Earth.

Theism provides individual opportunities to attain inner purity and self realizations.

Shri Ravi,

Reading your above somewhat longish post to Shri Nara, I think you have all the makings of a religious zealot. But, there are some hollows in what you say; but I do not propose to go into those.

The one point that I would like to submit for your consideration is about the statement that religions may be for refining the qualities of mere humans. Whatever the refinements which you may have in your mind, don't you think that the religions prescribe their own system or conditions, the scrupulous adherence to which, and which alone - as per their belief/instructions - will bring about the supposed refinement, inner purity (whatever that may be, including a complete enema of all the systems of the body, perhaps?)

For example everyone knows that Islam prescribes 'jihad' against Kafirs as one of the religious duties of a true (refined and having got internal purity) Muslim. I think you won't have any hesitation in endorsing the instruction of the Islamic religion, as something which helps an adherent to further purify himself and further increase his inner purity? Or, will you term that stipulation as something retrograde and capable of causing a believer to commit atrocious acts in the name of religion? If you will side with the latter, then you will have to agree that that particular religion, can induce otherwise normal humans to become different; the example of Osama is too near to forget.

In hindu religion also there are instructions which will require any otherwise normal human to act in ways which may be termed despicable; we hindus meticulously followed those prescriptions , even our gods did that, even our very revered acharyas were made to do that because they were rather too purified internally and refined due to such practices. Since you, and most others in this Forum will know the actual instances and the stipulations which I am alluding to, I am not making them public here.

To imagine that others who argue the side against religion do not know its darker aspects is not the sign of wisdom but that of misplaced zeal. The choice to follow religion is for every individual as his birthright as guaranteed by the Constitution of our land, and each one can also decide the extent to which he/she will follow the religious dicta and which he will reject. It then becomes a set of one's own personal beliefs, it is not the full and complete religion. To view the complete religion from the small compass of one's personal beliefs set is like a frog in the well saying the well defines the boundaries of the world.

 

[amala]

So, I ask you to please understand, I am not trying to hold religion responsible for the actions of some misguided humans. My point is not about actions of human beings, it is about religion forcing perfectly moral people do immoral things in order to be true believers.
Cheers!

I know this is for Ravi and i agree to an extent with what you say about how religion makes the most "inherently" moral of people do some immoral things in its name. But how about the other side where you get some drug dealer/pimp/bum being a complete wastrel and troubling the local community and suddenly he gets religion and changes for the better? Then doesn't religion help in his case? So isn't religion a double edged sword and only used "well" like any tool can be useful?

 

[Nara]

I know this is for Ravi ....

amala, I believe in free exchanges and vigorous discussion. So, i welcome your comment.

Then doesn't religion help in his case? So isn't religion a double edged sword and only used "well" like any tool can be useful?

Yes, religion can help in some of these cases. However, we need to evaluate the harm religion can does do, and weigh it against the good it can and does do. We need to consider whether this good cannot be achieved but for religion. If so, then we need to consider whether the price the society has to pay in terms of the bad effects of religion is worth the good it does.

In this respect, I firmly believe religion does not offer one single good effect that cannot be achieved through other non-religious means. Those criminals who take to religion and change have the innate proclivity to change and religion just happens to be the readily available vehicle to effect that change. Given the presence of this proclivity, the same result can be achieved by non-religious means, like treating them with respect, providing them with opportunity for education and personal development, etc. In other words, those who change with religion as their crutch, can and will change with some other secular crutch that is free of the perniciousness religion is capable of.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that on balance religion is more a bane than a boon for human well being and therefore as humans we will be better off without religion than with it.

Cheers!

 

[biswa]

Regarding the initial premise of the thread, I think one has to be of a certain age or mental maturity or accumulate enough worldly experiences to understand spirituality. It is probably as simple as that.

Even the great George W Bush "got Jesus" only after 40, when he decided to give up the bottle...

 

[C RAVI]

So, I ask you to please understand, I am not trying to hold religion responsible for the actions of some misguided humans. My point is not about actions of human beings, it is about religion forcing perfectly moral people do immoral things in order to be true believers.

Cheers!

Professor Nara,

What I am trying to explain to you and put forward my views in common is - "Crooked humans do anything and go to any extent to satisfy himself/herself, giving reasons of religion and spirituality."

In your post #31, addressing Amala, you have stated that, criminals can be changed to act morally and live peacefully just by offering them good resources and fair opportunities. That is, the social set up of humans with right attitude is the thing that is required to help criminals change for better and lead a righteous life.

Professor, I feel, you are refusing to accept the truth that, the possibilitiy of such refined social set up of humans on this Earth with right attitude can be expected to exists only if people are religious and spiritual. Only if people have the sense of "fear of bad Karma", helping tendencies and social services, the sense of "மறப்போம்-மன்னிப்போம்", the sense of confidence to change a criminal into righteous person etc. All these positive attitudes/mind set could exist and can be expected to exist for ever, in majority, among the most efficiently evolved animal called Humans, only with the existing belief in Religion/God/Spirituality and its practices, constructively.

As well, please be noted that a "criminal" as an individual primarily requires enlightment within onself to work towrds inner purity and forming a right mental frame in order to live a righteous life, doesn't matter how hard he/she has to work. Unless this mind set is acheived within oneself, any amount of refined social activities/set ups (of refined humans) can not influence a human with all negative ways of living.

Religion/God/Spirituality in true sense alone can pave way towards attaining purifications within onself. Unless this inner purity is acheived among the majority of population, we can not expect to have a better society that helps spoiled/underpreviledged/ struggling fellow humans to make a better and peaceful living.



You said - "it is about religion forcing perfectly moral people do immoral things in order to be true believers."


I do agree with your above statement. We all know the truth in your above statement. We can read between the lines and agree as we could witness the cruelty carried out across the globe in the name of holy war, conversions by hook or crook etc...

Please be noted that, intelligent humans know how to use religion to act politically / commercially.

Please be noted that negativity is the part and parcel of this world and such negativity can not survive for ever and can not be expected to be glorified and sustained. Such negativity will come to an end sooner or later. They can not win over the good.


Off course, Religion/God/Spirituality is contributing more towards the betterment of the society at large than towards spoiling..

All the religious establishments across the globe are offering many charity and rehabilitation to milliions of people, in some or other ways. Millions of Theists as individuals are doing the same to the best of their abilitiy. Human survival on this Earth, rejecting Religion/God/Spirituality and working towards Rational Brain alone would hardly offer underpriviledged/struggling/misleaded humans with a chance to live with hopes, confidence and peace.

This is what I have stated in my privious post - "Religion/God/Spirituality are aimed towards refining the qualities of mere humans. They were/are instrumental in converting immoral people (theif, rapist, criminals etc) to lead a moral way of life. It helps humans to remain composed and righteous. These Religion/God/Spirituality are presented as a tool to attain refinement, righteousness, ethics etc..At the most, a sense of confidence, patience, hopes, considerations towards others and the tendencies to remain composed at any given circumstances."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A deep rooted romantic love of a person on another, makes a person cruel, selfish and even lead to the death of oneself or the other or the both.


A deep rooted parental love makes parents to protect their son/daughter from the clutches of law, though they know how wrong was their son/daughter and he/she deserves legal punishment.


A deep rooted love towards the nation makes soldiers to be dutyful and patriotic and be ruthless to adopt all the possible tactics to kill the soldiers of enemy camp, though they all know that their service in defence, in majority/general is for their survival and each one have their family back home.


There are many shades of love and there are many of its positive and regative repercussions.


Can we say "the sense of LOVE in human brain/heart should be attempted towards rejection altogether, for a better and lawful human survival"?

 

[renuka]

Professor Nara,

What I am trying to explain to you and put forward my views in common is - "Crooked humans do anything and go to any extent to satisfy himself/herself, giving reasons of religion and spirituality."

In your post #31, addressing Amala, you have stated that, criminals can be changed to act morally and live peacefully just by offering them good resources and fair opportunities. That is, the social set up of humans with right attitude is the thing that is required to help criminals change for better and lead a righteous life.

Professor, I feel, you are refusing to accept the truth that, the possibilitiy of such refined social set up of humans on this Earth with right attitude can be expected to exists only if people are religious and spiritual. Only if people have the sense of "fear of bad Karma", helping tendencies and social services, the sense of "மறப்போம்-மன்னிப்போம்", the sense of confidence to change a criminal into righteous person etc. All these positive attitudes/mind set could exist and can be expected to exist for ever, in majority, among the most efficiently evolved animal called Humans, only with the existing belief in Religion/God/Spirituality and its practices, constructively.

As well, please be noted that a "criminal" as an individual primarily requires enlightment within onself to work towrds inner purity and forming a right mental frame in order to live a righteous life, doesn't matter how hard he/she has to work. Unless this mind set is acheived within oneself, any amount of refined social activities/set ups (of refined humans) can not influence a human with all negative ways of living.

Religion/God/Spirituality in true sense alone can pave way towards attaining purifications within onself. Unless this inner purity is acheived among the majority of population, we can not expect to have a better society that helps spoiled/underpreviledged/ struggling fellow humans to make a better and peaceful living.



You said - "it is about religion forcing perfectly moral people do immoral things in order to be true believers."


I do agree with your above statement. We all know the truth in your above statement. We can read between the lines and agree as we could witness the cruelty carried out across the globe in the name of holy war, conversions by hook or crook etc...

Please be noted that, intelligent humans know how to use religion to act politically / commercially.

Please be noted that negativity is the part and parcel of this world and such negativity can not survive for ever and can not be expected to be glorified and sustained. Such negativity will come to an end sooner or later. They can not win over the good.


Off course, Religion/God/Spirituality is contributing more towards the betterment of the society at large than towards spoiling..

All the religious establishments across the globe are offering many charity and rehabilitation to milliions of people, in some or other ways. Millions of Theists as individuals are doing the same to the best of their abilitiy. Human survival on this Earth, rejecting Religion/God/Spirituality and working towards Rational Brain alone would hardly offer underpriviledged/struggling/misleaded humans with a chance to live with hopes, confidence and peace.

This is what I have stated in my privious post - "Religion/God/Spirituality are aimed towards refining the qualities of mere humans. They were/are instrumental in converting immoral people (theif, rapist, criminals etc) to lead a moral way of life. It helps humans to remain composed and righteous. These Religion/God/Spirituality are presented as a tool to attain refinement, righteousness, ethics etc..At the most, a sense of confidence, patience, hopes, considerations towards others and the tendencies to remain composed at any given circumstances."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A deep rooted romantic love of a person on another, makes a person cruel, selfish and even lead to the death of oneself or the other or the both.


A deep rooted parental love makes parents to protect their son/daughter from the clutches of law, though they know how wrong was their son/daughter and he/she deserves legal punishment.


A deep rooted love towards the nation makes soldiers to be dutyful and patriotic and be ruthless to adopt all the possible tactics to kill the soldiers of enemy camp, though they all know that their service in defence, in majority/general is for their survival and each one have their family back home.


There are many shades of love and there are many of its positive and regative repercussions.


Can we say "the sense of LOVE in human brain/heart should be attempted towards rejection altogether, for a better and lawful human survival"?

I just clicked Like [h=2]1.0 × 10[SUP]100[/SUP][/h]

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Very useful information to know about.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[Nara]

...You said - "it is about religion forcing perfectly moral people do immoral things in order to be true believers."

I do agree with your above statement. We all know the truth in your above statement.

Ravi, I am glad you agree with this statement now. About two weeks ago when I made this statement Siva took strong objection to it and requested the moderators to take appropriate action here, and you were one of the three people to express approval via "Like".

You have expressed a lot of opinions in this post, some of which I do agree with and some I don't, and some are irrelevant. I don't wish to set out on expressing my opinions against yours, that may not take us anywhere. So, I would like to restate my proposition and see how much agreement we have achieved so far, and channel the discussion towards the points open for further examination.

My major proposition is, as stated here,

"on balance, religion is more a bane than boon for humanity and we as humans will be better off rejecting religion."

​

In support of this major proposition I have three minor propositions. They are:

1. Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers.
2. Religion does not prevent people from doing immoral things.
3. Religion is unnecessary to lead a moral life.

I submit, if I can show that these three minor propositions are true, then the major proposition will be automatically true.

Of these three minor propositions we already have agreement on #1. So what remains are #2 and #3. Let me first present my arguments in favor of #2. I will deal with #3 after that.

In a way #2 is quite obvious. There is a constant drip of news about gurujis and acharyas misbehaving with women, amassing wealth through criminal enterprise, etc. The religion about which these gurujis constantly talk, and the gods they do pooja to every day morning, afternoon, and night, seem to have not made any impact upon them. No fear of punishment after death promised by these religions could stop them from indulging in criminality or immoral acts.

Let me present another example, the sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic Church. There cannot anything more immoral than sexually molesting children. Yet, their religion did not prevent these perverted priests from engaging in these despicable acts, no amount of punishment promised in their scripture could keep these people from engaging in disgustingly immoral activities.

I think these facts are sufficient to see that #2 is true.

I will present my case for #3 after we have discussed #2 further.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

Hello All:

Our youngsters are irreligious.. that's a sign of growth and understanding. Indeed, we are progressing.

Our youngsters are open minded and curious.. they are obedient to their parents when they were younger, then in High school and college they learn a lot.. they see what Science Engineering & Technology have achieved tangibly. And they see what the FATALISM and SUPERSTITION of Religion have done to the Society.

They move away from Religions... that's good and we must welcome it...

We are on the right track... Who is bothered by this Growth and Change?... Those peddling Superstition and Janma Poorva Karma, a HOAX!

Wait & watch.

 

[Yamaka]

By definition, Religiosity is Spirituality. Some people treat it as though they are different beasts! Lol.

They both posit the Belief of a Super Natural Agent present some where in the Universe controlling ALL activities, including humans in this birth and other births, as per Hinduism.

This is totally against what Science Engineering Technology tell our youngsters.

Our youngsters believe in SET and they reject the Superstition and FATALISM of Religions..

That's progress.

Where's the problem?

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Yamaka Sir, Greetings.

By definition, Religiosity is Spirituality. Some people treat it as though they are different beasts! Lol.

I am one of the persons who think religiosity and spirituality are different beasts.

Spiritual advancement can not be attained while someone is religious. If I remember Srimad Baghavadgita, disassociation from religion is one of the requirement for someone to attain Gnanam (ஞானம்). Gnanam is spiritual advancement. Take the case of a Humanist... He/she would view all the religions and the state of lack of religions as equal without attachment to any particular concept.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

Sri.Yamaka Sir, Greetings.



I am one of the persons who think religiosity and spirituality are different beasts.

Spiritual advancement can not be attained while someone is religious. If I remember Srimad Baghavadgita, disassociation from religion is one of the requirement for someone to attain Gnanam (ஞானம்). Gnanam is spiritual advancement. Take the case of a Humanist... He/she would view all the religions and the state of lack of religions as equal without attachment to any particular concept.

Cheers!

Hello Raghy:

Please refer to your dictionary. Mine says that Spirituality is the sensitivity or attachment to religion or religious values; something belongs to church or the clergy.

And you know the meaning of Religiosity: The Belief in the Super-Natural Agent (called God or Allah) present somewhere in the Universe controlling ALL activities of the Universe, including humans, in this birth and all other births, as per Hinduism.

As per this definition, as I said before, Spirituality = Religiosity.

What you posit seems to be totally opposite of this known definition.

Cheers.

 

[Raghy]

Hello Raghy:

Please refer to your dictionary. Mine says that Spirituality is the sensitivity or attachment to religion or religious values; something belongs to church or the clergy.

And you know the meaning of Religiosity: The Belief in the Super-Natural Agent (called God or Allah) present somewhere in the Universe controlling ALL activities of the Universe, including humans, in this birth and all other births, as per Hinduism.

As per this definition, as I said before, Spirituality = Religiosity.

What you posit seems to be totally opposite of this known definition.

Cheers.

Dear Sri.Yamaka, Greetings.

I admit, I did not refer dictionary for the meaning of religious and spirituality. With the dictionary meanings, I would be wrong, as shown by you; I accept. I considered spirituality as Gnanam (ஞானம்). I wrote my views from that platform.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi, I am glad you agree with this statement now. About two weeks ago when I made this statement Siva took strong objection to it and requested the moderators to take appropriate action here, and you were one of the three people to express approval via "Like".

Professor Nara,

Please find your statements in Black and that of mine in Blue.

A) AFA your above quoted message is concerened, the below is my reply...

My approval of Shri Siva's objection by way of clicking "like" to his post was not to support his request to moderators to take appropriate actions but to express my agreement with Shri Siva's contention against your claims (religion makes otherwise good people to act immorally/badly) that, such a braod accusation on "all religion" based on crooked and immoral humans, missusing religion (for political/economical/personal filthy requirements), is absolutely not withstanding and intolerable .

I agree with Shri Siva on the same grounds (as per my personal opinion/belief). I had an agreement with your claims (I also believe that every one else would also agree) selectively and thus expressed my views as how my agreement with your claims can be justified. Please look into it again below, reproduced in Bold & in Italics, between the dotted lines, that I have stated in my previous post..

----------------------------------------------------------------
"I do agree with your above statement. We all know the truth in your above statement. We can read between the lines and agree as we could witness the cruelty carried out across the globe in the name of holy war, conversions by hook or crook etc..."

"Please be noted that, intelligent humans know how to use religion to act politically / commercially."
----------------------------------------------------------------
We know who carries out holy war and we know who is keenly behind force/tactful conversions. These strategies clearly shows as how they been successful to some extent, in the guise of true believers of their respective religion. Shows, as how they could convince fellow humans by instilling all tactical tricks into their brain and brainwashing them to consider themselves "otherwise wrong/bad people who all are not truthful to their religious principles". They were been successful to change the moral minds to act immorally seldom by citing religious principles/absolute need of adherance etc and "mostly" by offering financial aids. For them religion is just a supporting tool and financial aids are the prime and effective strategy to build a trustworthy & competent Team .

Though we all are pragmatic and not religious fanatics to the extent of degrading other faiths, we all need to agree that this website/platform is indicating attractions from Hindu participants. As well, almost all of the members here are Hindus. Just because there are some successful operations/agendas in other faiths, against humanity/sentiments & belief of other faiths etc, we can not hold our self responsible and reject our faith, accepting your claims. We can only be sympathatic and considerate towards innocent/descent/moral humans of other faiths who all are unreasonably at receiving end in some or other ways due to their fellow immoral humans who all are acting immorally on behalf of their religion (in guise).


B) My major proposition is, as stated here,

"on balance, religion is more a bane than boon for humanity and we as humans will be better off rejecting religion."

​

In support of this major proposition I have three minor propositions. They are:
1. Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers.
2. Religion does not prevent people from doing immoral things.
3. Religion is unnecessary to lead a moral life.

Professor, as my reply to your minor proposition-1 (Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers.), please consider my above statements under - A, that would show as on what selective grounds I have agreement with your claims.

Regarding other sort of immoral acts (effecting personally or socially or in both ways) are concerned, in every walk of human life, my contention is - "Either religion has nothing to do with mere rational brains of humans OR misinterpreted religious texts are used tactically to acheive ulteriore motives (falsly justifying one's actions or misleading and brainwashing oneself and or others).

As far as your minor proposition - 2 (Religion does not prevent people from doing immoral things.) and your subsequent examples are concerned, here is my take......

Your examples in black and my observations on them in blue are between the dotted lines -

---------------------------------------------------------------

In a way #2 is quite obvious. There is a constant drip of news about gurujis and acharyas misbehaving with women, amassing wealth through criminal enterprise, etc. The religion about which these gurujis constantly talk, and the gods they do pooja to every day morning, afternoon, and night, seem to have not made any impact upon them. No fear of punishment after death promised by these religions could stop them from indulging in criminality or immoral acts.

Let me present another example, the sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic Church. There cannot anything more immoral than sexually molesting children. Yet, their religion did not prevent these perverted priests from engaging in these despicable acts, no amount of punishment promised in their scripture could keep these people from engaging in disgustingly immoral activities.


These filthy Hindu achaaryas, gurujis/god men, priests, ganabadigal, saastrigal etc, filthy Muslim ayatollah, caliph, imam, and mullah, filthy Christian Pope, cardinal, bishop. pastor, fathers etc and such religious representatives of any existing religion that you have highlighted, who all had and are (most probably in future too) indulging in disgustingly immoral activities are no different than any filthy/immoral comman men (as belonging to respective religion) living in society without holding any sort of religious institutional representations.

The number of these religious representatives are not forming the whole poplulation on this Earth. These filthy religious representatives and those filthy humans out of these religious representations in a society are all differing only with their ways and means to act and react immorally for their ulterior motives.

The above examples are not much withstanding to claim validation of your minor proposition - 2, IMHO.

-Considering the total population, induvidual/social refinement, aids to and rehabilitation of filthy / criminal / misleaded / misguided / duped / cheated / underprivileged and distressed humans in every walk of human life.

As I have stated in my previous post - "Please be noted that negativity is the part and parcel of this world and such negativity can not survive for ever and can not be expected to be glorified and sustained. Such negativity will come to an end sooner or later. They can not win over the good."

There is nothing called "this" or "that", that we can assert and say -"This/That can or can not prevent people from doing immoral things." Whatever immoral activity humans indulge in, humans should know that they are first pertinent to their inner self, irrespective of what they could acheive to the pleasure of their senses. Religion/God/Spirituality advocates working towards purification of this innerself to be moral as primary objective for self that would lead to a moral and peaceful society in total.

Based on Religion/God/Spirituality, with the best possible understanding of these and in true spirit millions of people are moral to the best of their consciousness and are continuing to work towards inner purification. Are trying honestly to be a better person and helping others in society to be moral, confident, hopeful, helping each other to live in peace and harmony (discarding filthy political stratigies on this planet of Human survival with rational brains).

---------------------------------------------------------------

Considering A) and B) above, it is clear that we are still not in agreement. Let me express my views on your minor proposition - 3 as well, to let us know that, we may not be in agreement in total.

As far as your minor proposition - 3 - (Religion is unnecessary to lead a moral life), is concerend, I have nothing more to say other than an anology below, having stated enough under A) & B)

"Religion/God/Sprirituality are all like the concept of hiding humans naked body with "cloths" for many obvious reasons that all are meant for a better purpose and are truly valid. These cloths fits differently to different humans, gives different appeal to the eyes and brains and offers different sense of comfort and satisfaction. Every human on this Earth, in a civilized soceity wear cloths and it just depends as how responsible/sensible/sensitive are they to put themselves and the others surrounding them in comfort".

There are many useful concepts and objects that we evolved humans adopt for a better survival. The humans with their rational brains would know what to use, how to use and for what purpose to use. Whatever been used, they way they all been used and the purpose for which they were been used, would give them the good or the bad impacts on themselves. Each humans are responsible for what they receive and what they offer.
The point is, humans are plenty with their complex brain and complicated life who all are surviving with the motive of personal fulfillment. The Humans could remain humans along with their motive of personal fulfillments only with a sort of fear, conscience, consciousness to ensure goodness of onself and the others surrounding them. Religion/God/Spirituality has been used and are in use in a right and constructive way by hell lots of humans on this Earth, both for self realization, betterment of inner self and for the good cause of onself and that of others underprivileged.


As per all the above opinions/views/belief of mine, I am not in agreement with your major proposition -"on balance, religion is more a bane than boon for humanity and we as humans will be better off rejecting religion."

Over to you, Professor...

 

[Nara]

....My approval of Shri Siva's objection by way of clicking "like" to his post was not to support his request to moderators to take appropriate actions but to express my agreement with Shri Siva's contention against your claims (religion makes otherwise good people to act immorally/badly) that, such a braod accusation on "all religion" based on crooked and immoral humans, (emphasis by Nara) missusing religion (for political/economical/personal filthy requirements), is absolutely not withstanding and intolerable .

Ravi, we are back to Minor Proposition #1 (MP1). The above clearly indicates you still have not given enough attention to what MP1 is. MP1 is not that crooked and immoral humans use religion to act in immoral ways. Please read what MP1 says carefully Ravi, here it is again:

"MP1: Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers. "

​

This is not about the jihadists who fly planes into buildings in the name of god, it is not about people offering human sacrifices to appease some god or another. It is about people who are considered epitome of morality acting in immoral ways.

Let us take for instance treatment meted out to widows, nobody will deny that making them shave their head, etc., are immoral acts. Nobody will deny ritual untouchability of the so called pancamas is immoral. Now, in this forum not many will deny that Paramacharya was an epitome of morality, yet he advocated all these immoral behavior because he was compelled to do so my the dharmashasthras he was taught to consider as supreme. It is not just Paracharya, but all Acharyas of Brahmnical mattams do so as well, all of whom are considered supremely moral people.

I have given and can further give many more examples of this kind of perfectly moral people who are forced to act in immoral ways just to be true to their religious doctrine.

Ravi, we need to stick to some rules of logic here. Please present your arguments that pertain to this MP1, saying there are bad people acting badly is completely irrelevant.

I will discuss MP2 and MP3 after we have some clarity on MP1.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi, we are back to Minor Proposition #1 (MP1). The above clearly indicates you still have not given enough attention to what MP1 is. MP1 is not that crooked and immoral humans use religion to act in immoral ways. Please read what MP1 says carefully Ravi, here it is again:

"MP1: Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers. "

​

This is not about the jihadists who fly planes into buildings in the name of god, it is not about people offering human sacrifices to appease some god or another. It is about people who are considered epitome of morality acting in immoral ways.

Let us take for instance treatment meted out to widows, nobody will deny that making them shave their head, etc., are immoral acts. Nobody will deny ritual untouchability of the so called pancamas is immoral. Now, in this forum not many will deny that Paramacharya was an epitome of morality, yet he advocated all these immoral behavior because he was compelled to do so my the dharmashasthras he was taught to consider as supreme. It is not just Paracharya, but all Acharyas of Brahmnical mattams do so as well, all of whom are considered supremely moral people.

I have given and can further give many more examples of this kind of perfectly moral people who are forced to act in immoral ways just to be true to their religious doctrine.

Ravi, we need to stick to some rules of logic here. Please present your arguments that pertain to this MP1, saying there are bad people acting badly is completely irrelevant.

I will discuss MP2 and MP3 after we have some clarity on MP1.

Cheers!

Professor Nara,

As per your MP1 - "Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers. " and relevant arguments in support, here is my take..


All I am saying repeatedly is - humans tend to acheive what they want in disguise of "true believers".

So, they appear to be those who are acting upon Religion/God/Spirituality honestly and gullible people find themselves at receiving end.

And "wrong" conclusion are arrived at considering such "ignorant or crooked" people as those who all are the victims of "self character assacination", being "true believers" of Religion/God/Spirituality/Dharma Shastras etc..



Interpolations, misinterpretations, misrepresentations etc are the reasons of all such attrocities of olden era when shaastras were used to remould to suite those days social set ups.

Aachaaryas and followers with Brahminism ways of living had their own reasons to justify untouchability during those eras. Avoiding eating meat, following "madi" especially during women's monthly cycle etc. were strictly followed in Brahmin community. The living style and social set ups were totally different and as common to all generations, humans manupulated scriptures, dharma shastras and used them as a tool to advocate rules disproportionately, justifying the mean / ruthless / selfish / self ego massaging / supremacy acts in the name of God and Shastras, in disguise of "true believers".

Today, in a different social set up, hardly people are ignorant of civil /constitutional rights, social liberty, SET etc. Hardly people are religiously dogmatic and are blind followers, accepting anything thats been advocated unreasonably in the name of GOD and Religion. Along with this clarity and rational brain humans continue to follow their respective religion, retaining belief in GOD and spirituality.

I am sticking to my point that, only in the name of Religion/God/Spirituality people are living in peace with hopes, confidence, patience and are considerate to fellow human beings, globally.

Morality, Charity and rehabilitations are continuing to exist in majority out of conscience/consciousness. The qualities / attitudes / mental make up of self purification, sympathizing other misfortunes, helping others and being humble etc are all continuing to exists in human rational brains only due to Religion/God/Spirituality.

I affirmatively would say - "Rejection of Religiion/God/Spirituality would "force" humans to behave more as predatory species and be immoral, in majority"



As such, I don't find any clear logical proof in your MP1, and personally would reject accepting your claims.

I am concluding my post, reiterating that - "Rejection of Religiion/God/Spirituality would "force" humans to behave more as predatory species and be immoral, in majority"

This above conclusion is what I believe is a logical and visible proof in every walk of human life across the globe and this is of absolute significance than that of your reasoning favoring your MP1, IMHO.

 

[Nara]

Ravi,

My proposition is:

"MP1: Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers. "

​

In your response the only thing that comes somewhat close to addressing this is as below, the rest of what you say, whether true or not, is irrelevant to MP1.

.....
Aachaaryas and followers with Brahminism ways of living had their own reasons to justify untouchability during those eras.

There are a few problems with your response.

[1] The acharyas of the bygone era expressed beliefs that went far beyond madi, acharam, both Adi Sankara and Bhagavat Ramanuja asserted in their Bashyas that Shudras must suffer painful punishments for the crime of listening or saying the words of Vedas.

[2] Even in that bygone era these Acharyas would have rejected these ideas as horrible but for their religious faith in the inerrant nature of dharmashashthras.

[3] This untouhcability and segregation is still being practiced by present day acharyas who are held in very high esteem as models of supreme morality.

​

So, your "bygone era" argument does not hold water. The rest of your post does not address MP1.

Ravi, it is not enough to just say you don't agree with MP1. You have only two options, (i) logically show why the evidence I have submitted do not prove MP1, or (ii) accept MP1 is true. If you don't do either and simply declare you are not going to agree, then, that would only mean your are not serious. Then, there is no point in continuing the discussion that is not serious.

I affirmatively would say - "Rejection of Religiion/God/Spirituality would "force" humans to behave more as predatory species and be immoral, in majority"

Once again, even if the above is true, it has nothing to do with MP1. You may present this as a proposition separately and provide your arguments in its favor. Those who are interested in a conversation on it may engage you. But, in the context of the present discussion, however affirmatively you may state this, this opinion of yours is completely irrelevant to MP1.

Cheers!

 

[kameshratnam]

We should see the roots of this. Where all do we get connected to religion? From our parents, in temples, our gurus and vadhyars in functions.
Temples - We know if we give money everything will happen
Gurus - No one of us are even bothered to listen to what our great guru Adi sankara has said and we dont respect our sankaracharyas and yes there are issues with them also - i agree
Vadhyars - Need not ask at all - The way they do stuff is the main cause for children to lose faith on religion
Parents - they should teach children that religion is the base of our life and it provides us all good things. Santhana dharma is a way of life.

Corrupted temples, gurus, vadhyars and parents who have lost respect for santhana dharma are the main cause

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Nara,

I rest my case with you. I have nothing more to present from my side. I wish some other member take up the debate with you but doubt arrival of mutual agreement in toto.

There will be some people agreeing with your minor and major propositions to discard Religion/God/Spirituality. As well, there will be some agreeing with my views in support of Religion/God/Spirituality. This is an endless debating process. People differ with their perceptions, ideas, belief etc and as such Religion/God/Spirituality would continue to exist, IMO, for better at large

Enjoyed arguing with you

 

[Nara]

We all have our own ideas and opinions, that is fine. If we are unable to defend our ideas but still would like to cling on to them for some emotional reasons or for reasons that cannot be properly articulated, that is fine too, simply say so. But what is unreasonable is to express some opinions and claim they are valid arguments, and further state my opinion and your opinion are of equal validity -- that is just dishonest.

Further, it simply does not matter how many people support one view or another, the validity of a statement is not a matter of majority rule. Even when a vast majority believed the sun was revolving around the earth, the truth was different. Even when a vast majority believed, and may still do, that 8 elephants are holding earth up, the truth was different. So, I think we need to strictly examine the validity of propositions made instead of appealing to majority opinion, argumentum ad populum fallacy.

My minor propositions are:
MP1: Religion forces perfectly moral people to do immoral things in order to be true believers.
MP2: Religion does not prevent people from doing immoral things.
MP3: Religion is unnecessary to lead a moral life.

Given these minor propositions are true, the major proposition stands proved.

"on balance, religion is more a bane than boon for humanity and we as humans will be better off rejecting religion."

​

I am ready and willing to engage any serious, rational and fallacy free arguments against these propositions.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Nara Sir,

The caveats you state against religion are all very sensible and appeal to the thinking mind.

I too always felt religion is humbug.

But on closely examining myself i find this innate sense to venerate. I don't know how and why it comes and when it started, but its a comfort zone.

I accept atheist arguments very much. They do appeal to my mind when it is in the thinking mode.

But the moment i face some difficulty, the first thing that happens automatically is to pray and seek some solace, comfort in God, who i hope may help.

Atheism will appeal to strong minds. Unfortunately am not that strong yet. I have a family, things to take care of, and responsibilities to fulfil. Trying to live without God is a difficult task in itself, and upsets my source of strength. When this feeling of strength is gone, it upsets my confidence, and disrupts my sense of comfort.

I suppose this is how many people think and function also. Therefore while atheism is very valid, it may not suit some people.

I hope theists and atheists make peace and can live peacefully with one another, while accepting that each other's argument may make sense when seen from (either) each one's thinking zone or from their comfort zone.

They say our attitude is our fate, so maybe my attitude of seeking strength in God makes me feel i can have a better fate, i dunno. But some day in future hopefully i can be an atheist.

Regards.

 

[C RAVI]

of late mossundararajan.t of the young people are not religious. No religious observances by them. It is something serious.
sundararajan.

The above is the OP by Shri Sundararajan..

I would like to know as wheather the worries expressed above as serious is a justifiable/reasonable fear and is that such concernes are among the meagre or most of the population of our society?

The other points in my mind, considering OP are -

1) What all are found wrong in youngsters, being irreligious?
2) What wrong activities can show that, the lack of religious values are to be considered as the "reasons" behind condemnable activities.

Considering the statement/assertive openion of Professor Nara - "on balance, religion is more a bane than boon for humanity and we as humans will be better off rejecting religion.", as correct -

3) Isn't that there should not be any worries about the youngsters, on religious grounds?