-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
- Status
renuka
Well-known member
But as members of the forum we have the desire to see new "plays" and not the same old re run over and over again of the same movie and same plot and same outcome...its gets boring and cant we be spared of the torture of seeing this ?
none of us are asking for "repeat"(pronounced Repeatte!! like in the famous Rajini song in Chandramukhi)
Here its "Repeatte" non stop by the same playback singer but the movie is Jwalamukhi!!
none of us are asking for "repeat"(pronounced Repeatte!! like in the famous Rajini song in Chandramukhi)
Here its "Repeatte" non stop by the same playback singer but the movie is Jwalamukhi!!
Renuka your post #302:
You are recalling Chandramukhi and so I post this.The apparitions and the pains have to be completely exorcised. Till then there will be repeat performances. What you can not change, bear with a grin or better join the farce and contribute your mite and enjoy the show all the way. I do that and prescribe that. You are a doctor and you know what to do with the prescriptions!
Cheers.
You are recalling Chandramukhi and so I post this.The apparitions and the pains have to be completely exorcised. Till then there will be repeat performances. What you can not change, bear with a grin or better join the farce and contribute your mite and enjoy the show all the way. I do that and prescribe that. You are a doctor and you know what to do with the prescriptions!
Cheers.
Last edited:
renuka
Well-known member
Folks,
I have deleted many offensive posts above, starting with, I am sorry to say Srimathi Renuka Ji's post.
Again,, why is anyone involving oneself in the affairs of Moderation in a public way? I am disappointed that despite my conversation with Srimathi Renuka Ji via PM, a mocking type posting was made above. Even after my deletions, these unneeded comments are posted.
No one needs to involve the Moderator by 'complaining'. Moderation is done on all offensive postings.
These types of posting above, where oblique references are made about Professor Nara Ji, in my opinion are tasteless, provocative and above all not fair. These, in a way, end up being personal.
I would appreciate, if we don't continue on these lines. No wonder, Professor Nara Ji feels abused. I would feel so too, if I were in his shoes.
Regards,
KRS
I have deleted many offensive posts above, starting with, I am sorry to say Srimathi Renuka Ji's post.
Again,, why is anyone involving oneself in the affairs of Moderation in a public way? I am disappointed that despite my conversation with Srimathi Renuka Ji via PM, a mocking type posting was made above. Even after my deletions, these unneeded comments are posted.
No one needs to involve the Moderator by 'complaining'. Moderation is done on all offensive postings.
These types of posting above, where oblique references are made about Professor Nara Ji, in my opinion are tasteless, provocative and above all not fair. These, in a way, end up being personal.
I would appreciate, if we don't continue on these lines. No wonder, Professor Nara Ji feels abused. I would feel so too, if I were in his shoes.
Regards,
KRS
renuka
Well-known member
Ok KRS Ji...dont worry I am not abusing anyone..only if the shoe fits one feels abused.
BTW sorry if I caused some trouble for you.Only for you I am saying sorry.
Just to add : Its my 1st time getting a red inked note from Moderator by 'trouble" caused by me..actually it doesnt feel bad at all.
Nice experience though.
Effect being better than the Cause.
Last edited:
K
kannanpadmanabhan
Guest
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....
Prof:
So you believe in God?
Student:
Absolutely, sir.
Prof
: Is God good?
Student:
Sure.
Prof:
Is God all-powerful?
Student
: Yes.
Prof:
My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof:
You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
Is Satan good?
Student
: No.
Prof:
Where does Satan come from?
Student:
From...God.. .
Prof:
That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof:
Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student:
Yes, sir.
Prof:
So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof:
Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you.
Tell me, son...Have you ever
seen God?
Student:
No, sir.
Prof:
Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student:
No, sir.
Prof:
Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student:
No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof:
Yet you still believe in Him?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist.
What do you say to that, son?
Student:
Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof:
Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student:
Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof:
Yes.
Student:
And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof:
Yes.
Student:
No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student
: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat.
But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go
any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold . Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat
. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy . Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it .
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student:
What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof:
Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student :
You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright
light, flashing light....But if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In
reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof:
So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student:
Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof:
Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student:
Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor.Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof:
If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student:
Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student:
Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)
Student:
Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student
: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. )
Prof:
I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student:
That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH . That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
this is a true story, and the
student was none other than........ . (scroll down)
APJ Abdul Kalam , the former president of India .
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....
Prof:
So you believe in God?
Student:
Absolutely, sir.
Prof
: Is God good?
Student:
Sure.
Prof:
Is God all-powerful?
Student
: Yes.
Prof:
My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)
Prof:
You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
Is Satan good?
Student
: No.
Prof:
Where does Satan come from?
Student:
From...God.. .
Prof:
That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)
Prof:
Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student:
Yes, sir.
Prof:
So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)
Prof:
Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you.
Tell me, son...Have you ever
seen God?
Student:
No, sir.
Prof:
Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student:
No, sir.
Prof:
Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student:
No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof:
Yet you still believe in Him?
Student:
Yes.
Prof:
According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist.
What do you say to that, son?
Student:
Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof:
Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student:
Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof:
Yes.
Student:
And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof:
Yes.
Student:
No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student
: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat.
But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go
any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold . Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat
. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy . Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it .
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student:
What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof:
Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student :
You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright
light, flashing light....But if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In
reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof:
So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student:
Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof:
Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student:
Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor.Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof:
If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student:
Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student:
Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)
Student:
Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student
: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. )
Prof:
I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student:
That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH . That is all that keeps things moving & alive.
this is a true story, and the
student was none other than........ . (scroll down)
APJ Abdul Kalam , the former president of India .
S
S.Ramanathan
Guest
A good post. Though I have already read the same some where, I enjoy reading again. We have to have faith in god. Though we cannot see god we can realise god's presence.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Carl Sagan
Not many would have not heard of Carl Sagan. He introduced the common folks like myself to the wonders of cosmos. For his PBS series Cosomos he visited India and Tanjore Bragadeeswarar temple. He felt intrigued by the Hindus creation myth. Unlike the Biblical belief system, the Hindu ones involved long time spans and repeating cycles. This captured his fascination. Some Hindus take this as indicative of Carl Sagan accepting the Hindu creation myth as something more than a mere myth. But, Sagan was no devotee of mysticism. He was a confirmed agnostic. He wrote quite emphatically about the lack of evidence for theism. He said:
"I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
For our Hindu theists, we can replace "oversized white male" with "oversized man/woman-like figure with four arms or three eyes or whatever" and Sagan's words will ring very true.
We have seen people mentioning astral plane, spirits, driving away demons and such like. In his book "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a candle in the dark" Sagan lists the horrors visited upon hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people, due to belief in such superstitious nonsense as demons and witchcraft. I would like to present a few selected passages from this book. Religion in general has to answer for such horrors.
Carl Sagan starts Chapter 7 of this book with a quote from Isa Upanishad, "There are demon-haunted worlds, regions of utter darkness." Then he traces such belief from the Greeks to the early Christians. He says St. Augustine (circa 5th Century CE), took pagan beliefs and modified them to suit the monotheistic Christianity. Sagan writes, "Augustine .... replaces gods by God, and demonizes demons -- arguing that they are, without exception, malign."
They believed that these demons can interfere with the process of normal copulation to obtain human semen, and then pour it into female repositories by copulating with them, thus producing witches and demons. Even Thomas Aquinas, the intellectual grand sire of the Catholic Church says, 'demons can transfer the semen which they have collected and inject it into the bodies of others'.
How are these witches and demons treated by the Church, both Catholic and Protestants?
The first task is to extract a confession from the accused through torture. The story then unfolds in Sagan's words:
Torture is an unfailing means to demonstrate the validity of the accusation. There are no rights of the defendant. There is no opportunity to confront the accusers. Little attention is given to the possibility that accusations might be made for impious purposes - jealousy, say, or revenge, or the greed of the inquisitors who routinely confiscated for their own private benefit the property of the accused.
The more who, under torture, confessed to witchcraft, the harder it was to maintain that the whole business was mere fantasy. Since each 'witch' was made to implicate others, the numbers grew exponentially. These constituted 'frightful proofs that the Devil is still alive',
(Pope) Innocent (the one who commissioned these inquisitions) himself died in 1492, following unsuccessful attempts to keep him alive by transfusion (which resulted in the deaths of three boys) and by suckling at the breast of a nursing mother. He was mourned by his mistress and their children.
There were strong erotic and misogynistic elements, as might be expected in a sexually repressed, male-dominated society with
inquisitors drawn from the class of nominally celibate priests. .... 'Devil's marks' were found 'generally on the breasts or private parts' according to Ludovico Sinistrari's 1700 book. As a result pubic hair was shaved, and the genitalia were carefully inspected by the exclusively male inquisitors.
No one knows how many were killed altogether - perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. Those responsible for prosecuting, torturing, judging, burning and justifying were selfless. Just ask them.
Witchcraft of course was not the only offense that merited torture and burning at the stake..... In the sixteenth century the scholar William Tyndale had the temerity to contemplate translating the New Testament into English. ... This was a challenge to the job security of Roman Catholic priests. When Tyndale tried to publish his translation, he was hounded and pursued all over Europe. Eventually he was captured, garrotted, and then, for good measure, burned at the stake.
The Hindus may be tempted to distance themselves from these atrocities as alien to them, something that couldn't happen in Hindu India. But who knows for sure, there is no reliable written record of the past. Even if these exact atrocities did not occur in large scale, the horrors perpetrated in the name of Hindu beliefs is no less hideous.
Cheers!
Not many would have not heard of Carl Sagan. He introduced the common folks like myself to the wonders of cosmos. For his PBS series Cosomos he visited India and Tanjore Bragadeeswarar temple. He felt intrigued by the Hindus creation myth. Unlike the Biblical belief system, the Hindu ones involved long time spans and repeating cycles. This captured his fascination. Some Hindus take this as indicative of Carl Sagan accepting the Hindu creation myth as something more than a mere myth. But, Sagan was no devotee of mysticism. He was a confirmed agnostic. He wrote quite emphatically about the lack of evidence for theism. He said:
"I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
For our Hindu theists, we can replace "oversized white male" with "oversized man/woman-like figure with four arms or three eyes or whatever" and Sagan's words will ring very true.
We have seen people mentioning astral plane, spirits, driving away demons and such like. In his book "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a candle in the dark" Sagan lists the horrors visited upon hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people, due to belief in such superstitious nonsense as demons and witchcraft. I would like to present a few selected passages from this book. Religion in general has to answer for such horrors.
Carl Sagan starts Chapter 7 of this book with a quote from Isa Upanishad, "There are demon-haunted worlds, regions of utter darkness." Then he traces such belief from the Greeks to the early Christians. He says St. Augustine (circa 5th Century CE), took pagan beliefs and modified them to suit the monotheistic Christianity. Sagan writes, "Augustine .... replaces gods by God, and demonizes demons -- arguing that they are, without exception, malign."
They believed that these demons can interfere with the process of normal copulation to obtain human semen, and then pour it into female repositories by copulating with them, thus producing witches and demons. Even Thomas Aquinas, the intellectual grand sire of the Catholic Church says, 'demons can transfer the semen which they have collected and inject it into the bodies of others'.
How are these witches and demons treated by the Church, both Catholic and Protestants?
The first task is to extract a confession from the accused through torture. The story then unfolds in Sagan's words:
Torture is an unfailing means to demonstrate the validity of the accusation. There are no rights of the defendant. There is no opportunity to confront the accusers. Little attention is given to the possibility that accusations might be made for impious purposes - jealousy, say, or revenge, or the greed of the inquisitors who routinely confiscated for their own private benefit the property of the accused.
The more who, under torture, confessed to witchcraft, the harder it was to maintain that the whole business was mere fantasy. Since each 'witch' was made to implicate others, the numbers grew exponentially. These constituted 'frightful proofs that the Devil is still alive',
(Pope) Innocent (the one who commissioned these inquisitions) himself died in 1492, following unsuccessful attempts to keep him alive by transfusion (which resulted in the deaths of three boys) and by suckling at the breast of a nursing mother. He was mourned by his mistress and their children.
There were strong erotic and misogynistic elements, as might be expected in a sexually repressed, male-dominated society with
inquisitors drawn from the class of nominally celibate priests. .... 'Devil's marks' were found 'generally on the breasts or private parts' according to Ludovico Sinistrari's 1700 book. As a result pubic hair was shaved, and the genitalia were carefully inspected by the exclusively male inquisitors.
No one knows how many were killed altogether - perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. Those responsible for prosecuting, torturing, judging, burning and justifying were selfless. Just ask them.
Witchcraft of course was not the only offense that merited torture and burning at the stake..... In the sixteenth century the scholar William Tyndale had the temerity to contemplate translating the New Testament into English. ... This was a challenge to the job security of Roman Catholic priests. When Tyndale tried to publish his translation, he was hounded and pursued all over Europe. Eventually he was captured, garrotted, and then, for good measure, burned at the stake.
The Hindus may be tempted to distance themselves from these atrocities as alien to them, something that couldn't happen in Hindu India. But who knows for sure, there is no reliable written record of the past. Even if these exact atrocities did not occur in large scale, the horrors perpetrated in the name of Hindu beliefs is no less hideous.
Cheers!
Mr. Nara,
Your post #310:
Certainly Hindus can be proud that they have kept away from all this non-sense. Inquisitions and the burning at stakes did not take place in the distant past of vedic times. Comparatively speaking at the same time when these things were happening in Europe India was tranquil. It is the western culture which is a monstrous decaying one. It had used the energy released when an atom is smashed immediately to destroy other human beings. It is this culture which, when it was found that genes can be rejigged immediately created the monster of HIV and now world is suffering because the monster refuses go back into the bottle. Think about it. Carl Sagan may not, after all, be speaking the ultimate truth. My advice would be -keep doing the tapas. One day you may get enlightenment. If you are unfortunate or your efforts are not adequate you may not get it.There is nothing final about anything.
Cheers.
Your post #310:
Certainly Hindus can be proud that they have kept away from all this non-sense. Inquisitions and the burning at stakes did not take place in the distant past of vedic times. Comparatively speaking at the same time when these things were happening in Europe India was tranquil. It is the western culture which is a monstrous decaying one. It had used the energy released when an atom is smashed immediately to destroy other human beings. It is this culture which, when it was found that genes can be rejigged immediately created the monster of HIV and now world is suffering because the monster refuses go back into the bottle. Think about it. Carl Sagan may not, after all, be speaking the ultimate truth. My advice would be -keep doing the tapas. One day you may get enlightenment. If you are unfortunate or your efforts are not adequate you may not get it.There is nothing final about anything.
Cheers.
N
nachi naga
Guest
there is one earth,one race-the race of humanity.even the countries borders are human made.god is one for all.
S
sarma-61
Guest
Shri KRS sir,
Considering that most members contributing to this forum are believers in God, and that no one has openly turned into an atheist or agnostic as a result of reading the various posts by Prof. Nara sir all these years, mt humble request to the believing members here is that we refrain from reacting in any manner whatsoever to the posts of Shri Nara or the threads started by him.
It is purely because there are very animated responses to his posts that he is able to get a "larger than life" coverage (akin to the giant flexi-cut-outs of Tamil Cinema heroes in Chennai). The best thing is to keep quiet.
But I doubt very much that all the other members also derive some strange emotional satisfaction by strongly rebutting Shri Nara's views. Let us be clear that by our rebuttals he is not likely to change his atheistic views and his views are not sufficient or strong enough to move any theist into the opposite camp; and GOD, after all is not at all bothered about these childish acts of a few among us because He knows that He exists for those who believe so.
Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,
I think brother Nara Ji knows this as well.
I don't agree with most of his views as well as yours and a few others in this Forum. But, I will never let your voices be drowned out because a few do not like the opinions expressed.
My regret is that a couple of voices in the past had left because I was not here to do my job. As a community, I think, we need to accommodate all different voices. That makes us strong, and vibrant.
Regards,
KRS
I think brother Nara Ji knows this as well.
I don't agree with most of his views as well as yours and a few others in this Forum. But, I will never let your voices be drowned out because a few do not like the opinions expressed.
My regret is that a couple of voices in the past had left because I was not here to do my job. As a community, I think, we need to accommodate all different voices. That makes us strong, and vibrant.
Regards,
KRS
S
sarma-61
Guest
Sir,
I am in full agreement with your ideal that "As a community, I think, we need to accommodate all different voices. That makes us strong, and vibrant." But by continuing to allow Prof. Nara (and other atheists, if any) to voice their opinions here through their postings and or threads, this purpose will be amply served, imo. And, my suggestion is that other (theist) members need not take it as their holy crusade to rebut, put down and denigrate those members. I do not think this will go against your aim.
B
BostonSankara
Guest
Sometimes it is nice to come here because I know that many of use believe similarly..... Hinduism (whatever that really means)... actually let's say it this way ...
The religions of Bharat are diverse and multi-faceted but have many common threads. Sometimes it is nice to come here to share time and a space with others who share similar faith. The same reason I come here (solidarity, support of community, etc) are often some of the same reasons individuals like Prof. Nara Ji come here. I come here to share in our strength and he comes to experience that strength in a different way.
Atheists in general will often say laughingly how using logic they have crushed yet another theist who couldn't stand up to their arguments. Despite my name I am no Sankara. I am not the one to debate these powerful minds and to be honest I have little to no desire to engage like that here. As I stated I am here for the opposite. That fact notwithstanding where are the atheists to find their Sri Shankara? If not amongst Brahmins (gasp if you like, I'm including myself here) then where? As much as I would like to often say "Sir! this is silliness to discuss as we are getting nowhere after years! let us agree to disagree and move on!" This is not what he and many others like him may be looking for. On some level I feel he wants nothing more than to be convinced of something greater. Sadly I feel he requires it to have external physical proof and will not be satisfied with internal realization and experience. But that is just my subjective opinion. My pacifist desires surely do not speak to his intellectual need for engaging debate. So, I cannot say that I wish things different one way or another. I can say that on some level I am proud to be a member of the MAS (Mutual Appreciation Society) and I hope all MAS members appreciate the atheists and all others as well as equal members of a unique and somewhat controversial community.
PS ozone whats an Ilichavaya ?
The religions of Bharat are diverse and multi-faceted but have many common threads. Sometimes it is nice to come here to share time and a space with others who share similar faith. The same reason I come here (solidarity, support of community, etc) are often some of the same reasons individuals like Prof. Nara Ji come here. I come here to share in our strength and he comes to experience that strength in a different way.
Atheists in general will often say laughingly how using logic they have crushed yet another theist who couldn't stand up to their arguments. Despite my name I am no Sankara. I am not the one to debate these powerful minds and to be honest I have little to no desire to engage like that here. As I stated I am here for the opposite. That fact notwithstanding where are the atheists to find their Sri Shankara? If not amongst Brahmins (gasp if you like, I'm including myself here) then where? As much as I would like to often say "Sir! this is silliness to discuss as we are getting nowhere after years! let us agree to disagree and move on!" This is not what he and many others like him may be looking for. On some level I feel he wants nothing more than to be convinced of something greater. Sadly I feel he requires it to have external physical proof and will not be satisfied with internal realization and experience. But that is just my subjective opinion. My pacifist desires surely do not speak to his intellectual need for engaging debate. So, I cannot say that I wish things different one way or another. I can say that on some level I am proud to be a member of the MAS (Mutual Appreciation Society) and I hope all MAS members appreciate the atheists and all others as well as equal members of a unique and somewhat controversial community.
PS ozone whats an Ilichavaya ?
Last edited by a moderator:
S
sarma-61
Guest
Shri ozone,
I do not think so. Firstly, I do not find many NB atheist venturing into this forum, except one; what we have are Brahmanas who, for some inexplicable reason/s, have come under the atheist doctrines of Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk. My personal feeling is that once a person declares to a forum like this that he/she is an atheist, it becomes a prestige issue to maintain that pose. But when that person realizes that there are few takers for the atheism, then it becomes a compulsion to continue propagating the atheist pov with the fervent hope that at least one or two people can be converted to atheism.
As to why such people are bent upon creating vibrations only in this forum, I will say that it is not our being இளிச்சவாயன்s but the world knows that there will be no danger from us. (If one goes into an Islamic web forum and starts writing against Allah or about atheism, I am sure the anonimity of internet will be overcome, the writer traced, and attacked physically. It is sad that we brahmins do not learn any lessons from those communities nor from the iconography of our deities who invariably have more than a pair of arma and carry some of the most lethal weapons in them; we say it is for protecting the devotees but we forget that those deities can use their weapons for self-protection and annihilation of enemies also.
A community can flourish only if it is strong enough to defend itself.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
I request the members to keep my name out of your public deliberations, thank you....
B
BostonSankara
Guest
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Theists of all stripes love to hate Richard Dawkins' because he wrote an entertaining book and called it "The God Delusion". In this book, they think he mocked their theistic belief system. What I saw as hilarious was seen as offensive. What I saw as a keen sense of humor, theists saw cheap shots taken at their expense.
The theists do have a point. When posing unanswerable questions Dawkins could have stopped short of rubbing it in. But, how would the theists treated him and his book if he had taken a milder approach? Well, this is not entirely a sepculative question. We do have another book that pretty much presents the same kind of arguments as that of The God Deluison, but with some important differences, (i) it has a very humble and academic title, "The God Hypothesis", (ii) the arguments are presented in a very gentle fashion, and (iii) the author is a much beloved and gentle Carl Sagan. But none of this makes any difference, the theists reject Carl Sagan with just as much antipathy as they do Richard Dawkins.
In Chapter 6 of this book Sagan takes on the usual arguments we have seen played out here in various threads and systematically dismantles them all. The entire chapter is a must read for even the confirmed theists whose faith is rock solid, as at the very least it will show where we atheists are coming from, and that may persuade them to treat us atheists with a little less hostility.
I will try to give as much original text from Chapter 6 as possible. Those interested in the entire chapter of about 14 pages, please PM me and I will try to get it to you in pdf format.
From The God Hypothesis, Chapter 6:
"If we are to discuss the idea of God and be restricted to rational arguments, then it is probably useful to know what we are talking about when we say “God.” This turns out not to be easy. .... Now, there is a constellation of properties that we generally think of when we in the West, or more generally in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, think of God. .... We think of some being who is omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, who created the universe, is responsive to prayer, intervenes in human affairs, and so on.
But suppose there were definitive proof of some being who had some but not all of these properties. Suppose somehow it were demonstrated that there was a being who originated the universe but is indifferent to prayer. . . . Or, worse, a god who was oblivious to the existence of humans. That’s very much like Aristotle’s god. Would that be God or not? Suppose it were someone who was omnipotent but not omniscient, or vice versa. Suppose this god understood all the consequences of his actions but there were many things he was unable to do, so he was condemned to a universe in which his desired ends could not be accomplished. These alternative kinds of gods are hardly ever thought about or discussed. A priori there is no reason they should not be as likely as the more conventional sorts of gods.
... The range of hypotheses that are seriously covered under the rubric “God” is immense. A naive Western view of God is an outsize, light-skinned male with a long white beard, who sits on a very large throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow.
Contrast this with a quite different vision of God, one proposed by Baruch Spinoza and by Albert Einstein. And this second kind of god they called God in a very straightforward way. Einstein was constantly interpreting the world in terms of what God would or wouldn’t do. But by God they meant something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled God. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature, as I have said earlier, that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow, Peking, Mars, Alpha Centauri, the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quasars known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us. It represents an unexpected regularity to the universe. It need not have been. It could have been that every province of the cosmos had its own laws of nature. It’s not apparent from the start that the same laws have to apply everywhere.
Now, it would be wholly foolish to deny the existence of laws of nature. And if that is what we are talking about when we say God, then no one can possibly be an atheist, or at least anyone who would profess atheism would have to give a coherent argument about why the laws of nature are inapplicable.
I think he or she would be hard-pressed. So with this latter definition of God, we all believe in God. The former definition of God is much more dubious. And there is a wide range of other sorts of gods. And in every case we have to ask, “What kind of god are you talking about, and what is the evidence that this god exists?”
more later ....
The theists do have a point. When posing unanswerable questions Dawkins could have stopped short of rubbing it in. But, how would the theists treated him and his book if he had taken a milder approach? Well, this is not entirely a sepculative question. We do have another book that pretty much presents the same kind of arguments as that of The God Deluison, but with some important differences, (i) it has a very humble and academic title, "The God Hypothesis", (ii) the arguments are presented in a very gentle fashion, and (iii) the author is a much beloved and gentle Carl Sagan. But none of this makes any difference, the theists reject Carl Sagan with just as much antipathy as they do Richard Dawkins.
In Chapter 6 of this book Sagan takes on the usual arguments we have seen played out here in various threads and systematically dismantles them all. The entire chapter is a must read for even the confirmed theists whose faith is rock solid, as at the very least it will show where we atheists are coming from, and that may persuade them to treat us atheists with a little less hostility.
I will try to give as much original text from Chapter 6 as possible. Those interested in the entire chapter of about 14 pages, please PM me and I will try to get it to you in pdf format.
From The God Hypothesis, Chapter 6:
"If we are to discuss the idea of God and be restricted to rational arguments, then it is probably useful to know what we are talking about when we say “God.” This turns out not to be easy. .... Now, there is a constellation of properties that we generally think of when we in the West, or more generally in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, think of God. .... We think of some being who is omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, who created the universe, is responsive to prayer, intervenes in human affairs, and so on.
But suppose there were definitive proof of some being who had some but not all of these properties. Suppose somehow it were demonstrated that there was a being who originated the universe but is indifferent to prayer. . . . Or, worse, a god who was oblivious to the existence of humans. That’s very much like Aristotle’s god. Would that be God or not? Suppose it were someone who was omnipotent but not omniscient, or vice versa. Suppose this god understood all the consequences of his actions but there were many things he was unable to do, so he was condemned to a universe in which his desired ends could not be accomplished. These alternative kinds of gods are hardly ever thought about or discussed. A priori there is no reason they should not be as likely as the more conventional sorts of gods.
... The range of hypotheses that are seriously covered under the rubric “God” is immense. A naive Western view of God is an outsize, light-skinned male with a long white beard, who sits on a very large throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow.
Contrast this with a quite different vision of God, one proposed by Baruch Spinoza and by Albert Einstein. And this second kind of god they called God in a very straightforward way. Einstein was constantly interpreting the world in terms of what God would or wouldn’t do. But by God they meant something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled God. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature, as I have said earlier, that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow, Peking, Mars, Alpha Centauri, the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quasars known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us. It represents an unexpected regularity to the universe. It need not have been. It could have been that every province of the cosmos had its own laws of nature. It’s not apparent from the start that the same laws have to apply everywhere.
Now, it would be wholly foolish to deny the existence of laws of nature. And if that is what we are talking about when we say God, then no one can possibly be an atheist, or at least anyone who would profess atheism would have to give a coherent argument about why the laws of nature are inapplicable.
I think he or she would be hard-pressed. So with this latter definition of God, we all believe in God. The former definition of God is much more dubious. And there is a wide range of other sorts of gods. And in every case we have to ask, “What kind of god are you talking about, and what is the evidence that this god exists?”
more later ....
B
BostonSankara
Guest
Dear Nara,
Please read Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker if you haven't already. I think you'd love it. I am a theist and I do not hate Dawkins at all. Nor do I hate Lawrence Krauss or any other atheist on a proselytizing tear. While I know Dawkin's and others of his ilk get great satisfaction from their "wins" in such debate my only bone to pick with them is their approach. Dawkin's is awesome but he is smug and smarmy and would probably tell you that himself. Why anyone would choose to emulate that side of his character is beyond me.
I have yet to witness this. Dawkin's is the subject of ridicule and jokes even by atheists here for his attitudes. Sagan has never suffered such castigation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Dawkinssouthpark.jpg
Please be aware that the creators of that also make fun of MANY religions too. They have quite an fair hand in making fun of all equally.
Please read Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker if you haven't already. I think you'd love it. I am a theist and I do not hate Dawkins at all. Nor do I hate Lawrence Krauss or any other atheist on a proselytizing tear. While I know Dawkin's and others of his ilk get great satisfaction from their "wins" in such debate my only bone to pick with them is their approach. Dawkin's is awesome but he is smug and smarmy and would probably tell you that himself. Why anyone would choose to emulate that side of his character is beyond me.
I have yet to witness this. Dawkin's is the subject of ridicule and jokes even by atheists here for his attitudes. Sagan has never suffered such castigation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Dawkinssouthpark.jpg
Please be aware that the creators of that also make fun of MANY religions too. They have quite an fair hand in making fun of all equally.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Dear BostonSankara, I have read many of Dawkins' books. I like the way he explains complex concepts that even a half dyslexic person like myself can understand.
I have been at the receiving end of much derision and high-handed mockery for the atheistic views I hold. So, when I see Dawkins giving it back to them I can't help but cheer and yearn for more. However, those who write on this subject from the non-belief, rational POV range from Late Hitchens -- he was even more critical and scornful of faith in God than Dawkins -- on the one end, and people like N.D. Tyson and Sagan on the other end, gentle and non-confrontational. I appreciate them all.
Cheers!
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
For rent Independent House for rent in ChromepetLandmark: Near Vivekananda School and Kumaran Kundram Temple
- Mahaperiyava82 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Service Need samayal mamiNeed Iyer/Iyengar mami cook at sembakkam. It is little urgent so pls prioritise. Pls contact...
- Savithiri Seshadri (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
For rent [Property for Rent] 2 bhk for rent2 bhk rent in Thiruvanmiyur chennai- tbs (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Wanted female Brahmin cook and caretaker in CoimbatoreNeed a female Brahmin cook and caretaker in Kovaipudur, Coimbatore
- Peace$ (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted [Want to Buy] Property close to Perumal TemplePlanning to create a nandavanam for pushpa kainkaryam of Perumal.
- Balamuruganpulsars (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires