Cry the Beloved Country

[கால பைரவன்]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Please do not conjur up things on my behalf. I meant brahmins functioning as priests, purohits, etc...that is, those whose livelihood depends on theism. I did not refer to people in secular jobs (that is, those who do not depend on theism for their livelihood).

This is an open forum.

People will interpret the way it appears to them. You have the option to clarify!

 

[happyhindu]

This is an open forum.

People will interpret the way it appears to them. You have the option to clarify!

Already made amply celar that theists will loose their livelihood if everyone becomes atheists.

Already made amply clear that the theist category is priests, imams, brahmins, clergy,..

It is common sense that the brahmins in the above refers to those who depend on theism for their livelihood.

You are free to imagine things, interpret, conjur up things, as you please...

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Already made amply celar that theists will loose their livelihood if everyone becomes atheists.

Already made amply clear that the theist category is priests, imams, brahmins, clergy,..

Its common sense that the brahmins in the above refers to those who depend on theism for their livelihood.

Common sense is apparently uncommon.

Really!

HH is only making things worse!

She has already mentioned priests! Then why specifically mention brahmins and then try to whitewash it by saying that she was only mentioning brahmin priests!

Aren't there non-brahmins who are priests?

Yamaka does not see the apparent casteist jibe in HH's post but he jumps on me for replying!

I would rather trust casteists than people pretending to be casteless!

 

[happyhindu]

Really!

HH is only making things worse!

She has already mentioned priests! Then why specifically mention brahmins and then try to whitewash it by saying that she was only mentioning brahmin priests!

Aren't there non-brahmins who are priests?

Yamaka does not see the apparent casteist jibe in HH's post but he jumps on me for replying!

I would rather trust casteists than people pretending to be casteless!

You are free to imagine things, interpret, conjur up things, as you please...

I don't need your trust...

You are free to take your potshots next, or do whatever you please, since you are the potshot specialist..

Bye.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

You are free to imagine things, interpret, conjur up things, as you please...

I don't need your trust...

You are free to take your potshots next, or do whatever you please, since you are the potshot specialist..

Bye.

The question is clear.

Are there non-brahmins who are priests? Yes or no!

If yes, why special attention to brahmins?

In any case, it is not that priests alone are dependent on theism! A temple provides livelihood to lot many people, most of whom are not priests!

So the whole argument falls flat! It was written in that way only to take a jibe on brahmins!

Simply the post is casteist in nature.

A honorable thing to do is to admit to the faux pas and move on! I know it won't happen but that does not mean that it cannot be pointed out!

 

[happyhindu]

Are there non-brahmins who are priests? Yes or no!

Yes ofcourse.

If yes, why special attention to brahmins?

I shall repharase the sentence as below.

Speaking of livelihood alone, theists (priests - temple priests and purohits, imams, brahmins - homam priests, christian-clergy, religionists) are in danger of loosing their livelihood if people become atheists.

In any case, it is not that priests alone are dependent on theism! A temple provides livelihood to lot many people, most of whom are not priests!

Agreed. However, the same people can make a livelihood elsewhere as well...

So the whole argument falls flat! It was written in that way only to take a jibe on brahmins!

Simply the post is casteist in nature.

Pot shot specialist at work.

A honorable thing to do is to admit to the faux pas and move on! I know it won't happen but that does not mean that it cannot be pointed out!

Actually KB i do not owe you an explanation for anything. I made this post to clarify things for readers because of the way you twisted things with your own interpretations...Since i have made my post explicitely clear, i have no more reason to post. Am sure others will understand. However, you are free to continue to interpret, conjur up, make pot shots, imagine things, etc as you please.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Agreed. However, the same people can make a livelihood elsewhere as well...

And so can the priests!

If religions disappear, there won't be any priests. But the people who function as priests today will survive and they can make a livelihood! It would be wrong to take a condescending view towards them just because some priests happen to be brahmins!

 

[happyhindu]

And so can the priests!

If religions disappear, there won't be any priests. But the people who function as priests today will survive and they can make a livelihood! It would be wrong to take a condescending view towards them just because some priests happen to be brahmins!

Yes ofcourse, so can priests, when did i every say no to that. Everyone can make a livelihood elsewhere.

Once upon a time, the temple was the centre of commercial activity. Everyone in a village (except ofcourse the outcastes) depended on the temple, in some form or the other...if not trade then for moral support in times of adversity, to celebrate good times, to satisfy one's innate need to venerate, etc

But today our urban dwellings have altered the trade aspect...Temples are no longer one of the main sources of commercial activity. Everyone (priests included) have many options of making a livelihood elsewhere -- but is that what any hindu wants? Surely the answer is a big NO.

KB, my posts (on this issue) was in response to Sarang's claim about loosing one's livelihood. My response to him was a very generalised one. I did not intend to cause discomfort with my responses; yet the way you twist my words with your own interpretations and potshots bring out words from me which every time i seem to regret. Ofcourse i cannot expect your twisted interpretations to end.

I enjoy temple culture very much and i feel sad to think i posted such responses. I have no condescending view towards priests (both brahmins and non-brahmins). I hope i can refrain from reacting to your twisted interpretations of my words. Thankyou.

 

[sarang]

I knew you will misunderstand the post and branch off.

"Brilliant, sir. They dare not criticize others - will either lose livelihood or just head."

Most of the indology and sanskrit departments in west universities and in india (JNU) are populated by hindu hating professors, who have formed a close network for scratching each others back. Those scholars who do not have anti hindu bias will not get any teaching/ research post; students who want to do research with a pro hindu or neutral view will not get admission or grant. Six months ago, a girl phd student in a US university was made fun of and humiliated by the evaluation committee for her thesis on hindu saints of india and their religious poems. There is big list of professors who hate hinduism, its religious literature and deride its traditions. In this scenario atheistic academics who become theists will lose their jobs, and livelihood. Whether they praise others are not they must continue to indulge in anti hindu academic activities. No need to emphasise that they get more funding than what they need from christian and islamic sources. Angana chatterjee and her living in companion husband are two rabid hindu haters dethroned recently.

There is no need to emphasise that any anti muslim, anti koran, anti allah activities will lead to headless, handless liberation in a very short time. One christian teacher in kerala lost his hand for including a question about muslims in a school examination.

To conclude, atheistic academics and ngos will lose livlihood or head if they change their ideology and become vocal.

Speaking of livelihood alone, theists (priests, imams, brahmins, christian-clergy, religionists) are in danger of loosing their livelihood if people become atheists. Atheists do not depend on livelihood based on religion, hence have nothing to loose, except their heads to theists who can become rabid fanatic zealots to the extent of bombing, killing, etc all in the name of safeguarding their religion.

Religion is like medicine. If utilized correctly it can be therapeutic. If overdone (overdosed), it can kill. It depends on the individual person, how each wishes to use it...

 

[happyhindu]

I knew you will misunderstand the post and branch off.

"Brilliant, sir. They dare not criticize others - will either lose livelihood or just head."

Most of the indology and sanskrit departments in west universities and in india (JNU) are populated by hindu hating professors, who have formed a close network for scratching each others back. Those scholars who do not have anti hindu bias will not get any teaching/ research post; students who want to do research with a pro hindu or neutral view will not get admission or grant. Six months ago, a girl phd student in a US university was made fun of and humiliated by the evaluation committee for her thesis on hindu saints of india and their religious poems. There is big list of professors who hate hinduism, its religious literature and deride its traditions. In this scenario atheistic academics who become theists will lose their jobs, and livelihood. Whether they praise others are not they must continue to indulge in anti hindu academic activities. No need to emphasise that they get more funding than what they need from christian and islamic sources. Angana chatterjee and her living in companion husband are two rabid hindu haters dethroned recently.

There is no need to emphasise that any anti muslim, anti koran, anti allah activities will lead to headless, handless liberation in a very short time. One christian teacher in kerala lost his hand for including a question about muslims in a school examination.

To conclude, atheistic academics and ngos will lose livlihood or head if they change their ideology and become vocal.

Wow, so you are alleging that researchers who delve into religion, religious socio-cultural issues, etc are all Atheists? May i have proof and names of profesors who are hindu-hating?

How would you define hindu-hating? If i say Sanskrit is derived from older-language groups, would that make me anti-hindu or hindu-hater??

What comments did Angana chatterjee make to call her a rabid hindu-hater? Ya know what, i think the hindutva brigade needs to get itself a better job than clamping down on academic folks.

Since the ramjanma bhoomi issue does not invoke votes in any form now, i suppose the hindutva brigade wants to make their 'social power' felt by getting stuff banned or deleted from textbooks. In what way are they different from goondas using force really..

Please let us know who was the hindu girl ridiculed for her thesis? Was her thesis critically reviewed from an academic analysis pov ?? Or was she personally humiliated, called names (like some theist posters specialise in, in this forum) for her work ? How come theists involve in dishonesty, name-calling, etc if theism is 'good'?

In the 'God Exists' thread C.Ravi alleged that atheism with scientific orientation makes good people to act badly. I find it comical.

Its funny to see the various views of all the theists of this forum, on atheism. I hope theists stop thinking that they have some sorta ownership rights on hinduism. Atheism has a very rightful place in hinduism.

Btw, academic research will go on irrepective of atheists, theists -- they won't loose their livelihood because of such nonsense.

But yes i wud like to see more academic work, researching into islam and christianity, to see what makes these two religions so funded and aggressive worldwide..

 

[Nara]

....How would you define hindu-hating? If i say Sanskrit is derived from older-language groups, would that make me anti-hindu or hindu-hater??

What comments did Angana chatterjee make to call her a rabid hindu-hater?

Happy, AC is a freethinking socialist committed to social justice and other allied causes. This makes her a lightning rod for Hindutva crticism, which is to be expected and worn as a badge of honor.

In any case, Happy, no reasonable exchange is possible when every discussion is turned into he said this, she meant this, hater, basher, etc. This drives people away from participating. There is much for all of us to learn from a healthy exchange of ideas, but it is really a shame that any view that challenges traditional wisdom of the majority is met with personal insults turning every thread into a street fight.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

In the 'God Exists' thread C.Ravi alleged that atheism with scientific orientation makes good people to act badly. I find it comical.

.

When there appears a comical allegation that "Theism makes otherwise good people to act badly", there is certainly a need to counter the same with another comical allegation.

At least I produced substantial avidence referring to a link, that no one can deney.

Your misunderstanding of it and twisting the statement with irrelavent cross questioning was well clarified by Shiv, in the same "God Exists" thread.

It is absolutely funny to me to see your irrelevant referrences of posts in other threads/topics/counters and mocking on them where ever you roam .

 

[C RAVI]

Its funny to see the various views of all the theists of this forum, on atheism. I hope theists stop thinking that they have some sorta ownership rights on hinduism. Atheism has a very rightful place in hinduism.

Wheather Atheism has "rightful" place in Hinduism or not, only Theism of Hinduism has to identify and approve.


Atheism is outside the scope of any religion. It can only be a critic, absolutely rejecting any religion. Atheism is the subject that works against any religion and obviously requires accordance only by Theism, if found to be valid and sensible by Theism.

 

[Nara]

....Its funny to see the various views of all the theists of this forum, on atheism. I hope theists stop thinking that they have some sorta ownership rights on hinduism. Atheism has a very rightful place in hinduism. ..

Happy, Hinduism means different things to different people. Whatever it may have been in the past, the present day main-stream Hinduism (not including practices of indigenous peoples) is very much influenced by Brahminism (Vedas and dharmashasthras are supreme).

Given this reality, I don't think any self-respecting atheist will agree to be a part of Hinduism as we know it today. Rejection of theism was certainly part of the intellectual milieu of ancient India and if that is what you mean by it being part of Hinduism, then of course that is true. But, to be Hindu today, you have to be a theist. Where as, to be an atheist is to return to the natural state all human beings are born into, not subscribing to any ideology that gets indoctrinated by elders.

So, I certainly don't want to be part of any ism, Hinduism included.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

When there appears a comical allegation that "Theism makes otherwise good people to act badly", there is certainly a need to counter the same with another comical allegation.

At least I produced substantial avidence referring to a link, that no one can deney.

Alright you are entitled to your allegations. But what was the evidence you provided ? In this link (which you provided) where is atheism mentioned ?? -- 5 Good Inventions that were used for bad purpose - Famouswhy

All you did was to quote from this link of 5 inventions; and then claim those 5 examples are "evidences" to show how Sceintists-Atheists misused inventions. To top it you went on to allege that "Atheism with Scientific orientation can make otherwise good people to act badly and dangerously impacting the nature and humans to a larger extent".

Which is why i asked you which of those 5 scientists were atheists? Which of those inventions were misused by atheist-scientists? Where does atheism come into the picture here? How does the given 5 examples prove that Atheism with Scientific orientation makes good people act badly and that too dangerously to impact nature and humans ?? Theist-scientists can be as greedy and manipulating as anyone else. So why make allegations on atheism?

Your misunderstanding of it and twisting the statement with irrelavent cross questioning was well clarified by Shiv, in the same "God Exists" thread.

Please clarify what did i misunderstand, twist from your post, and what is the irrelevance factor here? Btw i do not read posts by Shiv. Since you mentioned this, i went back and looked up his post. Shiv's post does not answer my query to you. You made a blatant allegation on atheism, so please do not expect to get away with your claims.

It is absolutely funny to me to see your irrelevant referrences of posts in other threads/topics/counters and mocking on them where ever you roam .

Please clarify what you mean by "whereever you roam"? And what part is irrelevant? I have not referred to your post anywhere else apart from this thread. Discussions on topics have travelled across various threads. So what's the problem? I found your claims comical that atheism with scientific orientation makes good people behave badly. I did not intend to mock. But if you want to see it as mocking then its your prerogative, so be it.

Regards.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

So, I certainly don't want to be part of any ism, Hinduism included.

Except atheism, of course!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

In any case, Happy, no reasonable exchange is possible when every discussion is turned into he said this, she meant this...

This whole forum is dependent on what people write. That is all to it!

 

[happyhindu]

Wheather Atheism has "rightful" place in Hinduism or not, only Theism of Hinduism has to identify and approve.

How? Why does theism seek such a position of authority? On what basis can theists appoint themselves as the identifiers and approvers of "rightful" place of anything in hinduism?

Atheism is outside the scope of any religion. It can only be a critic, absolutely rejecting any religion. Atheism is the subject that works against any religion and obviously requires accordance only by Theism, if found to be valid and sensible by Theism.

So says you. These are your personal opinions. Can you provide proof from vedic literature to support your claims? On what basis and authority do you claim that atheism requires accordance only by theism?

The samkhya and its branch, the yoga school, are atheist. Some of the greatest vedic thinkers like Yagnavalkya and Kapila were atheists. Patanjali was godless. Even the purvamimansa followers of karmakanda did not accept the presence of a creator God - instead their approach was on performance of rituals, which according to them results in release. The author of Nasadiya Sukta of Rig wonders and questions if a creator exists. Chunks of the vedas are agnostic in nature. So yes, theists cannot behave as if they own hinduism. Hinduism belongs to atheists and agnostics as much as it belongs to theists. Theists like yourself need not make baseless claims to appoint themselves as the owners or authorities of hinduism as the identifiers and approvers.

I can understand why smarthas and so-called 'advaitins' are in this delicate situation of rejecting atheism. Adi Shankara refuted the samkhya school by claiming evolution is not mentioned in the upanishads. Ofcourse he offered his own logic on inert pradhana. But his arguments could be seen as partial ones of plain escapist kind. Shankara could have very well chosen the agnostic portions of vedas as pramana and offered his logic on that, however if he rejected the notion of a creator, that would make him no different from a buddhist. So what we now have is a group of karmakanda followers who actually believe in a creator god!!

Addition:
These two links may be interesting to some readers:
1) http://www.yogaforums.com/forums/f1...eshvara-and-patanjali-part-1-of-2-a-5430.html
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

 

[C RAVI]

Dear HH,

Referring to your post #168.

It is indeed very intersting to get to know the historical evidences to say Atheism is the part and parcel of Hinduism. No doubt you have a thorough knowledge of such referrences (much appreciated as well) and they all truly makes sense to substantiate your claims - "Atheism have rightful place in Hinduism".

Folks born to Hindu families/Christian families/Muslim Families/Jain Families/Budhist families/Sikh families etc.etc., growing along with the community, turns out to be Atheists, at a cirtain point of time, out of some enlightment. These Atheist folks would than claim themselves having "rightful" place in their respective "ism", having their own "Atheism School of Thoughts" (focused in establishing invalidity of existence of GOD, against of, as how their respective religious doctrines explains) . Having elinghtment that GOD does not exists, they would turn out to be pakka Atheists OR having been confused and unable to conclude, would turn out to be Agnostics.

My previous post was to highlight the fact that, what ever "Atheism School of Thoughts" exists, are all working against the "Theism School of Thoughts". Once they establish invalidity of existence of GOD and attest everything to Science and Technology (Science & Technology than got nothing to do with any religious association) than there is nothing sensible for me to accept that they still have a "rightful" place in their respective religion.


When you say that you are athiest, don't say that you are Hindu/Muslim/Christican/Sickh/Jain etc..You can say that, you are adopting the life style of any of these religion (just because being brought up as such) excluding anything that got to do with GOD & Spiritualtiy.

Atheists around the world are just ONE community (irrepective of their birth religion) who all are rejected for their "Atheism" ideas by all the Theists of any religion, unanimously.

Theists like me or any one would certainly claim validity to appoint ourself as the owners or authorities of any religion that we may belong to, as the identifiers and approvers, as a surviving humans of present era. Like wise Atheists like you and any one would for sure claim validity to oppoint yourselves as owners or authorities for social reformations in order to bail out the majority population from the clutches of GOD and Spirituality and make this world a fantasy world of pure sceince and technology, offering great safety, security, luxury, comfort and a sense of fulfillment (may be).

So it be.


Regarding my allegation on Athiesm (as questioned by you in your post #165)

Theists can not accept the Atheists blatant allegation that "Theism makes otherwise good people to act badly". Like wise Atheists may not accept the Theists allegation that "Atheism with Scientific oriantation can make otherwise good people to act badly and lead to destructions"

Neither Theists nor Atheist can ever succeed justifying the existence/non existence of God / Sprirituality, citing an example of group of other side people who all had/have created negative influences.

Whether Atheist and theists can expect themselves to get away with their allegation or not, the point is, none of them can calim their allegations 100% correct/justifiable.

 

[ShivKC]

How? Why does theism seek such a position of authority? On what basis can theists appoint themselves as the identifiers and approvers of "rightful" place of anything in hinduism?

logic is simple. hinduism accommodates 'atheism' also inside inside its religious umbrella, considering that atheism is also just another form of faith (Istress the word FAITH), where, the latter's faith is centered around a different belief that 'no supernatural power or god exists'. if such is the hindu atheism you are talking about, ie, bracketed with a contrary faith dogma, then your question makes sense.

the difference here is..

like one who 'believe that god exists' and another 'believe super power dont exist', both can't prove their point, and pass the burden of proof to the other, they all fall under a 'belief system'.

when such belief's or faith are there, and since religion being set with a faith/belief system, this kind of atheism will always comes under hindu faith/religion system's umbrella. for this kind of society,as you said, one don't need any authority to accept or accommodate or reject other group.

where as, which i have seen with many an atheists here claim, that atheism doesn't come under the purview of the above definition of faith/belief system, then they stand automatically out of the definition of 'Hindu Religion or worded as 'Hindu belief system'.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

Referring to your post #168.

It is indeed very intersting to get to know the historical evidences to say Atheism is the part and parcel of Hinduism. No doubt you have a thorough knowledge of such referrences (much appreciated as well) and they all truly makes sense to substantiate your claims - "Atheism have rightful place in Hinduism".

Folks born to Hindu families/Christian families/Muslim Families/Jain Families/Budhist families/Sikh families etc.etc., growing along with the community, turns out to be Atheists, at a cirtain point of time, out of some enlightment. These Atheist folks would than claim themselves having "rightful" place in their respective "ism", having their own "Atheism School of Thoughts" (focused in establishing invalidity of existence of GOD, against of, as how their respective religious doctrines explains) . Having elinghtment that GOD does not exists, they would turn out to be pakka Atheists OR having been confused and unable to conclude, would turn out to be Agnostics.

Hello Ravi,

Atheism has been a very valid path in what has come to be called "hinduism". Perhaps you have not understood the import of atheism in the vedic religion. Maybe you have not even read philosophical lines of enquiry in the atheist schools. Which is why you seem to trivialise atheism, as though people from various religions "become" atheists.

The mimansa and samkhya schools do not require theists to validate their means of knowledge. Please let me know on what basis do theists want to appoint themselves as the identifiers, approvers ??

My previous post was to highlight the fact that, what ever "Atheism School of Thoughts" exists, are all working against the "Theism School of Thoughts". Once they establish invalidity of existence of GOD and attest everything to Science and Technology (Science & Technology than got nothing to do with any religious association) than there is nothing sensible for me to accept that they still have a "rightful" place in their respective religion.

What is sensible to you is your own prerogative. I am most amazed to see how many people make claims or argue out of personal sensibilities without attempting to read relevant hindu scriptures.

I do not know which previous post you refer to. Please clarify.

On what basis do you claim that atheists schools are working against theist schools? On the contrary, theists on this forum seem to behave as though they own hinduism.

Sorry but i do not understand your claim that science / technology has nothing to do with religious association. Please clarify what does "Religious association" mean here?

When you say that you are athiest, don't say that you are Hindu/Muslim/Christican/Sickh/Jain etc..You can say that, you are adopting the life style of any of these religion (just because being brought up as such) excluding anything that got to do with GOD & Spiritualtiy.

Atheists around the world are just ONE community (irrepective of their birth religion) who all are rejected for their "Atheism" ideas by all the Theists of any religion, unanimously.

Are there Any Atheistic Religions? Can an Atheist Be Part of Any Religion?

Theists like me or any one would certainly claim validity to appoint ourself as the owners or authorities of any religion that we may belong to, as the identifiers and approvers, as a surviving humans of present era.

:loco: Are you joking please??????????
How well versed are you in the many paths that the vedic scriptures offer ? This is like saying i can read ABC so i want to appoint myself as the owner, authority and approver of english language.

Like wise Atheists like you

Sorry am not yet an atheist. I think about atheist arguements often but i pray. I keep all options and possibilities open.

and any one would for sure claim validity to oppoint yourselves as owners or authorities for social reformations in order to bail out the majority population from the clutches of GOD and Spirituality and make this world a fantasy world of pure sceince and technology, offering great safety, security, luxury, comfort and a sense of fulfillment (may be).

Quite a fantasy tale you spin Ravi. The atomist vaisheshika school did not make explorations for the sake of social reformations. Wonder what makes theists link atheism with any objective at all. As though there is no such thing as the pleasure of knowledge and getting to know different things...

Regarding my allegation on Athiesm (as questioned by you in your post #165)

Theists can not accept the Atheists blatant allegation that "Theism makes otherwise good people to act badly". Like wise Atheists may not accept the Theists allegation that "Atheism with Scientific oriantation can make otherwise good people to act badly and lead to destructions"

Neither Theists nor Atheist can ever succeed justifying the existence/non existence of God / Sprirituality, citing an example of group of other side people who all had/have created negative influences.

Whether Atheist and theists can expect themselves to get away with their allegation or not, the point is, none of them can calim their allegations 100% correct/justifiable.

Ravi, my questions to you are very clear. What is the connection between those 5 misused inventions and atheism? I do not see an answer here.

You say theism and atheism both cannot succeed in justifying the existence / non-existence of god. Which means theist do not have valid answers against atheism. Then on what basis theists like you want to appoint yourselves as the authority, identifiers, approvers, of any form of enquiry in the vedic religion???? Unfortunately we do not live in the smrithi period where brutes can use violence to enforce their way of thinking.

Anyways, please see this: Indian Atheists

 

[ShivKC]

What is sensible to you is your own prerogative.

I am most amazed to see how many people make claims or argue out of personal sensibilities without attempting to read relevant hindu scriptures.


:loco: Are you joking please??????????


Quite a fantasy tale you spin Ravi.

a big alarm has already been raised about person attacks. pls avoid using such words. though polished, it may provoke others personally,and make them succumb.

 

[C RAVI]

Hello Ravi,

1) Sorry am not yet an atheist. I think about atheist arguements often but i pray. I keep all options and possibilities open.


2) Ravi, my questions to you are very clear. What is the connection between those 5 misused inventions and atheism? I do not see an answer here.

3) You say theism and atheism both cannot succeed in justifying the existence / non-existence of god. Which means theist do not have valid answers against atheism.

HH

Corelate my replies in 1), 2), 3) with that of the listing above..


1) If you have not yet considered youself Atheist and be in prayers but keep all options and possibilities open to accept Atheism any time, than it's fine as you an individual. Your efforts to explore the validity of Atheism is highly appreciated. As far as I am concerned, I am very much a Theists with strong belief in God/Spirituality, having been experienced and realized from my practical life time experience so far. It's my personal acceptance as how I could evaluate, realize and accept. I am still pragmatic to gain wider knowledge and better prospects. But I don't believe in establishing and expressing my pragmatism with my rational brain, by presenting myself as some one who doubt the validity of Theism.


2) I coud'nt see any validity with clear proof as how "Theism makes otherwise good people to act badly" and to counter I produced my comments with some relevant references to show how Science can be devastating. My self and other members alike were refuting the blatant allegation of Atheists and didnt expect an evidence. Because we know its not possible and we know the allegation is not withstanding.


3) You have convineintly taken a part of the sentence to irrelevantly cross questioning me.

Let me reprodue the whole statement here - "Neither Theists nor Atheist can ever succeed justifying the existence/non existence of God / Sprirituality, citing an example of group of other side people who all had/have created negative influences.".


I have underlined that part of my statement, that you have ignored and came to your own conclusion to cross question me, as if I was bluntly expressing the impossibilities.

 

[happyhindu]

HH

Corelate my replies in 1), 2), 3) with that of the listing above..


1) If you have not yet considered youself Atheist and be in prayers but keep all options and possibilities open to accept Atheism any time, than it's fine as you an individual. Your efforts to explore the validity of Atheism is highly appreciated. As far as I am concerned, I am very much a Theists with strong belief in God/Spirituality, having been experienced and realized from my practical life time experience so far. It's my personal acceptance as how I could evaluate, realize and accept. I am still pragmatic to gain wider knowledge and better prospects. But I don't believe in establishing and expressing my pragmatism with my rational brain, by presenting myself as some one who doubt the validity of Theism.

OK. But i do not understand why do you say "Theists like me or any one would certainly claim validity to appoint ourself as the owners or authorities of any religion that we may belong to, as the identifiers and approvers, as a surviving humans of present era".

2) I coud'nt see any validity with clear proof as how "Theism makes otherwise good people to act badly"

Who said theism makes good people act badly??

and to counter I produced my comments with some relevant references to show how Science can be devastating. My self and other members alike were refuting the blatant allegation of Atheists and didnt expect an evidence. Because we know its not possible and we know the allegation is not withstanding.

So you wanted to show how science can be devastating. Alright. You could have chosen a better example. Your example of 5 misutilized inventions simply has no connection with either theism or atheism. It is merely an example to show how human greed can make anyone do bad things.

Btw, i knew of a staunchly theist-scientist who used to try to physically misbehave with girl students whenever he got a chance. We used to think his religious vesham is to fool people into beleiving he is a good guy. Behaviour does not depend on theism or atheism.

A theist can behave badly. An atheist can behave badly. Period. Both can be greedy, eager to make money with corrupt inventions. Theism and Atheism have nothing to do with it.

3) You have convineintly taken a part of the sentence to irrelevantly cross questioning me.

Let me reprodue the whole statement here -"Neither Theists nor Atheist can ever succeed justifying the existence/non existence of God / Sprirituality, citing an example of group of other side people who all had/have created negative influences.".

I have underlined that part of my statement, that you have ignored and came to your own conclusion to cross question me, as if I was bluntly expressing the impossibilities.

I do not see what is irrelevant here. Irrespective of whether i quoted your sentence in half or full, do you think theists have valid answers against atheism from the vedic pov?

 

[suraju06]

My reply to Mr. Nara:

(1)In your post #107 you had said, (a) “Obviously, the "enough" American history you know is woefully inadequate to comment on it” and (b)“ I know you can't answer that question and that is why you have been avoiding it for the last one year or more. Until you honestly answer that question you are not entitled to any answer from me.” And (c)“Click here for the question that you have to answer! Unfortunately, the only answer sincere SVs can give is cry, as in Cry beloved SV”. Now please read further to know how this was understood by me:

(a) the word enough within quotes indicates that What I know is not enough by the standards of Nara. And what more, it is “woefully inadequate” and does not deserve even a “comment”. If this is not a put down what else is? Or is it that “put down” means different things to different people?

(b) When you say that I can not answer that question, is it not indicative of an arrogance which I have called mildly as a prejudice(you have judged me without waiting to hear me)? Your presumption that I have to qualify myself (deserve) to get a reply from you is also the manifestation of arrogance-but I never used that harsh word and used prejudice instead. You may think prejudice is also harsh. But in your post # 109 you have yourself admitted that “I am sure I have my share of prejudices, without them we all will be inanimate objects”. So what is your grievance/complaint? Don’t you think we all have prejudices and are uncomfortable when some one points it out? If you think about the simplicity and logic in my this argument you would also understand the hollowness of your loud complaining that ““Why do you have to write things like "your prejudiced views", "wriggling out", etc”. You have said I have been avoiding an answer to your question for the last one year. I used the term wriggling out instead. Don’t you think you had been equally energetic in your put downs?

(c) In post #127 you quoted me as ".... which will be acceptable to any normal reader." and went on to add (my aside: if it is not acceptable to me I am somehow abnormal)” Please compare this with your words in post #107 “ Click here for the question that you have to answer! Unfortunately, the only answer sincere SVs can give is cry, as in Cry beloved SV”. If I take it to mean in “my aside” that I will not be a sincere SV if I do not cry, will I be wrong?

You had also said in your post# 127 “I want to highlight some more unnecessary personal comments you have made to put me down as a person. Fortunately, I am able to resist the urge to reciprocate in kind.”
--"It appears you are not able to get my position on the issue clearly."
--"...you have a tendency to bring in specious arguments and to nit-pick"
--"If that is the case, I am going to give you the answer now in a “final” attempt,"

I just do not understand what is offensive in "It appears you are not able to get my position on the issue clearly." Or in "If that is the case, I am going to give you the answer now in a “final” attempt,"

My “nit-pick” is equivalent to your “strawman argument”, which term you have used in your arguments.

My writing all this is not to accuse you of showing disrespect to me or to complain to the members of the forum that you are throwing insults at me( I have my self-respect and self-esteem and I do not depend on others for them). But I understand the context and the flow of the argument in which you have used all these and I am confident that there is no enmity between you and me. We do not even know each other well personally. But you are complaining again and again and appear to have developed a victimhood grievance in your mind. Please excuse me if even this mere statement of my thoughts to you appears to be offensive to you. As you said, choosing your adversary is your prerogative. I would like to say just this that I will continue to post my critical comments every time you come here with ideas which are controversial. You have the freedom to ignore them because I post them for the benefit of the members of this forum who need to know the counter points/alternate view points.

Because I am a sincere SV I am deleting without any precondition/expectation the harsh reply I posted in #130 in reply to your post #129.

Sorry, my edit post is locked. Praveen could you please delete my post #130?

Cheers.