God Exists

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Dr.Barani,

Nothing suspicious! Just started online coaching for CAT and GRE.

All the best in your new venture

Theist you, start all classes with a Pillyar Suzhi

 

[ShivKC]

ShivKC

If you look at history it is the cults started in the name of religion which have caused the problem.

The recent killer in Norway was a hardcore anti islamic person. This was a consequence of religious fanaticism.

If the atheists say please be free , throw away all barriers in mind, question everything, dont get held up by institutions, cults etc this is not brainwashing . This is call freeing the mind.

interesting.. i appreciate in advance if you could engage in a dialogue in this topic... I tried these questions here, with few athesits, but none has responded.

pls give it a try from your end.

1) pls prove to me, that religion has done the most damage in this world, say for last 3000 years, than those who never believed in god.. i would ask for a authentic/historical/statistical/documented proof in line with academic interest.. i stand by sh.nara on this demand.

2) religious fanatism is wrong, but i would stand by you, if religion said so to do it..fanatism exists in all angle, for eg, 200 people in india gets killed due this fanatism, in every parliamentary elections, and there is not god issue there!..

3) if atheists call it, to throw away all the barriers and come free, so do i, can opt to go on for a shooting/raping spree. lots we can discuss on that..

i would wait for your detailed response on this. thank you subbudu sir.

 

[subbudu1]

interesting.. i appreciate in advance if you could engage in a dialogue in this topic... I tried these questions here, with few athesits, but none has responded.

pls give it a try from your end.

1) pls prove to me, that religion has done the most damage in this world, say for last 3000 years, than those who never believed in god.. i would ask for a authentic/historical/statistical/documented proof in line with academic interest.. i stand by sh.nara on this demand.

2) religious fanatism is wrong, but i would stand by you, if religion said so to do it..fanatism exists in all angle, for eg, 200 people in india gets killed due this fanatism, in every parliamentary elections..

3) if atheists call it, to throw away all the barriers and come free, so do i, can opt to go on for a shooting/raping spree. lots we can discuss on that..

i would wait for your detailed response on this. thank you subbudu sir.

I have said something towards the end you have skipped. I am quoting again-

Dont the theists feel this as onesided accusation on them? When will we all learn to be tolerant of each other's view!

Thank you.

You are talking what you like generalizing people, which is my point.

I dont know whether religion has done damage or not, but today most creeds are survived by cults whatever may be the original source of these cults. Cults are dangerous because they propound blind support in a lost cause and the only natural recourse to such cultists is to express their frustration in others in a bad violent way. The average person has a loose definition of his cult and stays away from violence.

 

[sangom]

ShivKC
It is not the atheist's job to brainwash the people. There were people like Stalin who are often quoted for all disbelievers, atheists, agnostics , sceptics, leftists, rationalists whatever you call this broad class of people.
If you look at history it is the cults started in the name of religion which have caused the problem.

Dear Shri Subbudu,

I am in complete agreement with you here. Further I, as an agnostic (and not an atheist) can say confidently that there is no organisation of agnostics and nor is it my aim to "convert" others to agnosticism. Religions present lots of illogicalities and for some people like me those problems are very difficult to be swallowed and our thinking more and more about these illogicalities takes us to agnosticism.

In the distant past religion was a nature worshipping religion, god was an abstract person not a cult head. Till then it was okay. The day began when people started being brainwashed that so and so is the only representative of god, or so and so is an incarnation of god and so on. Since then we have seen violence in the name of religion. The twin towers, the bombay blasts , the threats to guruvayurappan , padmanabhaswamy temple cannot be blamed on a single religion. It is the violence practiced by one religion on another, their reactions, the non ending cycle of violence that led to all this. The famous saint Tirugnanasambandar was believed to have caused the death of thousands of jains. Godhra and Ayodhya occurred in the name of hinduism. The orisaa violence , the blame lies on both christians and hindus. The recent killer in Norway was a hardcore anti islamic person. This was a consequence of religious fanaticism.

If the atheists say please be free , throw away all barriers in mind, question everything, dont get held up by institutions, cults etc this is not brainwashing . This is call freeing the mind.

I would prefer the "middle path" of agnosticism to complete rejection of God as in atheism. As a "middle path" follower I have not been swayed to embrace atheism even though I have read several atheist books. At the same time agnosticism frees you from the shackles of religious dicta.

Has anyone seen god here, yet why do they accept him. Because they believe in him. Not because there is clear evidence. They strongly feel that he exists. It is feeling not concrete evidence. To some there are evidences of God, but none can publish any systematic process by which everybody can experience him. So is it not irrational? This irrationality means that emotions rule the logic. This means even if people feel guilty about it , if they get angry about religion , they will show violence because they are ruled by heart and not by mind.

Dont the theists feel this as onesided accusation on them? When will we all learn to be tolerant of each other's view!

I am not aware of atheists attacking other religions anywhere anytime in history, for the sake of spreading or inflicting atheism on believers; the contrary has happened, mostly because the church or priesthood behind religions constantly feel threatened that their flock would desert the belief system carefully crafted by them and embellished suitably in order to trap the followers into the religion with dire consequences in this world and the others, for anyone who even dares to suspect or question the religion's tenets. Similar intolerance can be seen between different sects within the same larger umbrella of every major religion. A little introspection will be sufficient to show that such intolerance and antagonism between the sects occurs because each sect is inherently aware of its weaknesses and irrationalities and fears that the rival sects may appear appealing to people and thus attract their own customers.

My grandfather who was a strong believer never made fun of anybody for their modernity or their atheism. He was a personally orthodox man, who because he did not want his labourer to feel bad, sat together with him to eat food. Unthinkable in those days for an orthodox person from pre-independance India. It seems that an astrologer said that this man was destined for heaven.I dont know if it is true, but no-one not even an atheist could become uncomfortable in a discussion with him. Is this the situation here?

This looks to me like a "same-side goal" Haven't you found any atheist/agnostic who has such broad outlook and is comfortable with the orthodox religionists, even among our members?

 

[Yamaka]

ShivKC
It is not the atheist's job to brainwash the people. There were people like Stalin who are often quoted for all disbelievers, atheists, agnostics , sceptics, leftists, rationalists whatever you call this broad class of people.
If you look at history it is the cults started in the name of religion which have caused the problem.

In the distant past religion was a nature worshipping religion, god was an abstract person not a cult head. Till then it was okay. The day began when people started being brainwashed that so and so is the only representative of god, or so and so is an incarnation of god and so on. Since then we have seen violence in the name of religion. The twin towers, the bombay blasts , the threats to guruvayurappan , padmanabhaswamy temple cannot be blamed on a single religion. It is the violence practiced by one religion on another, their reactions, the non ending cycle of violence that led to all this. The famous saint Tirugnanasambandar was believed to have caused the death of thousands of jains. Godhra and Ayodhya occurred in the name of hinduism. The orisaa violence , the blame lies on both christians and hindus. The recent killer in Norway was a hardcore anti islamic person. This was a consequence of religious fanaticism.

If the atheists say please be free , throw away all barriers in mind, question everything, dont get held up by institutions, cults etc this is not brainwashing . This is call freeing the mind.

Has anyone seen god here, yet why do they accept him. Because they believe in him. Not because there is clear evidence. They strongly feel that he exists. It is feeling not concrete evidence. To some there are evidences of God, but none can publish any systematic process by which everybody can experience him. So is it not irrational? This irrationality means that emotions rule the logic. This means even if people feel guilty about it , if they get angry about religion , they will show violence because they are ruled by heart and not by mind.

Dont the theists feel this as onesided accusation on them? When will we all learn to be tolerant of each other's view!

My grandfather who was a strong believer never made fun of anybody for their modernity or their atheism. He was a personally orthodox man, who because he did not want his labourer to feel bad, sat together with him to eat food. Unthinkable in those days for an orthodox person from pre-independance India. It seems that an astrologer said that this man was destined for heaven.I dont know if it is true, but no-one not even an atheist could become uncomfortable in a discussion with him. Is this the situation here?

Subbudu Sir:

I agree with you 100% - with every word of every sentence you wrote above. Thank you.

Regards

Y

 

[DrBarani]

I am not aware of atheists attacking other religions anywhere anytime in history,

I agree with you Sir! I haven't seen these Atheists hanging around islamic or christian websites, spending all their time calling them "evil"! Therefore, I must agree, that the Atheists aren't really serious about fighting religion, they are only going after the bovine Brahmins. It is "Brahmins" they are after, nobody else. Talk about spineless cowards who pick on the group that doesn't fight back.

 

[wrongan]

We have seen atheists becoming believers in one stage or other ,but I have never seen a believer who became an atheists.

 

[sravna]

All the best in your new venture

Theist you, start all classes with a Pillyar Suzhi

Would that be acceptable to the atheist students? Thanks Shri TKS for the wishes.

 

[Nara]

....I would prefer the "middle path" of agnosticism to complete rejection of God as in atheism. As a "middle path" follower I have not been swayed to embrace atheism even though I have read several atheist books. At the same time agnosticism frees you from the shackles of religious dicta.

Dear Shri Sangom sir, needless to say I agree with your post. However, I wish to offer a small clarification about atheism and agnosticism.

Most thoughtful nonbelievers are what I would like to call "technically agnostic and atheistic in practice". IMO, absolute atheism is not logically unassailable. In that sense, I think the best position one can rationally take is that the existence of a deity is very unlikely, not that a deity absolutely positively does not exist.

However, on a day-to-day level, as we go about living our lives, there is absolutely no reason to believe there is a purposeful god who cares about us, and will listen to our prayers and alter our lives in any way -- such belief can be absolutely positively rejected. Therefore, on a practical day-to-day level, to be an atheist is perfectly defensible. In other words, with respect to Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Jesus, agnosticism is irrational, no?

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

I have said something towards the end you have skipped. I am quoting again-

Thank you.

You are talking what you like generalizing people, which is my point.

I dont know whether religion has done damage or not, but today most creeds are survived by cults whatever may be the original source of these cults. Cults are dangerous because they propound blind support in a lost cause and the only natural recourse to such cultists is to express their frustration in others in a bad violent way. The average person has a loose definition of his cult and stays away from violence.

cults are dangerous.. i can refer lot of damages done by different kind of cults, apart from theist or atheists.. thats is a social topic. this point of yours is no way related to the topic we are discussing here..

i do agree, with your point here, though its irrelevant ..

 

[nachi naga]

anyone following, is a cult.anyone leading ,is a cult.anyone non-believing is a cult.anyone believing is a cult.only living for the moment is a cult.only living about past is a cult.only living now for the future safety is a cult.aagha mothamm ellamay cult.tb is a cult .god is a cult.non god is a cult.brainwasher is a cult.brainwashed is a cult.brainless is a cult.samadhi is a cult....etc btw 7 8 6 is a holy number of islam which happened coincidentally for this message wonder if we will go to posts 8 8 8 holy number of christians as its interesting

 

[subbudu1]

This looks to me like a "same-side goal" Haven't you found any atheist/agnostic who has such broad outlook and is comfortable with the orthodox religionists, even among our members?

Dear Sangom I was only talking about the fact the forum theists should desist from attacking people for their views and lack of belief in principles, institutions and leaders of faith. There are some role models available with us starting from Gandhi.

 

[subbudu1]

Would that be acceptable to the atheist students? Thanks Shri TKS for the wishes.

We have no issues with you performing pillayar suzhi or a yagam. I respect your choice to disagree with my view. If the yagam is benefiting some worthy poor and needy people, I am even willing to lend a financial contribution. Best of luck in your life regardless of our differences in religious approach.

 

[subbudu1]

cults are dangerous.. i can refer lot of damages done by different kind of cults, apart from theist or atheists.. thats is a social topic. this point of yours is no way related to the topic we are discussing here..

i do agree, with your point here, though its irrelevant ..

Modern saivism , vaishnavism, shintoism, pintoism and christianity I see them as modern cults regardless of their great origins.

 

[Yamaka]

"However, on a day-to-day level, as we go about living our lives, there is absolutely no reason to believe there is a purposeful god who cares about us, and will listen to our prayers and alter our lives in any way -- such belief can be absolutely positively rejected. Therefore, on a practical day-to-day level, to be an atheist is perfectly defensible. In other words, with respect to Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Jesus, agnosticism is irrational, no?" - Nara asked.

Very good question. Thanks, Dear Nara.

I will include in the list Allah, Buddha, Mahavir etc also!

Cheers.

 

[Yamaka]

I agree with you Sir! I haven't seen these Atheists hanging around islamic or christian websites, spending all their time calling them "evil"! Therefore, I must agree, that the Atheists aren't really serious about fighting religion, they are only going after the bovine Brahmins. It is "Brahmins" they are after, nobody else. Talk about spineless cowards who pick on the group that doesn't fight back.

Atheists go everywhere and critique ALL man-made religions and their Gods, IMO.

I don't know who is specifically going after "bovine Brahmins(?!!)"? Not me!

Paranoia....

 

[subbudu1]

Atheists go everywhere and critique ALL man-made religions and their Gods, IMO.

I don't know who is specifically going after "bovine Brahmins(?!!)"? Not me!

Paranoia....

Every caste and religion has this panic sticken lot. Yes there are sometimes some periods when some people are genuinely persecuted. Jews at times, muslims at times even christians at times, kashmiri pandits and so on. There are some difficulties in the life of some brahmins owing to reservation policies. But there is no slaughter house setup to cut up the brahmins in majority of India.People are happy to live in the major part of India.

 

[sravna]

We have no issues with you performing pillayar suzhi or a yagam. I respect your choice to disagree with my view. If the yagam is benefiting some worthy poor and needy people, I am even willing to lend a financial contribution. Best of luck in your life regardless of our differences in religious approach.

Dear Shri Subbudu,

I do not want to be drawn in to a debate now! But I am happy that you are being respectful of others choice and that you are constructive in your outlook. I respect you for that. btw, your thread related to quantum mechanics makes interesting reading. Thanks for your wishes!

 

[C RAVI]

I have said something towards the end you have skipped. I am quoting again-

Thank you.

You are talking what you like generalizing people, which is my point.

I dont know whether religion has done damage or not, but today most creeds are survived by cults whatever may be the original source of these cults. Cults are dangerous because they propound blind support in a lost cause and the only natural recourse to such cultists is to express their frustration in others in a bad violent way. The average person has a loose definition of his cult and stays away from violence.

Hinduism and Hindus are not into anti religious riots in these era... (not refereing to pouranic incidents of Hindus killing Budhists and all)

 

[amala]

Dear Amala, I think I understand what you are saying, but it does leave a lot of ambiguity. IMO, this is because some the terminology is left ambiguous.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood, for you the middle path is to have faith in a benevolent and comforting god, one to whom you can turn to for solace, but not get too technical and practice, or try to practice, every last word of the scriptures to the extent of bringing grief to yourself and people around you. Given one is unable to break out of theism, this, IMO, is a sensible approach.

On the other hand, for the seriously religious people, to believe is to take the belief to its logical conclusion. Anything less, a "middle-path" is to doubt. If there is anything the religious fear, it is doubt. The inexorable destination of this kind of thinking is to believe in the literal truth of the scriptures. Anything less, a "middle-path", is no less blasphemous than the drivel of the atheists.

Let us look at an example. How can a Christian, one who is motivated by this kind of thinking and believes Jesus is the son of God and is the only savior, ignore Jesus's own words as described in the scriptures?

Matthew 10:34-39 declares that Jesus came not to bring peace on Earth, but a sword; to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

Jesus says in as plain a language as one can say, that he who loves his father or mother more than Jesus is not worthy of him; and he who loves son or daughter more than him is not worthy of him. And he who does not take his cross and follow him is not worthy of him.

Obviously, this is not a "middle way". But, organized religion can never be a "middle-path" as it demands blind faith of the religion lock, stock, and barrel. Vedic Brahminism is no exception, it is just as oppressive as other established religions.

To follow a middle-path, people of faith will have to reject organized religion and fashion a path on their own, starting from the religious tradition they are familiar with, and then shaping it to their own innate sense of fairness and compassion. The truly religious can never do that.

Cheers!

Dear Nara mama,

What I had initially posted until we got diverted by middle paths is that I consider myself Agno-theist. I never claimed that to be the middle path myself. It was thrusted upon me and I quite liked the idea. I am not saying I am Agno-theist proudly. Not at all. That is what i am for now (lol i hope the "for now" bit is not going to wind up anyone about my future conversions)

I am not too sure about the rejecting organised religion bit. But i completely agree that we fashion a path of our own with what we know. We, at least I do, cherry pick what I like and leave out the rest. If some people think I'm being hypocritical, well I am not gonna losing any sleep over it, I assure you.

 

[Nara]

....the abrahamic faiths are part of lord brahmaa manifestation,and this very lord is shunned in india!!

Dear NN, this is good from your POV, but this lord brahmaa seems to have told diametrically opposite to things different groups of people. In as much you are convinced your version is true, the other side is convinced the version they got is the ultimate truth.

Apparently, your lord brhmma, via various agamas, instructed you hindus to make idols and worship them. Then, this lord brhmma goes to this other group, people of abrahmaic faith, and tells them don't ever make idols and worship them. To this brhamma idolatry is a sin of such magnitude that it had to be part the 10 commandments, rape and child abuse didn't make it into the top 10, but this one did.

Further, this prohibition of idol worship was so important to this version of brhamma that it was the 2nd of the 10, the only command more important than this was that no other god must come before him (does it not imply there were other gods and this God was jealous of them?).

This brhmma's followers in India are opposed to any form of proselytizing, particularly by two of the three abrhamic faiths, so much so that some are ready to murder. On the other hand, the abrahamic followers of this brhamma seem to think converting these Hindus "who celebrate the festival of lights [un]aware of the darkness in their hearts that no lamp can dispel" is the prime directive given by this brhamma, showing himself as Yahweh to them.

I know these are examples of extremists. This is why I think the middle-pathers are sensible, given they are unable to free themselves from faith altogether.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

idol worship is a fallacy.just like how a picture brings out emotions some 3 million years back,only stone sculptures to sculpt was being done.every retarded child knows that but in the piety of worship the share of market for religions becomes more of biz venture than really value based teachings sometimes.on the whole religion and spirituality are good teachers inculcating values to shape characters of human beings especially some millenium years b ack.i find peace withn myself when i see god in me and in others,even you nara are an divine embodiment of love for me.

 

[nachi naga]

btw nara,symbolic icons are there in evry religion,imho.its all about semantics and nit picking that goes in atheist circles.imho atheist study scriptures more carefully and are knowledgeable unlike us blind faith idolaters

 

[subbudu1]

Friends as we move beyond to the 80 + pages of this topic , I wish to make my conclusive stand in this thread

I feel it does not matter to what extent we believe in god. God remains an unknown factor. May be some have experienced him and to them he is not just an imagination. I respect that though I feel that a lot of these experiences could be just an illusion.

When we see saints who claim about seeing God, contradictions in their life and teaching, puts a lot of rationalists and sceptics off.
A 100 wrong examples does not mean that the 101 th example is also wrong. I leave that open. I have not see Ramana Maharishi , I have been to his ashram and even participated in the giri valam around the arunachala hills. I loved his ashram and whether it is the beauty of the place or ramana's greatness I know not. I like him but I am still not able to convince myself fully that he had amazing knowledge about life because my intellect asks questions over his philosophy and looking for things which make him a normal human with normal traits. He was not a fake whatever else he was.

I am not all sure that the trip to circumbalate around the arunachala hill made me feel special but I felt I had a good exercise even when I had on that occasion put on the cap of a free and open person. I have seen the shankaracharyas of Kanchi mutt. I did not feel anything negative about them. But I did not have a special experience either, though I did think positively having looked at their face, I still wondered and had enough doubts. I have not seen any other babas or swamis within the limits of my memory except a vision arising from some baba I had seen , as a small child emerging after bath from a holy river, with my parents alongside me. I dont know if it was just a dream. I have read some bit of Sathya sai baba discourses in the Bhavan's journal. I had the least inciination to even visit that place, even for a pleasure trip. The whole ambience in sathya sai videos as shown in tv puts me off as mock-spirituality.This again is my personal feeling and I am being honest about it, with the disclaimer that it may be my limitation that I could not see his greatness. I later read a lot of sceptical articles on baba and the BBC Videos on Baba, which I tended to believe. All this inspite of my wife being a baba devotee and many others in my family as well. I simply have to shut my doubts from being expressed at my home as I dont want anyone to be hurt. Yet it is an irony that it is not being possible to openly speak my heart out in the public forums as well.

Nithyananda's shows were a sham. I knew he was after some mischief when I heard him say that the only thing that is ever recorded in Akashik records is murder nothing else. I wondered that, if Akashic records could account for murders taking place anywhere then it could have access to every deed everywhere. So this person must be justifying to himself, that his actions and misadventures were not wrong. Ofcourse this is my perception and I have no information about him. Within some time, news about his supposd misdeeds spread across.

I am unable to list any swamiji's name who is alive today, who I want to most enthusiastically and full heartedly visit though there is one name for whom I have a soft corner . I want to visit him and may be if I like him then after visiting him,I will become his questioning follower like the famous doubting Thomas. So far based on his writings he does not propound any pet theories , he maintains his dignity , does not frequently appear in tv shows,, giving statements about this and that. He does not dismiss science and is a very learned scholar on his own right. He has a lusture in his face. All this dreamy vision about him that I have, but my mind is still clouded and I still have my doubts about his life, philosophy and actions which apparently still seem contradictory . So as I have said , even this is not possible that I can become some kind of doubting follower, until I meet him. Even if I ever become his follower, I will still not accept his philosophy of God until I see evidence for it. The question of unhesitatingly surrendering to the opinions of even this saint does not seem to be possible .

I cannot say if that is my limitation or it is an illusion in me that makes me view great people as though they have flaws. I dont disagree that there is a possibility that God exists but that is a hunch, but it cannot be rationally explained and therefore out of bounds of any science or probability theory. God has never been clearly explained or even if he has been, there is no one to present it in a clear way, or even if there is someone, I have never met that person or know a person who has met such a kind of person.

Finally the best words I can use for myself is a sceptic ( with an open heart to what extent I know not ) some call me a cynic, some call me intelligent, rational , some a pessimist and so on so forth. Other terms cannot properly qualify me!

 

[renuka]

Dear Subbudu,

Nice to read what you wrote.You sound very honest.Just want to share my thoughts here.For me believing in God just came naturally.No one forced it on to me in fact I never used to participate much in any prayers as a child and preferred prayer being personal and dont like the idea of Satsang or Groups.Many people tend to just 'act holy' for a stipulated period of time and sometimes too much 'goodness' makes me bored cos most religous people can get boring and also too judgemental.

For me I never needed evidence for God it was as natural as breathing.We cant see oxygen but that goes thru us without us being conscious of our own breath.
Same I feel about God..we feel HIM even though we cant "see" Him.

Coming to Swamijis I just read what is informative and use my Viveka to decide what is good for me.Just like to pass anatomy i had to read Greys Anatomy and a few other books so why not read a few good books by various Swamijis just to widen our prospective.Most true Swamijis do not compel anyone to be their followers its we followers who form new sects and create confusion.

May be just like how Subuddu came clean with his thoughts other members too can come forward and share their thought and stand on God, both Atheist and Theist and anyone in between too.