God Exists

[Haridasa Siva]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Ever since the thread ‘God exists’ started, there has been a division among members of this forum. Almost every thread started after this thread is marked (should I say marred?) with a touch on this subject. It is nothing unusual to see people with differences in their beliefs. But what is disturbing is the level of fight and issues raised. For example, ‘like’ is used as a political weapon. One group does not click ‘like’ to the post of a person perceived to be in the opposite group, even if that post is really good. Isn’t it ugly?

I want to ask the theists the following questions:
1. Do you think you are the messiah of God? Does He need your help to prove His existence?
2. What is wrong if someone does not believe in the God you believe?
3. What is your problem if someone is in the “middle path”? If the atheists win over that person, so be it. Isn’t that individual who must be concerned about it?
4. You must understand that it is difficult if not impossible to convince atheists. I in fact have the feeling that the atheists/agnostics in this forum have a better knowledge of shastras and scriptures than the theists. But you keep attempting to convince the atheists and get desperate. Your desperation reflects in your posts and sometimes you cross the limits.
5. Last but not least, you support God, who is not in physical form and you hurt someone in flesh and blood. Is this what you learnt from God?

Turning to atheists, you appear determined not to accept the arguments put forth by the theists. That irritates the theists. You seem to be enjoying that secretly. Your comments are sometimes insensitive to the feelings of the vast majority of the people and that make them feel bad. Periyar called theists as barbaric but the vast majority of the people still continue to be theists. Neither did Periyar achieve anything nor did the theists lose anything. If you realize that, you would not mock at theists.

If the posts in TB forum are any indication, the other side of atheism appears to be supporting all the social taboos like Homosex, Divorce, Visiting temples even when someone has ‘theetu’, etc. If you think you are forward-thinking people in supporting these things, it is fine. Quite interestingly, most of the atheists in this forum are living in the West and their support to these issues is understandable from that perspective. But the atheists must realize that they are dealing with all generations of people (most of them in India) in this forum. While on one hand we must respect the sentiments of the older generation, we also have the responsibility not to misguide the younger generation in the name of ‘modern thinking’.

I know I have now become bad in the eyes of both. But I am not bothered about it. I sincerely feel that the views I have expressed here are not only to have a cordial TB forum but also to re-emphasise the need to watch our conduct.
This post of mine was driven by the following words of Bharathi:
உண்மைதெரிந்ததுசொல்வேன்
ஊருக்குநல்லதுசொல்வேன்



I am aware that the members of this forum are more superior to me in almost every aspect and I offer my unconditional apology to anyone who is affected/hurt by this post.

 

[renuka]

Dear Haridas,

You wrote:

If the posts in TB forum are any indication, the other side of atheism appears to be supporting all the social taboos like Homosex, Divorce, Visiting temples even when someone has ‘theetu’, etc.

Not really..I am not an Atheist but I did have differing opinions on the above said as I had stated many times that I try not to be Judgemental.

 

[subbudu1]

.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

Renuka with due respects true belief without experience is only blind belief. Even if you have some kind of experiences it needs to be churned out and proven that this experience can substantiate god. Experiencing something with meditation , something with reiki and so on I feel do not prove God to oneself and to others , even a tiny bit. It may be a personal motivation that you might feel energetic after a meditative session. But thats it. These dont prove God conclusively except encourage a blind belief in something. The outcome is proven only in course of time and may be even many generations later, when the life of a famous man is taken up for study.

There is no conclusive Scientific proof that there is no God. This I can say for sure.

But the other side of the argument is that Science definitely and most definitely cannot prove that God exists. I started the quantum theory with that purpose in mind, to convince people, that people are being taken for a ride in the name of quantum theory , that this proves god.

Even if something is true, it has to be proven to be true through the right reasoning not just picking up some loop holes in some theory.
Thanks,

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Dear Haridas,

You wrote:


Not really..I am not an Atheist but I did have differing opinions on the above said as I had stated many times that I try not to be Judgemental.

All athiests seem to be supporting these things. But all people supporting these things need not be athiests.

 

[renuka]

Renuka with due respects true belief without experience is only blind belief. Even if you have some kind of experiences it needs to be churned out and proven that this experience can substantiate god. Experiencing something with meditation , something with reiki and so on I feel do not prove God to oneself and to others , even a tiny bit. It may be a personal motivation that you might feel energetic after a meditative session. But thats it. These dont prove God conclusively except encourage a blind belief in something. The outcome is proven only in course of time and may be even many generations later, when the life of a famous man is taken up for study.

Dear Subuddu,

There are a few experiences many of us have gone through which cant be discussed in an open forum.
Its not always blind faith.Most of us think we actually "see" with our eyes but in reality its the Visual Cortex that "sees" and the eyes just being the tool in the Visual Pathway, same with God.External apparatus just dont really "see" Him.

I cant go more detail than this cos some might doubt my sanity, just to add I have never meditated even once in my life and not done any ritual.
Just to conclude we can never generalize there is no one with a direct experience.

 

[sangom]

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.

When I was in school, we had one Maths teacher by name Shri Ponnaiah Nadar, a gentleman, soft-spoken and never teaching by the cane. He however used to single out a few of the back benchers and ask them questions, give impositions and even ask them to bring their guardian at times. This looked to me as though he was being partisan or against a few of the rowdy back-benchers. One day, in my boyish impetuousness, I followed him to the staff room after the class was over and told my doubt. He just smiled and replied that he is picking up those who show some promise of becoming good students and the others are so bad that there is no point in expecting them to change their ways.

I am reminded of this.

 

[zebra16]

Hi All,

Although it is unstated, it is clear that this debate is based on logic alone. Any logical debate must have a set of "axioms" and both the groups are clearly aware of it. Each group set their own "axioms" and tempt the other group to walk into their territory, but are wary of walking over to the other's "axiomatic terriroty" and fire their cannons at the empty space.

This paper war has been going on for eons, only the nomenclature of the group keeps changing like astikas, nastikas, materialists, spiritualists, rationalists, theists, atheists, agnostics etc. etc.

They are also fond of labelling each other like "blind believers", "disbelievers", "fatalists" "superstitionists" etc. - all branding with no intrinsic value or merit.

This is just shadow boxing.

Regards,

narayan

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Subuddu,

There are a few experiences many of us have gone through which cant be discussed in an open forum.
Its not always blind faith.Most of us think we actually "see" with our eyes but in reality its the Visual Cortex that "sees" and the eyes just being the tool in the Visual Pathway, same with God.External apparatus just dont really "see" Him.

I cant go more detail than this cos some might doubt my sanity, just to add I have never meditated even once in my life and not done any ritual.
Just to conclude we can never generalize there is no one with a direct experience.

I respect your experiences. I know the kind of experiences you might have had. I can speculate on the possibilities but I feel even this may not prove God to anyone other than to yourself and even if it did prove things to you it might still be illusionary or incomplete. I will not add more here in this public forum.

Even prophet Mohammed had great experiences and Vivekananda once said something about him. I would request the people to churn this view of Vivekananda, reason I wish not to quote is I dont want to be seen as anti someone, but Not all supposed experiences are completely self explanatory and they pertain to the world of siddhis and external appearances, which do not prove god, yet even their authenticity I feel could be quite easily challenged as well.

Sorry Renuka for saying, myself a sceptic inspite of having a relative who has a Baba photo which supposedly showers vibhuti and a whole flock of visitors to that house. Even if Baba could manifest vibhuti through siddhi, I have never seen a siddhi in action, so I wont comment, but even if true, God is not proven by that.

If anyone is angry with my view on Babas and swamijis forgive me. Thanks.

 

[sangom]

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!

Dear Shri Nara,

Instead of ""technically agnostic and atheistic in practice", I would prefer "technically agnostic and not religious in practice". Do you think this is acceptable?

Agnosticism is irrational not only with reference (respect) to Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Jesus and all the rest of the 33 crores of Devatas and the multitudes of Xian apostles and beatified saints, etc. But w.r.t. Allah, possibly an agnostic will have to agree partially, at least because Islam holds that the Most Supreme has no form and has till today eschewed idol (form) worship. Who knows, I may now be branded as an AlQueida fellow in disguise to exterminate Hindu religion

 

[suraju06]

I respect your experiences. I know the kind of experiences you might have had. I can speculate on the possibilities but I feel even this may not prove God to anyone other than to yourself and even if it did prove things to you it might still be illusionary or incomplete. I will not add more here in this public forum.

Even prophet Mohammed had great experiences and Vivekananda once said something about him. I would request the people to churn this view of Vivekananda, reason I wish not to quote is I dont want to be seen as anti someone, but Not all supposed experiences are completely self explanatory and they pertain to the world of siddhis and external appearances, which do not prove god, yet even their authenticity I feel could be quite easily challenged as well.

Sorry Renuka for saying, myself a sceptic inspite of having a relative who has a Baba photo which supposedly showers vibhuti and a whole flock of visitors to that house. Even if Baba could manifest vibhuti through siddhi, I have never seen a siddhi in action, so I wont comment, but even if true, God is not proven by that.

If anyone is angry with my view on Babas and swamijis forgive me. Thanks.

Dear Renuka,

Sceptics will never believe anything unless it is proved either mathematically or scientifically - mathematically by a set of equations and scientifically by a high energy particle collider. The basic problem is that these sceptics do not accept that there is something called intuition and what one experiences in intuition is a higher order of insight. Many a time when you are wondering how the given situation in nature can be so irrational it is this intuition which, like a light switched on in a dark room, suddenly reveals every thing. Intuition reveals and then science and mathematics-like hand maids- change their existing entrenched convictions/theorems and find new theories to explain the revealation. This has been happening all along in the history of science. But sceptics are sceptics. They take a longer time to accept that the light switch has been found by some one else already. I have no one here in mind when I use the term sceptic.

Cheers.

 

[DrBarani]

formless, unknown and the most powerful

How can God, who is most powerful can only be "formless and unknown"? That takes away some power from the "most powerful". Hence I declare that islam's version of God as an illogical definition.

According to Hinduism, the most powerful God can be formless, formed, unknown, known, and even be powerless, all left to his own free will. That is the only consistent way God can be defined. The word "powerless" is in the same connotation of "Null set" being a subset of the All Powerful SuperSet and it is not mathematically illogical. Hence, the concept of God in Hinduism is more consistent than islam.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Sceptics will never believe anything unless it is proved either mathematically or scientifically - mathematically by a set of equations and scientifically by a high energy particle collider. The basic problem is that these sceptics do not accept that there is something called intuition and what one experiences in intuition is a higher order of insight. Many a time when you are wondering how the given situation in nature can be so irrational it is this intuition which, like a light switched on in a dark room, suddenly reveals every thing. Intuition reveals and then science and mathematics-like hand maids- change their existing entrenched convictions/theorems and find new theories to explain the revealation. This has been happening all along in the history of science. But sceptics are sceptics. They take a longer time to accept that the light switch has been found by some one else. I have no one here in mind when I use the term sceptic.

Cheers.

You know many people have believed me when I tell them I have seen ghosts before but any experience with the Divine no one tends to believe.

You know in Bahasa Melayu(Malay Language) God is called TUHAN and Ghost is called HANTU just the direct opposite.

 

[sangom]

Ever since the thread ‘God exists’ started, there has been a division among members of this forum. Almost every thread started after this thread is marked (should I say marred?) with a touch on this subject. It is nothing unusual to see people with differences in their beliefs. But what is disturbing is the level of fight and issues raised. For example, ‘like’ is used as a political weapon. One group does not click ‘like’ to the post of a person perceived to be in the opposite group, even if that post is really good. Isn’t it ugly?

I want to ask the theists the following questions:
1. Do you think you are the messiah of God? Does He need your help to prove His existence?
2. What is wrong if someone does not believe in the God you believe?
3. What is your problem if someone is in the “middle path”? If the atheists win over that person, so be it. Isn’t that individual who must be concerned about it?
4. You must understand that it is difficult if not impossible to convince atheists. I in fact have the feeling that the atheists/agnostics in this forum have a better knowledge of shastras and scriptures than the theists. But you keep attempting to convince the atheists and get desperate. Your desperation reflects in your posts and sometimes you cross the limits.
5. Last but not least, you support God, who is not in physical form and you hurt someone in flesh and blood. Is this what you learnt from God?

Turning to atheists, you appear determined not to accept the arguments put forth by the theists. That irritates the theists. You seem to be enjoying that secretly. Your comments are sometimes insensitive to the feelings of the vast majority of the people and that make them feel bad. Periyar called theists as barbaric but the vast majority of the people still continue to be theists. Neither did Periyar achieve anything nor did the theists lose anything. If you realize that, you would not mock at theists.

If the posts in TB forum are any indication, the other side of atheism appears to be supporting all the social taboos like Homosex, Divorce, Visiting temples even when someone has ‘theetu’, etc. If you think you are forward-thinking people in supporting these things, it is fine. Quite interestingly, most of the atheists in this forum are living in the West and their support to these issues is understandable from that perspective. But the atheists must realize that they are dealing with all generations of people (most of them in India) in this forum. While on one hand we must respect the sentiments of the older generation, we also have the responsibility not to misguide the younger generation in the name of ‘modern thinking’.

I know I have now become bad in the eyes of both. But I am not bothered about it. I sincerely feel that the views I have expressed here are not only to have a cordial TB forum but also to re-emphasise the need to watch our conduct.
This post of mine was driven by the following words of Bharathi:
உண்மைதெரிந்ததுசொல்வேன்
ஊருக்குநல்லதுசொல்வேன்



I am aware that the members of this forum are more superior to me in almost every aspect and I offer my unconditional apology to anyone who is affected/hurt by this post.

Dear Shri Haridasa Siva,

Yours is a wonderfully apt post. As an agnostic and hence a perceived "kooja" for the atheists in this forum, now I have given my "like" for your post. So, your objection that "One group does not click ‘like’ to the post of a person perceived to be in the opposite group, even if that post is really good. Isn’t it ugly?"

Your five questions to the theists are marvellous and I am eagerly looking forward to the replies from the those championing theism. Meanwhile, my own response is as under:

1. Do you think you are the messiah of God? Does He need your help to prove His existence?

The theist's belief in (the existence of) God is inherently very weak and unsupported by his reasoning mind. The theist is less sure when it comes to the surety of his god coming to help him in times of need or distress, although he (theist) may cite without any compunction Ajamila, Dhruva, Kuchela and so on for others' consumption. It is because of this inherent doubt about the God concept that the theist is so rattled by the opposite camp. The theist can find peace only when he knows that all others are doing the same blunder like what he does (go to town eulogising God). He cannot tolerate, even for a moment, the prospect that he is wasting all his life in the useless pursuit of God.

2. What is wrong if someone does not believe in the God you believe?

Like the fox which got its tail cut by the farmer and fell in a vat of dye, the theist always wants to ensure that all others are also like him. Just as the coloured fox said that he had got the colour and lost his tail because he was more divine and had been so transformed by divine intervention, the theist also tries to convert others to his ways. One more thing is for the theist, an atheist is an outright enemy, but other theists subscribing to different god/s are also not friends really, though they are a shade better than atheists.

3. What is your problem if someone is in the “middle path”? If the atheists win over that person, so be it. Isn’t that individual who must be concerned about it?

The theist who is essentially and intrinsically afraid and unsure of his faith (in God) would be so rattled by the prospect that the middle-pathers are probably better and finding a sure and better way. Ask any theist whether he is having so much faith in his god that he will agree to be tied to a large piece of granite and dropped into the sea (a la Kamal Hassan's Dasavataram)?

4. You must understand that it is difficult if not impossible to convince atheists. I in fact have the feeling that the atheists/agnostics in this forum have a better knowledge of shastras and scriptures than the theists. But you keep attempting to convince the atheists and get desperate. Your desperation reflects in your posts and sometimes you cross the limits.

You said it! By getting desperate the theist probably feels that he is fighting the war for his (ineffective and unconcerned) god who may reward him for such an act of piety.

5. Last but not least, you support God, who is not in physical form and you hurt someone in flesh and blood. Is this what you learnt from God?

Where and when did any God directly tell anything to a human being except what Zarathustra claimed? What the theists learn are all concoctions by those who created the religion/s and marketed in the name of this god or that.

 

[DrBarani]

When I was in school, we had one Maths teacher by name Shri Ponnaiah Nadar, a gentleman, soft-spoken and never teaching by the cane. He however used to single out a few of the back benchers and ask them questions, give impositions and even ask them to bring their guardian at times. This looked to me as though he was being partisan or against a few of the rowdy back-benchers. One day, in my boyish impetuousness, I followed him to the staff room after the class was over and told my doubt. He just smiled and replied that he is picking up those who show some promise of becoming good students and the others are so bad that there is no point in expecting them to change their ways.

I am reminded of this.

I get it - you are saying it is ok to get fooled twice!

 

[sangom]

How can God, who is most powerful can only be "formless and unknown"? That takes away some power from the "most powerful". Hence I declare that islam's version of God as an illogical definition.

According to Hinduism, the most powerful God can be formless, formed, unknown, known, and even be powerless, all left to his own free will. That is the only consistent way God can be defined. The word "powerless" is in the same connotation of "Null set" being a subset of the All Powerful SuperSet and it is not mathematically illogical. Hence, the concept of God in Hinduism is more consistent than islam.

"Formless" because we humans have not seen His true form, if any. BTW, did advaita of Sankara endorse your theory that the Hindu's most powerful God can be formless, formed, unknown, known, and even be powerless, all left to his own free will? Just for my education please.

 

[sangom]

I get it - you are saying it is ok to get fooled twice!

Frankly, Dr., I am not intelligent enough to decipher your cryptic reply. So, kindly elucidate.

 

[DrBarani]

Ever since the thread ‘God exists’ started, there has been a division among members of this forum. Almost every thread started after this thread is marked (should I say marred?) with a touch on this subject. It is nothing unusual to see people with differences in their beliefs. But what is disturbing is the level of fight and issues raised. For example, ‘like’ is used as a political weapon. One group does not click ‘like’ to the post of a person perceived to be in the opposite group, even if that post is really good. Isn’t it ugly?

You take this "Like" thing very seriously! It is merely a shorthand notation to avoid repeating what the other person said. Also, in a large setting there will be people who tend to aggregate in their own groups. Why it is wrong? Lets not go "samathuvam" in every field of preference.

I want to ask the theists the following questions:

1. Do you think you are the messiah of God? Does He need your help to prove His existence?

My finger is scratching the head. You know, head may host the brain but still needs the finger to scratch it...

2. What is wrong if someone does not believe in the God you believe?

Has it become a fight between Gods now? I thought it was a fight between God and nonGod...

No problem if someone doesn't like my God. Actually, I prefer it that way, my God can pay full attention to me without time dilution!

But if any self-declared "intellect" wants to bash Brahmins, they are encouraged to set up their own website if they don't want to be hit back.

3. What is your problem if someone is in the “middle path”? If the atheists win over that person, so be it. Isn’t that individual who must be concerned about it?

What is wrong in telling a person "you are vulnerable in a middlepath"? Isn't it like a road sign "you are heading towards a dead-end at 90 mph"?

4. You must understand that it is difficult if not impossible to convince atheists. I in fact have the feeling that the atheists/agnostics in this forum have a better knowledge of shastras and scriptures than the theists. But you keep attempting to convince the atheists and get desperate. Your desperation reflects in your posts and sometimes you cross the limits.

I always conceded that there are most theists and atheists who know about theology more than I do. But at the same time I also want to declare that my forefathers/ancestors knew about theology more than any of these self-styled "intellects" who claim to know more than I do. Since it is an equation drawn between the "knowledge of atheists" and the trust I place in the "knowledge of my forefathers", it is an easy to know which side to take!

5. Last but not least, you support God, who is not in physical form and you hurt someone in flesh and blood. Is this what you learnt from God?

Surgery sheds blood. That cannot be termed tort.

Turning to atheists, you appear determined not to accept the arguments put forth by the theists. That irritates the theists. You seem to be enjoying that secretly. Your comments are sometimes insensitive to the feelings of the vast majority of the people and that make them feel bad. Periyar called theists as barbaric but the vast majority of the people still continue to be theists. Neither did Periyar achieve anything nor did the theists lose anything. If you realize that, you would not mock at theists.

Actually, I am not hurt by views put forth by Atheists. I am only hurt by their audacity of invading a site dedicated for Brahmins where they enter and insult the Brahmins. If they are true their beliefs they should be able to set up their own Atheist website and go full blown retarded there. I encourage that!

If the posts in TB forum are any indication, the other side of atheism appears to be supporting all the social taboos like Homosex, Divorce, Visiting temples even when someone has ‘theetu’, etc. If you think you are forward-thinking people in supporting these things, it is fine. Quite interestingly, most of the atheists in this forum are living in the West and their support to these issues is understandable from that perspective. But the atheists must realize that they are dealing with all generations of people (most of them in India) in this forum. While on one hand we must respect the sentiments of the older generation, we also have the responsibility not to misguide the younger generation in the name of ‘modern thinking’.

Actually, Hinduism doesn't try to regimentalise lifestyles. I showd earlier that Krishna married hundred women. Draupati married five men. Most hindu Gods married Two Goddesses. 'ArthaNareeswarar" is a Transgender (man+woman). There is a whole set of diversity in Hinduism and one can pick and choose what they like. This is in sharp contrast to other religions.

I know I have now become bad in the eyes of both.

What! only NOW?! Bad bad boy! :boink:

I think if there was an election in TB, you might win 100% of all votes. Smart man! You should try to enter real world politics!

This post of mine was driven by the following words of Bharathi:
உண்மைதெரிந்ததுசொல்வேன்
ஊருக்குநல்லதுசொல்வேன்

Yeah, Bharati, that evil Brahmin!

I am aware that the members of this forum are more superior to me in almost every aspect and I offer my unconditional apology to anyone who is affected/hurt by this post.

I demand apology for all people like me who are inferior and get hurt!

 

[DrBarani]

"Formless" because we humans have not seen His true form, if any. BTW, did advaita of Sankara endorse your theory that the Hindu's most powerful God can be formless, formed, unknown, known, and even be powerless, all left to his own free will? Just for my education please.

Adi Shankara has his own missionaries. You are welcome to ring up Kanchi mutt and ask them for any proof!

"formless" because humans have not seen? Human eyes can't see X-rays. They don't exist, correct?

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Shri Haridasa Siva,

Yours is a wonderfully apt post. As an agnostic and hence a perceived "kooja" for the atheists in this forum, now I have given my "like" for your post. So, your objection that "One group does not click ‘like’ to the post of a person perceived to be in the opposite group, even if that post is really good. Isn’t it ugly?"

Your five questions to the theists are marvellous and I am eagerly looking forward to the replies from the those championing theism. Meanwhile, my own response is as under:



The theist's belief in (the existence of) God is inherently very weak and unsupported by his reasoning mind. The theist is less sure when it comes to the surety of his god coming to help him in times of need or distress, although he (theist) may cite without any compunction Ajamila, Dhruva, Kuchela and so on for others' consumption. It is because of this inherent doubt about the God concept that the theist is so rattled by the opposite camp. The theist can find peace only when he knows that all others are doing the same blunder like what he does (go to town eulogising God). He cannot tolerate, even for a moment, the prospect that he is wasting all his life in the useless pursuit of God.

Like the fox which got its tail cut by the farmer and fell in a vat of dye, the theist always wants to ensure that all others are also like him. Just as the coloured fox said that he had got the colour and lost his tail because he was more divine and had been so transformed by divine intervention, the theist also tries to convert others to his ways. One more thing is for the theist, an atheist is an outright enemy, but other theists subscribing to different god/s are also not friends really, though they are a shade better than atheists.

The theist who is essentially and intrinsically afraid and unsure of his faith (in God) would be so rattled by the prospect that the middle-pathers are probably better and finding a sure and better way. Ask any theist whether he is having so much faith in his god that he will agree to be tied to a large piece of granite and dropped into the sea (a la Kamal Hassan's Dasavataram)?
You said it! By getting desperate the theist probably feels that he is fighting the war for his (ineffective and unconcerned) god who may reward him for such an act of piety.


Where and when did any God directly tell anything to a human being except what Zarathustra claimed? What the theists learn are all concoctions by those who created the religion/s and marketed in the name of this god or that.

I concur with Sangom. I am aware that Haridas, you are a theist. But I appreciate your post and I am sure a lot of genuine theists will not find anything objectionable in what you say.
Haridas says

I know I have now become bad in the eyes of both.

No ,no genuine person will find anything in your post to think you are bad, theist or atheist.

 

[zebra16]

May be a mild set-back for big bang theory enthusiasts!! http://coalgeology.com/big-bang-theory-does-not-explain-origin-of-the-universe-scientists/4128/

Regards,

narayan

 

[suraju06]

Dear Haridasasiva,
Your summing up is pefect but a little bit onesided. You asked in post #801 in this thread these questions(in quotes below).As I can be considered a theist since I believe in the existence of God and as you have asked these questions to the theists, I would try to answer:

I want to ask the theists the following questions:
1. Do you think you are the messiah of God? Does He need your help to prove His existence?

I am not a messiah of the God. God exists whether any one proves it or not. But when some one arrogates to himself the “Messiahship” of a ‘non-god’ or ‘anti-god’ and attacks me and my belief system I try to defend my self.

2. What is wrong if someone does not believe in the God you believe?

I have absolutely no problem as long as an atheist does not try to impose his views on me. His attempts are multi pronged. He teases me, ridicules me, calls me names and even makes the but of jokes using third rate American long distance truck driver’s lingo. This I fight. So what is the problem? Please answer. Now it is your turn to answer.

3. What is your problem if someone is in the “middle path”? If the atheists win over that person, so be it. Isn’t that individual who must be concerned about it?

As I have traversed the middlepath in my evolution, I know what a pain it is. So I venture to have a dialogue with these middle path travellers. I am sure Atheists will also say the same thing about having traversed the middle path. If they try to advise the middle path travellers (MPT) let them do that. I have no objection. But make no mistake. It is my right to have a dialogue with MPT as a theist. So what is the problem here?

4. You must understand that it is difficult if not impossible to convince atheists. I in fact have the feeling that the atheists/agnostics in this forum have a better knowledge of shastras and scriptures than the theists. But you keep attempting to convince the atheists and get desperate. Your desperation reflects in your posts and sometimes you cross the limits.

I do not want to convince atheists. I am not desperate either. I would have been desperate if I had been sinking and hence needing support. I am perfectly afloat and do not need any support. I have not lost anything and so am not desperate. Your tentative statement that “ I in fact have the feeling that the atheists/agnostics in this forum have a better knowledge of shastras and scriptures than the theists.” is purely your opinion. Budhdhikkoormai is dangerous when not accompanied by Budhdhiththelivu . A blade can be used to sharpen a pencil as well as to cut someone’s jugular vein. Crossing the limits has been achieved more times by Atheists here. I think I do not have to count them. If you want please let me know. I will spend time, dig into the archieves and quote them all verbatim.

5. Last but not least, you support God, who is not in physical form and you hurt someone in flesh and blood. Is this what you learnt from God?

You appear to presume that atheists do not hurt. Could you please give instances where theists have hurt the atheists?


Sangom Sir, though not a theist, has jumped in with an atheist’s (though he would prefer to call it an agnostic’s) mind set and has answered your above same questions in post#813 above, and I have this to say as a theist about that. As the ideas represented by these answers of Sangom Sir have been thrown into the forum they become debatable and as a member I have the right to be critical of them. I do not expect Sangom Sir to answer this if he does not want to. I am aware that he does not want debates to deteriorate into ‘cantankerous’ arguments. I give below Sangom Sir’s words in quotes and my views:

The theist's belief in (the existence of) God is inherently very weak and unsupported by his reasoning mind.

A theist does not try to understand God with his reasoning mind. It is a belief outside the purview of reasoning and cause and effect logic. It is only atheists’ arrogant imagination that it is inherently or systemically weak.

The theist is less sure when it comes to the surety of his god coming to help him in times of need or distress, although he (theist) may cite without any compunction Ajamila, Dhruva, Kuchela and so on for others' consumption. It is because of this inherent doubt about the God concept that the theist is so rattled by the opposite camp.

A theist believes in God irrespective of whether his prayers are answered or not. He prays because it is another effort he thinks he can make to deal with a problem situation. Ajamila, Dhruva etc are puranic characters. He quotes them only to those who believe in God. Atheists have no locus standi here because they do not recognize the language of purana. It is rather atheists who are rattled by the steadfast growth of theist population despite the fact that the opiate sold by the atheists is extremely potent.

The theist can find peace only when he knows that all others are doing the same blunder like what he does (go to town eulogising God). He cannot tolerate, even for a moment, the prospect that he is wasting all his life in the useless pursuit of God.

Whose time is spent in a useless pursuit is a question of opinion. Depending on which side of the fence you are, the answer varies.

Like the fox which got its tail cut by the farmer and fell in a vat of dye, the theist always wants to ensure that all others are also like him. Just as the coloured fox said that he had got the colour and lost his tail because he was more divine and had been so transformed by divine intervention, the theist also tries to convert others to his ways.

Theists do not bother to convert any atheists. It is rather the other way round. The numbers speak.

One more thing is for the theist, an atheist is an outright enemy, but other theists subscribing to different god/s are also not friends really, though they are a shade better than atheists.

Like perhaps the agnostics and atheists and the various shades of them like ‘practical this moment’ ‘technical that moment’ etc!!

The theist who is essentially and intrinsically afraid and unsure of his faith (in God) would be so rattled by the prospect that the middle-pathers are probably better and finding a sure and better way. Ask any theist whether he is having so much faith in his god that he will agree to be tied to a piece of granite and dropped into the sea (a la Kamal Hassan's Dasavataram)?

‘essentially’, ‘intrinsically’, ‘inherent’ are the terms used here which indicates the cock-sure arrogance of atheists’ mind-set. While they do not know anything about a theist’s mind they eloquently describe it and pass judgments also. This repeated claim of theists getting rattled is laughable non-sense. Theists repeatedly say that they do not look up to god for help in every stupid activity(like the one Sangom Sir has prescribed here) they may engage in as ordinary mortals. If I ask a question to the atheists and pseudo-atheists whether they will, in all their fired up enthusiasm for their faith in non-existence of God, go to the Kaba and with a public address system utter their blasphemic views for all to hear? They will have to do it first and then ask the theists to jump ino the sea with a stone tied to their leg. At least in Tamil there is a story that a bhakta was really thrown into the sea the way Mr. Sangom has rhetorically mentioned. He lived to sing “Katrunai pootti oru kadalile paaychchinum natrunai aavathu namachchivaayave”. I am interested in knowing the pseudo atheists response to this particular querry of me.

You said it! By getting desperate the theist probably feels that he is fighting the war for his (ineffective and unconcerned) god who may reward him for such an act of piety.

This “You said it!” is in response to Siva’s encomium and, my god, it is so obvious. I would like to say this to atheists and pseudo atheists : God never cares to tickle your ego (as humans do) by granting every wish of you. He knows that you may think that you are a super human because every wish of you is granted and may put on sale your method of reaching this superhuman existence.

Where and when did any God directly tell anything to a human being except what Zarathustra claimed? What the theists learn are all concoctions by those who created the religion/s and marketed in the name of this god or that.

God has directly spoken to men. If one cares one can find instances in known history.

 

[zebra16]

No need to worry about the imaginary celestial teapot circling around the sun anymore. The first trojan asteroid circling the sun in earth's orbit has been discovered. http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article2302402.ece

Regards,

narayan

 

[Nara]

...Instead of ""technically agnostic and atheistic in practice", I would prefer "technically agnostic and not religious in practice". Do you think this is acceptable?

Dear Sangom sir, of course, but I was only trying to clarify my own view and for me atheist in practice works better .

But w.r.t. Allah, possibly an agnostic will have to agree partially, at least because Islam holds that the Most Supreme has no form and has till today eschewed idol (form) worship. Who knows, I may now be branded as an AlQueida fellow in disguise to exterminate Hindu religion

But, this Allah, being formless not withstanding, is no less narcissistic and his ego no less fragile -- he wants total submission and wishes to cut the head off of apostates. A heaven run by this god must be worse than hell!!!

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

Ever since the thread ‘God exists’ started, there has been a division among members of this forum.

there were times, even if some one posts a recipe for sambhar, even that simple topic was utilized to ridicule brahmins. i should thank sh.brahin here...ever since he opened this thread, this has attracted them here in to a serious god talk, subsequently silencing their anti-brahmin posts. is in that good?

1. Do you think you are the messiah of God? Does He need your help to prove His existence?

why ask such question, when you know the answer.if i say I'm the 10th avadhar of god, will you trust me and stop asking for the proof?

god is not fully understood by humans (incl hard core theists), and its a continuous process of exploration. those who experienced god, is telling others that there is something good in it, and attached rituals etc. its those who cant have the ability to experience or commune with god are the one, who is demanding physical proof, where as theists get the proof easily by experiencing god.

3. What is your problem if someone is in the “middle path”? If the atheists win over that person, so be it. Isn’t that individual who must be concerned about it?

the 'selfish gene' in us is doing this gang work here, not to loose own folks to enemy tribes. lets say, if a father notices tilting of his teen age son's sexual orientation (toward middle path), wont he approach the doctor to set it right with hormone injections and try to correct it from the beginning, OR let happily watch the tilting of sides, which would eventually shift from middle path to sex change surgery (the other end). this is the danger of shifting towards the middle path. you view is right, but i have a selfish gene in me, as an atheist said so.

4. But you keep attempting to convince the atheists and get desperate. Your desperation reflects in your posts and sometimes you cross the limits.

oh please,no one has gone desperate. in fact, this has given opportunity to many of the silent members, who once mutely watched the anti brahmin posts without countering, now got a chance to open up the mouth and speak. this is our forte, and theists are doing a marvelous job, and its the atheists who are ducking the questions. i would appreciate if you could moderate between them and demand answers from those who are ducking/evading. i would appreciate that.

 

[Nara]

... Quite interestingly, most of the atheists in this forum are living in the West and their support to these issues is understandable from that perspective.

Dear Siva, I think the correlation is probably with atheists abandoning religious taboos rather than living in the west. I know many living in the west having very rigid views on social issues.

But the atheists must realize that they are dealing with all generations of people (most of them in India) in this forum. While on one hand we must respect the sentiments of the older generation, we also have the responsibility not to misguide the younger generation in the name of ‘modern thinking’.

Siva, I am unable to agree with this view. Respecting the sentiments of the older generation, one to which I myself belong, must not include self censorship. As they say, sticks and stones may hurt my bones -- of course this is only an adage, but I see no problem as long as the ideas are presented in a rational manner, free of name calling.

Misguiding the younger generation is too vague. The venerable Socrates himself was accused of misguiding the Athenian youth. I think today's youngsters are very smart, they are not easily misguided as we old timers were when we were at their age. They are not going to simply accept something just because they are told to. This may scare some old timers, but, IMO, to encourage them to question, like Socrates urged the youngsters of his time, is not misguiding, IMO.

Siva, you have been quite considerate and I appreciate it, but, of late, there is lot of ire expressed directly or indirectly against the so called Atheists in general, and me in particular. If it was on issues there would be no problem. But the attacks are nasty and personal.

I do criticize Vedic Brahminism severely. But I have not said Brahmins are evil. I firmly believe TBs are no more evil than any other group. It is the idea I am criticizing.

I think we all are born free of any prejudice or superstitions. These are poured into us by our parents and society. I am not faulting our parents for this either, after all, they were also born free of any prejudice, but got indoctrinated. Rejecting the old prejudice is not rejecting our ancestors, at least to me it is not. I reject the notion that rational criticism of idea itself is being disrespectful, least of all, somehow equal to the vitriolic ad hominems we have seen in this thread.

I know of a lot of middle-pathers, who are able to set aside the vile in their respective religions and design a version of faith that their innate goodness allows them to practice. As I said elsewhere, I appreciate this, given they are not able to reject faith altogether.

This forum belongs to Praveen and he sets the rules. He has repeatedly said that if anyone doesn't like what they see, they are welcome to leave. There are many more forums in this web site where theists regularly make posts extolling their faith. I never interfere with any of them, and on occasion I have even contributed with clarifications regarding theistic views and practice. I have written long respectful and, if I may say so myself, glowing tributes to what the theists see as Bhakti.

Isn't it ironic that a thread like "Immortality in the Vedas" a good one by Shri vikrama, attracts 13 posts (most from vikrama himself) and 828 views since early June, and this thread, started 3 weeks ago, has already attracted 824 posts and over 10K views. It seems conflict attracts more interest than interesting topics.

Yet, even though there are so many forums for expressing theism unfettered, and the fact that Praveen allows free flow of ideas in a few forums like General Discussion (GD), some people want us gagged even in the GD forum! Why is it hard for those whose sensibilities are easily ruffled to ignore GD forum, like we keep our peace in the forums where criticisms are not permitted? Is it morbid curiosity or fatal attraction?

Cheers!