God Exists

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sir,

With due respect to you, I want to submit that some of your comments are biased and untrue. To say "The reactions of many theist members here in this forum will reveal to you that they try to show their religiosity by badmouthing the opponents instead of countering atheism by logic" is objectionable. They do not badmouth and if by any chance anyone does so, it is not because of their religious affinity. Anyone would get irritated by repeated வறட்டு வாதம் which is often முரட்டு வாதம். Are you not seeing provoking and teasing posts from atheists? Theists have no hidden agenda and so they put forth their views without any colour. Sarcacism is the language of athiests no matter how they package it.

Christianity says, "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"
"Islam" means "to surrender"
Hinduism teaches karma
Buddhism teaches ahimsa

On the contrary, atheism is barbaric, impractical, egoistic, haughty, and what not.

Let us stop the nonsence saying that we have "proved with examples" that "faith in religion/God makes otherwise good people to be bad". It just shows the insensivity to the feelings of the majority of the people, who in their own way are pious and are good if not noble. There is no need for them to prove their nobility to people who accuse their reverent religion/God. The act of athiests is either ignorance (of the eternal truth) or sheer arrogance.

Dear Shiva,

It is too kind of you to denote me by the term "Bheeshma"; I am keenly aware that I am the last person deserving it.

I do not think I (or any of the atheists here) "claim" that we have "proved with examples" that "faith in religion/God makes otherwise good people to be bad". What I am (repeatedly) trying to show that even an additional exposure to and training in the supposedly "uplifting" effects of religious training does not seem to bridle the criminal tendencies latent in a person. If so, how can it be said that 'religion improves a person'? If you hold the view that "religiously oriented people, who in their own way are pious and are good if not noble.", let it be but why should they follow the religion which does not obviously help in bringing about any further improvement in them?

Your statement "There is no need for them to prove their nobility to people who accuse their reverent religion/God.", shows, according to me the auto-suggestion of the religiously oriented minds to the effect that because of their being religious, ipso facto, it goes without saying that they are noble, and the repositories of all good characteristics. This exactly is the mistake; do you think all religious people are noble, and possessing all noble and praiseworthy character? To just give a homework, consider how many belonging to the swamiji class have proved to be first rate criminals? (I am not including JS and VS of the Kanchi mutt here because the judgment is yet to come.) How many very highly religious people are seen to be tax-evaders, and indulging in criminal activities?

I object to your using my phrase (படிப்பறிவு இல்லாத, வேல வெட்டி இல்லாத சோம்பேறிகள்) to Swamijis.

This is curious; you can use the phase but I can't, why?

"Religious gullibility" is not the mistake of religion. If some people are "clever" to use "avenues of folling people" on religious lines, it is because they are born scoundrels.

The fact that religion affords a "line" for clever, born scoundrels, to use the religion to fool people, is at the crux of the discussion, imo, and I hold that religion makes an ordinary person to graduate from being ordinarily religious to highly religious, to religiously bigoted, to a religious fanatic.

I am sure you are aware of true religious swamijis like Adi Sankaracharya or Swami Vivekananda who have spent their life time in channelising the minds of people into noble things. Unfortunately, that would be labeled as "Brahminical supermacism" in case of AS and something else for SV.

I have my opinion that Adisankara was himself a "pracchanna bouddha" and this will make him to be something less in stature than what people like you may believe. Regarding SV, I think he took up the offer of becoming a sanyasi for escaping from his debt-ridden family and to make a sort of career and name and fame for himself. There are also some very explosive aspects relating to his relationship with Ramakrishna which lifted him above all his seniors and made him to preside over the Ramakrishna Mission. I think it can be explained by Sankara's verse "udaranimittam bahukṛtaveṣaḥ". I will request readers who take offence to go through the blog Philosophers and analyses of their philosophies and platitudes and also the book Swami Vivekananda: a reassessment by Narasingha Prosad Sil, Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal.

The media can only highlight bad things. So, an ordinary person would know Nithyananda and Premananda but a person of your calibre would sure know of the vast majority of people who have used religion for the betterment of the society at large. But you chose to take the other side.

ஒரு பீஷ்மர் தவறான side ல இருந்தது போதும் sir. நீங்க போகாதீங்கோ

In your religious zeal, dear Siva, you are pronouncing your judgment on Bheeshma from whom Yudhishtira sought advice about what is "Dharma". Such a person could not have chosen the "wrong side" I think, and perhaps Bheeshma was the only personality tall enough to stand on his principles and all the other Pandava allies were small fry before the shrewd Krishna who probably planned the decimation of the entire Kuru clan, to see through the game, that people like you, indoctrinated by religious dogma and hence unable to see any other picture, misjudge Bheeshma. If such a mentality is not "cult mentality" (Krishna cult) what else it is?

Can you elaborate on your statement of the vast majority of people who have used religion for the betterment of the society at large, some examples please?

 

[ShivKC]

Can you elaborate on your statement of the vast majority of people who have used religion for the betterment of the society at large, some examples please?

shankar sir, if i may intervene..

before seeking a response, it would be ideal if you could clarify/define, what kind of betterment you are looking here..

happiness/social human index/per capita / job opportunities / crime rates / community living / culture / heritge ?

 

[zebra16]

Namaste Sri Sangom.

Sorry for this late response, my internet connection did not work yesterday.

No need to apologise Sir. Everyone’s participation is subject to various constraints like health, time, net connectivity etc.

The swamiji is supposed to be different from the ordinary, run-of-the-mill hindu. (hence if we are talking about search results for "hindu arrested" it will not make any sense just as a search for "atheist arrested" will be.)

The google search will not throw much light because of lack of equivalency/contrasting quality between “swamiji” and an “atheist”. Media reporting is generally “vocation oriented” or “profession-wise” like “killer doctor”, “corrupt politician”, “draculla scientist” etc. The unsavoury doctors/politicians/ scientists who are booked may be either theists or atheists, but we will never get to their religious beliefs or lack of such belief by googling. Priest-hood or “swamiji-hood” is construed as vocation in religion, whereas atheism is not.

When we find that even swamijis get into such unlawful activities as to deserve arrest and punishment, it means that the additional, higher level of religious training also is ineffective in curbing the criminal tendencies latent in a person.

In the present situation this "cover of swamiji" has become a convenient mode for all such criminally oriented people to make some fast money and, even if they are exposed and caught, the followers who have been hypnotized by religion and religious inputs continue to honour that swamiji (Nityananda is the latest instance perhaps)

.

The “cover of swamini” as you put it would imply an imposter or a criminally oriented person to make fast money, as you continue. In such a scenario, it is like a “quack” donning the dress of a doctor. The actions of the quack cannot taint the good work of science, so one should not equate a fraud swami with the genuine good samaritan.

That is why I hold the view that religion is not a socially beneficial thing.

I have no problems as long as you hold religion is value neutral, or there are black sheep in the religious community, but the thrust of Sri Nara’s argument that “religion gives a propensity to be immoral" is a very long stretch.

Regards,

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Dear Shiva,

I do not think I (or any of the atheists here) "claim" that we have "proved with examples" that "faith in religion/God makes otherwise good people to be bad".

One of your clan claimed in one of the posts in this thread that they have "proved with examples" that "faith in religion/God makes otherwise good people to be bad". I can't recollect the post or the poster. This thread is too big for me (with my limited time) to dig into.


Your statement "There is no need for them to prove their nobility to people who accuse their reverent religion/God.", shows, according to me the auto-suggestion of the religiously oriented minds to the effect that because of their being religious, ipso facto, it goes without saying that they are noble, and the repositories of all good characteristics. This exactly is the mistake; do you think all religious people are noble, and possessing all noble and praiseworthy character? To just give a homework, consider how many belonging to the swamiji class have proved to be first rate criminals? (I am not including JS and VS of the Kanchi mutt here because the judgment is yet to come.) How many very highly religious people are seen to be tax-evaders, and indulging in criminal activities?

I did not make the statement that just because someone is religious, he/she is noble. There is no auto-suggestion here. But I do want to underline that a truly religious person would be noble. Unfortunately, emotions run high at times causing aberrations.



This is curious; you can use the phase but I can't, why?

I only objected to you using it to Swamijis. Not the usage of the phrase, per se. I do not have copyright on English phrases!:heh:

The fact that religion affords a "line" for clever, born scoundrels, to use the religion to fool people, is at the crux of the discussion, imo, and I hold that religion makes an ordinary person to graduate from being ordinarily religious to highly religious, to religiously bigoted, to a religious fanatic.

I differ sir. As I mentioned above, a truly religious person would be the least danger to this world.


I have my opinion that Adisankara was himself a "pracchanna bouddha" and this will make him to be something less in stature than what people like you may believe. Regarding SV, I think he took up the offer of becoming a sanyasi for escaping from his debt-ridden family and to make a sort of career and name and fame for himself. There are also some very explosive aspects relating to his relationship with Ramakrishna which lifted him above all his seniors and made him to preside over the Ramakrishna Mission. I think it can be explained by Sankara's verse "udaranimittam bahukṛtaveṣaḥ". I will request readers who take offence to go through the blog Philosophers and analyses of their philosophies and platitudes and also the book Swami Vivekananda: a reassessment by Narasingha Prosad Sil, Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal.

I expected this sort of response, though not from you. It is sad that quoting some X or Y, we freely demean great people. It is a sad state of affairs. Even if the great people like AS or SV had some weaknesses or drawbacks, we should look into their "overall goodness".


In your religious zeal, dear Siva, you are pronouncing your judgment on Bheeshma from whom Yudhishtira sought advice about what is "Dharma". Such a person could not have chosen the "wrong side" I think, and perhaps Bheeshma was the only personality tall enough to stand on his principles and all the other Pandava allies were small fry before the shrewd Krishna who probably planned the decimation of the entire Kuru clan, to see through the game, that people like you, indoctrinated by religious dogma and hence unable to see any other picture, misjudge Bheeshma. If such a mentality is not "cult mentality" (Krishna cult) what else it is?

Well. Bhesshma openly acknoledged that Gauravas were wrong in their deeds but yet had to stay with them. He did mention to Paandavaas that his blessings would be with them but yet he was in the Gaurava's side in the warfield. I feel shy to talk of Puranaas to you. Please forgive me. I am aware of your great and deep knowledge.

Can you elaborate on your statement of the vast majority of people who have used religion for the betterment of the society at large, some examples please?
SV, whom even Gandhi acknoledged as a role model. Now, please do not cast aspersions on Gandhi as well.

Religion disciplines people!

 

[C RAVI]

Shiv,

Your post #1599 & #1600 are without referring to the mere human patterns of evolution for a survival, around thousands of years before. This makes true sense of we humans of present era to see things clearly. I afraid if these would still be considered irrelevant.

I am repeatedly saying in couple of my previous posts that, citing examples of erring people as mere human beings, irrespective of whether they are theists or atheist, to reject or accept the existence of GOD/Spirituality is utter rediculous.

Blatant allegations that "Theism makes otherwise good people to act badly", "Religion supports and enjoys FATALISM", "Theism is FATALISM and it is a FICTION and a FANTASY perpetrated by all Religion" are all mere argumentative comments just for the sake of it.

We can teach and request a child to adopt socially acceptable good/descent/ethical behavior patterns. The child may learn and adopt or may end up rejecting such advices of parents as nothing but brainwashing, unabling him/her to live, act and react as he/she wants.

If the child turns out to be indescent, unethical, immoral, dishonest etc..etc, can we say "morality, ethics. honesty, righteousness, descipline etc does not exists or does'nt makes any sense"?

If the child having adopted ethics, morality, honesty, reghteousness, descipline etc and just due to that loses a chance to scale and dwell high (being in a wrong place at a wrong time), can we say that "practicing fine qualities of humans are FATALISTC"?

One religion is behind conversion and one religion is behind "Holy War". Such concepts and strategies emerging out of mere humans with wrong perceptions are indeed FATALISTC. This way they create sufferings to others and many a times get their own fingers burnt.

Some people from any religion tend to be FATALISTIC some or other way. Some Atheists tend to be FATALISTIC with their scientific and technological usage OR just as common man. Some Agnostics tend to be FATALISTIC by jumping in both the sides from time to time. We can keep listing out many such probablities. Nothing can be defined clearly with respect to anything that human does with his/her rational brain.

GOD/Spirituality is the truth. Anything manupulated by Humans has nothing to do with the truth.

 

[wrongan]

Religion disciplines people! ------- - As quoted by Haridasa siva this is the essence of the discussion in all above 161 pages.

 

[sangom]

Religion disciplines people! ------- - As quoted by Haridasa siva this is the essence of the discussion in all above 161 pages.

Shri wrongan,

I suppose yourself as well as Shri Siva will, therefore, certify that Osama Bin Laden was a disciplined person and that Al Queda is also a body of disciplined people.

 

[sangom]

Originally posted here
The fact that religion affords a "line" for clever, born scoundrels, to use the religion to fool people, is at the crux of the discussion, imo, and I hold that religion makes an ordinary person to graduate from being ordinarily religious to highly religious, to religiously bigoted, to a religious fanatic.

I differ sir. As I mentioned above, a truly religious person would be the least danger to this world.

Shri Siva,

By qualifying religious now with a filter "truly" you are creating two classes of people viz., the religious persons and the truly religious persons. As an educated and adequately intelligent person with basic honesty, don't you find that you are getting on to slippery grounds? the question now will be, how to distinguish a religious person from a truly religious person? I am curious to know what further additions and adjectives become necessary to establish your original dictum (religious persons are refined.) at least as "religious persons will be refined and will be the least danger to the world provided the following conditions are satisfied:
1.
2.
3. and so on.
I am sure the first condition will be "the person concerned should be refined and otherwise not a danger to the world."

I expected this sort of response, though not from you. It is sad that quoting some X or Y, we freely demean great people. It is a sad state of affairs. Even if the great people like AS or SV had some weaknesses or drawbacks, we should look into their "overall goodness".

Shri Siva,I do not believe inhero-worship, nor in cult mentality.Even the Taittireeya upanishad says, as you know, "atha yadi te karmavicikitsā vā vṛttavicikitsā vā syāt |.... evamucaitad upāsyam |". Hence it is a salutary course for any one to listen to the "other side" make one's own judgment and then believe in one's own judgment, rather than simply believe, unquestioningly, whatever is dished out from one side only.

Apart from that what great contribution did AS or SV make to the welfare of the world? Did advaita eradicate any of the contagious diseases like Plague, TB or leprosy? (you will agree that it took scientists with a scientific bent of mind (whom Shri Ravi considerd to be atheists and therefore prone to misuse any and all scientific finding for destructive purposes vide post#1555). Has advaita increased general prosperity, or even agricultural yield? Nothing of that sort; it has created a good number of sanyasis who call themselves Sankaracharya of X mutt or Y mutt or Z mutt and live off the contributions from their devotees.

What did SV do to bring about welfare either in India or the world or anywhere else? Have you found any one person attaining mukti due to advaita or SV's Rajayoga? In the ultimate analysis therefore, it looks to me that AS or SV were just two individuals who became "famous" due to circumstances just like ever so many others like perhaps Bill Gates of today.

Even if Gandhi acknowledged SV as a role model, I will differ; India would have been a great loser on all fronts (except perhaps empty orations, which anyway, our politicians are doing much more skilfully than SV did.!) if SV had been taken as the role model. I will earnestly request you to read Shri Sil's book and then ruminate if what he writes strikes you as true.

 

[prasad1]

Shri wrongan,

I suppose yourself as well as Shri Siva will, therefore, certify that Osama Bin Laden was a disciplined person and that Al Queda is also a body of disciplined people.

Mr. Sangom sir dont you think your argument is convoluted at best.
Religion teaches disciplines, means teaches ethics. It does not mean that it has to confirm to your values. I agree that Bin Ladin's values were strange. But your criticism of religion just because of people like Bin Ladin is not warranted.
Can you honestly say that all religious people are like Bin Ladin?

 

[sangom]

Mr. Sangom sir dont you think your argument is convoluted at best.
Religion teaches disciplines, means teaches ethics. It does not mean that it has to confirm to your values. I agree that Bin Ladin's values were strange. But your criticism of religion just because of people like Bin Ladin is not warranted.
Can you honestly say that all religious people are like Bin Ladin?

Religion disciplines people! — Shri Haridasa Siva in post#1604
Religion disciplines people! ------- - As quoted by Haridasa siva this is the essence of the discussion in all above 161 pages.
—Shri wrongan in post#1606

You see, Shri Prasad, our friends on the other side are cocksure that religion transforms anyone into a better person; they cannot even afford to admit that persons with criminal tendencies will only grow into Swamijis with criminal bent of mind. If they concede that, they will naturally be admitting that religious training even of a higher order (given to Swamijis) has no effect in reforming or refining the basic inner personality. When they make such unqualified and all-embracing dicta as given above, it should follow therefrom that religion has disciplined Osama Bin Laden and the equally religious-minded Al Queida followers.

Of course Siva and wrongan are free to change their opinion and state that "hindu religion disciplines people!" or "Religion disciplines otherwise good people!" or something else.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri wrongan,

I suppose yourself as well as Shri Siva will, therefore, certify that Osama Bin Laden was a disciplined person and that Al Queda is also a body of disciplined people.

Al Queda is a FATALISTIC concept of one religion, perpetrated by FICTTION, FANTACY & CRAZY ideas of rational brains of some in the name of religion. Osama Bin Laden is the lead perpetrater of his organization, misusing the principles of religion, controlling his group of people and spoiling their life by converting them into terrorists.


That's the impact of Humans rational brain that can take any negative and positive sides. They can either use religon or sceince to give shape to their crazy ideas and create havoc.

 

[Nara]

....., but the thrust of Sri Nara’s argument that “religion gives a propensity to be immoral" is a very long stretch

Narayan, the statement I made was quite direct and plain. It is, "Religion, god and faith in the supernatural makes it possible for otherwise good people to behave badly." (To precisely convey what I am saying this should be slightly rephrased, instead of "makes it possible for" it should be "makes it possible to make".

Propensity means, according to Merriam-Webster, "an often intense natural inclination or preference".

So, your observation about my argument does not hold water. Good or bad, religion is learned, how can it give rise to "propensity", something natural?

Please do not attribute to me something that I never said. My point is, religion, god, and faith in the supernatural, makes, and in some cases forces, people who may very well have a propensity to be kind and loving behave in abominable ways. Examples of this is galore.

You can find bad people in all groups. Yes, science has been used for destructive purposes, but science does not say it must be used in that way. Yes, people of no faith have perpetrated terrible crimes like those of faith, but freedom from faith is not even an ideology, let alone it requiring people free of faith to act in any particular fashion, good or bad.

Contrast this with religion, it requires terrible actions -- I am not even talking about such musts like pouring molten lead and cutting off tongues, and such edicts being treated as divine commands -- it is about treating some people permanently polluted and serfs, it is about treating women badly, it is about telling some people they are headed to permanent torment in hell, or deserving to be beheaded for no greater offense than saying they believe no more, etc.

Criticize what I am saying, reject it all you want, but, before you do any of that, please understand what I am actually saying.

Cheers!

 

[zebra16]

Propensity means, according to Merriam-Webster, "an often intense natural inclination or preference".

So, your observation about my argument does not hold water. Good or bad, religion is learned, how can it give rise to "propensity", something natural?

This is quite an unwanted distraction. Propensity also means: pro·pen·si·ty/prəˈpensətē/

Noun:	An inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.
Synonyms:	inclination - tendency - leaning - proclivity - bent source:

[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]

Google

More synonyms for "propensity": aptness, proneness, tendency, way
source: Propensity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There is no reason that a "learnt thing" cannot give propensity.

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Shri Siva,

By qualifying religious now with a filter "truly" you are creating two classes of people viz., the religious persons and the truly religious persons. As an educated and adequately intelligent person with basic honesty, don't you find that you are getting on to slippery grounds? the question now will be, how to distinguish a religious person from a truly religious person? I am curious to know what further additions and adjectives become necessary to establish your original dictum (religious persons are refined.) at least as "religious persons will be refined and will be the least danger to the world provided the following conditions are satisfied:
1.
2.
3. and so on.
I am sure the first condition will be "the person concerned should be refined and otherwise not a danger to the world."

Shri Siva,I do not believe inhero-worship, nor in cult mentality.Even the Taittireeya upanishad says, as you know, "atha yadi te karmavicikitsā vā vṛttavicikitsā vā syāt |.... evamucaitad upāsyam |". Hence it is a salutary course for any one to listen to the "other side" make one's own judgment and then believe in one's own judgment, rather than simply believe, unquestioningly, whatever is dished out from one side only.

Apart from that what great contribution did AS or SV make to the welfare of the world? Did advaita eradicate any of the contagious diseases like Plague, TB or leprosy? (you will agree that it took scientists with a scientific bent of mind (whom Shri Ravi considerd to be atheists and therefore prone to misuse any and all scientific finding for destructive purposes vide post#1555). Has advaita increased general prosperity, or even agricultural yield? Nothing of that sort; it has created a good number of sanyasis who call themselves Sankaracharya of X mutt or Y mutt or Z mutt and live off the contributions from their devotees.

What did SV do to bring about welfare either in India or the world or anywhere else? Have you found any one person attaining mukti due to advaita or SV's Rajayoga? In the ultimate analysis therefore, it looks to me that AS or SV were just two individuals who became "famous" due to circumstances just like ever so many others like perhaps Bill Gates of today.

Even if Gandhi acknowledged SV as a role model, I will differ; India would have been a great loser on all fronts (except perhaps empty orations, which anyway, our politicians are doing much more skilfully than SV did.!) if SV had been taken as the role model. I will earnestly request you to read Shri Sil's book and then ruminate if what he writes strikes you as true.

Sir,

I am disappointed to see you also to be emphasising on the wrong phrase. When I said "truly religious", I did not mean two classes of people - religious and truly religious. I implied to convey that people like Nithyananda are not religious. They just disguised under religion. Any ordinary religious minded person is indeed the least danger. Osama did not become a terrorist because of Islam - a religion. He turned to terrorism to "teach a lesson" to the U.S. for what he thought to be the misdeeds of U.S. elsewhere in the world. (Remember the classes I mentioned in one of my earlier posts as to why a person resorts to a bad deed).

SV was not a mere orator like today's politician. If he was an empty chatter box, he would not have been believed by a person of Gandhi's stature, who is regarded all over the world. Anyone may publish any book tainting a great person like SV. I don't care. They resort to sensationalism but I stick to sensitivity!

As Christianity rightly said, "Fear of God is beginning of wisdom". There is no denial of the fact that faith in religion/God disciplines an otherwise weak person!

 

[wrongan]

Of course Siva and wrongan are free to change their opinion and state that "hindu religion disciplines people!" or "Religion disciplines otherwise good people!" or something else.[/QUOTE]++++++++++++Dear sangom sir I fully agree your arguement but with small correction .People who have good faith in religion and with tendency to follow good ethics will defenitely be deciplined by any religion.But people who take religion as shelter is a rogue and can never be redeemed.

 

[ShivKC]

lets try this perspective, while grooming up our children..

tomorrow, my daughter takes my car and mows down to death 10 innocents and comes back home and says, 'Papa, my altruistic and community oriented coded dna & gene says, i feel sorry that i killed ten people on road' but you know what, i smartly escaped the cops and law,thanks to my selfish and survival genes'.

theist father: oh, my child, you did wrong, because god said so not to kill any one. and also you have a karma/punishment waiting, even though you escaped law of the society..

atheist father : awaiting answers, from members here!

 

[ShivKC]

But people who take religion as shelter is a rogue and can never be redeemed.

that's a new perspective you have brought in here huh!.. could you explain that a bit in detail?

 

[Yamaka]

lets try this perspective, while grooming up our children..

tomorrow, my daughter takes my car and mows down to death 10 innocents and comes back home and says, 'Papa, my altruistic and community oriented coded dna & gene says, i feel sorry that i killed ten people on road' but you know what, i smartly escaped the cops and law,thanks to my selfish and survival genes'.

theist father: oh, my child, you did wrong, because god said so not to kill any one. and also you have a karma/punishment waiting, even though you escaped law of the society..

atheist father : awaiting answers, from members here!

Shiv and others:

Your daughter, I assume, is very young and hence not licensed to drive an auto... but somehow she got the car key and drove to make a mayhem.

The parents are to be blamed and prosecuted for criminal negligence.

This is what REALLY happened in Yamaka's household:

I gave driving lessons personally to my kids under Driving License Program By Parents in TX (this will avoid taking the kids to a Driving School and waste lot of time and money).

1. When they were younger, they were told several times that NO one can drive w/o a valid license and an auto insurance. Violation will land you in jail for a long long time, period.

2. The very first day of me giving training, I asked by kids to say this "I will never ever use a vehicle to hurt anybody or damage any property. I promise for life...." "look at me in my eyes, and please repeat THREE times"

Only after this, they were allowed to sit in the driver's seat.

3. Our kids were never given a lesson in God or Religion, except what they learned in high school as a part of the curriculum.

4. They were always advised to follow the Law of the Land, and be a nice person.

5. For kids, parents are the FIRST teachers.. they watch them very keenly every second of every day... they will follow mostly what parents do. If parents have a tendency to violate the law, then kids WILL violate the law... If parents use abusive language, then kids WILL use such language... so be very careful, what you do when kids are around.

____________________________

On the matter of God and Religion:

ALL Abrahamic and Hindu Religions say this -

God is ALL powerful, ALL knowing.. w/o GOD's will nothing moves in this world.

This means ALL actions of human beings in this birth and possibly in previous birth (according to Hinduism) is pre-ordained by GOD.

If this is true, then where's the room for FREE WILL for humans in any birth?

Enlighten me.
--------------------
Only about 50% of Americans go to polls... of this about 20% are very religious people, others are marginally religious but very pragmatic... In a close Election, this small minority will make a difference.

This "seriously religious people' are mostly in the conservative Republican Party, where during the Primary it will make a big difference.

Kennedy was elected President even though he was a Catholic in a predominantly a Protestant land... Barack Obama is not a very religious person...there will come a day when a self-proclaimed Atheist will be the President of the US... it all depends on his Political Manifesto and the political climate! Nothing else...



ps. ALL Religions are preaching FATALISM, no exception. FATALISM is a FANTASY and a FICTION perpetrated by all Religions, IMO.

 

[C RAVI]

Shiv and others:

Your daughter, I assume, is very young and hence not licensed to drive an auto... but somehow she got the car key and drove to make a mayhem.

The parents are to be blamed and prosecuted for criminal negligence.

This is what REALLY happened in Yamaka's household:

I gave driving lessons personally to my kids under Driving License Program By Parents in TX (this will avoid taking the kids to a Driving School and waste lot of time and money).

1. When they were younger, they were told several times that NO one can drive w/o a valid license and an auto insurance. Violation will land you in jail for a long long time, period.

2. The very first day of me giving training, I asked by kids to say this "I will never ever use a vehicle to hurt anybody or damage any property. I promise for life...." "look at me in my eyes, and please repeat THREE times"

Only after this, they were allowed to sit in the driver's seat.

3. Our kids were never given a lesson in God or Religion, except what they learned in high school as a part of the curriculum.

4. They were always advised to follow the Law of the Land, and be a nice person.

5. For kids, parents are the FIRST teachers.. they watch them very keenly every second of every day... they will follow mostly what parents do. If parents have a tendency to violate the law, then kids WILL violate the law... If parents use abusive language, then kids WILL use such language... so be very careful, what you do when kids are around.

____________________________

On the matter of God and Religion:

ALL Abrahamic and Hindu Religions say this -

God is ALL powerful, ALL knowing.. w/o GOD's will nothing moves in this world.

This means ALL actions of human beings in this birth and possibly in previous birth (according to Hinduism) is pre-ordained by GOD.

If this is true, then where's the room for FREE WILL for humans in any birth?

Enlighten me.



ps. ALL Religions are preaching FATALISM, no exception IMO.

If children are blessed with righteous parents and they also turns out to be righteous, it means the parents and their children are blessed to be free from any confusions and live a life of happiness, comfort, success and be a true humanist. This shows that both parents and children had positive karmic impacts. Parents are the visible GOD for the children. If parents as individual humans have positive karmic records, the rule of karma would cirtainly corelate them with similar offsprings who all are blessed to learn and remain a righteous person, owing to their positive karmic records.


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


Humans are not controlled by GOD for their actions. Humans act and reap the positive and negative impacts. The system works on a standardised rules of Karma. Relgion teaches humans to seek the mercy of GOD by spirituality to help them remain composed and righteous and refrain from all hurtful, unethical, dishonest speech and actions. So that they can escape trail by the karma rule. The more they be righteous and do good deeds the more is the positive impacts of Karma.

 

[Nara]

This is quite an unwanted distraction.

I am sorry you feel this way Narayan. Please take a look at the clarification you have provided, it only says propensity is a natural impulse, not one that results from indoctrination. I would not have made any comment at all but for the mischaracterization of what I wrote, and IMO, that is not a distraction, wanted or unwanted.

Cheers!

 

[wrongan]

that's a new perspective you have brought in here huh!.. could you explain that a bit in detail?

Example---------Lot of poli saamiyaarkal, people like Osaamaa Bin Laden who take to his help the JIHAD and many more.Neo sanyasis who enter politiks with saffron dress.

 

[Yamaka]

"Humans are not controlled by GOD for their actions. Humans act and reap the positive and negative impacts. The system works on a standardised rules of Karma. Relgion teaches humans to seek the mercy of GOD by spirituality to help them remain composed and righteous and refrain from all hurtful, unethical, dishonest speech and actions. So that they can escape trail by the karma rule. The more they be righteous and do good deeds the more is the positive impacts of Karma." post 1619

"Humans are not controlled by GOD for their actions."

This I believe is a serious departure from the Original intent and preaching of Religions, which declare that Almighty God controls ALL actions of human beings and inanimate things.

This change in definition perhaps is popular among the "Revisionists" among Believers in this braodband connected population! LOL

However, the "800 million poor Indians who suffer in abject poverty" all subscribe to the Original intent and preaching of Religions.

That's the key issue here.

Wait & watch.

 

[C RAVI]

"Humans are not controlled by GOD for their actions."

[/B]This I believe is a serious departure from the Original intent and preaching of Religions, which declare that Almighty God controls ALL actions of human beings and inanimate things.

This change in definition perhaps is popular among the "Revisionists" among Believers in this braodband connected population! LOL

However, the "800 million poor Indians who suffer in abject poverty" all subscribe to the Original intent and preaching of Religions.

That's the key issue here.

Wait & watch.

Karma rule is attested to Supreme being / GOD. The almighty is the designer of Karma theory. Thus the notion that the almighty governs the actions of humans. Humans in each birth have free will amidst the trials. Amids the negative and positive factors offered to him as per his Karma.

Give clear proof that "all" 800 millian poor Indians who suffer in abject poverty have perfect understanding of what Religion preaches? What is Karma? What is Sprirituality?

It is indeed hard to expect clarity from Athiests who all have determined to conclude bluntly just to refute against religion, God and sprirituality. Media, fraud God Men, Jihadis etc.etc. adding strength to Atheists blatant allegations.

 

[wrongan]

To mention the essence of religion is to lead or to say direct people towards GOD.It is like a sign post standing in road junctions.It will show the direction to your destination.You only has to decide in what direction to proceed.If you chose an erroneous direction inadvertently or willingly the signboard will not physically prevent you.Or Your intention is to go by train alas!you are copletely lost because for train journey one has to go to a railway station and not to a road junction.The religious leaders are there to tell you what is written in the sign post when one cannot read due ignorance or even poor sight.But they cannot carry to the destination.

 

[prasad1]

To mention the essence of religion is to lead or to say direct people towards GOD.It is like a sign post standing in road junctions.It will show the direction to your destination.You only has to decide in what direction to proceed.If you chose an erroneous direction inadvertently or willingly the signboard will not physically prevent you.Or Your intention is to go by train alas!you are copletely lost because for train journey one has to go to a railway station and not to a road junction.The religious leaders are there to tell you what is written in the sign post when one cannot read due ignorance or even poor sight.But they cannot carry to the destination.

Yar man gaye, That was good post.