God Exists

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I suppose this means, instead of praying to god, we must get the kids to work hard and inculcate a naturalist, rational approach in looking for answers. Before getting the kids to do so, the parents have to change gears, change direction, and try to drive a new road first. Not so easy (the willingness to let go of familiarity and try something new may not exist in some)....

Nice post sir.

Smt. HH,

If only parents refrain from force-feeding children with religion and answer their questions about nature, the religious practices which the parents themselves cannot discard, etc., honestly and never resort to religious fare to justify religious practices (like, if you break a coconut to smithereens on a granite block in front of Vinayaka, all obstacles in your way will vanish and you will come out successful with all your "Missions Accomplished"; this is what such & such story in such & such purana says, etc.) children will naturally grow-up as naturists, rationalists. No special effort like changing gear and course is necessary; don't impose religion on kids, that will be enough.

This is so because no baby comes out of the mother's womb shouting 'hare rama' or 'hare krishna'; I believe even Rama and Krishna must have cried like any other human baby. The scriptures which usually excel in highly imaginative tales, have not said even of Prahlada that he came out of his mother's belly chanting "Om namo nArAyaNAya", you see.

 

[happyhindu]

Smt. HH,

If only parents refrain from force-feeding children with religion and answer their questions about nature, the religious practices which the parents themselves cannot discard, etc., honestly and never resort to religious fare to justify religious practices (like, if you break a coconut to smithereens on a granite block in front of Vinayaka, all obstacles in your way will vanish and you will come out successful with all your "Missions Accomplished"; this is what such & such story in such & such purana says, etc.) children will naturally grow-up as naturists, rationalists. No special effort like changing gear and course is necessary; don't impose religion on kids, that will be enough.

This is so because no baby comes out of the mother's womb shouting 'hare rama' or 'hare krishna'; I believe even Rama and Krishna must have cried like any other human baby. The scriptures which usually excel in highly imaginative tales, have not said even of Prahlada that he came out of his mother's belly chanting "Om namo nArAyaNAya", you see.

I hear you sir. You do have a point unfortunately Will think about this. Thanks.

 

[Nara]

Folks, nice to be back and see the same people arguing about the same things, round and round, அரைச்ச மாவையே அரைத்து மைய்யாக்கிய பின்னும், never tiring and I love it . Here I am, eager to join the discussion of Sisyphian proportions, adding my share of hot air hoping it will only offend the usual suspects and not others.

My two-cents on this

My half a cent to follow.

1. People always bring Science into discussions of God and Faith. I only reiterate the point that Science is opposite of God and Faith:

It is as though the people of faith suffer a sort of inferiority complex and the only way for them to feel good about their own evidence free faith is to simply and repeatedly call out, in a manner similar to children calling each other you-too, hah hah, you-too, that rejection of faith is also a faith, a belief system.

If I have said this one time, I have said it a million times, to compare God and SET is absurd beyond any absurdity. The former is a supernatural entity whose existence is simply asserted or at best argued, and the later is a process of experimentation, observation, analysis, to try and understand the universe around us.

Belief in God inevitably degenerates into giving definitive answers conjured up by people with fertile imagination several thousand years ago to all questions one can think of, while SET limits definitive answers only to questions it has thoroughly understood, leaving the rest to be answered, to the extent possible, only after independently verifiable results are available.

Questioning age old wisdom is blasphemous in religion, but questioning the theories of even the most respected scientists is encouraged and new discoveries that fit new data are celebrated.

So, attempts to compare God and SET is absurd on the face of it!!!

In this context Y, I must object to your numerical count of atheists around the world. For one thing, I think it is untenable to count all the Chinese and the peoples of erstwhile USSR as atheists, they simply are not. Religious faith was severely suppressed in both countries, and now, with the fall of Communism, it is on the rise in both countries.

But, more importantly, the validity of "rationality" is not a question to be decided by majority. As we all know earth was considered flat by a majority at one time. Galileo was forced to recant his discoveries by the so called spiritual leaders of his time. Sage Jabali was put in his place by none other than God incarnate Lord Rama himself.

Here a word about the size of LGBT community in relation to "straight" -- I did find Shri KRS citing LGBT out of place, but that is just my opinion, neither here nor there. However, the comparison is invalid because homosexuality is a biological condition, but rationality, which is the basis for "atheism" is commitment to critical thinking, that can be embraced or rejected. Sexual orientation cannot be altered, but religious faith can be cured through critical thinking.

If the reason for citing homosexuality is simply to point out numerical strength, or the lack of it, then also it has no validity for the reasons I have already stated above. Even if there is only one atheist in the whole world, his/her position on Theism cannot be decided based on numerical preponderance.

2. Some people claim that God and Religion brings Altruism and Happiness to our lives.

Not necessarily. Altruism and Happiness could come to anybody whether he/she is a Believer or not.

Here again I have to disagree with you a little bit. Altruism is a biological phenomenon. We are hard wired by DNA to be both selfish and altruistic in different degrees in different situations. The altruism of religiously motivated is in fact selfishness par excellence in as much as these are motivated by some sort of reward promised after death. So, only the altruism of atheists is true altruism, one that is not contaminated by even a trace of selfishness.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

I would like to note the passing of an intellectual giant in this thread titled "God Exists" and that is of Christopher Hitchens. He is well known for his acerbic rhetoric laced in equal measures wit, contempt for opposing view, and invincible logic. He claimed he was not simply an atheist, but an anti-theist, by which he meant if there was indeed a god he would be fiercely against him because he would be a tyrant and his kingdom will be like DPRK of Kim Jong Il.

While there is much to be admired of Hitchens, he was unfortunately on the wrong side of the most momentous and disastrous decision of our times, the Iraq war waged by GWB. Let me cite a couple of passages from a particularly well written eulogy by Gawker.

"How can someone who devoted so much of his life to as noble a cause as destroying the reputation of Henry Kissinger blithely stand shoulder to shoulder with Rumsfeld?

[...]

It was thrilling and gratifying to see that articulate viciousness deployed against the Clinton cartel, or Mother Teresa, or Henry Kissinger—against power and pretense. To see it deployed in favor of war, on behalf of a dullard and scion, against the hysterical mother of a dead son was nauseating." (This reference is to Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war activist, whose son died in Iraq.)

​

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

I really have no idea why the Sage Jabali and Lord Rama episode is always blown out of proportion.

Sage Jabali was trying his very best to get Lord Rama back to Ayodhya by hook or crook and by advocating the theories of Non Believer just hoping he can use some technical grounds to get Lord Rama back to Ayodhya.

Lord Rama's reply goes to show that Dharma is eternal,transcending time and space and any words and promises made has eternal sanctity till fully implemented.
Lord Rama also shows us that a man who is true to his words stays true to it even though there might be some escape clause for him.

Its just a role play by Lord Rama and Sage Jabali to show the world what Dharma is and not to try to escape on technical grounds by switching philosophies for personal benefit.

I think we should try to understand that Lord Rama and Sage Jabali episode was re enforcing the Sathyam Vada Dharmam Cara motto for us mortals.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Scientists have accepted that a supreme power exists. We can, as regards God's
existence, never differ in our view. There are so many examples. We all accept
that Earth is a planet, which contains an atmosphere of the required mixture of
gases to grow and sustain plants, trees, animals, insets, and human life, etc. We
are able to feel the presence of eclipses. We have seen astronauts walking on the
moon. Why, above all, formation of our human brain with simultaneous process like
computer of the present day world, to think, accumulate amazing amount of
information (wanted and unwanted), remembrance and forgetfulness, soft, innocent,
cruel, harsh, past, present and likely future activities, energy in us, energy and light
in the earth for all kinds to live, formation of day and night, etc and so on, so on.
Leave the history, mythological stories, literature, evidences, etc. Above all to make us
think whether God exists....

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[sangom]

This "Jabali episode" is also not properly presented, I feel. Bharata tries his best to persuade Rama to accept the throne and forget about vanavaasam but he is not able to convince Rama (because he was a 101% appaakkuNTan in contemporary usage for tabra boys who are very obedient to the father). Jabali then butts in and he really spoke very high philosophy which probably went way above Rama's head, imho. What Jabali spoke are summarized at the end of this post. Rama is supposed to have very wisely countered all arguments and reasoning of Jabali and Jabali has been made to recant his words in the following manner in the very next sarga:—

"To the high-souled Rama, who never had self-pity and speaking indignantly as aforesaid, Jabali (that brahmana) replied in a fitting manner in words that were beneficial and truthful, which showed his belief in authority of Vedas, the other world and so on.""I am not speaking the words of non- believers. I am not an atheist, nor is it a fact that nothing exists whatsoever. Perceiving the time, I have become a believer. When the time comes, I will become again just a non-believer. O, Rama! That and this time too came gradually. The words of a non-believer were spoken by me for your sake, to pacify you and to persuade you to return to Ayodhya."

But the problem which I see is that many centuries later, someone who is held in very high esteem and reverence by tabras and most hindus, practically echoed Jabali in the following words and all the theists are shouting "Jai HO!" to that too

kastvaṃ ko:'haṃ kuta āyātaḥ kā me jananī ko me tātaḥ |
iti paribhāvaya sarvamasāram viśvaṃ tyaktvā svapnavicāram ||

Hence if Rama preached Dharma to Jabali, Sankara preached Adharma, and vice versa.
___________________________________________________________________________

Book II : Ayodhya Kanda - Book Of Ayodhya

Chapter [Sarga] 108
Introduction

A Brahmana named Jabali tries to persuade Rama to accept the kingdom by advocating the theory of Nastikas (non-believers), saying that he need not get attached to his father's words and remain in the troublesome forest. Jabali requests Rama to enjoy the royal luxuries, by accepting the crown.
A brahmana called Jabali spoke the following unrighteous words to Rama, who knew righteousness and who was assuaging Bharata as aforesaid
Enough, O Rama! Let not your wisdom be rendered void like a common man, you who are distinguished for your intelligence and virtue.
Who is related to whom? What is there to be obtained by anything and by whom? Every creature is born alone and dies alone.
O, Rama! He who clings to another, saying, 'This is my father, this is my mother, he should be known as one who has lost his wits. There is none who belongs to another.
O, Rama! As one who passes the a strange village spends the night the and the next day leaves that place and continues his journey, so are mother, father, home and possessions to a man; they are but a resting place. The wise do not become attached to them.
O, chief of men! You as such should not abandon your father's kingdom in order to dwell in a lonely forest, that is excruciating hard to traverse and full of thorny thickets.
Get yourself crowned in the prosperous kingdom of Ayodhya. That city is waiting for you, with your locks duly unfound.
O, prince! Enjoy the royal luxuries worthy of you. Move around in Ayodhya as Indra the Lord of celestials does in heaven!
Dasaratha is none to you nor you in anyway to him. That king is another and your are another. Hence, do what is told by me?
The father is only the seed of a being. The sperm and the ovum blend at the right time in the mother's womb, so that a human being is born in this world.
The king has gone, where he had to go. This is the fate of all being unnecessarily, you are still frustrated over the matter.
I pity all those whosoever, devoted to wealth and religious merit, not other (who are devoted to sense-enjoyment), for, they, having undergone suffering in this life, have met with extermination after death.
These people say, 'The eighth day should be given up to sacrifices for the spirits of our ancestors.' See the waste of food. What will a dead man eat?
If food eaten by one here, reaches another's body, then let a sacrifice be offered for those who are setting out on a distant journey. Will it not become a food on their path?
Perform sacrifices, distribute gifts, consecrate yourselves, practise ansterity and renunciation' - These writings are composed by learned men for the sake of inducing others to give.
O, the highly wise! Arrive at a conclusion, therefore, that there is nothing beyond this Universe. Give precedence to that which meets the eye and turn your back on what is beyond our knowledge.
Honour the judgment of the wise and regarding that which is approved by all, accept the kingdom as propitiated by Bharata.



ityaarSe shriimadraamaayaNe aadikaavye ayodhyaakaaNDe aSTottarashatatamaH sargaH

(http://valmikiramayan.net/)

 

[renuka]

Dear Sangom,

You wrote

:kastvaṃ ko:'haṃ kuta āyātaḥ kā me jananī ko me tātaḥ |
iti paribhāvaya sarvamasāram viśvaṃ tyaktvā svapnavicāram ||

Hence if Rama preached Dharma to Jabali, Sankara preached Adharma, and vice versa.

But doesnt the situation differ? Lord Rama was not leading a life of a renunciate.He was leading a life of a Grhasta.
Hence he need not echo the above stanza.
Dharma is individualized according to our stage of life isnt it?

After all even Shankara kept His word and did the final rites for his mother as He promised and composed Mathru Panchakam and did not sing to her
kastvaṃ ko:'haṃ kuta āyātaḥ kā me jananī ko me tātaḥ

Where is the question of Adharma here?

 

[nachi naga]

to write lord rama and lord sankara preached adharma is blasphemy.while i love religious freedom at the same time senile people shud be locked in asylum immdly is a thot i nurtured for a while and immdly a love of compassion just overtook it,tamaso ma jyotir gamaya......even for a second i nurtured ill of a man,about whom i know nothing just made me ashamed.

 

[happyhindu]

Welcome back Sir

Nice to see you.

Altruism is a biological phenomenon. We are hard wired by DNA to be both selfish and altruistic in different degrees in different situations. The altruism of religiously motivated is in fact selfishness par excellence in as much as these are motivated by some sort of reward promised after death. So, only the altruism of atheists is true altruism, one that is not contaminated by even a trace of selfishness.

Cheers!

So true...the human design is indeed selfish, perhaps for that edge in the survival scenario...i have come to realise anything which helps or supports a concept to flourish is good, and anything that goes against it, gets dubbed as bad, selfish, evil, etc. No diff from the putting down of kafirs, demonisation of asuras in the puranas, or demonisation of pagan beleifs by christians, etc....Its always "Us versus Them", with the idea of "what benefits us ONLY"...its not even "what benefits all of US"....sad but that's reality....

 

[sangom]

Welcome back Sir

Nice to see you.


So true...the human design is indeed selfish, perhaps for that edge in the survival scenario...i have come to realise anything which helps or supports a concept to flourish is good, and anything that goes against it, gets dubbed as bad, selfish, evil, etc. No diff from the putting down of kafirs, demonisation of asuras in the puranas, or demonisation of pagan beleifs by christians, etc....Its always "Us versus Them", with the idea of "what benefits us ONLY"...its not even "what benefits all of US"....sad but that's reality....

HH,

If you look at this from nature's pov, the first and foremost thing is for the organism (here the human being) to grow, flourish, reproduce, etc., before it starts its journey downwards, 'dies' and then prishes ultimately. For this the feeling of 'I' and 'not-I' has been in-built in the body itself and that is why there is transplant rejection even in bone marrow transplants.

The sense of 'I vs not-I' cannot therefore be taken away by religious and/or moral training, imho. This is also one area in which religion fails imo. But Man has grown up in the ladder of SET to think of "what benefits all of us" in terms of national interests whereever the selfish interests of the rulers do not overpower the group interests.

 

[sangom]

WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT, "GOD EXISTS" EXISTS AND MAY CONTINUE (TO EXIST) ENDLESSLY TOO

Just a thought pl.

 

[Yamaka]

....while i love religious freedom at the same time senile people shud be locked in asylum immdly is a thot i nurtured for a while and immdly a love of compassion just overtook it,tamaso ma jyotir gamaya......even for a second i nurtured ill of a man,about whom i know nothing just made me ashamed.

"Senile people shud be locked in asylum" ?????

Is this part of Sanatana Dharma?

Lol.

 

[Yamaka]

A Word About Christopher Hitchens (63)-

Since 1980 Christopher was a prolific writer.. a constant smoker and drinker. He was an ultimate Progressive, a very sharp, hard working, honest and decent journalist. A fine debater...

A fellow Atheist. He was fearless even when he was suffering from cancer (the same type that killed CN Annadurai, I suppose).

He was always dancing to his own drum beat. Nobody could cow him down.

Christopher, we all will miss you.

 

[Nara]

...Chris, we all will miss you.

Y, a small correction, hope you don't mind..... he didn't like to be called Chris, when called as such he would admonish saying it is Christopher.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

"Senile people shud be locked in asylum" ?????

Is this part of Sanatana Dharma?

Lol.

is it part of atheistic ppl to omit sentences and pick choose to denigrate sanathana dharma & lol....rofl

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Even if we hypothesize that this 'Universe', as we know it, is without any beginning and an end -- meaning that it is 'eternal' -- and that we, human beings, with our level of consciousness, just happen to be -- we still feel the need for a 'God' because of the 'uncertainties' that we encounter and also, the 'unpredictable' nature of our lives! Even though this 'world' and our 'existence' in this world, which is part of the Universe, are perceived and experienced by us through the 'sensory organs' of our body and the 'intellect', still 'this' consciousness of ours cannot become 'that' because we are also aware of a greater power than our 'consciousness' at the substratum of all things including this very consciousness of ours.This has to be 'realized' and not just perceived.

 

[Yamaka]

Even if we hypothesize that this 'Universe', as we know it, is without any beginning and an end -- meaning that it is 'eternal' -- and that we, human beings, with our level of consciousness, just happen to be -- we still feel the need for a 'God' because of the 'uncertainties' that we encounter and also, the 'unpredictable' nature of our lives! Even though this 'world' and our 'existence' in this world, which is part of the Universe, are perceived and experienced by us through the 'sensory organs' of our body and the 'intellect', still 'this' consciousness of ours cannot become 'that' because we are also aware of a greater power than our 'consciousness' at the substratum of all things including this very consciousness of ours.This has to be 'realized' and not just perceived.

Hello MVS:

Welcome to this Thread.

Yes, we have uncertainties in life.

Murphy's Law will always be true: Whatever we want may not happen. Knowing this many people have Plan B and Plan C if the Plan A doesn't pan out.

Here we are talking about "a GREATER POWER than our consciousness..."

Atheists assert that this GREATER POWER aka the Super-Natural Power is non-existent.

If there is a Super Power, then it can be just the Nature's Power or Natural Power, which does not REQUIRE or RESPOND to all the prayers, poojas and bhajans that the hapless humans do daily!

That's what here we are talking about!

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

Some of us call that power Brahman or Brahmum.

If there is a Super Power, then it can be just the Nature's Power or Natural Power,

That is a believer.

 

[renuka]

I know one Super Power that will make both Theist and Atheist run for their lifes...the Power of Nature gone Wild!!!

If we are helpless in front of Nature..I think we should realize where we stand.
And thats just Prakriti we are talking about.

 

[ShivKC]

Hello MVS:


Atheists believe that this GREATER POWER aka the Super-Natural Power is non-existent.

Uncle Yams , i chuckled when i read that of your text in 'bold' (!) am i putting my size seventeen foot in to my mouth?

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Brahin]

Originally Posted by Yamaka
Hello MVS:


Atheists believe that this GREATER POWER aka the Super-Natural Power is non-existent.

OMG!!! I can't stop laughing!!
So finally Atheist have a believe too.

 

[ShivKC]

The altruism of religiously motivated is in fact selfishness par excellence in as much as these are motivated by some sort of reward promised after death. So, only the altruism of atheists is true altruism, one that is not contaminated by even a trace of selfishness.

Cheers!

as per the earlier arguments, altruism of both the sides are selfish. atheist refer their altruism, as a need for survival in a community life and theists indulge in altruism keeping in mind the after life rewards. so in this context, no side can take an upper hand.

however, i always wonder how to find an equilibrium between altruism & selfishness, in the atheist view.



take the case of the famous prisoner's dilemma, and guess what an atheist would do here

"Two men are arrested, but the police do not possess enough information for a conviction. Following the separation of the two men, the police offer both a similar deal—if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates/assists), the betrayer goes free and the cooperator receives the full one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail for a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept quiet. What should they do?"

Ponder !!!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom,

You wrote

But doesnt the situation differ? Lord Rama was not leading a life of a renunciate.He was leading a life of a Grhasta.
Hence he need not echo the above stanza.
Dharma is individualized according to our stage of life isnt it?

After all even Shankara kept His word and did the final rites for his mother as He promised and composed Mathru Panchakam and did not sing to her
kastvaṃ ko:'haṃ kuta āyātaḥ kā me jananī ko me tātaḥ

Where is the question of Adharma here?

I always felt that Bhajagovindam, though attributed to Sankara, was not for renunciates - and was not for renunciates but worldy people (grihastas) as per the legend:

"There is a story attached to the composition of this Hymn. It is said that Adi Shankara, accompanied by his disciples, was walking along a street in Varanasi one day when he came across an aged scholar teaching the rules of Sanskrit grammar to his students by rote. Taking pity on him, Adi Shankara went up to the scholar and advised him not to waste his time on grammar at his age but to turn his mind to God in worship and adoration. The hymn "Bhaja Govindam" is said to have been composed on this occasion.[SUP][6][/SUP]"

(Bhaja Govindam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The hymn does not also advocate samnyasa, but only adoration or bhakti.

Hence Your justification by convoluted arguments does not hold, imo. And Sankara doing final rites for his mother etc., are non-sequitur.

 

[prasad1]

ShivKC, Brahin,
One moment of weakness is not a reason for this celebration. LOL
Mr. Y was just making a point.