God Exists

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Bro Nara Ji,

I have read his prime book, about a couple of years ago. He could not persuade me with his arguments then and I am afraid that he can not now. I disagree fundamentally with his basic assumptions.

I fail to see where there is all these 'personal attacks' on him, in the article? When a person spews venom on theists and takes it on himself to judge others, then he has to expect what has happened.

I asked the question about the scale because Dr. Dawkins makes fun at the Christian theists choosing the Trinity as their concept of God and asks, 'why not 4 or 2? Why 3?' (I am paraphrasing).

If one is purported to be 'scientific', one should explain the logic in choosing a scale and discuss why they place oneself somewhere on that scale with precision. Among many other things, these are the minor things that bother me about his hypothesis. In the guise of using science, he is peddling his religion in the same subjective way, he accuses the theists of doing.

I am sorry, I am behind, but I will be elaborating on the three topics related to this later today. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

Hello bro,
Just another Telegraph article, full of invectives. Dawkins hesitating to recall the full title of a book -- is this all they have to say he is all wrong??

If you guys want to turn this into a slugfest against Dwakins, go ahead and have your fun. I don't hold a brief for Dawkins, I just happen to be persuaded by his arguments. All I would ask the members is this -- read him, read his books, listen to his lectures, then decide whatever you want, don't be fooled by these caricatured articles from Telegraph. Here is an analysis of the vendetta against Dawkins by The Telegraph: Telegraph vs Dawkins | Davblog. This blog post ends with the following passage:

"These attacks are a sign that the Telegraph has run out of arguments. They can’t build a rational argument against Dawkins ideas so they are forced to try and discredit him personally. They are the increasingly desperate voice of a vanishing minority."


​

I have no idea, but why is that important? 1 to 7, or 1 to 10, to me what he is saying is the existence of a creator god is very unlikely and the only reason we can't totally reject it is, logically, a negative cannot be conclusively disproved.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

....I am not saying that each and every Agnostics who are advancing towards Atheism are those who "tend to do unethical things" with "the absolute desire to do any thing what may come"

As well, I am not saying that each and every Theist who all believe in God/Spirituality refrain from "doing anything unethical".

Ravi, the above statements are tautological. Whether you meant it or not, what you originally wrote was offensive and I think you now see it and are trying to moderate it, that is good. I will leave this matter at that.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

I don't understand how you find both of my statements tautological. I leave it as you feel it. I was showing the contrast in both theists and atheists who reject the significance of Karma Theory and who obviously don't have considerations for Karma theory respectively.



My post#2374 that made you to seek clarification from me was pertaining to Theists of two categories with Karma Theory attached to them.



One hold on the belief in God/Spirituality but reject the significance/impact of Karma theory. The other who hold belief in both God/Spirituality and Karma theory and acts accordingly. The former are many who tend to do unethical/immoral activities to satisfy themselves, to make their wish come true while holding on belief in God/Spirituality to still protect them. The later are many who would never indulge in any sort of unethical/immoral deeds to make their dreams come true, some how. Also the former are many who gradually reject the idea of God/Spirituality as well and convert themself to Atheist.

Right from my post#2374 till this one, I have said - Many tend to do this...Many tend to do that. I assumed it is understood by all in common that, saying "Many people tend to do this/that" is totally different from saying "All such people tend to do this/that".

I have said all about those who out of anger and frustrations turns out to be Agnostic and gradually convert themselves to Atheist. I have not mentioned about those folks who all have changed themselves from Theist to Agnostic and than to Atheist purly based on the development of their rational intelligence, that could help them reject the idea of God/Spirituality alltogether, once for all.

I don't understand what made you to feel that my initial post was offensive.

Right from post #2374 neither I made any generalizations nor I have gradually advanced towards self moderation of my views/opinions

It seems to me that, you ignore to read my post fully (perhaps for you my post doesn't make any valuable sense) and comes to your own conclusion with your mental preoccupation that I have utter contempt and negative generalization about all the Atheists.

Anyway, I leave everything pertaining to me the way you want to take them.

 

[Nara]

....My point is in knowing, what is the guess-estimate of the ordinary theist people disliking ordinary atheists in percentage terms... and whether it is @ 55%.... or whether it is more or less as perceived by an ordinary American citizen.

Dear Narayan, I have no idea, the article does provide links to the study it is based on. Perhaps you may visit the link and find out.

Second thing that I forgot in my haste in to post was my total shock at the attitude of a scientific community to club atheists alongwith rapists in a survey. Whatever is that for? How the two stands on the same footing?

From what I understood, the connection was made by the respondents to the survey.

As on yesterday, there was no reported violence in USA based on religious sentiments or teachings. The religious books have been the same both yesterday and on any day that religious violence erupted in the past. So what was holding up the believers from indulging in violence yesterday?

Narayan you are taking a comment I made to sapthjihva out of context. Please note, it was sapthajihva who brought the knife metaphor. My point was religion is not like a knife, knife does not impose any rules upon the people who use it for whatever purpose. But, religion does impose a set of rules, some of which are abhorant. The metaphor is sapthajihva's, and any connection to violence comes from that metaphor for which I am not answerable.

Further, my observation is about religion in general, not just in USA. But, even if you take just USA, the religion based hatred is alive and well. Take a look at this cartoon that appeared a few days back in The New York Post (Click here and select February 24, 2012). This is about the indiscriminate spying of Mosques and Muslims by NYPD, all peaceful and law-abiding residents. This cartoon depicts them as hook-nosed, bomb-wearing, Osama inspired Terrorists.

At the height of the so called Ground Zero Mosque controversy a mosque near where I live was fire bombed. A pastor in Florida burned Korans. Koran desecration has happened at least twice, once in Gitmo where copies of Koran were supposed to have been thrown down the toilet, and more recently in Afghanistan they were burnt.

But Narayan, all this is not relevant as I was not the one to bring up this knife metaphor and I am not restricting my criticism of religion to just USA.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....I don't understand what made you to feel that my initial post was offensive..

Ravi, if this is how you feel, then we are back to where we started. Your original post and my response remains. If you don't see any offense I can only say that is too bad, I leave it to other members to decide for themselves.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi, if this is how you feel, then we are back to where we started. Your original post and my response remains. If you don't see any offense I can only say that is too bad, I leave it to other members to decide for themselves.

Cheers!

Yes, leave it to other members to decide for themselves. I am aware of what I said right from my initial post and I have expressed everything very clearly without any ambiguity with all my elaborations. And offcourse, none of my post was offensive.

If at all it is found offensive by some, it would be found by those who don't want to include many unethical and immoral folks in Atheists group. For me, I include many such unethical and immoral folks in Theists group as well, as I have detailed in my previous posts.

Me not finding my post offensive, with my clear indications "Many tend to do this/that" right from my post #2374 may be bad for you and may be for few who share your views pertaining to my posts. Not so for all.

 

[zebra16]

Yes, leave it to other members to decide for themselves. I am aware of what I said right from my initial post and I have expressed everything very clearly without any ambiguity with all my elaborations. And offcourse, none of my post was offensive.

If at all it is found offensive by some, it would be found by those who don't want to include many unethical and immoral folks in Atheists group. For me, I include many such unethical and immoral folks in Theists group as well, as I have detailed in my previous posts.

Me not finding my post offensive, with my clear indications "Many tend to do this/that" right from my post #2374 may be bad for you and may be for few who share your views pertaining to my posts. Not so for all.

Hello Sri Ravi,

This is your original message para (2): "Many tend to do unethical things though one believes in Karma because for them its the outcome of their anger/frustruation and the absolute desire to do anything what may come. And many still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical and take all the hardships to prosper onself in ethical manner. "

I suppose you mean to say the following:

Many (among the theists) tend to do unethical things (al)though one(they) believe(s) in Karma because for them(these theists) its the outcome of their anger/frustruation and the absolute desire to do anything come what may. And many (others or the remaining theists) still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical and take all the hardships to prosper onself (themselves) in ethical manner.

Am I correct in interpreting in what you are meaning to say?

Regards

 

[Nara]

This is your original message para (2): "Many tend to do unethical things though one believes in Karma because for them its the outcome of their anger/frustruation and the absolute desire to do anything what may come. And many still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical and take all the hardships to prosper onself in ethical manner. "

I suppose you mean to say the following:

[...]

Am I correct in interpreting in what you are meaning to say?

Narayan, would you be kind enough to rephrase the third paragraph as well -- I have added some text for clarity in bold italic brown)


The only difference is how the former (those tending to do unethical things) and the later (those that still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical) kinds of folks have applied their rationality to their betterment. The former are the types of folks who are attempting to go through the process of making onself agnostic and advancing towards becoming an atheist. The later are the types of folks who continue to believe in God and Karma and never attempts to create FATALISM.

The offense is in this third paragraph and it is all too clear, but you may rephrase it and clean up the offense, that would be welcome.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Hello Sri Ravi,

This is your original message para (2): "Many tend to do unethical things though one believes in Karma because for them its the outcome of their anger/frustruation and the absolute desire to do anything what may come. And many still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical and take all the hardships to prosper onself in ethical manner. "

I suppose you mean to say the following:

Many (among the theists) tend to do unethical things (al)though one(they) believe(s) in Karma because for them(these theists) its the outcome of their anger/frustruation and the absolute desire to do anything come what may. And many (others or the remaining theists) still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical and take all the hardships to prosper onself (themselves) in ethical manner.

Am I correct in interpreting in what you are meaning to say?

Regards

Absolutely right Shri Narayan,

My post #2374 was pertaining to Theists Folks whith their belief/understanding of Karma theory. And, how among these Theists folks some reject the significance/impacts of Karma theory and go unethical out of their anger and frustrations. They than tend to be agnostics and gradually make advancement towards Atheism rejecting the idea of God/Spirituality as well.

My post was about how some theist folks reject the concept of Karma Theory and how they graducally change themselves, referring to Shri Kala Bhairavan's post indicating belief in Fate and Free Will among the theist, while quoting Shiv's analogy.

My subsequent post was in detail to clear any possible ambiguities, in my post #2374.

And right from my post #2374 till the previous one, I have said "Many tend to do this/that", having advanced towards Atheism. It obviously does not mean to include "All" the other Atheists who all have adopted Atheism purly out of intelligent and fair development of their rational brain, rejecting God/Spirituality alltogether, once for all, having nothing to do specifically with anger, bitterness and frustrations.


Thank you very much for your crystal clear understanding Shri Narayan.

 

[C RAVI]

Narayan, would you be kind enough to rephrase the third paragraph as well -- I have added some text for clarity in bold italic brown)


The only difference is how the former (those tending to do unethical things) and the later (those that still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical) kinds of folks have applied their rationality to their betterment. The former are the types of folks who are attempting to go through the process of making onself agnostic and advancing towards becoming an atheist. The later are the types of folks who continue to believe in God and Karma and never attempts to create FATALISM.

The offense is in this third paragraph and it is all too clear, but you may rephrase it and clean up the offense, that would be welcome.

Cheers!

The third paragraph you are referring to is from my below post#2374

Very well stated Shri Kala Bhairavan...

This is how theists act as believers of KARMA theory as well. The life experiences clearly makes theists understand and accept KARMA theory. BUT no theist restricts onself from what one could do to better oneself.

Many tend to do unethical things though one believes in Karma because for them its the outcome of their anger/frustruation and the absolute desire to do anything what may come. And many still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical and take all the hardships to prosper onself in ethical manner.

The only difference is how the former and the later kinds of folks have applied their rationality to their betterment. The former are the types of folks who are attempting to go through the process of making onself agnostic and advancing towards becoming an atheist. The later are the types of folks who continue to believe in God and Karma and never attempts to create FATALISM.

The thrid paragraph in my above post is in continuation of the second paragraph. And the second paragraph is in continuation of the first paragraph.

The first paragraph forms the theme/concept for the whole message to be understood.

This is the first paragraph -

"This is how theists act as believers of KARMA theory as well. The life experiences clearly makes theists understand and accept KARMA theory. BUT no theist restricts onself from what one could do to better oneself."

This paragraph as preamble for the whole message attempts to explain how Theists though believe in Karma Theory never restricts themselves from what they could do to better themselves.

These folks who attempts to do something or other to change their destiney/to change their state of affairs etc..etc., for better are varying in two categories.

1) Many tend to do unethical/immoral activities come what may. And from among these folks many are the folks who all tend to be agnostics and than graducally convert themselves to Atheist, rejecting God/spirituality alltogether.

2) Many refrain from doing unethical/immoral activities while trying to prosper themselves and be righteous, holding firm belief in God/Spirituality/Karma Theory.

It just depends on what sort of rationality the above folks (1) & (2) have applied for their betterment. In their attempts to change their state of affairs for better.


My above post #2374 has not bothered to elaborate anything about those Atheists who all have adopted Atheism purly out of intelligent and fair development of their rational brain.

 

[Haridasa Siva]

கடவுளை அதிகம் சிந்திப்பது யார்?


அர்ஜுனனின் மகன் அபிமன்யுவின் இல்லத்துக்கு ஒரு முனிவர் வந்தார். அப்போது அபிமன்யு வீட்டில் இல்லை. அவனது மனைவி உத்தரையைச் சந்தித்து ஆசி வழங்கிய அவர், ஒரு வித்தியாசமான கண்ணாடியைப் பரிசாக அளித்தார். அந்தக் கண்ணாடியில் பார்ப்பவர் முகம் தெரியாது. யார் நமக்கு பிரியமானவரோ அவரது முகம் தெரியும். உத்தரை கண்ணாடியை உற்றுப் பார்த்தாள். அவளது இதயத்தில் வீற்றிருக்கும் அவளது கணவன் அபிமன்யு தெரிந்தான். சற்றுநேரத்தில் வீட்டுக்கு வந்த அபிமன்யு அந்தக் கண்ணாடியைப் பற்றிய விபரமறிந்து வியந்தான். அதை அவன் பார்த்தபோது, அவனது இதயநாயகி உத்தரை தெரிந்தாள். இருவரும் மனமொத்த தம்பதியராக இருப்பது கண்டு மகிழ்ச்சியில் மிதந்தனர். இந்நேரத்தில், அபிமன்யுவின் தாய்மாமன் கண்ணன் அங்கு வந்தார்.
""கண்ணாடியைப் பார்த்து கணவனும், மனைவியும் ஆச்சரியப்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கிறீர்களே! என்ன விஷயம்?'' என்று கேட்டார்.
""மாமா! இந்தக் கண்ணாடியைப் பாருங்கள். இதில் நீங்கள் தெரியமாட்டீர்கள். உங்களுக்கு பிரியமானவர் தெரிவார். உங்கள் மனதைக் கவர்ந்தது எனது அத்தை ருக்மிணியா, பாமாவா, மற்ற அத்தைகளா என்று பார்க்கிறேன்,'' என வேடிக்கையாகச் சொன்னான் அபிமன்யு.யாராவது ஒரு மனைவியை அடையாளம் காட்டி, இன்னொருத்தியிடம் மாட்டிக்கொள்வானா அந்த மாயவன்! அவன் கண்ணாடியைப் பார்த்தான். அதில் சகுனி தெரிந்தான்.
""இதென்ன விந்தை,'' என அபிமன்யு கேட்டான்.
""அபிமன்யு! என்னை வணங்குபவர்கள் கூட காரியம் ஆக வேண்டுமென்றால் தான் என்னை நினைப்பார்கள். ஆனால், சகுனி தூக்கத்தில் கூட என்னைக் கொன்றே தீர வேண்டுமென துடிக்கிறான். எப்போதும் அவனுக்கு என் நினைவு, அதனால் எனக்கும் அவன் நினைவு'' என்றார்.

பார்த்தீர்களா! நோக்கம் எதுவானாலும், பக்தர்களை விட நாத்திகர்கள் தான் கடவுளை அதிகமாக நினைத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதை!




A gist of the above in English:

A saint gave a mirror to Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna. When one looks at the mirror, one would not see oneself but would see the one who is dear to one’s heart. Abhimanyu looked at the mirror and saw his wife Uththarai and when she looked at the mirror, she saw Abhimanyu.
Lord Krishna visited them at that time. When he looked at the mirror, he saw Shakuni. When Abhimanyu was puzzled, Lord Krishna explained, “Even those who worship me do so for their selfish needs. But Shakuni wants to kill me and that thought remains with him even in his sleep. So, he keeps thinking about me all the time and so I also keep thinking about him”.

This proves that atheists think of God more than the theists, though the motive is different.

 

[renuka]

கடவுளை அதிகம் சிந்திப்பது யார்?


அர்ஜுனனின் மகன் அபிமன்யுவின் இல்லத்துக்கு ஒரு முனிவர் வந்தார். அப்போது அபிமன்யு வீட்டில் இல்லை. அவனது மனைவி உத்தரையைச் சந்தித்து ஆசி வழங்கிய அவர், ஒரு வித்தியாசமான கண்ணாடியைப் பரிசாக அளித்தார். அந்தக் கண்ணாடியில் பார்ப்பவர் முகம் தெரியாது. யார் நமக்கு பிரியமானவரோ அவரது முகம் தெரியும். உத்தரை கண்ணாடியை உற்றுப் பார்த்தாள். அவளது இதயத்தில் வீற்றிருக்கும் அவளது கணவன் அபிமன்யு தெரிந்தான். சற்றுநேரத்தில் வீட்டுக்கு வந்த அபிமன்யு அந்தக் கண்ணாடியைப் பற்றிய விபரமறிந்து வியந்தான். அதை அவன் பார்த்தபோது, அவனது இதயநாயகி உத்தரை தெரிந்தாள். இருவரும் மனமொத்த தம்பதியராக இருப்பது கண்டு மகிழ்ச்சியில் மிதந்தனர். இந்நேரத்தில், அபிமன்யுவின் தாய்மாமன் கண்ணன் அங்கு வந்தார்.
""கண்ணாடியைப் பார்த்து கணவனும், மனைவியும் ஆச்சரியப்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கிறீர்களே! என்ன விஷயம்?'' என்று கேட்டார்.
""மாமா! இந்தக் கண்ணாடியைப் பாருங்கள். இதில் நீங்கள் தெரியமாட்டீர்கள். உங்களுக்கு பிரியமானவர் தெரிவார். உங்கள் மனதைக் கவர்ந்தது எனது அத்தை ருக்மிணியா, பாமாவா, மற்ற அத்தைகளா என்று பார்க்கிறேன்,'' என வேடிக்கையாகச் சொன்னான் அபிமன்யு.யாராவது ஒரு மனைவியை அடையாளம் காட்டி, இன்னொருத்தியிடம் மாட்டிக்கொள்வானா அந்த மாயவன்! அவன் கண்ணாடியைப் பார்த்தான். அதில் சகுனி தெரிந்தான்.
""இதென்ன விந்தை,'' என அபிமன்யு கேட்டான்.
""அபிமன்யு! என்னை வணங்குபவர்கள் கூட காரியம் ஆக வேண்டுமென்றால் தான் என்னை நினைப்பார்கள். ஆனால், சகுனி தூக்கத்தில் கூட என்னைக் கொன்றே தீர வேண்டுமென துடிக்கிறான். எப்போதும் அவனுக்கு என் நினைவு, அதனால் எனக்கும் அவன் நினைவு'' என்றார்.

பார்த்தீர்களா! நோக்கம் எதுவானாலும், பக்தர்களை விட நாத்திகர்கள் தான் கடவுளை அதிகமாக நினைத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதை!




A gist of the above in English:

A saint gave a mirror to Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna. When one looks at the mirror, one would not see oneself but would see the one who is dear to one’s heart. Abhimanyu looked at the mirror and saw his wife Uththarai and when she looked at the mirror, she saw Abhimanyu.
Lord Krishna visited them at that time. When he looked at the mirror, he saw Shakuni. When Abhimanyu was puzzled, Lord Krishna explained, “Even those who worship me do so for their selfish needs. But Shakuni wants to kill me and that thought remains with him even in his sleep. So, he keeps thinking about me all the time and so I also keep thinking about him”.

This proves that atheists think of God more than the theists, though the motive is different.

Ya..this is what I call Sishupal Syndrome.

 

[tbs]

கடவுளை அதிகம் சிந்திப்பது யார்?


அர்ஜுனனின் மகன் அபிமன்யுவின் இல்லத்துக்கு ஒரு முனிவர் வந்தார். அப்போது அபிமன்யு வீட்டில் இல்லை. அவனது மனைவி உத்தரையைச் சந்தித்து ஆசி வழங்கிய அவர், ஒரு வித்தியாசமான கண்ணாடியைப் பரிசாக அளித்தார். அந்தக் கண்ணாடியில் பார்ப்பவர் முகம் தெரியாது. யார் நமக்கு பிரியமானவரோ அவரது முகம் தெரியும். உத்தரை கண்ணாடியை உற்றுப் பார்த்தாள். அவளது இதயத்தில் வீற்றிருக்கும் அவளது கணவன் அபிமன்யு தெரிந்தான். சற்றுநேரத்தில் வீட்டுக்கு வந்த அபிமன்யு அந்தக் கண்ணாடியைப் பற்றிய விபரமறிந்து வியந்தான். அதை அவன் பார்த்தபோது, அவனது இதயநாயகி உத்தரை தெரிந்தாள். இருவரும் மனமொத்த தம்பதியராக இருப்பது கண்டு மகிழ்ச்சியில் மிதந்தனர். இந்நேரத்தில், அபிமன்யுவின் தாய்மாமன் கண்ணன் அங்கு வந்தார்.
""கண்ணாடியைப் பார்த்து கணவனும், மனைவியும் ஆச்சரியப்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கிறீர்களே! என்ன விஷயம்?'' என்று கேட்டார்.
""மாமா! இந்தக் கண்ணாடியைப் பாருங்கள். இதில் நீங்கள் தெரியமாட்டீர்கள். உங்களுக்கு பிரியமானவர் தெரிவார். உங்கள் மனதைக் கவர்ந்தது எனது அத்தை ருக்மிணியா, பாமாவா, மற்ற அத்தைகளா என்று பார்க்கிறேன்,'' என வேடிக்கையாகச் சொன்னான் அபிமன்யு.யாராவது ஒரு மனைவியை அடையாளம் காட்டி, இன்னொருத்தியிடம் மாட்டிக்கொள்வானா அந்த மாயவன்! அவன் கண்ணாடியைப் பார்த்தான். அதில் சகுனி தெரிந்தான்.
""இதென்ன விந்தை,'' என அபிமன்யு கேட்டான்.
""அபிமன்யு! என்னை வணங்குபவர்கள் கூட காரியம் ஆக வேண்டுமென்றால் தான் என்னை நினைப்பார்கள். ஆனால், சகுனி தூக்கத்தில் கூட என்னைக் கொன்றே தீர வேண்டுமென துடிக்கிறான். எப்போதும் அவனுக்கு என் நினைவு, அதனால் எனக்கும் அவன் நினைவு'' என்றார்.

பார்த்தீர்களா! நோக்கம் எதுவானாலும், பக்தர்களை விட நாத்திகர்கள் தான் கடவுளை அதிகமாக நினைத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதை!




A gist of the above in English:

A saint gave a mirror to Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna. When one looks at the mirror, one would not see oneself but would see the one who is dear to one’s heart. Abhimanyu looked at the mirror and saw his wife Uththarai and when she looked at the mirror, she saw Abhimanyu.
Lord Krishna visited them at that time. When he looked at the mirror, he saw Shakuni. When Abhimanyu was puzzled, Lord Krishna explained, “Even those who worship me do so for their selfish needs. But Shakuni wants to kill me and that thought remains with him even in his sleep. So, he keeps thinking about me all the time and so I also keep thinking about him”.

This proves that atheists think of God more than the theists, though the motive is different.

hi hari sir,
the same way...MK always talk abt brahmins and manu neethi more than any brahmins....he knows manu neethi more than
a normal brahmin....he talk more abt god than the normal theists...

 

[Nara]

...I have read his prime book, about a couple of years ago. He could not persuade me with his arguments then and I am afraid that he can not now. I disagree fundamentally with his basic assumptions.

Brother KRS,

Dawkins has written many books, the controversial one is "God Delusion", it is a polemical one, most people coming from a theistic POV get offended by even the title of this book. I found it very entertaining. It has become a very popular book because of its provocative title, but that is not the book I would recommend if one likes to read just one of his books. That would be either "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker". These are two excellent books that present complex evolutionary biology concepts in terms even everyday ordinary people can understand. His more recent "The Greatest Show on Earth" is supposed to be very good too, I have not read it yet.

Disagreeing with his arguments is not a problem at all, that is part of the debate. What I find odious is the attempt to misrepresent his views, or worse yet, smear him by linking him to slavery. This is what The Telegraph has done and you and tks took it upon yourselves to triumphantly present them here.

Dawkins has always hedged on an impersonal creator god, his position is, it is very very unlikely such an entity exists. His 1 to 7 scale is probably related to the Likert scale. Even if not, stating one's view on a scale is a common practice, there can be no rational connection of this to the validity of trinity or questioning it the way Dawkins does.

I find a close correlation between how The Telegraph treats Dawkins and the way I (and Y) get treated here, attack the person when faced with inability to present a cogent counter argument. This thread started with a declarative silly story and many moons later, we have another silly story, and the saga of silly season continues.

Cheers!

 

[zebra16]

This thread started with a declarative silly story and many moons later, we have another silly story, and the saga of silly season continues.Cheers!

May be so. But what throws rationality out of the window is that the self confessed rationalists are drawn to this thread like the moth to the flame and are awaiting still sillier stories as the silly season progresses.

Regards

N.B.: This post addresses only "rationality" aspect and does not in any way opine someone or the other not to take part in the discussion nor does it exhorts anyone to increase participation.

 

[renuka]

May be so. But what throws rationality of the window is that the self confessed rationalists are drawn to this thread like the moth to the flame and are awaiting still sillier stories as the silly season progresses.

Regards

N.B.: This post addresses only "rationality" aspect and does not in any way opine someone or the other not to take part in the discussion nor does it exhorts anyone to increase participation.

Dear sir,

In a way you are right but dont you think the moths have a reason to be attracted to the flame since for them the flame exists and they have some valid reason to be drawn to it but I dont know about moths who feel that the flame doesnt exists..would they still want to fly towards the flame?

 

[zebra16]

Dear sir,

In a way you are right but dont you think the moths have a reason to be attracted to the flame since for them the flame exists and they have some valid reason to be drawn to it but I dont know about moths who feel that the flame doesnt exists..would they still want to fly towards the flame?

They may not want to fly towards the flame. But my guess is that they would sure like to chase the moths that are attracted by the flame. So in the end, it would be merry-go-around the flame only

 

[sarang]

Perhaps because, they, the insects think, the path is empty and void and they can fly through it.

Perhaps you have heard of this joke.

A non-sardarji, driving his motorbike at night, saw two head lights in front. He wants to teach them a lesson, drives right between the two lights and is thrown into the bushes. Undaunted, he swears- idiot, the rider in the middle has not switched on the headlight.

Dear sir,

In a way you are right but dont you think the moths have a reason to be attracted to the flame since for them the flame exists and they have some valid reason to be drawn to it but I dont know about moths who feel that the flame doesnt exists..would they still want to fly towards the flame?

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Another 'silly' story.....

I heard that Ravanan’s death was delayed because he was constantly thinking about Sita Devi. The moment his mind focused on eliminating Lord Rama, his thinking of Sita Devi got lessened and ultimately led to his death. Such is the power/mercy of God(dess).

 

[renuka]

Another silly story:

Ravana died thinking "I am Jaya the gate keeper of Dwaraka..its all drama planned by me and Lord Vishnu(Rama) and people actually thought I was a bad guy!!!LOL"

 

[KRS]

Dear Bro Nara Ji,

You said:

I find a close correlation between how The Telegraph treats Dawkins and the way I (and Y) get treated here, attack the person when faced with inability to present a cogent [FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit !important]counter [/FONT][FONT=inherit !important]argument[/FONT][/FONT]. This thread started with a declarative silly story and many[FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit !important]moons[/FONT][/FONT] later, we have another silly story, and the saga of silly season continues.

I have told you several times in the past, that I would cite anything from any source as long as it makes sense to me, irrespective of their ideology. I don't follow Telegraph articles on Dr. Dawkins, and till recently was not even aware of their position. This is why, if you go back and look at the article I cited, it does not have, in my opinion, any 'personal' attack on Dr. Dawkins. I will let Sri TKS Sir to respond to your message if he so chooses.

Now, coming to the treatment of you and Sri Y in this Forum. Yes, there have been unfortunate personal comments and in some instances downright boorish posts, but as always, I would moderate without prejudice. This is not to say that some folks here would not post something offensive, because of the nature of the topic and how it intimately enwraps the self of folks who are the believers. In my opinion, when you throw around words like, 'delusional', 'irrational', 'illogical', and now a new word 'hallucination' etc., in my humble opinion, are incendiary and attacks on the person, then folks get offended.

This is because, unlike an atheist, whose main belief is to attack the idea of the existence of God, the idea of God since the beginning has been in the DNA of the believers - in the person hood itself. This has been shown in much modern day research on the brain, which shows that for most of the humans, spirituality is hard wired and theism is a very intense and personal belief.

Let me tell you in this context, why Dr. Dawkins is attacked personally. Not because, people lack any reasoning against his hypothesis; because he attacks the majority of the folks living, with the same incendiary words that I have cited above. It is one thing if his hypothesis is the Truth. But he frames it as though it is, with spurious scales and probabilities he just propounds without any scientific backing.

To illustrate his modus operandi, one only has to follow the tiff between himself and the great multi disciplinary thinker on Evolution, the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, who I admire much. Here is Dr. Dawkins tepid apology to Dr. Gould, in his book 'The Selfish Gene':

p.86 Progressive evolution may be not so much a steady upward climb as a series of discrete steps from stable plateau to stable plateau
This paragraph is a fair summary of one way of expressing the now well-known theory of punctuated equilibrium. I am ashamed to say that, when I wrote my conjecture, I, like many biologists in England at the time, was totally ignorant of that theory, although it had been published three years earlier. I have since, for instance in The Blind Watchmaker, become somewhat petulant – perhaps too much so – over the way the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been oversold. If this has hurt anybody's feelings, I regret it. They may like to note that, at least in 1976, my heart was in the right place.[SUP][61]
[/SUP]Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So he attacks first, without any regard to whether his theory is valid in the first place. Same way, he calls the belief in deity as 'delusional', which is a clinical term.

Professor Andrew Sims is a former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and was Professor of Psychiatry in the University of Leeds. He has in a scholarly paper shown that the term 'delusion' can not be applied to Faith:
​

Summarizing delusion Is faith a delusion? Although, not infrequently, the content of delusions is religious, faith, of itself, is not a delusion. This is true even for minority and socially disapproved beliefs. For some cults, abnormal psychological processes may be frequent but these are not delusions for the following reasons:
1. They do not fulfil the criteria for definition of delusion - it is not ‘out of
keeping with the patient’s cultural and social background’.
2. They are not held on demonstrably delusional grounds.
3. Religious beliefs are spiritual, abstract, not concrete – ‘God within me’
is not experienced as a tactile sensation.
4. Religious beliefs are held with insight - it is understood that others may
not share their beliefs.
5. For religious people, bizarre thoughts and actions do not occur in other
areas of life, not connected with religion.
6. Religious ideas and predominant thinking is a description of content.
Religious delusions occur in a person whose predominant thinking is
religious. Faith is part of their personhood; delusion arises from
psychiatric disorder. A person with religious belief may have a delusion
but only if they have a concurrent psychiatric illness.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Is Faith Delusion Andrew Sims EDITEDx.pdf

​

As we both know, this argument over God has been going on forever, without any resolution. Science can not operate in the realm of Metaphysics and vice versa. As I have repeatedly said, Science can not ever figure out what created the Universe or Universes, let alone who/what created it and why on the basis of us being in a closed system and that primordial entity is beyond time and space. We can say that one believes in an 'impersonal' god versus a 'personal' one and this choice to me seems based on some notion that 'Man has invented God'. This is a very simplistic concept that forgets the complexity of a human being and reduces us to be like any other creature in the world. Again, Science can not prove this one way or another.

I do not generally like Dr. Deepak Chopra's philosophy, but here are a few of his words which are apt:

In his wildly popular book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins marshaled the force of science against God almost entirely by making one point over and over: God can't be objectively verified. He didn't seem to realize that the point itself is pointless. Beauty, truth, love, morality, ethics, and every other aspect of our inner life cannot be verified by science, either. Shifting the burden of proof to the inner world leaves scientific measurement behind, but it doesn't make beauty, truth, morality, and the rest false. If I find Picasso beautiful and you don't, our disagreement isn't a matter of who's right and who's wrong. Each person's consciousness is a domain of personal experience that relies on itself. Having a right to your own opinion, however bizarre, is the same as asserting your own awareness. Deepak Chopra: Why the God Delusion Won't Go Away

This is why the words that you and Sri Y use against the theists' position and on their personna are offensive. Yes, they are within the Forum rules in that in your opinion you are not attacking the other person, but only their 'ideas'. But as I have said and tried to show, when it comes to God one can not separate a person from the idea. This is exactly why passions are aroused when you use those incendiary words. By the way, in my considered opinion, one can defend the idea of atheism without such hurtful words.

I have also addressed the first of the three part series I said I would dealing with the word 'delusion'. I will next post various research going on that establish that Spirituality is hard wired in to us.

Regards,
KRS​

 

[tbs]

Another 'silly' story.....

I heard that Ravanan’s death was delayed because he was constantly thinking about Sita Devi. The moment his mind focused on eliminating Lord Rama, his thinking of Sita Devi got lessened and ultimately led to his death. Such is the power/mercy of God(dess).

hi hari sir,
another silly story...
an athiest and theist died together....athiest got heaven....he went to vaikundam...theist went to naraka....the hell...somebody
asked how it happened....sriman narayana told that the atheist always talk abt me...do research abt my existence...he always
think abt me..so he got vaikuntam..the heaven...like any normal SV...but the theist talk always abt atheist....he does unneccessay vadhams against atheist..sometimes vidanta vadhams too...so he got naraka..the hell....like wise another ' silly '' story...
a person went to temple and think abt prostitute....another person went to prostitute's house and think abt god in mind....so

मन एव मनुष्याणं कारणं बंद मोक्षयोहो.. bhagavad gita..

 

[tks]

Sri KRS Sir -

Enjoyed reading post #2420 which is filled with verifiable facts, citations and with logical development of your points.

Such posts encourage one to engage in debates and productive discussions.

Also a sense of humor is very nice to be able to debate serious topics.

I do not have strong opinion one way or the other about Dr Dawkins. I am amused that some people (and I do not mean just here in this forum) react to any critique of his ideas by the same manner a strong person of faith react to any critique of one of their icons.

Looking forward to Part 2

 

[Haridasa Siva]

I am afraid the name of the thread would get changed as SILLY STORIES :faint:

 

[ozone]

I am afraid the name of the thread would get changed as SILLY STORIES :faint:

I'm OK as long as it does not turn back to silly Gods

 

[Nara]

Dear Brother KRS, thanks for your post. I don't want to get into another round of the same old stuff. About Dawkins, my point was only that he was being hounded by The Telepgraph on frivulous and made up charges to which you and tks fell. Attack Dawkins all you want on valid grounds and I will be with you and even join you. A lot of atheists (e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson) criticize him for being too "in your face" and I agree.

... In my opinion, when you throw around words like, 'delusional', 'irrational', 'illogical', and now a new word 'hallucination' etc., in my humble opinion, are incendiary and attacks on the person, then folks get offended.

Well, Y may be a little persistent, but, I have never seen him engaging in personal attacks like the theists. Just take a look at what my dear brother sarang has posted in his India/Pak comparison post and the responses to it. Also, we are just two of us and arrayed against us is an army all attacking, some directly, and some high priests of true knowledge, indirectly, oozing condescension from their mighty perches. If only these attacks are on ideas I would welcome them eagerly, but that is too much to expect here.

I also reject your opinion that criticizing faith as 'delusional', 'irrational', 'illogical', is offensive or a provocation for the kind of personal invectives that keep coming day after day and you having to clean them up day after day. To say that god belief is innate, which is an assertion itself, and therefore characterizing it as 'delusional', 'irrational', 'illogical', is offensive is self-serving logic. If I may be allowed an analogy it is even less justifiable than condoning rape because the rape victim wore skimpy clothes.

As I said earlier, I welcome your posts and I will read them with great interest. However, I don't want to get into another round of the same old arguments. I want to move on to other topics, like US elections, Iran, and the like.

Cheers!