God Exists

[Haridasa Siva]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

As we 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.

Regards,
KRS​

What a post, KRSji!:high5:

This justifies why we cried, "I want KRSji back".

:grouphug:

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri tbs Ji,

You said

but the theist talk always abt atheist....he does unneccessay vadhams against atheist..sometimes vidanta vadhams too...so he got naraka..the hell....

Looks like, I am surely going to Narakam. Are there any Pariharams available to escape this fate?

Regards,
KRS

 

[ShivKC]

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!

I dont think, or any body out here would think, that sh,krs' post is just another set of old argument..

No.. No.. No.. he brought a new perspective in that post, which no one has taken it in that subject over the past 2500 posts.


why all of a sudden wanting to talk about US elections? senator paul tsongas once said 'that's a good question. let me try to evade you"

 

[Yamaka]

What Exactly Is Yamaka Opposing?

Dear ALL:

Sorry to bring this back again. Yes, it's a sheer repetition of what I have been saying in this Thread for nearly a year!

1. My concern is the Beliefs and Practices of India91% (who can't make more than Rs.150 per person per day because of poor education, poor skills etc).

India9% (all those participating in this Forum with high speed internet service) are NOT in my concern at all... they have all sorts of view on God and Religion.

2. This India91% believe seriously,

a. The SNA (Super Natural Agent) in the form of a human-like personal Gods.
b. The usefulness of prayers, poojas and bhajans (PPB).
c. Most Hindus in this group, vehemently believe in the Janma Poorva Karma (JPK, the Vithi), Rebirth and Reincarnation. This naturally leads to the Religious FATALISM.

Yamaka vehemently opposes all the three above. Because these Beliefs are the core of Theism in India, and as an Atheist, he opposes all of this.

Some scholars posit here, after all, these Beliefs are good, at the end (as a sort of teleology) because they promote Altruism and Happiness in the Society, irrespective of the veracity of the Beliefs itself.

I thought this is a good point. I looked for some empirical support for this assertion.. I started comparing India (a vastly Theistic land) and China (a vastly an Atheistic land since the time of Chariman Mao).

1. Altruisim should lead to lower crime rate in India. Alas.. if you compare the data, China has lower crime rate per capita (measured for per million population) than India in the past 60 years.

2. Chinese are as happy as Indians, if not happier.

Therefore, I conclude there is NO higher altruism or happiness because of the practices of those Beliefs in India. I maintain that Religious FATALISM keeps India very backward and poor in this early 21st Century.

And, there is only one way to solve it:

Move the religiosity to the back burner (as the most of the West has done) and follow the power of Science, Engineering & Technology in the daily life.

Innum varum...



ps. If you talk religion as a Cultural Link to the Distant Past, as many in the West do, I will have patient hearing! Lol.

 

[zebra16]

What Exactly Is Yamaka Opposing?

Dear ALL:

Sorry to bring this back again. Yes, it's a sheer repetition of what I have been saying in this Thread for nearly a year!

It is a wonder why rationalists keep repeating. Same action cannot produce different result.

1. My concern is the Beliefs and Practices of India91% (who can't make more than Rs.150 per person per day because of poor education, poor skills etc).

That is the concern of that 91% Indians too. The question is what do about it.

India9% (all those participating in this Forum with high speed internet service) are NOT in my concern at all... they have all sorts of view on God and Religion.

Let Yamaka talk about what concerns him. Why talk about unconcerned things? More importantly why repeat it?

2. This India91% believe seriously,

a. The SNA (Super Natural Agent) in the form of a human-like personal Gods.
b. The usefulness of prayers, poojas and bhajans (PPB).
c. Most Hindus in this group, vehemently believe in the Janma Poorva Karma (JPK, the Vithi), Rebirth and Reincarnation. This naturally leads to the Religious FATALISM.

As a naturalised US citizen and as a former Indian citizen, Sri Yamaka is fully entitled to his beliefs as to what he believes is the belief of the 91%.

Although they may be believing in SNA, PPB, JPK etc. they also know that they have freewill and they have to exert themselves to pull themselves out of the rut. They do it to the best of their ability and understanding.

I do not think any of the 91% are sending emails to Yamaka to dole out the charity. If they did, Yamaka can change his email ID.

Yamaka vehemently opposes all the three above. Because these Beliefs are the core of Theism in India, and as an Atheist, he opposes all of this.

The 91% could not care less whether Yamaka proposes or opposes all or any of the above three. If any good suggestions come out from Yamaka they will surely consider and implement it, if implementable.

There have been far too many social scientists like Yamaka who just keep on repeating what is wrong with them (Indians) but pull a blank to concretely say what they should do.

In the present world there is no land where just by jettisoning PPB/SNA/PJK etc. anyone can fill his/her stomach.

Some scholars posit here, after all, these Beliefs are good, at the end (as a sort of teleology) because they promote Altruism and Happiness in the Society, irrespective of the veracity of the Beliefs itself.

The 91% do not have any patience for any pontification. Simply by uttering the word "Altruisim" or "Happiness" it does not materialise itself.

I thought this is a good point. I looked for some empirical support for this assertion.. I started comparing India (a vastly Theistic land) and China (a vastly an Atheistic land since the time of Chariman Mao).

Many people resort to collection of statistics instead of addressing the task on hand. They compare and contrast India Vs. China, Earth Vs. Mars Sun Vs. Moon etc. and after 25 years of statistical analysis. they will once again be pointed out as to what is wrong with the 60-90% of Indians.

1. Altruisim should lead to lower crime rate in India. Alas.. if you compare the data, China has lower crime rate per capita (measured for per million population) than India in the past 60 years.

Statistical analysis can be done ad nauseum, India's GDP Vs. Greece GDP, India in 1960s Vs. India in 2010, Rate of Gold in 1937 Vs. 2007.

Someone holding MBA in Finance should surely know what is the additional capital outlay needed to increase India's GDP by 1%, 2%, 5% etc. and will try to resource the same.

Just because one saves Rs, 10/- by running behind a bus (instead of boarding the bus) it cannot be construed that he can save Rs. 100/- by running behind a taxi. The 91% of India are aware of it.

2. Chinese are as happy as Indians, if not happier.

The Indians are not obsessed with whether Chinese are more happy than Indians or vice versa. These are the hobbies of the free minds sitting with full stomach. Indians would surely like to raise their happiness index.

Therefore, I conclude there is NO higher altruism or happiness because of the practices of those Beliefs in India. I maintain that Religious FATALISM keeps India very backward and poor in this early 21st Century.

Yamaka's conclusions are no more relevant than the conclusions of Indra in the heavens.

And, there is only one way to solve it:

Move the religiosity to the back burner (as the most of the West has done) and follow the power of Science, Engineering & Technology in the daily life.

All armchair advice. We have enough specialists in this area.

 

[Yamaka]

It is a wonder why rationalists keep repeating. Same action cannot produce different result.



That is the concern of that 91% Indians too. The question is what do about it.



Let Yamaka talk about what concerns him. Why talk about unconcerned things? More importantly why repeat it?



As a naturalised US citizen and as a former Indian citizen, Sri Yamaka is fully entitled to his beliefs as to what he believes is the belief of the 91%.

Although they may be believing in SNA, PPB, JPK etc. they also know that they have freewill and they have to exert themselves to pull themselves out of the rut. They do it to the best of their ability and understanding.

I do not think any of the 91% are sending emails to Yamaka to dole out the charity. If they did, Yamaka can change his email ID.



The 91% could not care less whether Yamaka proposes or opposes all or any of the above three. If any good suggestions come out from Yamaka they will surely consider and implement it, if implementable.

There have been far too many social scientists like Yamaka who just keep on repeating what is wrong with them (Indians) but pull a blank to concretely say what they should do.

In the present world there is no land where just by jettisoning PPB/SNA/PJK etc. anyone can fill his/her stomach.



The 91% do not have any patience for any pontification. Simply by uttering the word "Altruisim" or "Happiness" it does not materialise itself.



Many people resort to collection of statistics instead of addressing the task on hand. They compare and contrast India Vs. China, Earth Vs. Mars Sun Vs. Moon etc. and after 25 years of statistical analysis. they will once again be pointed out as to what is wrong with the 60-90% of Indians.



Statistical analysis can be done ad nauseum, India's GDP Vs. Greece GDP, India in 1960s Vs. India in 2010, Rate of Gold in 1937 Vs. 2007.

Someone holding MBA in Finance should surely know what is the additional capital outlay needed to increase India's GDP by 1%, 2%, 5% etc. and will try to resource the same.

Just because one saves Rs, 10/- by running behind a bus (instead of boarding the bus) it cannot be construed that he can save Rs. 100/- by running behind a taxi. The 91% of India are aware of it.



The Indians are not obsessed with whether Chinese are more happy than Indians or vice versa. These are the hobbies of the free minds sitting with full stomach. Indians would surely like to raise their happiness index.



Yamaka's conclusions are no more relevant than the conclusions of Indra in the heavens.



All armchair advice. We have enough specialists in this area.

Dear Z:

I hear you.

I would like to listen to YOUR SOLUTIONS, if any.

Please articulate.

Thanks.

Y

 

[Nara]

It is a wonder why rationalists keep repeating. Same action cannot produce different result.

Dear Narayan, we are here talking about topics that interest us. During the course of discussions the same issues crop up at regular intervals. Then, we have two options, (i) respond, or (ii) give it a pass noting it is just a repetition. Either option is available to all of us, I fail to see any wonderment when some people take option (i), after all, there is no compulsion that you must read it, and even less, respond to it. Complaining about "keep repeating" and then bothering to not only read it, but also respond, well, that is really a matter worthy of wonderment.

Let Yamaka talk about what concerns him. Why talk about unconcerned things? More importantly why repeat it?

Is this not Y's choice? In the same vein as you ask Y, did any of the 91% e-mail you dear Narayan, complaining about Y comparing, and "keep repeating" all the time?

This is the problem, people get annoyed with what people say and respond by going after the person, it is really hard to have a decent discussion going here with so many sharp elbows in the ready to be deployed, sigh!!!

Cheers!

 

[tbs]

Dear Sri tbs Ji,

You said

Looks like, I am surely going to Narakam. Are there any Pariharams available to escape this fate?

Regards,
KRS

hi KRS sir,
Not only urself.....like me many theists tooo....pariharam just ignore atheists....concentrate on theism....its their POORVA
JANMA KARMA....we are theists....becoz our POORVA JANMA KARMA...just my thought...its mainly for prof nara sir,...
he already visited 106 divyadesams of sriman narayana....2 more divyadesams guranteed for him....becoz he is an atheist..

Thanks

 

[Nara]

...its mainly for prof nara sir,...
he already visited 106 divyadesams of sriman narayana....2 more divyadesams guranteed for him....becoz he is an atheist..

ready to go, any time, let my body be interred for all those lives underground to feed on

 

[Nara]

Folks,

We all have our opinions, not many pairs will agree with each other in toto. This does not mean we have to insult each other on what we disagree. Take a listen to this 1:45 min debate between the much reviled Dawkins and a mathematician/theologian John Lennox. If you are really open minded this 1:45 min will pass by like zero time.

Whichever side you may belong, you will notice that Dawkins and Lennox gave the benefit of mutual human dignity to each other. Neither of them tried to put the other person down. I long for such mutually respectful discussion here in this forum. What we have is, in the most part, outright hostility and self-serving pomposity, and everything in between.

Hope you take the time to listen to both sides of the argument without prejudice.

Cheers!

 

[kkumar29]

Folks,I long for such mutually respectful discussion here in this forum. What we have is, in the most part, outright hostility and self-serving pomposity, and everything in between

Cheers!.

Prof. Nara,

I normally don't enter into discussions regarding existence of God because there is no definite answer. However both sides in this discussion have exhibited the characteristics you have alluded to in your post at various times.

I never understand why people feel that one has to prove the other person wrong if their opinions are different. After all these are only opinions based on one's own experience. How can one say that one experience is more valid than the other one.

Just my opinion.

K. Kumar

 

[ShivKC]

Whichever side you may belong, you will notice that Dawkins and Lennox gave the benefit of mutual human dignity to each other. Neither of them tried to put the other person down. I long for such mutually respectful discussion here in this forum. What we have is, in the most part, outright hostility and self-serving pomposity, and everything in between.

Hope you take the time to listen to both sides of the argument without prejudice.

Cheers!

first of all you should put this in practice, starting with your own posts, instead of shedding a crocodile tears, that the whole forum is up against you with all the personal attacks.

though you club Yams with you, i think, yams can speak for himself and you can speak only for yourself. i never seen yams making a cry/appeal here about personal attacks on him.

it's you who trigger people to resort attacks with your snider and finely camouflaged linguistic terms . even your latest response to Sh.krs justifying your usage of vocab's like 'Delusion' etc proved, that you want PEACE but in your own way only. you are indeed more supercilious!

even in this above post where you expect others to behave like dawkins/lennon, you couldn't help but end up the post with snider like "" self serving pomposity' 'outright hostility' etc.

if you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change.

i welcome your initiative,but.

 

[renuka]

if you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change.

Dear Shiv,

Man in the mirror??

 

[zebra16]

Sri Nara Sir,

Dear Narayan, we are here talking about topics that interest us. During the course of discussions the same issues crop up at regular intervals. Then, we have two options, (i) respond, or (ii) give it a pass noting it is just a repetition. Either option is available to all of us, I fail to see any wonderment when some people take option (i), after all, there is no compulsion that you must read it, and even less, respond to it. Complaining about "keep repeating" and then bothering to not only read it, but also respond, well, that is really a matter worthy of wonderment.

Thanks for informing about the options available to me. The operative noun for the verb of keep repeating in my original posts is "rationalists". Rationalists would have known by their scientific temperament that same process on same input would produce the same result. So it was a wonder to me an ignoramus why they do it.

The same issue may crop up, I agree. But here the same issue is "being brought up". I think there is a subtle difference, although you may refuse to acknowledge it.

The question of alleviating India's poverty is in many people's mind in this forum and it is good. But re-producing an almost identical cut-paste job in as many threads as possible, well I think it borders on spamming.

The correct method to focus on an issue is to open a thread giving a brief but narrative description and post and invite comments in such a thread, instead of posting the same issue in many threads, is my opinion.

Is this not Y's choice? In the same vein as you ask Y, did any of the 91% e-mail you dear Narayan, complaining about Y comparing, and "keep repeating" all the time?

You cannot appropriate my punch-line without payment of royalty But I would surely expect an MBA in Finance to progress at least a bit more than quoting per capita of India and China after about a year. I would like to know first hand whether he has compared and contrasted Area under cultivation/agriculture of both the countries, what is the national mineral wealth and fossil fuels etc. of both the countries etc.

I would expect the counter-party rationalist to realise and acknowledge that economies are driven by economics and not by SNA, PPB, JPK etc. Constant benchmarking of a country's economy to such home-defined parameters of SNA etc can not be taken as a serious attempt at rational discussion.

This is the problem, people get annoyed with what people say and respond by going after the person, it is really hard to have a decent discussion going here with so many sharp elbows in the ready to be deployed, sigh!!!

In fisticuffs just because one beckons the bystander at the earliest opportunity does not imply the other participant is by default at fault. It takes two to tango. The development of sharp elbows at side ready to be deployed is a natural re-action to the bellicosity of the counter-party. It is a natural evolutionary process and I thought this forum is full of supporters of evolutionary theory.

Regards

 

[Yamaka]

"I would expect the counter-party rationalist to realise and acknowledge that economies are driven by economics and not by SNA, PPB, JPK etc. Constant benchmarking of a country's economy to such home-defined parameters of SNA etc can not be taken as a serious attempt at rational discussion.- Zebra16 in post 2439.

Dear Z:

This is a Thread about "God Exists", an affirmative statement.

As such discussion of SNA, PPB and JPK is very relevant.

It's my view that India's economy is very poor and backward due to Religious FATALISM...

You just can't separate economy from the inherent behaviors and practices of the People.
It goes back to the skill levels of vast majority of Indians (I call them India91%).

Yes, natural resources matter.. but the skill levels of most people to develop those available resources become all the more important (look at Japan, for example: what resources they have, and what they can do with the skills and knowledge of development).

Let me conclude:

Skills matter the most... Education & Training can do a lot... and kids must stay in school at least thru high school.

Then, why are they not staying in the schools?

JPK, the mother of all Religious FATALISM.

That's what I am rioting about...

You may choose to ignore it. That's fine with me!

Cheers.

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

You said:

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.

Wow! Really, dear brother? Less justifiable than rape, because of skimpy clothes attracting violence? Do you really think that this is an appropriate analogy? Much less incendiary analogies in the past made by others, including myself, if I recall correctly, have been put up as examples of offensive words. I am disappointed with your carelessness with words, if you did not mean this, and appalled if you did.

Yes, it is an assertion on my part that spirituality is innate in human beings, based on results of current research going on. You have every right to refute it when I post the details, but you have no right to mock it. Then you use your favorite expression 'self serving', as you always seem to do. When you defend your beliefs with words like 'delusional' etc., that nevertheless are used, despite
the fact that it is shown to be not true, instead of admitting to yourself that your use of these words on the face of it may be not describing the reality, that is not self serving? Come on brother, give us a break.

You can reject my thesis about using these words all day long. I told you honestly, how I felt reading them. Now, I can not talk definitively about how other theists may feel - they may not be at all sensitive to those words. My attempt was to answer to your exclamation as to why you and Sr Y are attacked. I offered you an explanation. There is no need to double down and counter attack.

I said, you can still defend atheism without using these words. You disagree. I said it from the view point of a person from the receiving end. Yet, you seem to think that hurting the sensibilities of people like me is no big deal - we should not be hurt. I am telling you a true situation calmly and yet you reject it. So, go ahead. No one is stopping you. Call every one pompous and self serving, irrational, illogical etc. But understand that a civilized discussions are based on using civilized words that take in to account the feelings of the opposite side.

In my humble opinion, one can not expect to have a decent conversation with others if one starts with 'in your face' words. However intellectual one thinks one may be, words can hurt.

I will be posting my other installments as I said I would, for the benefit of the members. I do not expect you to respond - it is your prerogative. I am not even going to ask for any rebuttal, as you have made it clear that your mind is closed to any contrary evidence to what you believe in. So be it. Our members understand that.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Folks,

Assertion has been made here that the Chinese are a happier people than Indians. So, I did some research on this to verify this,

Now, based on a 'happiness index' study conducted by UN and other organizations, where they compute the index mainly by looking at the wealth, Govt. services, etc, India predictably scores low on this index.

But here is a servey where they have interviewed folks around the globe and put the question 'are you happy?' to real people and guess what?

Despite economic woes, wars, conflicts and natural disasters the world is a happier place today than it was four years ago and Indonesians, Indians and Mexicans seem to be the most contented people on the planet.

Brazil and Turkey rounded out the top five happiest nations, while Hungary, South Korea, Russia, Spain and Italy had the fewest number of happy people.Perhaps proving that money can't buy happiness, residents of some of the world biggest economic powers, including the United States, Canada and Britain, fell in the middle of the happiness scale.
]Turmoil aside, people are happier than in 2007: poll - The China Post

Culture and religion also play very important roles in people's lives. Here is an example:

According to a survey, South Asian school children in Hong Kong — children of Pakistani, Indian or Nepali immigrants — appear to be happier than their Chinese counterparts. Findings show the difference maker could be their religious beliefs and less pressure to excel in school from parents.
HK: Beliefs, less pressure make South Asians happier than Chinese schoolmates | Asian Correspondent

Here is another survey, comparing how Indians feel themselves healthwise compared to Chinese and Brazilians:

Indians feel happier and healthier than their counterparts in emerging economies, even though only a fraction of them follow the routine of regular exercise and health checkups, says a global survey.
​

Indians more upbeat on health than Chinese, Brazilians: Study - The Economic Times

Finally, here is a Forbes/Gallup survey, which computed the happiness index and again, China is ranked below India (though Bangladesh and Pakistan score higher!).
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

So, the moral of the story - wealth alone does not determine happiness. A person's feeling about his/her happiness and fulfillment in life has nothing to do with material wealth.

By the way, having been to China several times and staying there for extended periods, I can attest anecdotally that Chinese are not a happy lot.

Regards,
KRS

 

[ShivKC]

Yes, natural resources matter.. but the skill levels of most people to develop those available resources become all the more important (look at Japan, for example: what resources they have, and what they can do with the skills and knowledge of development).

Let me conclude:

Skills matter the most... Education & Training can do a lot... and kids must stay in school at least thru high school.

uncle yams, i'll tell you what? your iterating post on PJK is a boring nuisance, if you would pardon my French

hope you are aware that 94% of japanese are buddhists, who also believe in karma.

could you pls wipe the slate clean, and come up with something fresh!!.. now a days, you are so so unamusing )

 

[Yamaka]

Prof. Nara,

I normally don't enter into discussions regarding existence of God because there is no definite answer. However both sides in this discussion have exhibited the characteristics you have alluded to in your post at various times.

I never understand why people feel that one has to prove the other person wrong if their opinions are different. After all these are only opinions based on one's own experience. How can one say that one experience is more valid than the other one.

Just my opinion.

K. Kumar

Dear K. Kumar:

Please read the title of the Thread, which affirmatively asserts "God Exists".

That's the issue here. Atheists, like myself, want the Believers to give some tangible arguments to prove this affirmative statement.

That's all.

The Opening Post said, "If you go to the Barber, he will take care of you....."

I have said, "People are flocking the Barber and paid even the fees, but he is not providing the people (here the worshipers) with the service needed!"

That's the problem, as I see it.

Cheers.

 

[Yamaka]

uncle yams, i'll tell you what? your iterating post on PJK is a boring nuisance, if you would pardon my French

hope you are aware that 94% of japanese are buddhists, who also believe in karma.

could you pls wipe the slate clean, and come up with something fresh!!.. now a days, you are so so unamusing )

Dear Shiv:

At least in this Thread "God Exists", my yelling words like "SNA, PPB and JPK" is very relevant.

I am only yelling , "Oh, India9%... hear me, there's fire in the sub-basement of India House...people will be hurt (or already hurting), SNA, PPB and JPK are the culprits here"

But some of the India9% ridicule me saying, "Oh Yamaka, shut up... even if there is fire, so what? why do you care, anyway? You are enjoying your safe and cozy life elsewhere..!"

It's the HUMANISM of an Atheist is in full glare here!

This is yet another "so so unamusing" blather from Yamaka!

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

....Wow! Really, dear brother? Less justifiable than rape, because of skimpy clothes attracting violence?

Dear brother, I did not use the word justifiable in connection with rape. I tried to word it with some care so that it is not misunderstood or misinterpreted, alas I failed.

When you defend your beliefs with words like 'delusional' etc., that nevertheless are used, despite
the fact that it is shown to be not true, instead of admitting to yourself that your use of these words on the face of it may be not describing the reality, that is not self serving? Come on brother, give us a break.

Here is what Merriam-Webster says Delusion is:

1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

Examples of DELUSION
He has delusions about how much money he can make at that job.
He is living under the delusion that he is incapable of making mistakes.
She is under the delusion that we will finish on time.
As the illness progressed, his delusions took over and he had violent outbursts.


​

Except for #2(b) and the last example that is of it, which describes a medical condition one that is certainly not what I am intending, all other definitions and examples clearly show that describing belief in God as a delusion is not improper. Your claim that belief in god is not delusion do not amount to "it is shown to be not true".

You can reject my thesis about using these words all day long. I told you honestly, how I felt reading them. Now, I can not talk definitively about how other theists may feel - they may not be at all sensitive to those words. My attempt was to answer to your exclamation as to why you and Sr Y are attacked. I offered you an explanation. There is no need to double down and counter attack.

I am not attacking anybody, or doubling down. You say you are offering an explanation, alright, what does that mean? Are you saying it is an an explanation why the attacks are justified, or, are you saying it is an explanation even though the attacks are unjustified? If it was the former, clearly my response was apt. If it is latter, what is the purpose of the explanation? I am quite aware I get attacked because people don't want to hear their pet beliefs questioned or characterized as irrational, delusional, or illogical.

I said, you can still defend atheism without using these words. You disagree.

Again you are putting words into my mouth, I disagreed with your stand that characterizing religious beliefs as delusional, irrational, and illogical is per se offensive comments about the individuals who hold such beliefs, they are not, that is what I am disagreeing. Besides, you are going on and on about these words as though that is all I say in my rebuttal, just that faith is this, this, and that. So far as I can recall, I have always provided long, sometimes excruciatingly long, arguments for the views I express.

Yet, you seem to think that hurting the sensibilities of people like me is no big deal - we should not be hurt.

This is the kind of false equivalency I reject. Hurting sensibility is very vague, some of the things that have hurt the sensibility of members here are (i) anything negative about Brahminism, (ii) questioning faith, (iii) criticizing India or comparing India with China. These have hurt the sensibilities of scores of people here.

I don't have a one-size fits all concern for hurting sensibilities, which is not the same as what you are saying, i.e. it is not a big-deal for me. It is indeed important for me, very important, to take extra care and not make people feel hurt. But, I reject your assertion that reasonable arguments by themselves hurt people's sensibility because my views are contrarian or it includes unflattering words about ideas, not people, that you and most others object to.

Call every one pompous and self serving, irrational, illogical etc. But understand that a civilized discussions are based on using civilized words that take in to account the feelings of the opposite side.

Brother, you can say whatever you want, pointing out irrationality is part of any civil debate. I have not called everyone pompous, another made up charge. When you are subjected to constant bombardment, most of which I ignore, yet when earnest comments are met with pompous putdowns -- I can cite them in scores in PM if you care to want to know -- and then the reaction is criticized, that is much like blaming the rape victim for skimpy clothes.

I will be posting my other installments as I said I would, for the benefit of the members. I do not expect you to respond - it is your prerogative. I am not even going to ask for any rebuttal, as you have made it clear that your mind is closed to any contrary evidence to what you believe in. So be it. Our members understand that.

What do "our members understand", would you be kind enough to explain what they would understand?

Please review this thread and you will see I have vigorously participated in it. What more is there to say? Even the innateness of "spirituality" you are promising to post about has been already discussed. If you think I have a closed mind, would it be any less valid if I make the same observation about you? Why do you go there like everyone else?

Do what you want, say what you want, given the preponderance of believers in this forum it will be hailed as nothing short of sliced bread. If you are interested in a calm and rational discussion let us have one via PM. I have said all I have to say on god in this thread.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

uncle yams, i'll tell you what? your iterating post on PJK is a boring nuisance, if you would pardon my French

hope you are aware that 94% of japanese are buddhists, who also believe in karma.

could you pls wipe the slate clean, and come up with something fresh!!.. now a days, you are so so unamusing )

Dear Shiv:

This is from Wiki's "Religions in Japan":

"About 70 percent of Japanese profess no religious membership,[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15 percent reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000.[SUP][9][/SUP] And according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[SUP][10][/SUP] According to Edwin Reischauer, andMarius Jansen, some 70 to 80 percent of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion.[SUP][1]"


And... I had a posdoc, Dr. Tomo Ak... from Kobe, Japan, who essentially confirmed what's said above...

Cheers.






[/SUP]

 

[kkumar29]

Dear K. Kumar:

Please read the title of the Thread, which affirmatively asserts "God Exists".

That's the issue here. Atheists, like myself, want the Believers to give some tangible arguments to prove this affirmative statement.

That's all.

The Opening Post said, "If you go to the Barber, he will take care of you....."

I have said, "People are flocking the Barber and paid even the fees, but he is not providing the people (here the worshipers) with the service needed!"

That's the problem, as I see it.

Cheers.

Mr Yamaka,

There is no need to be rude. The title gives the OP's opinion. You may disagree with it. He is not obliged to provide you or anyone else with any tangible arguments to prove his opinion. His/her opinion is formed based on his/her life experience, just as you keep proclaiming you are an atheist based on your life experience.

Let me just point out that you accept the power of Nature. People like me call it God. You seem to be freely mixing organized religion and it's rituals with God. I believe they are unrelated.

I respect your opinions and would request you do the same without belittling my opinions or my capabilities.

Cheers,
K. Kumar

 

[biswa]

Mr. Kumar, I am sorry to say that you may be disappointed. You will encounter plenty of rudeness here. It is only the distance of the internet that is preventing people from coming to blows. In that way it is no different from any other internet forum.

If somebody comes from a point of view that only their idea is correct, that they are in sole possession of the truth and everybody else is "delusional", then that is one thing. If on top of that they have an evangelical streak that they have to convert the unthinking masses to their point of view, then that is another. You will find people on both the right and the left with such ideas.

Mr Kumar, you on the other seem to have a balanced world view open to other people's opinions. If I am not mistaken you may come from a polytheistic Hindu background that gives you the ability to reconcile multiple nuances of the truth. Unfortunately, to evangelists, acceptance often is taken as a sign of weakness.

I hope you stay on, survive and contribute.

 

[kkumar29]

Biswa,

I am not new to internet forums, I was one of the original designers of the internet. I am normally a silent reader.

Funnily enough I agree with most of the views posted by Prof Nara and Mr. Yamaka. It is just the holier than thou attitude reflected in Mr. Nara's post and the subsequent underlying mockery in Mr. Yamaka that propelled me to post a reply.

I am strong believer in the fact that each opinion is valid because it is what the individual has formed based on their experience. I may not understand and sometimes may not agree with the opinions but I never say it is wrong. It is very true for that person.

I was born into a smartha Iyer family and I am married to a Roman Catholic and I know what it takes to make an inter religious/inter racial marriage succeed because I am still married. I am a believer in GOD but do not follow any particular organized religion. I am open to all religions and will take what is good in them and follow and discard what I think is useless ritual (as applicable to me). I respect the other persons right to follow the religion of their choice (including the rituals I may have rejected) and I will participate willingly out of respect for that person.

Now I will retreat back into my shell.

K. Kumar