Some silly, childish, selfish, amoral atheists and agnostics

[arunshanker]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Thanks Does that definition fit in with the first few posts of this thread

 

[renuka]

Thanks Does that definition fit in with the first few posts of this thread

You didnt address your reply to anyone in specific but i have a feeling its meant for me cos I am the 1st to define it for you.

You know in this forum when did we ever follow rules or even define anything per topic?
We get derailed all the time and that's the best part cos the derailed topics are always more fun

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Once HH sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi swamigal of Sringeri said :

If Iswara's existence can easily be understood, why do we have athiests and
nireeswaravadhis in the world. Their intellect and logical mind are not inferior
to us. Actually, there are great intellectuals who tried to find out Iswara thathva
and failed. Their inability to understand Iswara thathva is not because of their
lack of buddhi or intellect. It is because Iswara is beyond our intellect. Nothing
else.

 

[amala]

To me I feel Atheism is a form of frustration.So far most of the Athiest I have come across are a frustrated lot.
Yet to meet anyone who was born into Atheism.
Some bitter experience in life made most of them atheist and in this Ex Hindus come tops.

I have a genuine doubt. Is anyone born into Theism? Surely its a "learnt" thing from their parents/family no?

Ex-Hindus atheists are way better than some ex-Hindus born again Christians. You just cannot be with them for 3 minutes before they start dissing their old faith and preaching their new one.

 

[C RAVI]

Once HH sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi swamigal of Sringeri said :

If Iswara's existence can easily be understood, why do we have athiests and
nireeswaravadhis in the world. Their intellect and logical mind are not inferior
to us. Actually, there are great intellectuals who tried to find out Iswara thathva
and failed. Their inability to understand Iswara thathva is not because of their
lack of buddhi or intellect. It is because Iswara is beyond our intellect. Nothing
else.

Exactly!!!!!

With our Brain we control our tongue and GOD controls our Brain.

By our heart we can believe GOD but can not find GOD by our Brain..

Can make efforts through Subtle Mind and realize GOD subtly. The brain can not justify BUT the subtle mind can still progress in realizing GOD, without conflicting reality..

Manushya thathva is must in this physical world and Iswara thatva is the must in spiritual world.

Manushya thatva can reconcile with Iswara thatva BUT can not put Iswara thatva in trial...

 

[renuka]

I have a genuine doubt. Is anyone born into Theism? Surely its a "learnt" thing from their parents/family no?

Ex-Hindus atheists are way better than some ex-Hindus born again Christians. You just cannot be with them for 3 minutes before they start dissing their old faith and preaching their new one.

Yes you are right the ex Hindus born again Christians !!! oh boy tell me about them.
But you can "bully' them too... I once reduced one to tears when she started acting smart with me.Just go one questioning each sermon they give you and they will try their best to control their temper and keep on smiling to show that their new found faith has changed their life but only to a limit!!!
Amala I am sure you must have experienced in Malaysia sometimes they come home to home to preach.
You must see my dad calling them in serving them drinks and when they start off their sermon my dad starts off his sermons and even sings bhajans for them till they say bye and leave.
My dad is too good at this.


Just to add..you are right when you said no one is born into Theism.
No one is born into Atheism or Theism.
We are just born and pick up stuff along the way which we need to shed eventually before we leave.
You are smart girl Amala.

 

[Nara]

....In none of your post, definitely not in this thread, you have denigrated any theist , yet this backlash.

Free thinkers who dare to hold views that do not align with the establishment have been vilified throughout history. Socrates was put to death, Sage Jabali was severely castigated by Rama, and in more recent time George HW Bush once commented Atheists are not Americans.

Funny thing is, these people are so insecure with their own faith that they keep repeating Atheism is also a religion, rejecting faith is also a faith, as if doing a japam of this makes them feel calm and happy.

Anyway, now that my thread has been hijacked and derailed, I will start a new thread to continue my presentation. These doctors and Ph.D.s can spew their venom at us skeptics in this thread that has now been taken down to the gutter level.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear Nara,

Anyway, now that my thread has been hijacked and derailed, I will start a new thread to continue my presentation. These doctors and Ph.D.s can spew their venom at us skeptics in this thread that has now been taken down to the gutter level.

Like the new word... "Hijacked".

You know its really nice being BAD.I am bored of being so called GOOD.

Love
renu

 

[arunshanker]

Once HH sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi swamigal of Sringeri said :

If Iswara's existence can easily be understood, why do we have athiests and
nireeswaravadhis in the world. Their intellect and logical mind are not inferior
to us. Actually, there are great intellectuals who tried to find out Iswara thathva
and failed. Their inability to understand Iswara thathva is not because of their
lack of buddhi or intellect. It is because Iswara is beyond our intellect. Nothing
else.

If Iswara did not want us to understand Him/Her what is the purpose
If I understand your post God made it such that nobody irrespective their of level of intellect and logical mind understand God
Actually that in simple terms God does not want to know Him/Her

 

[suraju06]

Ok when that happens i will donate myself to science for experiments.
Anyway I dont get chance to speed these days cos Police are very active in highways.
Those were the days..when I could be King of the Road when it was empty.
But you know the best thing is still this..when no one is on the road go full speed over a speed breaker.You can feel the car jump a bit.

You can't do that in Chennai. Here speed breakers are car breakers if you are not showing reverence to them!!

 

[renuka]

Dear Arun,

You nailed it:

Actually that in simple terms God does not want to know Him/Her
​

The Knower of Brahman is verily Brahman.


P.S :Ishwara is not the endpoint.There is a school of thought that even Ishwara is not fully "aware" of Brahman.Complicated huh?

So we just need to Love All Serve All and we will get there eventually.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

If Iswara did not want us to understand Him/Her what is the purpose
If I understand your post God made it such that nobody irrespective their of level of intellect and logical mind understand God
Actually that in simple terms God does not want to know Him/Her

Sir, It would be better to read the post before jumping to comment.

'Did not understand' is different from ' can easily to be understood' . Meaning is
different.

 

[arunshanker]

Sir, It would be better to read the post before jumping to comment.

'Did not understand' is different from ' can easily to be understood' . Meaning is
different.

You have said that "If Iswara's existence can easily be understood why do we have athiests and
nireeswaravadhis in the world"
I gather that this statement implies that Iswara's is difficult to understand
If I am right
My question is why does Ishwara make him/her self difficult to understand.

 

[arunshanker]

Sir, It would be better to read the post before jumping to comment.

'Did not understand' is different from ' can easily to be understood' . Meaning is
different.

You have said "It would be better to read the post before jumping to comment."
Could you please point out my mistake here
Again I am saying that as I understand your statement
You statement If "Iswara's existence can easily be understood, why do we have athiests and
nireeswaravadhis in the world."
This means ( if I am right) - We have athiests and nireeswaravadhis in the world only because Iswara's existence cannot easily be understood
Is my above interpretation of you statement right
I would like comments on this from other reader as well

 

[ShivKC]

Anyway, now that my thread has been hijacked and derailed, I will start a new thread to continue my presentation.
Cheers!

first of all, the title of this thread itself is a mocking one, composed by words cherry picked from the conversations from another thread. so i stayed away, and now its hijacked too.


:boink: however, I don't want the cheese, I just want to get out of the trap

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Arun,

First of all, this is a statement of HH Chandrasekhara Bharathi of Sringeri, a
Jivan mukta; it is not mine and I have quoted him.

Secondly, He says ' if Iswara can easily be understood ", which implies that it is
not easy to understand, but still he can be understood if you try . Here try means
the necessary sadhanas as delineated in Acharyal's 'Viveka choodamani '. It
does not mean He can never be understood.

Many sadhaks have been trying and they have not understood the thathva so far.
Yet, they have not given up and are still doing the sadhanas.

It requires lot of effort.

 

[suraju06]

You have said "It would be better to read the post before jumping to comment."
Could you please point out my mistake here
Again I am saying that as I understand your statement
You statement If "Iswara's existence can easily be understood, why do we have athiests and
nireeswaravadhis in the world."
This means ( if I am right) - We have athiests and nireeswaravadhis in the world only because Iswara's existence cannot easily be understood
Is my above interpretation of you statement right
I would like comments on this from other reader as well

Hi Arun,

We have Iswara. There are those who have understood that He exists. There are those who have not understood this. It is not that His existence can not be understood. Like I am comfortable using a TV though I do not realise that there are electrons at work inside the tube in which I see images atheists are comfortable saying they are happy with whatever they know. A farmer is happy driving his tractor. He need not know the intricacies of a IC engine. Atheists are happy living their life without bothering to know God. Let them be happy.

Problem crops up only when they assume a higher intellectual plane for themselves and faults theists.

Cheers.

 

[arunshanker]

Hi Arun,

We have Iswara. There are those who have understood that He exists. There are those who have not understood this. It is not that His existence can not be understood. Like I am comfortable using a TV though I do not realise that there are electrons at work inside the tube in which I see images atheists are comfortable saying they are happy with whatever they know. A farmer is happy driving his tractor. He need not know the intricacies of a IC engine. Atheists are happy living their life without bothering to know God. Let them be happy.

Cheers.

The anology is not clear " Like I am comfortable using a TV though I do not realise that there are electrons at work inside the tube in which I see images' You can be made to realise the mechanism and technology if you taught how the TV works given some time and effort you can understand the TV" is it the same with GOD
Are sure that "atheists are comfortable saying they are happy with whatever they know" or let me put it this way again " A farmer is happy driving his tractor. He need not know the intricacies of a IC engine" but with some effort he can know. Is it the case with atheists.
In fact can we say the same other way round useing the same analogy that "Those who believe in God are are happy with whatever they know"

 

[arunshanker]

Dear suraju06
In continuation
I see that the argument you posted is something like the fallcy called "Appeal to the complicated"

similar to
Appeal to Belief that has this general pattern

1. 
   

 

[suraju06]

Dear Arun,

The anology is not clear " Like I am comfortable using a TV though I do not realise that there are electrons at work inside the tube in which I see images' You can be made to realise the mechanism and technology if you taught how the TV works given some time and effort you can understand the TV" is it the same with GOD

Yes.

Are sure that "atheists are comfortable saying they are happy with whatever they know" or let me put it this way again " A farmer is happy driving his tractor. He need not know the intricacies of a IC engine" but with some effort he can know. Is it the case with atheists.

Yes.

In both the cases I would like to add this. If the farmer insists that there is no combustion taking place as he does not see anything burning or exploding the teacher will resign his job and run away. If I tell my teacher that there are no electrons because I do not see any my teacher, I know, will go mad.

In fact can we say the same other way round useing the same analogy that "Those who believe in God are are happy with whatever they know"

Yes you can do that. But you should also be aware that the believers believe in something and non-believers believe in "nothing". And that makes a lot of difference.

You can carry these examples only this far lest they become tennis balls explained with the help of an example of citrus fruits.

Cheers.

 

[arunshanker]

"If the farmer insists that there is no combustion taking place as he does not see anything burning or exploding the teacher will resign his job and run away. If I tell my teacher that there are no electrons because I do not see any my teacher, I know, will go mad."
This is a single case argument
Do you think all teachers will go mad and run away. I mean there can be a teacher who still can try and teach known observable facts
On the flip side -What if the farmer or the person watching the TV say something different altogether like - I see a rocket mechanics in the TV and I see a Nuclear reaction in the tractor
You said " believers believe in something and non-believers believe in "nothing"
Can it be said that believers believe in something and non-believers also believe in something
only that the "something" is not the same
This actually come down to the classic case of
"Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:"
Example

1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true
3. Can we say that just believing something makes it true

 

[suraju06]

"If the farmer insists that there is no combustion taking place as he does not see anything burning or exploding the teacher will resign his job and run away. If I tell my teacher that there are no electrons because I do not see any my teacher, I know, will go mad."
This is a single case argument
Do you think all teachers will go mad and run away. I mean there can be a teacher who still can try and teach known observable facts
On the flip side -What if the farmer or the person watching the TV say something different altogether like - I see a rocket mechanics in the TV and I see a Nuclear reaction in the tractor
You said " believers believe in something and non-believers believe in "nothing"
Can it be said that believers believe in something and non-believers also believe in something
only that the "something" is not the same
This actually come down to the classic case of
"Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:"
Example

1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true
3. Can we say that just believing something makes it true

Dear Arun,

I am not a student of logic nor am I an expert in purely theoretical arguments. I do not know what a single case argument is. You may have to elaborate and teach me. I just used an example to tell some thing and I did not expect some one to hang on to that example and do research on it and present a thesis on it. You have asked whether all teachers will go mad and run away. My answer will be "may not. but my teacher certainly ran away because he saw in the attitude of his student a pig-headed stubbornness which had taken complete control of his student. So he did not see any opportunity to teach any known (all facts are not observable) facts. The best option for him was to withdraw.

And you have asked "On the flip side -What if the farmer or the person watching the TV say something different altogether like - I see a rocket mechanics in the TV and I see a Nuclear reaction in the tractor". Why not? Some one may even see streptococci proliferation inside the TV tube and simple gas movement due to pirouetting by the pistons in the IC engine in its firing. Every time you look at it, it may appear differently and you may "discover" new truths! Finally the answer is: The world has its own ways of dealing with such persons.

You said " believers believe in something and non-believers believe in "nothing"Can it be said that believers believe in something and non-believers also believe in something only that the "something" is not the same

I was mentioning to you earlier about the tennis ball and the orange.

"Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:"
Example

1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true
3. Can we say that just believing something makes it true

I am not a student of logic and so I do not understand what you are saying. Please elaborate.

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun,

I am not a student of logic nor am I an expert in purely theoretical arguments. I do not what is a single case argument. You may have to elaborate and teach me. I just used an example to tell some thing and I did not expect some one to hang on to that example and do research on it and present a thesis on it. You have asked whether all teachers will go mad and run away. My answer will be "may not. but my teacher certainly ran away because he saw in the attitude of his student a pig-headed stubbornness which has taken complete control of his student. So he did not see any opportunity to teach any known (all facts are not observable) facts. The best option for him was to withdraw.

And you have asked "On the flip side -What if the farmer or the person watching the TV say something different altogether like - I see a rocket mechanics in the TV and I see a Nuclear reaction in the tractor". The answer is: The world has its own ways of dealing with such persons.



I was mentioning to you about the tennis ball and the orange.



I am not a student of logic and so I do not understand what you are saying. Please elaborate.

OK let me put it as simple as I can
Lets take the example of the Person watching TV and the farmer driving his tractor as an analogy for the initial statement
Now putting the existence of God in this analogy - replacing the TV with a statue
Case 1 -The person watching the statue says it is God - the teacher tries to explain that it is a statue
If the person insists that there is God - The teacher will get mad and run away
Case 2 - The person watching the statue says it is statue - the teacher tries to explain that it is God
If the person insists that there is no God - The teacher will get mad and run away
In both cases the teacher gets mad and runs away.
You have said that for the flip side "The world has its own ways of dealing with such persons"
Should I take it that the teacher will not run away here because "The world has its own ways of dealing with such persons""but for the right side example you have quoted the teacher will run away
For the statement you said "It is not that His existence can not be understood" you have used the example of the TV and the farmer
What I mean here is that analogy of the TV and the farmer does not fit here because the working of a TV and tractor are known proven phenomena where as the existence of God is moot
Like you said "There are those who have understood that He exists" it makes a logical opposition possibility that "There are those who have understood that He does not exists"
Similar to the "logical opposition possibility" of your statement "Atheists are happy living their life without bothering to know God"
which will read like "Believers are happy living their life without bothering to question the existence God" just like the person watching TV and the Farmer who dont want to go into the detailed technicality of the TV or the tractor.

 

[arunshanker]

Most imporatantly you said "(all facts are not observable)"
Can you name a few that are not observable

 

[Yamaka]

Hi Arun,

We have Iswara. There are those who have understood that He exists. There are those who have not understood this. It is not that His existence can not be understood. Like I am comfortable using a TV though I do not realise that there are electrons at work inside the tube in which I see images atheists are comfortable saying they are happy with whatever they know. A farmer is happy driving his tractor. He need not know the intricacies of a IC engine. Atheists are happy living their life without bothering to know God. Let them be happy.

Problem crops up only when they assume a higher intellectual plane for themselves and faults theists.

Cheers.

Dear Raju:

As a Naturalist who disowned all the Gods of Abraham and the Gods of Vedas and Puranas about forty long years ago, I agree with you generally speaking..

None of us claim any superiority over anybody, let alone at intellectual level.

What all we say is "Man CREATED all these religions and their Gods and Iswaras (someone here said that Iswara need not be God!)".

Why did MAN invent the mental construct of God and Iswara? We say that he did it to control, to exploit and dominate the unsuspecting innocent people.

Why would such an opinion or POV infuriate the Theists?

We believe that the fact there are hundreds of millions of "weekend/month end/year end wannabees" in India and elsewhere attest to our thesis that people have serious doubts about the true existence and utility of the concept of God and Iswara... hence these people have already moved slowly away from the Orthodoxy of Religions & Gods and are marching inexorably towards the State of Moksha, the Enlightenment.. away from Tradition, Fear and Superstition (the hallmark of religiosity and Godism)

That's really good... in a few generation, the mental construct of God and Iswara will be gone.... Gone with the Wind.

We are on the right track, IMO.

Wait & watch.