• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

The god fallacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nara
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
saidevo said:
namaste.

Let us add this news item too to Nara's above list of Hindu superstitious practices:
Leading Indian Rationalist facing blasphemy charges over miracle clash with Catholic Church
New Humanist (Rationalist Association) - discussing humanism, rationalism, atheism and free thought
Click to expand...
Thank you Saidevo, for posting this link. Is it not interesting that the Hindu and Christian groups who are usually at loggerheads against each other, join hands in solidarity, cohorts in superstitions?

I wish all the best to Sanal Edamaruku.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In continuation of Carl Sagan's systematic dismantling of the God hypothesis.

And then there are certain classical problems with the existence of God. Let me mention a few of them.

One is the famous problem of evil. This basically goes as follows: Grant for a moment that evil exists in the world and that unjust actions sometimes go unpunished. And grant also that there is a God that is benevolent toward human beings, omniscient, and omnipotent. This God loves justice, this God observes all human actions, and this God is capable of intervening decisively in human affairs.

Well, it was understood by the pre-Socratic philosophers that all four of these propositions cannot simultaneously be true. At least one has to be false. Let me say again what they are. That evil exists, that God is benevolent, that God is omniscient, that God is omnipotent. Let’s just see about each of them.

First of all, you might say, “Well, evil doesn’t exist in the world. We can’t see the big picture, that a little pool of evil here is awash in a great sea of good that it makes possible.” Or, as medieval theologians used to say, “God uses the Devil for his own purposes.”

This is clearly the three-monkey argument about “hear no evil . . .” and has been described by a leading contemporary theologian as a gratuitous insult to mankind, a symptom of insensitivity and indifference to human suffering. To be assured that all the miseries and agonies men and women experience are only illusory. Pretty strong.

This is clearly hoping that the disquieting facts go away if you merely call them something else. It is argued that some pain is necessary for a greater good. But why, exactly? If God is omnipotent, why can’t He arrange it so there is no pain? It seems to me a very telling point.
 
Carl Sagan on the question of God's benevolence and compassion, and the presence of evil in the world.....

The other alternatives are that God is not benevolent or compassionate. Epicurus held that God was okay but that humans were the least of His worries. There are a number of Eastern religions that have something like that same flavor.

Or God isn’t omniscient; He doesn’t know everything; He has business elsewhere and so doesn’t know that humans are in trouble. One way to think about it is there are several times 10[SUP]11[/SUP] worlds in every galaxy and several times 10[SUP]11[/SUP] galaxies, and God’s busy.

The other possibility is that God isn’t omnipotent. He can’t do everything. He could maybe start the Earth off or create life, intervene occasionally in human history, but can’t be bothered day in and day out to set things right here on Earth.

Now, I don’t claim to know which of these four possibilities is right, but it’s clear that there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Western theological view produced by the problem of evil. And I’ve read an account of a recent theological conference devoted to this problem, and it clearly was an embarrassment to the assembled theologians.
 
For god sakes my friend you live where I am from and for sure know that once I stopped posting I stopped reading. Once again ... you are too intelligent for this. Although, I MUST SAY you have a drive for debate like no one else I have ever witnessed. Being that my Grandmother was the first woman to hold a public office as a representative in the state in which you now live I must say that I hope that you (as my friend) continue in such a vein and participate in TN politics if not US politics.

I quoted and posted Sagan to rile you up (which worked clearly) but you really do NOT need to retype his manuscripts and books. I did it to play cat and mouse with you for a second... my intention IS NOT to give you carpel tunnel syndrome from retyping his diatribes. Sagan softened with age as you will. By the way you may hate on Brahmins all you like but you stand as the example for them all in my eyes. My guru is Brahmin by birth but assures me (like you) that there is no gain in poonal only restriction. You never replied to my last private message... maybe because you never thought the world to be so small that we would somehow (coincidentally in your view and karmicly in my own perception) be so closely tied. That doesnt matter. What does is that I know and have know Dr Sagan's views over his lifetime. He was agnostic but NOT by Hindu definition an atheist. Sir, as you know OUR religion (which you cannot even leave and I cannot even join) is such that no matter what you believe you are still god. I am still god. God is real because god is you. God? what makes god? A creator? A maintainer? A preserver? You do them all as do I .... You preserve (argument) far better than I and as such I commend your vaishnava style and (while a renounced Brahmin, your ardent Kshatriya way.) You are a modern day Bhima. You often make me want to curse and stomp but only in frustration as to WHY I cant get you to agree to disagree. I seriously enjoy you and your input but seriously you may stop reprinting Sagans mid-life crisis book now. for god sake have you not realized what the study of Cosmology leads to? It leads to ambiguous acceptance of diversity and a relaxation of proselytizing behavior. Only through acceptance do we finally realize the fight was internal all the while. You cannot change me sir. I cannot change you. But I am going to speak to you as an American here and drop all the Indic posturing.

Stop <Edtd - KRS> reprinting a ton of text (referenced or not) just to satiate your own need for knocking down our community. I brought up a referenced, in context Sagan quote to prove my point. Anyone with a brain and a manipulating mind can prove nearly any point they wish using the Internet and limiting the honesty scope. I did not do it to inspire these shenanigans only to let you taste your own medicine. It worked. Your input on Brahmin reform is cherished. Your quote from Colbert in your signature is awesome. However, your desire to advocate for men (regardless of their qualities eg EVR) in places where there is SO MUCH PAIN connected to the repurcussions of their actions (whether thir own intention OR NOT) is INAPPROPRIATE. If you want to help the world accept the fact that my presence as Pujari does not de-sanctify the garbhagriha then please do! But do NOT call Sri Kala Bhairava "KB" and say that it is "His like" that cause all the problems of Brahmins and stifle reform. Sri Kala Bhairavji may never accept ME as a Brahmin but he is the least of concerns for a man of your level and you know far well not to paint such pictures in such a wide brush. Stop the blame. Sri Kala Bhairava, KRS, sri Praveen or whomever may feel as they wish but never do they EVER deserve the blame you attempted to place upon them. To insinuate such is malicious intent and meant to shame and you know it. You know that within our community there is both denial and shame. How do you think it feels to describe jAti and varna dharma to my fellow Americans when they question WHY I would associate with a people who consider me Shudra at best? Begin being sensitive, I beg you. You may dissent all you like but when you engage for debate you engage for growth or else I am not sure you are welcome. Your view are respected but your finger pointing, and generally inconsiderate way is most like not (and speaking for myself IS NOT). If you want to be an American scholar ESPECIALLY one of management and therefore one skilled in directing human collateral I beg that you implement your education when you engage some of us.)


With all love and due respect Proffesor I beg you to consider these opinions of a lowly Dalit (I was born into abject untouchable poverty), outsider, caucasian, American, Hindu, yet all the while Brahmin.

The poonal (like the namams) aren't meant to segregate, only to delineate. I used to desire it more than anything now it is a matter of whether I would accept it even if offered ... but the poonal is a sacred banda. Bandas as circles of energy internal or external and are quite real from a physics basis. It is also symbolic. As we say in Tennessee it is "The Tie That Binds". Do not demonize those blessed with the strength to participate in their dharma and do not cast shadows on those who desire to be priests and perform the sandhyavandhanam. Deplore and denounce the system not the innocents. No one of these men or women of this forum can do what you wish (something said to me regarding receiving my poonal) however together they most certainly can. Please my friend stop splitting logs when you need the entire forest.

Thank you.

With all sincerest respect,
Roman Hunt (Boston, MA)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BostonSankara said:
....I quoted and posted Sagan to rile you up (which worked clearly) but you really do NOT need to retype his manuscripts and books.
Click to expand...
Sorry BostonSankara, my posts excerpting Carl Sagan has nothing to do with what you may or may not have said about him. I went back and checked just in case, you please do so as well, my first Carl Sagan post was #310 on March 31st, days before you started commenting on it.

The rest of your post is your opinion, and I will pass on it....

Thank you ...
 
I would expect nothing less. May Science bless you my friend.

If you want to see what educated America feels about your heroes I beg you to suffer through the two episodes of south park dedicated to Dawkins. It was made by two atheists. Nothing in it is positive. adamant atheist are just as Aassuric as any fundamental Christians or any other member of a non-accepting group. No one is fooled by using intelligence as a guise for coercion. . .

PS Try delivering your diatribes up here near MIT and Harvard and see how fast you get shut down. My last boss was a DEVOUT Jew and the foremost scientist in regards to cell signalling in metastatic melanoma. Or maybe start railing off on Dr Xu who engineered a complete set of new nucleotides expanding genetic code and began implementing it in living cells (a god among men and ardent Buddhist). You may call things my opinion and discredit them if you wish. But I challenge you to bring your cause to THE REAL CENTER of American education and see how far your verbiage of absolutes gets you.

You are an academic in the land of the devoted so naturally you and your croneys may think yourselves above such plebes but I assure you there is not as much support for your cause as you think because your cause is as you say in your own words regarding the poonal segragational in character. It seems you feel your full and unbridled opinion is always waranted without discussion. I posted due to your repeated posts in a row. were you just talking to yourself? Look back at the thread. Do you see discussion or do you see a man waving signs on the side of a road saying "The end is neigh! Your gods are false PRAISE SCIENCE!" I can tell you which of the two most of us see.
Nara said:
The rest of your post is your opinion, and I will pass on it....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or maybe you should.... oh shoot! See how it seems like I am talking to myself now that I have posted twice in a row without response?! I thought you would.
 
BostonSankara said:
Or maybe you should.... oh shoot! See how it seems like I am talking to myself now that I have posted twice in a row without response?! I thought you would.
Click to expand...


remember this song? Dancing with myself by Billy Idol

Oh dancing with myself
Oh dancing with myself
Well there's nothing to lose
And there's nothing to prove
I'll be dancing with myself​
 
Sri. Sankara ( Roman Hunt), Greetings.

The poonal (like the namams) aren't meant to segregate, only to delineate. I used to desire it more than anything now it is a matter of whether I would accept it even if offered ... but the poonal is a sacred banda.
Click to expand...

I am a bourbon ( Jack Daniels) drinking person who grew up in a brahmin family under the guidance of a progressive minded orthodox old lady. I am more than happy to be share my experiences, my views and my values with you. If you are interested, you are welcome to send me a PM. By profession, I used to be a Tool & Die Maker ( For over 30 years). Now I am a mental Health Nurse, RN.

Cheers!
 
Carl Sagan's systematic dismantling of the God Hypothesis continues ....

This raises an additional question—a related question—and that has to do with micro-intervention. Why in any case is it necessary for God to intervene in human history, in human affairs, as almost every religion assumes happens? That God or the gods come down and tell humans, “No, don’t do that, do this, don’t forget this, don’t pray in this way, don’t worship anybody else, mutilate your child as follows.” Why is there such a long list of things that God tells people to do? Why didn’t God do it right in the first place? You start out the universe, you can do anything. You can see all future consequences of your present action. You want a certain desired end. Why don’t you arrange it in the beginning? The intervention of God in human affairs speaks of incompetence. I don’t say incompetence on a human scale. Clearly all of the views of God are much more competent than the most competent human. But it does not speak of omni-competence. It says there are limitations.

I therefore conclude that the alleged natural theological arguments for the existence of God, the sort we’re talking about, simply are not very compelling. They are trotting after the emotions, hoping to keep up. But they do not provide any satisfactory argument on their own.

p.s.
There is an attempt afoot to shut me down. It won't work. I did not start this thread to taunt anybody. Anyone who cares to go back to the God Exists thread will see the constant stream of vitriol dished out against atheists. Atheists are arrogant, atheists are ignorant, atheists have no moral core, they have nothing to stop committing evil, and much more. Some even asserted the atheists are so ignorant they don't even know what athiesm is, they think they are atheists, but they are not.

After hearing such nonsense for far too long I started this thread to share what people from history, from various epochs, various backgrounds, various places have said about this God thing. Even this is not tolerated by the theists here.

It seems I am not to be ignored, a kind of morbid curiosity I guess. I welcome that. Read it, or not read it, and respond in the way that you feel best. At the same time be informed, the only way to shut me down is to throw me out.
 
Dear Bostonsankara,

Only through acceptance do we finally realize the fight was internal all the while.
Click to expand...

After reading this sentence I stopped and I was deep in thought for quite a few minutes.Very succinct and yet very eloquent. I would like to become your student. Cheers.
 
Dear brother Nara Ji,

You said:
p.s.
There is an attempt afoot to shut me down. It won't work. I did not start this thread to taunt anybody. Anyone who cares to go back to the God Exists thread will see the constant stream of vitriol dished out against atheists. Atheists are arrogant, atheists are ignorant, atheists have no moral core, they have nothing to stop committing evil, and much more. Some even asserted the atheists are so ignorant they don't even know what athiesm is, they think they are atheists, but they are not.

After hearing such nonsense for far too long I started this thread to share what people from history, from various epochs, various backgrounds, various places have said about this God thing. Even this is not tolerated by the theists here.

It seems I am not to be ignored, a kind of morbid curiosity I guess. I welcome that. Read it, or not read it, and respond in the way that you feel best. At the same time be informed, the only way to shut me down is to throw me out.​
Click to expand...

Are you not over reacting? Just because one person said his opinion, why do you think there is 'an attempt to shut you down?'

Your's is a minority position and so it is natural that the majority posts opposite views. What you say about Theists calling Atheists, the reverse has been true also.

I do not think you need to even think that you will be shut down or made to quit this Forum, as long as I am a Moderator.

I do not agree with your views on most things, but I will always protect your right to present them without harassment.

Regards,
KRS
 
Nara said:
p.s.
There is an attempt afoot to shut me down. It won't work. I did not start this thread to taunt anybody. Anyone who cares to go back to the God Exists thread will see the constant stream of vitriol dished out against atheists. Atheists are arrogant, atheists are ignorant, atheists have no moral core, they have nothing to stop committing evil, and much more. Some even asserted the atheists are so ignorant they don't even know what athiesm is, they think they are atheists, but they are not.

After hearing such nonsense for far too long I started this thread to share what people from history, from various epochs, various backgrounds, various places have said about this God thing. Even this is not tolerated by the theists here.

It seems I am not to be ignored, a kind of morbid curiosity I guess. I welcome that. Read it, or not read it, and respond in the way that you feel best. At the same time be informed, the only way to shut me down is to throw me out.
Click to expand...

Shri Nara,

I am quoting your message, in your post #36 under "God Exists" thread, in page no.4. Subsequent to your previous post in that thread, the below is the concluding part of your first post of the sort that makes a derogatory comments about the possible counter arguments from Theists...This extract is to answer your claims, that, I have highlighted above in Bold.
Nara said:
Siva, You have stated at the outset this is your view, one upon which there cannot be any debate. I understand it and respect it.



Anyone who claims there is a god who can be perceived or understood outside what is claimed to be a binary logic, then, to them I say, go ahead and make your case, don't just make vague claims and accuse the skeptics as somehow flawed. If you have no persuasive argument, then all your claims about god is nothing but a four letter word that starts with an "s" or "c".

Cheers!
Click to expand...


You know that theistic views can never ever be explained in a persuasive manner that can satisfy an Atheist and Atheist Scientist. Theistic views can never be laboratory tested, verified and presented as truth that can be universally accepted, like God and spirituality is some substance.

It seem to me that, you are too confident on this ground and thus didn't hesitate to assert that, if Theistic views and claims are not persuasive to you, you would consider such views and claims as nothing but a four letter word that starts with "s" or "c".

Do you mean, "s" = "s-it" & "c" = "c-ck" ? To me it appears as such. And that, the missing alphabet in the first word is "the eight letter of the English Alphabets" and in the second word it is the "fifteenth letter of the English Alphabets".

The above was your first post in "God Exist" thread, of the sort, that makes constant stream of vitriol dished out against Theists.

And from that onwards, Theists started expressing their critical thinking against Atheists/Atheism and bundle of such views got exchanged.

Theism says that, as a basic, one who believes in the Supreme Being, fears to do some or other mistakes, feels guilty at the drop of the hat within one's inner consciousness (that can never fool one self, no matter how much one has the justification to his/her interest) and that, theists indulges in prayers/spirituality so as to obtain positive energies that can keep him/her patient, composed, nonviolent, off extreme selfishness etc..etc and helps him/her to derive the best from one self for a better cause. Having these as basics, there is nothing wrong from Theists side to express that Atheism would restrict or lessen such fine tendencies and humans would not mind doing anything wrong to just satisfy himself/herself at the drop of the hat.

As such Theists calling atheists as arrogant, ignorant, having no moral core, having nothing to stop committing evil and much more are not too wrong to be considered non sense. It certainly makes sense on common and general grounds other than few exceptions where some folks have not adopted Atheism to facilitate and cushion one self with freedom to do anything wrong.

Still, you have the right to say that such theistic views are wrong or flawed or non sense. But, considering them as vitriol verities, targeting Atheist/Atheism is not fair.

When you have expressed openly that theists unscientific claims that lacks persuasiveness are nothing but "s-it" and or "c-ck", I fail to see what was so wrong from Theists side to make you feel frustrated and disheartened?

Shri Nara,

Just an analogy -

If a child makes lots of mistakes, parents would try hard to correct that child. And if the child is going too much out of hand and parents find it to hard to shape him/her, they would end up employing their powers on the child to control him/her and take him/her under their absolute control. On this, the child may say that - My parents are not fairly dealing with me and they in fact wants to kick me out from the home.

What I mean to say is, we should accept our actions and expressions before finding faults with the others.

Whether in the "God Exists" thread or in this same thread, if there are counter arguments from Theist, you should not take it personal. You should accept that, theists here are more focused on your messages and wants to counter them to the best of their ability. They would not mind who is presenting Atheistic views here.

I will be facing the same if I decide to take up your role. All that matter is how to counter argue and justify the claims. Since the topics are related to God and spirituality, you must be rest assured that, Theistic views presented here would not be persuasive to your scientific brain. Thus, in such a scenario, you should not think that members here are attempting to shut you down. Theists members would for sure try to nullify your atheistic claims BUT would not be of the opinion that Shri Nara should quit himself from TB forum, for ever.






 
Last edited:
Namaste Sri Raju,

What an incredibly nice thing to say. Thank you very much! :)

Sincerely,
Roman (Sankara)
 
Carl Sagan turns next to what signs one might expect to see if there was a God, as described in the scriptures of various religions of the world. The absence of these signs makes the God hypothesis, one that Sagan had already demolished to pulp, is even less likely.

.... And yet it is perfectly possible to imagine that God, not an omnipotent or an omniscient god, just a reasonably competent god, could have made absolutely clear-cut evidence of His existence. Let me give a few examples.

Imagine that there is a set of holy books in all cultures in which there are a few enigmatic phrases that God or the gods tell our ancestors are to be passed on to the future with no change. Very important to get it exactly right. Now, so far that’s not very different from the actual circumstances of alleged holy books.

But suppose that the phrases in question were phrases that we would recognize today that could not have been recognized then. Simple example: The Sun is a star. Now, nobody knew that, let’s say, in the sixth century B.C., when the Jews were in the Babylonian exile and picked up the Babylonian cosmology from the principal astronomers of the time. Ancient Babylonian science is the cosmology that is still enshrined in the book of Genesis. Suppose instead the story was “Don’t forget, the Sun is a star.” Or “Don’t forget, Mars is a rusty place with volcanoes. Mars, you know, that red star? That’s a world. It has volcanoes, it’s rusty, there are clouds, there used to be rivers. There aren’t anymore. You’ll understand this later. Trust me. Right now, don’t forget.”

Or, A body in motion tends to remain in motion. Don’t think that bodies have to be moved to keep going. It’s just the opposite, really. So later on you’ll understand that if you didn’t have friction, a moving object would just keep moving.” Now, we can imagine the patriarchs scratching their heads in bewilderment, but after all it’s God telling them. So they would copy it down dutifully, and this would be one of the many mysteries in holy books that would then go on to the future until we could recognize the truth, realize that no one back then could possibly have figured it out, and therefore deduce the existence of God.
 
Carl Sagan concludes this chapter thus:

This business of proofs of God, had God wished to give us some, need not be restricted to this somewhat questionable method of making enigmatic statements to ancient sages and hoping they would survive. God could have engraved the Ten Commandments on the Moon. Large. Ten kilometers across per commandment. And nobody could see it from the Earth but then one day large telescopes would be invented or spacecraft would approach the Moon, and there it would be, engraved on the lunar surface. People would say, “How could that have gotten there?” And then there would be various hypotheses, most of which would be extremely interesting.

Or why not a hundred-kilometer crucifix in Earth orbit? God could certainly do that. Right? Certainly, create the universe? A simple thing like putting a crucifix in Earth orbit? Perfectly possible. Why didn’t God do things of that sort? Or, put another way, why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?

I think this is a serious issue. If we believe, as most of the great theologians hold, that religious truth occurs only when there is a convergence between our knowledge of the natural world and revelation, why is it that this convergence is so feeble when it could easily have been so robust?

So, to conclude, I would like to quote from Protagoras in the fifth century B.C., the opening lines of his Essay on the Gods:
"About the gods I have no means of knowing either that they exist or that they do not exist or what they are to look at. Many things prevent my knowing. Among others, the fact that they are never seen."


There are some who criticize more forceful atheists who dare to openly and forcefully take theists to task. They point to Carl Sagan, look at him, how gentle he is, why can't others be like him. I agree, all of us can be more gentle, but then we are not. We come from different backgrounds and have different skills, different temperament, different life experiences. Carl Sagan is certainly a powerful voice delivering decisive and debilitating blows to religions and religious belief. He is a shining star for all atheists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top