-
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.
- Status
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
No, no, exactly the same, dear Kannadasan is Omar of the 20th century, haven't you heard the song ஒரு கோப்பையிலே என் குடியிருப்பு LOL
Cheers!
Raji Ram
Active member
O! S! I have heard that song quite often. What I mean to say is, from 'KOppaik kudiyan' he transferred to an :angel:
and wrote அர்த்தமுள்ள இந்து மதம்!
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Infinite regress
P.B. Shelly the much celebrated poet was also an ardent atheist. He lived in a time when espousing atheistic views came with severe cost -- he was expelled from Oxford for writing an essay called The Necessity of Atheism.
He was the first to forcefully advocate pacifism, nonviolence and civil disobedience, take a look at a few inspiring verses from his Masque of Anarchy to get a sense of his passion on this subject.
He was also into vegetarianism.
I will give a very small section from his A Refutaton of Deism in which he refutes the argument that there must be a creator god because every effect must have a cause by pointing to the problem of infinite regress.
Thus have we arrived at the substance of your assertion, "That whatever exists, producing certain effects, stands in need of a Creator, and the more conspicuous is its fitness for the production of these effects, the more certain will be our conclusion that it would not have existed from eternity, but must have derived its origin from an intelligent agent."
In what respect then do these arguments apply to the Universe, and not apply to God? From the fitness of the Universe, to produce certain effects, be thus conspicuous and evident, how much more exquisite fitness to his end must exist in the Author of the Universe? If we find great difficulty from its admirable arrangement, in conceiving that Universe has existed from all eternity, and to resolve this difficulty suppose a Creator, how much more clearly must we perceive the necessity of this very Creator's creation whose perfections comprehend an arrangement far more accurate and just.
P.B. Shelly the much celebrated poet was also an ardent atheist. He lived in a time when espousing atheistic views came with severe cost -- he was expelled from Oxford for writing an essay called The Necessity of Atheism.
He was the first to forcefully advocate pacifism, nonviolence and civil disobedience, take a look at a few inspiring verses from his Masque of Anarchy to get a sense of his passion on this subject.
He was also into vegetarianism.
I will give a very small section from his A Refutaton of Deism in which he refutes the argument that there must be a creator god because every effect must have a cause by pointing to the problem of infinite regress.
Thus have we arrived at the substance of your assertion, "That whatever exists, producing certain effects, stands in need of a Creator, and the more conspicuous is its fitness for the production of these effects, the more certain will be our conclusion that it would not have existed from eternity, but must have derived its origin from an intelligent agent."
In what respect then do these arguments apply to the Universe, and not apply to God? From the fitness of the Universe, to produce certain effects, be thus conspicuous and evident, how much more exquisite fitness to his end must exist in the Author of the Universe? If we find great difficulty from its admirable arrangement, in conceiving that Universe has existed from all eternity, and to resolve this difficulty suppose a Creator, how much more clearly must we perceive the necessity of this very Creator's creation whose perfections comprehend an arrangement far more accurate and just.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
On miracles and testimony
I am returning to David Hume to present a kind of longish excerpt of his methodical evisceration of miracles and the testimony upon which they are based. Even though Hume may have targetted Christian miracles like virgin birth and resurrection, his critic is general enough to be applied to any religion including Brahminism/Hinduism. Further, his meticulous analysis of the extent to which testimony may serve as source of true knowledge goes to the heart of the article of fundemental faith of Brahminism that Shruti is a valid source of true knowledge.
Hume's painstakingly methodical argument runs to pages, all I am doing here is cite some compelling snippets.
Let us start with this, Hume says, "Miracle is a violation of the laws of nature... It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden... But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life...."
Then, Hume presents four reasons why we should reject these miracles; in the course of the argument he tackles the believability of testimonies that assert these miracles.
[1]
The second reason Hume makes is the general credulity of people -- the higher the improbability, the more ready people are to believe -- the proliferation of magic making god-men and the ease with which people swear eternal allegiance to them attests to this reality.
"With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travelers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality. He may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting a holy cause...... His auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgment to canvas his evidence: What judgment they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects: Or if they were so willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence: And his impudence overpowers their credulity."
[3]
The third point Hume argues is the separation of these miraculous events from the present both in terms of distance and time, that make them unbelievable. If well educated and otherwise rational people in this day and age fall for "miracles" performed by godmen, is it any wonder these magical miracles claimed to have occurred in distant lands in the remote past would be believed even if they were nothing more than lies? Hume wonders, "It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon perusal of these wonderful historians, that such a prodigious events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all ages."
"The advantages are so great, of starting an imposture among an ignorant people, that, even though the delusion should be too gross to impose on the generality of them (which, though seldom, is sometimes the case) it has a much better chance for succeeding in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant barbarous of these barbarians carry the report abroad. None of their countrymen have a large correspondance, or sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down the delusion. Men's inclination to the marvelous has full opportunity to display itself. And thus a story, which is universally exploded in the place where it first started, shall pass for certain a thousand miles distance."
[4]
The fourth point Hume makes is the history of opposing testimonies that have destroyed the previously believed miracles and replaced them with new ones. The miracles of the Athenian gods were negated and replaced by the Roman ones, the Roman ones by the Christians, the Christian ones by Muslims and so on. This is so among Brahminism/Hindusim also, first it was Agni, then Varuna, then Indra, then Vishnu, Shiva, etc., etc.
"Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of these miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidence of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other..... but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes, that the credit of two witnesses, maintaining a crime against one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, as the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed."
I am returning to David Hume to present a kind of longish excerpt of his methodical evisceration of miracles and the testimony upon which they are based. Even though Hume may have targetted Christian miracles like virgin birth and resurrection, his critic is general enough to be applied to any religion including Brahminism/Hinduism. Further, his meticulous analysis of the extent to which testimony may serve as source of true knowledge goes to the heart of the article of fundemental faith of Brahminism that Shruti is a valid source of true knowledge.
Hume's painstakingly methodical argument runs to pages, all I am doing here is cite some compelling snippets.
Let us start with this, Hume says, "Miracle is a violation of the laws of nature... It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden... But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life...."
Then, Hume presents four reasons why we should reject these miracles; in the course of the argument he tackles the believability of testimonies that assert these miracles.
[1]
"First, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us full assurance in the testimony of men."
[2]
The second reason Hume makes is the general credulity of people -- the higher the improbability, the more ready people are to believe -- the proliferation of magic making god-men and the ease with which people swear eternal allegiance to them attests to this reality.
"With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travelers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality. He may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting a holy cause...... His auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgment to canvas his evidence: What judgment they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects: Or if they were so willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence: And his impudence overpowers their credulity."
[3]
The third point Hume argues is the separation of these miraculous events from the present both in terms of distance and time, that make them unbelievable. If well educated and otherwise rational people in this day and age fall for "miracles" performed by godmen, is it any wonder these magical miracles claimed to have occurred in distant lands in the remote past would be believed even if they were nothing more than lies? Hume wonders, "It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon perusal of these wonderful historians, that such a prodigious events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all ages."
"The advantages are so great, of starting an imposture among an ignorant people, that, even though the delusion should be too gross to impose on the generality of them (which, though seldom, is sometimes the case) it has a much better chance for succeeding in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant barbarous of these barbarians carry the report abroad. None of their countrymen have a large correspondance, or sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down the delusion. Men's inclination to the marvelous has full opportunity to display itself. And thus a story, which is universally exploded in the place where it first started, shall pass for certain a thousand miles distance."
[4]
The fourth point Hume makes is the history of opposing testimonies that have destroyed the previously believed miracles and replaced them with new ones. The miracles of the Athenian gods were negated and replaced by the Roman ones, the Roman ones by the Christians, the Christian ones by Muslims and so on. This is so among Brahminism/Hindusim also, first it was Agni, then Varuna, then Indra, then Vishnu, Shiva, etc., etc.
"Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of these miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidence of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other..... but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes, that the credit of two witnesses, maintaining a crime against one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, as the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed."
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
one more from Shelley
There is no attribute of God which is not either borrowed from the passions and powers of the human mind, or which is not a negation. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Infinity, Immutability, Incomprehensibility, and Immateriality, are all words that designate properties and powers peculiar to organized beings, with the addition of negations, by which the idea of limitation is excluded.
That the frequency of a belief in God (for it is not Universal) should be any argument in its favor, none to whom the innumerable mistakes of men are familiar, will assert. It is among men of genius and science that Atheism alone is found, but among these alone is cherished an hostility to those errors, with which the illiterate and vulgar are infected.
There is no attribute of God which is not either borrowed from the passions and powers of the human mind, or which is not a negation. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Infinity, Immutability, Incomprehensibility, and Immateriality, are all words that designate properties and powers peculiar to organized beings, with the addition of negations, by which the idea of limitation is excluded.
That the frequency of a belief in God (for it is not Universal) should be any argument in its favor, none to whom the innumerable mistakes of men are familiar, will assert. It is among men of genius and science that Atheism alone is found, but among these alone is cherished an hostility to those errors, with which the illiterate and vulgar are infected.
namaste Nara.
The personality and thinking of a many-faceted celebrity are best understood from the interpretations of scholars who can read his works in original rather than in translation. According to this Wiki article, there are some Islamic scholars who give evidences from his writings about the other side of OK's personality--which is that of a Sufi philosopher.
Omar Khayyám - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If OK sounds like an agnostic hedonist in the quotes you have picked up, does he not sound like a fatalist in this famous quote of his?
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
In these other quotes too, OK does not sound like just a hedonist?
A hair divides what is false and true.
The thoughtful soul to solitude retires.
There was the Door to which I found no Key;
There was the Veil through which I might not see:
Whether or not God is fallacy, fallacy does seem to prevail in OK's poems!
The personality and thinking of a many-faceted celebrity are best understood from the interpretations of scholars who can read his works in original rather than in translation. According to this Wiki article, there are some Islamic scholars who give evidences from his writings about the other side of OK's personality--which is that of a Sufi philosopher.
Omar Khayyám - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If OK sounds like an agnostic hedonist in the quotes you have picked up, does he not sound like a fatalist in this famous quote of his?
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
In these other quotes too, OK does not sound like just a hedonist?
A hair divides what is false and true.
The thoughtful soul to solitude retires.
There was the Door to which I found no Key;
There was the Veil through which I might not see:
Whether or not God is fallacy, fallacy does seem to prevail in OK's poems!
namaste Nara.
PB Shelley also wrote these famous lines of his, which can be interpreted as Advaita:
The One remains, the many change and pass;
Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly;
Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity,
Until Death tramples it to fragments.
--Adonais (1821)
It seems that Shelley was an atheist in his early days (as seen in his works The Necessity of Atheism (1811) and A Refutation of Deism (1814)) and did deny theology but later matured into a pantheist.
Percy Bysshe Shelley - Wikiquote
Some quotes from PB Shelley's later writings:
Belief is involuntary; nothing involuntary is meritorious or reprehensible. A man ought not to be considered worse or better for his belief.
Nothing in the world is single,
All things by a law divine
In one another's being mingle —
Why not I with thine?
--Love's Philosophy, st. 1 (1819)
From his Ode to the West Wind (1819):
Wild Spirit, which art moving everywhere;
Destroyer and preserver; hear, oh, hear!
Oh, lift me as a wave, a leaf, a cloud!
I fall upon the thorns of life! I bleed!
Make me thy lyre, even as the forest is:
What if my leaves are falling like its own!
The tumult of thy mighty harmonies
Will take from both a deep, autumnal tone,
Sweet though in sadness. Be thou, Spirit fierce,
My spirit! Be thou me, impetuous one!
Perhaps we are yet to see a poet who is out and out an atheist, like our friend Yamaka here!
PB Shelley also wrote these famous lines of his, which can be interpreted as Advaita:
The One remains, the many change and pass;
Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly;
Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity,
Until Death tramples it to fragments.
--Adonais (1821)
It seems that Shelley was an atheist in his early days (as seen in his works The Necessity of Atheism (1811) and A Refutation of Deism (1814)) and did deny theology but later matured into a pantheist.
Percy Bysshe Shelley - Wikiquote
Some quotes from PB Shelley's later writings:
Belief is involuntary; nothing involuntary is meritorious or reprehensible. A man ought not to be considered worse or better for his belief.
Nothing in the world is single,
All things by a law divine
In one another's being mingle —
Why not I with thine?
--Love's Philosophy, st. 1 (1819)
From his Ode to the West Wind (1819):
Wild Spirit, which art moving everywhere;
Destroyer and preserver; hear, oh, hear!
Oh, lift me as a wave, a leaf, a cloud!
I fall upon the thorns of life! I bleed!
Make me thy lyre, even as the forest is:
What if my leaves are falling like its own!
The tumult of thy mighty harmonies
Will take from both a deep, autumnal tone,
Sweet though in sadness. Be thou, Spirit fierce,
My spirit! Be thou me, impetuous one!
Perhaps we are yet to see a poet who is out and out an atheist, like our friend Yamaka here!
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Dear Saidevo, I did not present Omar Khayyam as an atheist, only that he rejected the established religion, one that imposes rules, like Islam, Christianity, and yes Brahminism/Hinduism. He did have Sufi influence, but that did not prevent him from looking further, doubting, something all of us can do with some benefit.
Shelley lived all of 30 years. So, "later in life" is not like after he got older and wiser, not that those two things go together. He wrote Refutation of Deism a mere 8 years before his death. This title is somewhat misleading, his arguments were against an intelligent agent/designer, a position very similar to what most atheists of the present time, like myself, Denette, Dawkins and others take, it is nuanced Atheistic/Agnostic.
BTW, Shelley's poems glorifying nature can be seen as pantheism, but it is not to be confused with any form of theism, it is just as far removed from theism as any other non-theistic world view.
All said and done, have an open mind, read and enjoy their arguments, let them sink in, and if you are not persuaded it would at least be not for want of trying.
Cheers!
True! The 'Godless' made the world what it is like now and then go on to blame 'God' for it all.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
Dear MSV, pardon me, but this statement makes no sense at all, do you really think the "Godless" as you put it, made the world what it is now? The "Godly" did not have any role at all? If you want to credit the Godless with making the world what it is like now, then, are you not implictely admitting the God in whom the Godly believe did not make this world like it is now?
The second part of your statement is even more self-contradictory, why would the "Godless" blame God, the entity whose existence they deny? For us this is not a blame game, there is no blame to go around in the first place. It is what it is, the world we have now is what we all made it out to be. Ours is only a sincere attempt to understand reality in as rational a way as humanly possible.
Perhaps you are frustrated with all this "no God" talk and want to express it. If so, I understand, go ahead and unburden.
Cheers!
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
John Stuart Mill
Many of the thinkers I quote here lived in a period when expressing unvarnished rational thinking was hazardous. Many wrote under pseudonyms or no name at all. As I pointed out, Spinoza was excommunicated; Hume was charged with heresy and was denied a Chair of Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh; Shelley was thrown out of Oxford.
So, in this environment, it is not surprising that some of the arguments against theism were made in a way that is less forthright and with a little bit of hedging.
John Stuart Mill speaks of this atmosphere of hostility towards rational thought during the time of his father.
".... I think that few men of my father's intellect and public spirit, holding with such intensity of moral conviction as he did, unpopular opinions on religion, or on any other great subjects of thought, would now either practise or inculcate the withholding of them from the world, unless in the cases, becoming fewer every day, in which frankness on these subjects would either risk the loss of means of subsistence, or would amount to exclusion from some sphere of usefulness peculiary suitable to the capacity of the individual."
He then goes on to urge his fellow rationalists to stand up and speak the truth.
"On religion in particular the time appears to me to have come, when it is the duty of all who being qualified in point of knowledge, have on mature consideration satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false but hurtful, to make their dissent known; at least, if they are among those whose station, or reputation, gives their opinion a chance of being attended to. Such an avowal would put an end, at once and for ever, to the vulgar prejudice, that what is called, very importantly, unbelief, is connected with any bad qualities either of mind or heart."
I don't presume to meet Mill's standard for knowledge, station and reputation, but I will at least continue to do what Mill wants those drawn to reason to do, speak out.
Cheers!
Many of the thinkers I quote here lived in a period when expressing unvarnished rational thinking was hazardous. Many wrote under pseudonyms or no name at all. As I pointed out, Spinoza was excommunicated; Hume was charged with heresy and was denied a Chair of Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh; Shelley was thrown out of Oxford.
So, in this environment, it is not surprising that some of the arguments against theism were made in a way that is less forthright and with a little bit of hedging.
John Stuart Mill speaks of this atmosphere of hostility towards rational thought during the time of his father.
".... I think that few men of my father's intellect and public spirit, holding with such intensity of moral conviction as he did, unpopular opinions on religion, or on any other great subjects of thought, would now either practise or inculcate the withholding of them from the world, unless in the cases, becoming fewer every day, in which frankness on these subjects would either risk the loss of means of subsistence, or would amount to exclusion from some sphere of usefulness peculiary suitable to the capacity of the individual."
He then goes on to urge his fellow rationalists to stand up and speak the truth.
"On religion in particular the time appears to me to have come, when it is the duty of all who being qualified in point of knowledge, have on mature consideration satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false but hurtful, to make their dissent known; at least, if they are among those whose station, or reputation, gives their opinion a chance of being attended to. Such an avowal would put an end, at once and for ever, to the vulgar prejudice, that what is called, very importantly, unbelief, is connected with any bad qualities either of mind or heart."
I don't presume to meet Mill's standard for knowledge, station and reputation, but I will at least continue to do what Mill wants those drawn to reason to do, speak out.
Cheers!
"Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night; God said, Let Newton be! And all was light." Alexander Pope
This is a quote from the web page of the Second Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge: Sir Isaac Newton.
Newton kept his religious thoughts to himself, never publishing nor publicly giving sermons. He felt his science was in service of religion and attributed a place to God in a mechanistic universe.
Newton is regarded by many as the greatest physicist of all time (yes even greater than Einstein) and certainly greater than any scientists in this forum can ever hope to be.
This is a quote from the web page of the Second Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge: Sir Isaac Newton.
Newton kept his religious thoughts to himself, never publishing nor publicly giving sermons. He felt his science was in service of religion and attributed a place to God in a mechanistic universe.
Newton is regarded by many as the greatest physicist of all time (yes even greater than Einstein) and certainly greater than any scientists in this forum can ever hope to be.
OP
OP
Nara
Guest
A comparison between Newton and anyone visiting this forum let alone posting in it, is, on the face of it, bizarre. Who can deny that Newton is amongst the greatest scientists the world has seen, if not the greatest. But this does not exempt him from harboring irrational thoughts, he was known to be an ardent enthusiast of alchemy.
However, for all his religiosity, he never let religion interfere with his physics, and he was among the foremost to destroy the edifice of religion even though he himself was deeply religious.
Cheers!
A little light-hearted break between all the efforts involved in proving and disproving the "God fallacy". Surely we have enough material to fill a few dozen Ph.D. theses and maybe also earn a couple of Nobels. I think either proving or disproving "The Fallacy" would be enough to earn a Nobel and I am a little surprised that it has not dropped into our collective laps yet.
Here's a cartoon in The Economist published in response to Hawking's latest book:
For reference, here is the original by Michaelangelo entitled "The creation of Adam". I may be partial, but I think this one is easier on the eye.
Here's a cartoon in The Economist published in response to Hawking's latest book:
For reference, here is the original by Michaelangelo entitled "The creation of Adam". I may be partial, but I think this one is easier on the eye.
Last edited:
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
In light of the tenor of this thread, let me quote from his most famous work:
Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
A Flask of Wine, a Book of Verse - and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness -
And Wilderness is Paradise enow.
Turns out the guy did not only write about God (or no God). Like other fellow humans, his attention was also consumed by wine, women and song.
In light of the tenor of this thread, let me quote from his most famous work:
Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
A Flask of Wine, a Book of Verse - and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness -
And Wilderness is Paradise enow.
Turns out the guy did not only write about God (or no God). Like other fellow humans, his attention was also consumed by wine, women and song.
renuka
Well-known member
Biswa from what I read about Omar is that he was not consumed by women,wine and song but those words used in his poem was symbolic of Maya(prakirti) and our attachment to the world.
Actually his poems are very Advaitic but unfortunately most people think that if someone rejects the idea of an organized religion he/she leans more towards atheism..but thats not true.
People who are realized souls have gone beyond religion and religion has served the purpose for their very existence.
After having enjoyed Her(Prakirti..the phenomenal world) they drink the Wine of Immortality and sing the Song of Love(Ananda) and thats what Paradise is all about.
sravna
Well-known member
Newton is a great scientist without doubt. But I don't understand why members of this forum should be drawn into comparison with Newton. If you want to really want to understand where Newton stands in comparison to true intellectual giants like our great philosophers of the past, IMO he would be far behind.
namaste Nara.
wrt your post #37:
That Omar Khayyam "rejected the established religion, one that imposes rules, like Islam, Christianity,..." is true,
but to extend it to "yes Brahminism/Hinduism" is flight of fancy, because OK was never possibly much familiar with Hinduism (which is not an organizsed religion in the first place) to reject its tenets.
Continued existence and lasting happiness for the self are the two common goals of both atheists and theists. The difference is that atheists, instead of seeking to accomplish their goals within their belief, often blame the theists and their efforts of accomplishing their goals within their own belief.
As for Shelley, he saw the Spirit as the One lasting reality that activated both nature and man. He might have refuted deism but unlike many other atheists, he did not glorify science as the final answer.
All said and done, have an open mind, read and enjoy their arguments, let them sink in, and if you are not persuaded it would at least be not for want of trying.
This should apply to both of us, isn't it Nara?
wrt your post #37:
That Omar Khayyam "rejected the established religion, one that imposes rules, like Islam, Christianity,..." is true,
but to extend it to "yes Brahminism/Hinduism" is flight of fancy, because OK was never possibly much familiar with Hinduism (which is not an organizsed religion in the first place) to reject its tenets.
Continued existence and lasting happiness for the self are the two common goals of both atheists and theists. The difference is that atheists, instead of seeking to accomplish their goals within their belief, often blame the theists and their efforts of accomplishing their goals within their own belief.
As for Shelley, he saw the Spirit as the One lasting reality that activated both nature and man. He might have refuted deism but unlike many other atheists, he did not glorify science as the final answer.
All said and done, have an open mind, read and enjoy their arguments, let them sink in, and if you are not persuaded it would at least be not for want of trying.
This should apply to both of us, isn't it Nara?
Brilliant. As the atheists cannot find happiness in their chosen belief, they indulge in what is close to their heart - blame the theists and some subset blame brahmins - to find their happiness. Thankfully negativism cannot bring happiness; even if it did, it will be a short lived drug induced delirium.
renuka
Well-known member
Dear Sravna,
Sometimes great individuals take re birth to reestablish the same work they had done before.
So for all we know Newton could have been a great intellectual giant from the past who has come again.
One thing common in great people of the past and present is humility.
Humility is the hall mark of a true scientist.
Dr A.P.J Abdul Kalam is the best example I can think of.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
For rent [Property for Rent] 1st Floor Independent House In AdambakkamIndependent House 1st Floor
- Bav2003 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted Need of a Brahmin lady cook in AdambakkamRequire a Brahmin female cook in 40s to 60 to cook for a family of 4 adults +2 kids in...
- LakshmiRajesh (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Need Brahmin cook for homeBrahmin cook needed to make breakfast and lunch at home (Mylapore) for 4 people. Please text...
- ram1618 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
-