PDA

View Full Version : arguements provided by atheists against religion and God



Kumar_Das
07 September 2010, 11:44 AM
Namaste,

This might be of interest to some and you might want to tackle them. So I am just posting.

copying a post from a blog, this person is arguing against Islam but there are some points that might apply for all religions as well.





Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion

For those who don't know, A logical fallacy is a flawed pattern of reasoning. Something which the religious are professionals at.

In this post I'm going to list my favorite ten logical fallacies used by the religious in arguments. I'll also post their meaning and an example of what the fallacy may look like when used in an argument. I'm sure most of you free-thinkers will recognise many of these from past discussions with religious people.

#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been, Or can't be, proven false.
If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, That means he must exist.

#2. Argumentum ad misericordia - Appealing to pity.
Why are you so intent on destroying something that makes so many sick children happy!

#3. Argumentum ad nauseum - Fallacy that something is likely to be true the more often it is said.
God exists, How many times do i have to tell you?

#4. Argumentum ad novitatem - Fallacy that something is right because it's new.
Of course Islam is the true religion, Mohammad is the most recent prophet.

#5. Argumentum ad populum - Fallacy that something is correct based on the amount of people who believe it.

Look how many people believe in Jesus, They can't all be wrong.

#6. Bifurcation - Fallacy of presenting a situation as having only two answers.

Evolution is wrong, So that means creationism is right.

#7. Circular Logic - The premise that what you are trying to prove is evidence of it's self.

The bible is the word of god because it says it is, And it can't be wrong, because after all, It is the word of god.

#8. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - Fallacy of asserting that events occurring simultaneously must be causally related.

With all these natural disasters happening how can you deny that god isn't punishing us?

#9. Plurium interrogationum - Fallacy of demanding a simplistic answer to a complex question.

If god didn't create the universe then explain what did.

#10. Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy that one event will inevitably lead to harmful consequences.

If we let gays get married it will be the end of family values.

There are many more but these are my favorites and most commonly used logical fallacies in discussions with religious people.

if you have any more with examples please post them in a reply and I'll add them to the list.

Number 11 - Tu Quoque. The fallacy that flaws in one religion can be justified by pointing to flaws in another.

Number 12 - Argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy that insulting your opponent is a substitute for refuting their ideas, eg, you are mad/possessed by Shaitan/too stupid to understand Islam, etc.



I personally agree totally with #5.

Pranam

Surya Deva
09 September 2010, 04:26 AM
Namaste,

I agree with all of those arguments. These are all real fallacies of reason.
Hindus do not need to concern themselves with these arguments, because they do not apply to us. Hinduism is not an not anti-rational religion, but a pro rational religion. We accept whatever is reasonable and reject what is not.

Some Hindu arguments towards the atheists would be:

1) If everything is matter, then please explain how you can reduce mind to matter?
2) If evolution is blind random chance, then how do you explain the impeccable order we see in the universe?
3) If there is no god, then where did the the concept of god come from?
4) If 'I' am the "brain" then why am I aware of my own brain?
5) If you believe in the big bang theory then the universe was originally in a state of dormancy, then how did it come out of dormancy by itself?
6) Is there a universe independent of an observer. Prove it.

qqq
26 October 2010, 10:22 AM
Namaste,

I agree with all of those arguments. These are all real fallacies of reason.
Hindus do not need to concern themselves with these arguments, because they do not apply to us. Hinduism is not an not anti-rational religion, but a pro rational religion. We accept whatever is reasonable and reject what is not.

Some Hindu arguments towards the atheists would be:

1) If everything is matter, then please explain how you can reduce mind to matter?
2) If evolution is blind random chance, then how do you explain the impeccable order we see in the universe?
3) If there is no god, then where did the the concept of god come from?
4) If 'I' am the "brain" then why am I aware of my own brain?
5) If you believe in the big bang theory then the universe was originally in a state of dormancy, then how did it come out of dormancy by itself?
6) Is there a universe independent of an observer. Prove it.
1. Could you expand on what you mean by 'reduce mind to matter'?

2. It's not blind random chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

3. There is no Unicorn. Where did the concept of Unicorn come from?

5. Second paragraph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Alise
07 November 2010, 06:56 AM
3. There is no Unicorn. Where did the concept of Unicorn come from?

Namaste,

Here's difference between unicorn and God. God is infinite while unicorn is finite. God is beyond everything. Unicorn is not. Everyone knows how unicorn looks like. Where did the concept come from? In these days imaginary creatures are made by mix and matching, doesn't it? And how you know unicorn never existed? :P I mean really world is really really really really old & science discovers new things everyday... But for me personally it's just mix & matching argument...

have a nice day,
~Alice

Eastern Mind
07 November 2010, 07:20 AM
1. Could you expand on what you mean by 'reduce mind to matter'?

2. It's not blind random chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

3. There is no Unicorn. Where did the concept of Unicorn come from?

5. Second paragraph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Vannakkam qqq: Welcome to these forums. Aum Namasivaya.

Sahasranama
07 November 2010, 07:24 AM
It's silly to argue with nastikas. They do not accept the vedas as axiomatic truth, there's nothing you can do in terms of logical debate to convince them of the vedas. You either have faith or you don't. The brahma sutras say that logic is insufficient. The vedas are translogical.

Eastern Mind
07 November 2010, 07:50 AM
It's silly to argue.

Vannakkam: Could we go this far?

Aum Namasivaya

Maya3
07 November 2010, 08:19 AM
It doesn´t matter. No one can prove the existence of God, no one can prove the non existence of God.

Whatever floats your boat.

Maya

Sahasranama
07 November 2010, 09:18 AM
Vannakkam: Could we go this far?

Aum Namasivaya

The insufficiency of logic to understand the ultimate reality could be argued, it's one of the axioms accepted in the brahma sutra though that logic is insufficient. There have been very important and intelligent mathematicians in history in the west who tried to logically understand god, but they ended up in mental institutions. Ramanujan though said that "every equation is an expression of the thought of god." Being born in India amongst Hindus, I think he was aware of the limitations of logic, but still regarded mathematics (logical and abract thinking) as one of the divine glories or aspect of God. (yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va, tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-'msa-sambhavam: know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor. Bhagavad Gita) Logic is useful, but as soon as you reject the vedas, the most important pramana, there's nothing to argue about in regards to nature of brahman, then you are playing a completely different game. You can see now in the west that people love to use vedantic knowledge completely out of context of the shastric pramanas and turn it in an exercise of speculation.

Harjas Kaur
07 November 2010, 09:57 AM
"It's silly to argue with nastikas."

Fact!

Sahasranama
07 November 2010, 10:15 AM
"It's silly to argue with nastikas."

Fact!

Thanks, I used the word nastika deliberately, because it also encompasses muslims and christians. They may be theists, but not astikas.

Eastern Mind
07 November 2010, 10:20 AM
The insufficiency of logic to understand the ultimate reality could be argued, it's one of the axioms accepted in the brahma sutra though that logic is insufficient. There have been very important and intelligent mathematicians in history in the west who tried to logically understand god, but they ended up in mental institutions. Ramanujan though said that "every equation is an expression of the thought of god." Being born in India amongst Hindus, I think he was aware of the limitations of logic, but still regarded mathematics (logical and abract thinking) as one of the divine glories or aspect of God. Logic is useful, but as soon as you reject the vedas, the most important pramana, there's nothing to argue about in regards to nature of brahman, then you are just playing a completely different game.

Vannakkam Sahasranama: What I meant was is it silly to argue period? To me it is, but then again, by my definition, debate is turned to argument when emotions enter the picture. So I might have a logical debate, but really there is no point in carrying stuff on and on and around in circles especially when its clear from the outstart that each side isn't about to change. So it accomplished nada. Sorry if my other response was confusing.

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
07 November 2010, 10:33 AM
Okay, I misinterpretated your post. My opinion would be that arguing can be useful if it leads to a better understanding of the subject and if people are arguing with the same standards. On a hindu forum, it could be what pramana do you accept. If two person sit together to play a game of cards and one person is playing bridge and the other is playing poker, then it would result in a nonsensical situation. If one person accepted the vedas and puranas for example and the other the koran and hadiths, all you can do is having a discussion of comparison. You can compare the faiths with each other, compare them with the standards of society, with science or with your personal preference, but you can't make any conclusions about the nature of brahman in such a discussion, because what is written in the koran is irrelevant in this matter.


debate is turned to argument when emotions enter the picture Emotion has been a great motivator for people to think logically and develop science, so I am not judging the emotional aspect of a debate. In mathematics for example, the written paper has to appear logical so that it's understandable for other mathematicians who read it, but what went through the head of the person who invented the mathematics often happens in an altered state of consciousness that goes beyond logical thinking. I think the Indian Ramanujan is a great example for this.


ut really there is no point in carrying stuff on and on and around in circles especially when its clear from the outstart that each side isn't about to change. So it accomplished nada
I agree, that would be a waste of energy. It's different when both parties have accepted a few pramanas and will use logic to make conclusions about a subject discussed in the pramanas. But in practice most people will ignore the arguments that defeat them. So, most of the time it would be a useless exercise, in my opinion.

rainycity
11 November 2010, 05:12 AM
The insufficiency of logic to understand the ultimate reality could be argued, it's one of the axioms accepted in the brahma sutra though that logic is insufficient.

I agree, except it is not scriptures that surpass logic, its the empirical states of consciousness themselves.



In mathematics for example, the written paper has to appear logical so that it's understandable for other mathematicians who read it, but what went through the head of the person who invented the mathematics often happens in an altered state of consciousness that goes beyond logical thinking. I think the Indian Ramanujan is a great example for this.


Eastern philosophies are lived, the sages empirically experienced the realities they then comitted to describing with logic and philosophy.

Riverwolf
11 November 2010, 01:36 PM
Those aren't so much arguments against religion in general, so much as recognizing logical fallacies that persist in many theistic arguments.

Personally, I'm with Spock. "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, but it is not the end."

Sure, ultimate knowledge transcends logic, but I don't believe you can circumvent logic to get there.

Kumar_Das
12 November 2010, 12:05 PM
Okay, I misinterpretated your post. My opinion would be that arguing can be useful if it leads to a better understanding of the subject and if people are arguing with the same standards. On a hindu forum, it could be what pramana do you accept. If two person sit together to play a game of cards and one person is playing bridge and the other is playing poker, then it would result in a nonsensical situation. If one person accepted the vedas and puranas for example and the other the koran and hadiths, all you can do is having a discussion of comparison. You can compare the faiths with each other, compare them with the standards of society, with science or with your personal preference, but you can't make any conclusions about the nature of brahman in such a discussion, because what is written in the koran is irrelevant in this matter.

Abrahamic religions.;)

If you are a believer in Brahman and are a knower of it. You must stay as far away as you can from them^

Brahman itself has given this as the identification for us.

maxpsycho
09 December 2010, 01:43 AM
Well the problem with this line of thinking is the presumption that having faith is a virtue. Where did you get that idea?

maxpsycho
09 December 2010, 01:55 AM
Abrahamic religions.;)

If you are a believer in Brahman and are a knower of it. You must stay as far away as you can from them^

Brahman itself has given this as the identification for us.
Again, I would have to respectfully disagree both with Sahasranama and Kumar_Das. I think that what's important is that whether the claims of Hinduism or any of the Abrahamic religions, or any of the hundreds of thousands of living and dead religions, are actually true. What we surely must not forget is that these religions are making claims about the beginning of time and space, which is a scientific claim, and about the origins of life, which is also a scientific claim. You may decide to follow any scripture you like; but it is an indication of how much you value truth over wishful thinking. And on the same note, what we must also remember is that these scriptures are old. Written in a time, when mankind did not know about bacteria or viruses or the effects of the movement of tectonic plates, these texts were written by people trying to understand these phenomena as best they could. We can all grant the fact that they must have gotten many things right - but that does not mean that everything written in these texts is correct or divinely inspired.

hrdayananda
13 December 2010, 05:00 PM
Abrahamic religions.;)

If you are a believer in Brahman and are a knower of it. You must stay as far away as you can from them^

Brahman itself has given this as the identification for us.

Are you a knower of Brahman? Sorry, had to ask :)

Adhvagat
13 December 2010, 06:18 PM
Well the problem with this line of thinking is the presumption that having faith is a virtue. Where did you get that idea?

Let's just say the Hindu way of viewing this would be:

Having virtues is a faith. :)


Again, I would have to respectfully disagree both with Sahasranama and Kumar_Das. I think that what's important is that whether the claims of Hinduism or any of the Abrahamic religions, or any of the hundreds of thousands of living and dead religions, are actually true. What we surely must not forget is that these religions are making claims about the beginning of time and space, which is a scientific claim, and about the origins of life, which is also a scientific claim. You may decide to follow any scripture you like; but it is an indication of how much you value truth over wishful thinking. And on the same note, what we must also remember is that these scriptures are old. Written in a time, when mankind did not know about bacteria or viruses or the effects of the movement of tectonic plates, these texts were written by people trying to understand these phenomena as best they could. We can all grant the fact that they must have gotten many things right - but that does not mean that everything written in these texts is correct or divinely inspired.

If religion was about spiritual integration with tectonic plates I'd sure have to agree that modern science would be the absolute truth.

Isn't it logical that science and religion deals with different subjects? It would sure be weird if someone joined a science forum criticizing people for not meditating on Brahman and how much microscope analysis wouldn't reveal the nature of the Self.

:p

Kumar_Das
13 December 2010, 06:49 PM
Again, I would have to respectfully disagree both with Sahasranama and Kumar_Das. I think that what's important is that whether the claims of Hinduism or any of the Abrahamic religions, or any of the hundreds of thousands of living and dead religions, are actually true. What we surely must not forget is that these religions are making claims about the beginning of time and space, which is a scientific claim, and about the origins of life, which is also a scientific claim. You may decide to follow any scripture you like; but it is an indication of how much you value truth over wishful thinking. And on the same note, what we must also remember is that these scriptures are old. Written in a time, when mankind did not know about bacteria or viruses or the effects of the movement of tectonic plates, these texts were written by people trying to understand these phenomena as best they could. We can all grant the fact that they must have gotten many things right - but that does not mean that everything written in these texts is correct or divinely inspired.


What is it exactly that you are trying to say here? And what does that have to do with my post that you are responding to?

rainycity
18 December 2010, 07:06 AM
Written in a time, when mankind did not know about bacteria or viruses or the effects of the movement of tectonic plates, these texts were written by people trying to understand these phenomena as best they could. We can all grant the fact that they must have gotten many things right - but that does not mean that everything written in these texts is correct or divinely inspired.

What do viruses, bacteria and tectonic plates have to do with hindu scriptures or really any scriptures?

maxpsycho
19 December 2010, 07:53 AM
I think I may have expressed myself poorly, so please allow me to explain further. I'll give my responses in reverse order if I may.

Starting with 'rainycity' - your question is what do these natural phenomena have to do with Hindu or any other scripture. The point that I was making was that these scriptures are all claiming to be verifiable true accounts and at the least of it, demand belief if not also adherence. How flexible Hindu scriptures are compared to other scriptures is clearly not what I'm heading towards; my point here is that as an objective reader who picks up religious scripture without having established first principles about the text's reliability, will be forced to question certain maxims which are directly at odds with the laws of nature. And therefore learning more about the source and the period where the text originates from, gives us an idea of what the writer may or may not have been trying to say. Thus when we look at the scriptures in light of this knowledge, we come to realise that certain impossible miracles that inadvertently form the basis of belief in the supernatural (since evidence for the supernatural simply doesn't exist by definition) may have been exaggerated or simply untrue.

For 'Kumar_Das' - Apologies to you sir, I seem to have replied to the wrong post - my reply was in fact for Sahasranama and Harjas Kaur. I was simply arguing the point that when a claim of any sort is made, and you have two parties, one who agree with the claim and one who disagrees - it's not a solution to say, that since the party who agrees has a different starting premise to the one that doesn't, there's nothing sensible that can come out of a discussion about the falsifiability of the claim.

In response to Pietro Impagliazzo - your first point ("Having virtues is a faith"), I'm afraid went straight past my bat. However, to refute your second point about Science and Religion being, in the words of the Stephen Jay Gould, Non-Overlapping Majesteria, this simply is untrue. And the reason why it is untrue for most of the major faiths of the world, is that most of them make claims that trespass the laws of nature and science, overtly. Taking an example from Christianity; the idea that a woman gave birth while remaining a virgin or that a dead man rose three days after his brutal murder are scientific claims. So even if we grant the spiritual and the transcendent experience that faith brings (although faith is not a pre-requisite for either of these states of mind), we are still left with tons of claims that are simply untrue but still believed.

Would like to caveat this by saying that my comments are not meant to be inflammatory or derogatory. This thread is about the atheist arguments against God, and being an atheist I find these discussions very useful and educating.

devotee
19 December 2010, 08:03 PM
Dear Max,

Let me understand you correctly, if you don't mind, by answering these questions :

a) What is "reality" ?
b) How do you decide if something is "true" or "untrue" ?
c) How do you judge if something is "possible" or "impossible" ?
d) What is your understanding of "existence" and "non-existence" ?
e) What/who are "you" (not in relative terms) ?

OM

Adhvagat
19 December 2010, 09:16 PM
In response to Pietro Impagliazzo - your first point ("Having virtues is a faith"), I'm afraid went straight past my bat. However, to refute your second point about Science and Religion being, in the words of the Stephen Jay Gould, Non-Overlapping Majesteria, this simply is untrue. And the reason why it is untrue for most of the major faiths of the world, is that most of them make claims that trespass the laws of nature and science, overtly. Taking an example from Christianity; the idea that a woman gave birth while remaining a virgin or that a dead man rose three days after his brutal murder are scientific claims. So even if we grant the spiritual and the transcendent experience that faith brings (although faith is not a pre-requisite for either of these states of mind), we are still left with tons of claims that are simply untrue but still believed.

So let me get this straight... Because religious systems claims there's more to life than material existence Science gets mad and wanna reduce everything to what only can be perceived through the senses?

However, you don't consider for a moment that you'd need to submit yourself through a process to experiment what this certain religious system is offering. Not in terms of a scientific truth for the material existence but in terms of a spiritual truth inside of you.

Just like one cannot make a scientific experiment without a scientific method you cannot claim there's no spirituality without submitting yourself to verified methods.

Hindus are not the ones claiming the world is 6000 years old or that there's no evolution. As a matter of fact, I think no scientific discovery can do any harm to any philosophical system of Sanatana Dharma. Because its philosophical content is beyond material existence.

How can science explain thoughts if our brains are just an incoherent mass with electricity flying around? Yet we're here thinking and theorizing. Stuck to the clever mechanics, pieces and parts of the mind.

What brings it all together is the spiritual particle inside of us. Spirituality is about finding this unity, not about proving whether something narrated in a scripture can be physically done with today's means or not.

In fact science should owe a big deal to the Vedas, since most basic concepts are already there. It's not like the Vedas say the Earth is flat, or say absurd things about body functions (be it gross or subtle). Being pro-spirituality does not mean anti-science and I think the reverse should be true.

But if you want to look strictly to gross aspects, that's your choice.

Om Tat Sat

wundermonk
02 January 2011, 10:08 AM
Bumping up a relatively dormant thread...

Great points raised by HDF members that remain to be answered by atheists. A few of them them showed up. But, in all fairness, their responses to our queries may have not made it through the moderators' filters.

In any case here are some of my additional questions to atheists:

(1)Why were we born?
(2)What is the purpose of life?
(3)Will one's being a believer or theist make one less able to achieve the purpose of life you specify in Step (2)? Explain.
(4)What happens after death?

In debating an atheist there comes a point when neither side can prove/disprove the validity of a statement. Theists end up building a philosophy assuming this statement to be true(or false). Atheists end up building a philosophy assuming this statement to be false(or true). IMHO the only question that needs discussion is whether the philosophy is consistent, not calling for the killing of non-believers of that philosophy and allows freedom (within bounds based on general welfare (questions about morality/ethics included in the word "welfare") that do not cause societal harm) for practitioners of that philosophy. Being some sort of a hybrid agnostic-Sanatana Dharmist, (I am probably biased here), I believe Sanatana Dharma is possibly the best theist philosophy out there.

If earth were to hit reset button and restart all over I believe 3 philosophies will reemerge/reevolve - Atheism/Agnosticism/Equivalent of Sanatana Dharma. I really dont find any basis why any of the Abrahamic faiths will reemerge. But then, again, I am probably biased because of my familiarity with Sanatana Dharma.

Cytosine
13 February 2011, 10:46 PM
Well, I haven't logged on in a while, and I'm dodging exam studying soo...


So let me get this straight... Because religious systems claims there's more to life than material existence Science gets mad and wanna reduce everything to what only can be perceived through the senses?

It's not my intention to speak for Max, but that's not what he's saying at all. Religions make claims about the world in which we live to a certain extent, no matter how uninvolved they try to be. Hinduism, for instance, grossly overestimates the age of the Universe according to what is currently observed.


However, you don't consider for a moment that you'd need to submit yourself through a process to experiment what this certain religious system is offering. Not in terms of a scientific truth for the material existence but in terms of a spiritual truth inside of you.

Just like one cannot make a scientific experiment without a scientific method you cannot claim there's no spirituality without submitting yourself to verified methods.

That's a kind of a cop-out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that unless I whole-heartedly practice a religion that I can't comment on the veracity of its claims?


How can science explain thoughts if our brains are just an incoherent mass with electricity flying around? Yet we're here thinking and theorizing. Stuck to the clever mechanics, pieces and parts of the mind.

No one says that. The brain is far from an incoherent mass. It is a complex organ made up of billions of cells all working in a coordinated effort to interpret the massive amounts of data that brain takes in every moment.


What brings it all together is the spiritual particle inside of us. Spirituality is about finding this unity, not about proving whether something narrated in a scripture can be physically done with today's means or not.

Yet I could question that as well. This "particle" - can it be measured? Seen? Detected? Does it have mass? Can we attribute its functions to other things like certain areas of the brain? As more and more information about brain function is discovered, this particle seems to become less important. So why even bother with it at all?


In fact science should owe a big deal to the Vedas, since most basic concepts are already there.

I've read a bit of the Vedas, and I can't say that I saw the bit about the scientific method in there. Or any scientific predictions beyond the capabilities of the authors for that matter.


In any case here are some of my additional questions to atheists:

(1)Why were we born?
(2)What is the purpose of life?
(3)Will one's being a believer or theist make one less able to achieve the purpose of life you specify in Step (2)? Explain.
(4)What happens after death?

(1) Why does there need to be a why? I am.

(2) Depends. Biologically, to ensure the survival of genes. As a sentient human, to be and to enjoy being until you are not.

(3) Likely not, unless your religion is big into castration. But most theists I've known often find their religion at one point or another prevents them from taking an action that would be in their rational or emotional best interest. It's broken up more than a few relationships in my past.

(4) Who knows? In all likelihood, the brain shuts down and whatever's left gets recycled back into the Universe.


In debating an atheist there comes a point when neither side can prove/disprove the validity of a statement. Theists end up building a philosophy assuming this statement to be true(or false). Atheists end up building a philosophy assuming this statement to be false(or true).

While certainly true, I find it best to base my philosophy on what I have observed to be true thus far. I do not say there is no God, merely that I have seen nor heard any convincing evidence thereof. If we reach an impasse, it because I find the theist's arguments ultimately unmoving.


I believe Sanatana Dharma is possibly the best theist philosophy out there.

It is certainly the most diverse, and I like what it has to say at times. But I find that its truths don't require a God.


If earth were to hit reset button and restart all over I believe 3 philosophies will reemerge/reevolve - Atheism/Agnosticism/Equivalent of Sanatana Dharma. I really dont find any basis why any of the Abrahamic faiths will reemerge. But then, again, I am probably biased because of my familiarity with Sanatana Dharma.

I think that's definitely a bias. SD has a lot of similarities with other major religions and philosophies, including some European ones like the system proposed by Spinoza. Humans are hard-wired to build models to explain reality, it's what makes us so damn effective at surviving.

wundermonk
21 February 2011, 07:02 AM
(1) Why does there need to be a why? I am.

Non-answer.


(3) Likely not, unless your religion is big into castration. But most theists I've known often find their religion at one point or another prevents them from taking an action that would be in their rational or emotional best interest. It's broken up more than a few relationships in my past.
I dont know which type of theists you are referring to. In Hinduism, Krishna's call to Arjuna in the Bhagvad Gita is a call to action. There is no reification that is given precedence over earthly duty and dharma. So, your point is a strawman for most(?) Hindus. (I cannot make a claim of how other Hindus feel on this. But this is definitely a strawman for me.)


(4) Who knows? In all likelihood, the brain shuts down and whatever's left gets recycled back into the Universe.
Agreed on the "Who knows?" part. But what is YOUR problem if Hindus believe in an after-life/reincarnation, et al., as long as they dont force YOU to accept/believe in it?


While certainly true, I find it best to base my philosophy on what I have observed to be true thus far. I do not say there is no God, merely that I have seen nor heard any convincing evidence thereof. If we reach an impasse, it because I find the theist's arguments ultimately unmoving.

Hindus rarely argue. They dont embark on grand evangelizing missions around the world. They dont make a claim that a non-believer is hell-bound. So, Hindus would hardly be worried or feel insecure because you find their arguments unmoving.

wundermonk
21 February 2011, 09:56 AM
(2) Depends. Biologically, to ensure the survival of genes. As a sentient human, to be and to enjoy being until you are not.

(3) Likely not, unless your religion is big into castration...

Hmm...Since you mentioned biologically, the purpose of life is survival of genes, and followed that up in (3) by saying castrated folks are less able to achieve the purpose of life, I wonder if you would also state that homosexuals are less able to achieve the purpose of life.

PS: I do not have an opinion/detailed knowledge on homosexuality. But I am just trying to understand the logical implications of your positions.

wundermonk
21 February 2011, 10:15 AM
That's a kind of a cop-out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that unless I whole-heartedly practice a religion that I can't comment on the veracity of its claims?

Although this was addressed to Pietro, let me take the liberty of providing my take on it.

The best proof of any claim is self-experience. Dont you agree? If you agree, this should answer your question. If your question is still unanswered, let's continue.

Now, have YOU personally worked with quantum physics? If not, why do you take a bunch of physicists take on it to be true and base your epistemology on it? Why is this not faith/belief? Oh, and by the way, there are multiple contradictory theories at the quantum level all of which are consistent with the gross observed world. Which one amongst these interpretations (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/#6) do YOU believe and have faith in and why?

Cytosine
21 February 2011, 04:05 PM
Holy triple post, Batman. I'll try to answer this as best I can.


Non-answer.

I'd say it's a fair answer. An alternative would be to say the reason I'm here is my parents met, dated, and then did the nasty without wearing a condom. But I really doubted that was what you meant. You were looking for a more ontological/metaphysical answer. I'm not really certain on there being a higher reason for existence, but I most certainly exist insofar as I can tell. Therefore, I just exist. I can define or create a reason for my existence through my own desires and actions, but there is no fundamental reason for my existence outside of what I define.


I dont know which type of theists you are referring to. In Hinduism, Krishna's call to Arjuna in the Bhagvad Gita is a call to action. There is no reification that is given precedence over earthly duty and dharma. So, your point is a strawman for most(?) Hindus. (I cannot make a claim of how other Hindus feel on this. But this is definitely a strawman for me.)

I think I understand, but I still disagree. There are certain practices that Hindus follow as a result of their beliefs - ie. vegetarianism - that could be considered to interfere with their day-to-day lives and may even make them less successful in certain areas. I could see why you would view this as a strawman since Dharma is your earthly duty, but I don't follow a Dharma the way you do. Sometimes I'll do things that you may consider Adharma (if I'm using the word correctly) because it directly benefits me. You, as a follower of Dharma, cannot use the same means to obtain your goals.


Agreed on the "Who knows?" part. But what is YOUR problem if Hindus believe in an after-life/reincarnation, et al., as long as they dont force YOU to accept/believe in it?

None at all. But this is a discussion. Individuals in this thread, as Hindus, want to know why atheists lack a belief in God. I am providing those reasons so as to improve the discourse for everyone's benefit and enlightenment. I'm just some guy on the internet, what you believe is up to you.


Hindus rarely argue. They dont embark on grand evangelizing missions around the world. They dont make a claim that a non-believer is hell-bound. So, Hindus would hardly be worried or feel insecure because you find their arguments unmoving.

Then that's good; because I don't care either.


Hmm...Since you mentioned biologically, the purpose of life is survival of genes, and followed that up in (3) by saying castrated folks are less able to achieve the purpose of life, I wonder if you would also state that homosexuals are less able to achieve the purpose of life.

PS: I do not have an opinion/detailed knowledge on homosexuality. But I am just trying to understand the logical implications of your positions.

That would be true, in the biological sense. A homosexual individual would be less likely to pass their genes on to the next generation (in today's society, the likelihood would be close to zero). However, to say that a homosexual individual cannot experience the same joy and pain as a heterosexual is flat-out wrong. In that sense, their life is able to be a success.



The best proof of any claim is self-experience. Dont you agree?

Absolutely, I have said as much.


If you agree, this should answer your question. If your question is still unanswered, let's continue.

Ha, no. Let's continue.

Actually, wait. I want to be more specific. I think what you're assuming is that my observations as an atheist and the claims of a theist are mutually exclusive observations. But the fact is that theists do make claims which apply to the same reality I am experiencing regardless of my religious practices. If a Christian says the world is flat, I have evidence to the contrary (satellites, modern physics, the fact that I can fly around the world in a jet plane). I don't need to practice Christianity before I can say the belief that the world is flat does not correspond with reality.


Now, have YOU personally worked with quantum physics?

Outside of my undergrad physics courses? No. I'm more into medicinal chemistry.


If not, why do you take a bunch of physicists take on it to be true and base your epistemology on it? Why is this not faith/belief?

Well, I don't. But thanks for bringing up that whole "atheists worship science" myth. Because I don't have faith in what the physicists say, but I do believe that they are basing their conclusions on the best available evidence. Do they agree? Of course not. Do their models entirely explain reality? No. But the many interpretations attempt to, and as more evidence becomes available, these interpretations will change accordingly until one model remains which encompasses the most, if not all, observations up to that point.

Then, some asshole will likely make some new observations and theories will start changing again. We will continue to do this in order to adjust the picture of the universe that is available.


Oh, and by the way, there are multiple contradictory theories at the quantum level all of which are consistent with the gross observed world. Which one amongst these interpretations (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/#6) do YOU believe and have faith in and why?

I don't "believe in" or "have faith" in any of those. All of them could, and probably will, be proven wrong.

wundermonk
22 February 2011, 10:06 PM
I'm not really certain on there being a higher reason for existence

Oh...why didnt you say so at the beginning? I thought I was dealing with an atheist. I didnt know you were agnostic. So am I. In any case, please specify which subsect of atheism you subscribe to...Gnostic atheist, Agnostic atheist, naturalist, secular humanist, etc.


I think I understand, but I still disagree. There are certain practices that Hindus follow as a result of their beliefs - ie. vegetarianism - that could be considered to interfere with their day-to-day lives and may even make them less successful in certain areas.

True, I guess. Indians rarely generate genuine fast bowlers (in cricket). Maybe this has to do with their diet. Of course, they also believe that being a genuine fast bowler is the most important thing in the world and the ONLY way to be released from the cycle of birth and death. Oh wait...


That would be true, in the biological sense. A homosexual individual would be less likely to pass their genes on to the next generation (in today's society, the likelihood would be close to zero). However, to say that a homosexual individual cannot experience the same joy and pain as a heterosexual is flat-out wrong. In that sense, their life is able to be a success.
Thanks for acknowledging their failure in a biological sense (paraphrasing your position, not mine). The last two sentences of this paragraph are strawmen. Did I say/allude to any thing to the contrary?



Actually, wait. I want to be more specific. I think what you're assuming is that my observations as an atheist and the claims of a theist are mutually exclusive observations. But the fact is that theists do make claims which apply to the same reality I am experiencing regardless of my religious practices. If a Christian says the world is flat, I have evidence to the contrary (satellites, modern physics, the fact that I can fly around the world in a jet plane). I don't need to practice Christianity before I can say the belief that the world is flat does not correspond with reality.
We are on the message boards of HINDU Dharma Forums. General atheists vs theists debating points are useful but not entirely to the point. Could you specialize your example to Sanatana Dharma's claims?


But the many interpretations attempt to, and as more evidence becomes available, these interpretations will change accordingly until one model remains which encompasses the most, if not all, observations up to that point.
Bohr's and Heisenberg's interpretations of the Copenhagen position were developed more than half a century ago. As were Einstein's theories of relativity. Much as I would like to believe otherwise, I personally think Physics has hit a wall. We may be left with unresolvable uncertainty at the quantum level.

Cytosine
24 February 2011, 10:21 PM
Oh...why didnt you say so at the beginning? I thought I was dealing with an atheist. I didnt know you were agnostic. So am I. In any case, please specify which subsect of atheism you subscribe to...Gnostic atheist, Agnostic atheist, naturalist, secular humanist, etc.

Why all the labeling? If you want to put some labels to my arguments I'm an agnostic atheist (not the same thing as agnostic) with a dash of naturalism and nutmeg. Not to say that I completely agree with other atheists who place the same labels on themselves.


True, I guess. Indians rarely generate genuine fast bowlers (in cricket). Maybe this has to do with their diet. Of course, they also believe that being a genuine fast bowler is the most important thing in the world and the ONLY way to be released from the cycle of birth and death. Oh wait...

Glib. But my point still stands


Thanks for acknowledging their failure in a biological sense (paraphrasing your position, not mine). The last two sentences of this paragraph are strawmen. Did I say/allude to any thing to the contrary?

Not at all, but you did refer to my definition. To preempt any further debate on the issue, since I don't think that it's that important.

Also, could you please stop saying every second sentence that I type is a straw man? I'm not misrepresenting your opinion, and claiming that I am does not make it so.


We are on the message boards of HINDU Dharma Forums. General atheists vs theists debating points are useful but not entirely to the point. Could you specialize your example to Sanatana Dharma's claims?

*Shrug* Sure. Based on the Hindu cosmology and the Kalpas, a fundamental interpretation is that human life has existed far longer than genetic and fossil evidence would suggest. Followers of ISKCON have even gone as far as to interpret Darwin's theory backwards - Devolution.


Bohr's and Heisenberg's interpretations of the Copenhagen position were developed more than half a century ago. As were Einstein's theories of relativity. Much as I would like to believe otherwise, I personally think Physics has hit a wall. We may be left with unresolvable uncertainty at the quantum level.

I think you'd be wrong about physics hitting a wall. The LHC should produce data that will either confirm or refute the best possible explanation of the Universe currently developed - M-Theory. Which was, by the way, developed in the 1990s. The problem with developments in any field of science is that only scientifically literate people in that field understand it.

wundermonk
27 February 2011, 09:06 PM
*Shrug* Sure. Based on the Hindu cosmology and the Kalpas, a fundamental interpretation is that human life has existed far longer than genetic and fossil evidence would suggest. Followers of ISKCON have even gone as far as to interpret Darwin's theory backwards - Devolution.

Hmm...Hinduism DOES believe that there are cycles of birth and death. That may explain why Hindu texts quote a period of time LONGER than science. But then again, Hindu texts are NOT to be treated as scientific treatises. Krishna did not go around saying - "Common folks...There will be a man named Einstein in the 20th century. Do NOT believe in his theories. Instead, the theory of space and time are laid out in the Bhagvad Gita."

Also, if you bring in a false dichotomy of either science OR Hinduism, I would probe you further on the epistemological basis of science and ask you to prove it beyond doubt.

For instance, since you brought up evolution, I am going to ask you - why is the gene selfish? Once you provide an answer, I am going to see whether your answer depends on a more fundamental claim and ask you to prove that this claim is true. In short, I am going to apply infinite regress on your answer.

I am then going to ask you, please prove to me that things (tree, computer, roads, etc.) exist in the absence of an observer.

Also, please solve the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) on which science crucially depends.

Finally, I am going to have to ask you to establish that our senses provide an accurate representation of reality.

I hope you would be able to get the drift - ANY epistemology is ultimately based on some version of faith/belief and "self-evident" axioms.



I think you'd be wrong about physics hitting a wall. The LHC should produce data that will either confirm or refute the best possible explanation of the Universe currently developed - M-Theory. Which was, by the way, developed in the 1990s. The problem with developments in any field of science is that only scientifically literate people in that field understand it.

I read Stephen Hawking's recent book on M-Theory as being the ultimate explanation of all stuff. There were lots of lose ends that needed to be tied together. Along with you, I will wait for more news/data from LHC. But then again, for me, ANY data/inference that can be drawn from such experiments will need to be immune to the problem of induction and the use of "self-evident" axioms.

Adhvagat
28 February 2011, 12:34 AM
I've read a bit of the Vedas, and I can't say that I saw the bit about the scientific method in there. Or any scientific predictions beyond the capabilities of the authors for that matter.

Cytosine, these links might interest you:

http://veda.wikidot.com/do-you-know
http://www.hitxp.com/articles/category/veda/
http://www.hitxp.com/articles/veda/veda-age-universe-bigbang/
http://www.hitxp.com/articles/veda/multiverse-brahma-vishnu-cosmos/
http://www.hitxp.com/articles/veda/vedic-ancient-science-modern-technology-mathematics-geometry/

Adhvagat
28 February 2011, 01:06 AM
1) That's a kind of a cop-out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that unless I whole-heartedly practice a religion that I can't comment on the veracity of its claims?

2) No one says that. The brain is far from an incoherent mass. It is a complex organ made up of billions of cells all working in a coordinated effort to interpret the massive amounts of data that brain takes in every moment.

3) Yet I could question that as well. This "particle" - can it be measured? Seen? Detected? Does it have mass? Can we attribute its functions to other things like certain areas of the brain? As more and more information about brain function is discovered, this particle seems to become less important. So why even bother with it at all?

1) Can I have a final word on a chemical composition of something if I'm not versed in chemestry? I can have hunches, but never a respectable opinion.

I used to doubt vedic sages, for example, I inquired: Could it be possible that they were all deceived, believing in fairy tales? I then looked at the content they discussed, it was deep, had great philosophical value. My conclusion is that I'm not getting things completely. I just need more study, another point of view, a more mature point of view, less religiously narrow and more philosophic and clear. I agree with the notion that one should not repress doubt, push it to the shadow, otherwise it will grow strong and consume you later.

Max mentioned that it's absurd that Mary gave birth to Jesus while virgin, well, so now Christianity is about gynecology now? He's using scientific evidence to invalidate something that should act on the religious symbolical level. That's another problem with "atheists", most of them are just anti-Christianism and are only doing so because of the history the Church has of ruling through the promotion of ignorance.

2) But looking at the brain one does not see: Love, emotions, affections, desires, fears, complexes, archetypes, religious inclination, we see cells and energy floating around, it's encrypted, somethinng decrypts all that. Is that viewable, detectable, does it have a mass?

3) So we should agree that the psychic life is not viewable, detectable, does not have a mass. Our unconscious is even more mysterious and scientists like Carl Gustav Jung through a life of research came to the conclusion that we basically live for our unconscious contents. Religious inclinations are a fact of the psyche and it was deeply studied by him.

Logic is just one way to perceive all world, not the be-all, end-all. That's my problem with some claims of atheists that spirituality is invalid because it can't be measured. Well, it's all about that. If spirituality could be measured, seen, touched, chemically altered, then would it still be spirituality?

Another point for me is that the spiritual nature of things is more or less observable. The more I know about biology the more I see how crazy life is and it's a miracle that a body of trillions of cells, inhabited by trillions of micro-organisms can feel a sense of unity. For me that's the atman showing itself right there.

Conclusion: Of course in the end it all depends on the fact of believing or not believing something beyond our material senses can exist. Personally I think it's a bit silly to try to reduce the world to our sole perception, but if a person says he thinks there's only what his senses perceive, well, is there a point in discussing spirituality with that person? Spiritualist will say, yes, he will say, no. What is fruitful about that?

For me it's all about the philosophical teachings the Vedas bring. Trying to scientifically test it or observe externally is hopeless. The internal can only be expressed externally subjectively, never objectively.

Cytosine
14 March 2011, 11:50 AM
Good responses from those above. I've had a lot of IRL responsibilities catching up with me lately (it's that time of the semester). I'll try to respond to things by Friday, but no promises.

rainycity
21 March 2011, 05:19 AM
Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion

For those who don't know, A logical fallacy is a flawed pattern of reasoning. Something which the religious are professionals at.

In this post I'm going to list my favorite ten logical fallacies used by the religious in arguments. I'll also post their meaning and an example of what the fallacy may look like when used in an argument. I'm sure most of you free-thinkers will recognise many of these from past discussions with religious people.

#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been, Or can't be, proven false.
If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, That means he must exist.

Agreed, this is an obvious fallacy.

#2. Argumentum ad misericordia - Appealing to pity.
Why are you so intent on destroying something that makes so many sick children happy!

Obviously a logical fallacy, if something makes sick children happy, that doesn't follow that its true.

#3. Argumentum ad nauseum - Fallacy that something is likely to be true the more often it is said.
God exists, How many times do i have to tell you?

Again, a pretty crude logical fallacy.

#4. Argumentum ad novitatem - Fallacy that something is right because it's new.
Of course Islam is the true religion, Mohammad is the most recent prophet.

Yes

#5. Argumentum ad populum - Fallacy that something is correct based on the amount of people who believe it.

Yep


#6. Bifurcation - Fallacy of presenting a situation as having only two answers.

Evolution is wrong, So that means creationism is right.

Uhuh

#7. Circular Logic - The premise that what you are trying to prove is evidence of it's self.

The bible is the word of god because it says it is, And it can't be wrong, because after all, It is the word of god.

#8. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - Fallacy of asserting that events occurring simultaneously must be causally related.

With all these natural disasters happening how can you deny that god isn't punishing us?

#9. Plurium interrogationum - Fallacy of demanding a simplistic answer to a complex question.

If god didn't create the universe then explain what did.

#10. Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy that one event will inevitably lead to harmful consequences.

If we let gays get married it will be the end of family values.

There are many more but these are my favorites and most commonly used logical fallacies in discussions with religious people.

if you have any more with examples please post them in a reply and I'll add them to the list.

Number 11 - Tu Quoque. The fallacy that flaws in one religion can be justified by pointing to flaws in another.

Number 12 - Argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy that insulting your opponent is a substitute for refuting their ideas, eg, you are mad/possessed by Shaitan/too stupid to understand Islam, etc.

I'll just go ahead and say I agree all of these are fallacies, there's no need to tackle any of them (and the fallacies themselves are so crude I don't think they're worth tackling either).

TheOne
21 March 2011, 05:25 AM
No atheist I have seen or met has disproved Sanatana Dharma to me.

rainycity
21 March 2011, 05:29 AM
Yet I could question that as well. This "particle" - can it be measured? Seen? Detected

In a sense yes, but I'm going to say no, since you're obviously reffering to the way physical particles like molecules and electrons can be seen, measured and detected. It is a point of awareness that is experienced subjectivley, not a physical particle.



Does it have mass?

Why should it have mass? If I'm correct, even physical particles like photons or neutrinos (some would say this is stretching the definition of physical) don't have mass.



Can we attribute its functions to other things like certain areas of the brain?

It doesn't exactly have a function per se, but you could say its function is consciousness. Can we attribute consciousness to the brain? not yet, but even if we do, the brain is a part of the body, and would therefore make the body conscious, where as the spirit-soul particle is not part of the physical body.



As more and more information about brain function is discovered, this particle seems to become less important.


I may be wrong, but you seem unfamiliar with the concept of this particle, so how do you know what is attributed to it?

wundermonk
21 March 2011, 06:16 AM
The Youtube series of videos beginning from here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gKh6huNmDw) may be of interest.

wundermonk
21 March 2011, 06:27 AM
No atheist I have seen or met has disproved Sanatana Dharma to me.

Well...the atheist response to that would be (I am NOT an atheist):

No Hindu I have seen or met has disproved atheism to me.

Adhvagat
21 March 2011, 02:38 PM
Wundermonk, great videos from this guy.

I'll create a playlist with all the ones regarding India.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5E17BB4B982F280B

sunyata07
21 March 2011, 02:53 PM
Well...the atheist response to that would be (I am NOT an atheist):

No Hindu I have seen or met has disproved atheism to me.

Good point. And yet, I would say that there is neither interest nor purpose in a Hindu's trying to disprove a God, unlike for atheism which seeks to disprove rather than to prove. Which, ultimately, gives greater scope?

TheOne
21 March 2011, 04:19 PM
Well...the atheist response to that would be (I am NOT an atheist):

No Hindu I have seen or met has disproved atheism to me.

I have no intent of disproving atheism as it is a completely valid life choice. Modern Quantum physics validates the Vedanta teaching of Brahman. Whether there is a "personal" god or not matters little to me as Moksha is achieved irrespective of Gods existence or non-existance.

In our attempt to "prove" a "personal" god we lose sight of the real goal. Our goal is not to go to heaven and "meet" god/Gods. Our goal is moksha union with the divine and ever present spirit.

I would be just as devoted a Hindu if I was an atheist because I would say that the gods are "tools for the mind" to achieve moksha.

Now I'm not saying that because I have the personal opinion that the Gods described in the holy texts exist in some form. I haven't developed my personal philosophy yet but I see no reason why someone cannot say the gods are not external but internal because that is true as well.


Ultimately, I see the "existence of god(s)" to be a personal choice which may or may not make it easier for moksha. If we constantly question and argue about the existance or non-existance of Gods we are merely wasting time.

sanjaya
21 March 2011, 04:28 PM
TheOne: how does quantum physics validate the Vedanta teaching of Brahman?

Honest question, I really don't know.

TheOne
21 March 2011, 04:45 PM
Modern Quantum physics validated the Advaita teaching that all is ultimately Brahman by the discovery of the Unified Field. Remember I don't know a lot abotu Quantum Physics but it has shown some very interesting things.

Some videos because I'm not good at explaining scientific things using words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTdnFoybLQU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fWtBq8uWKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pueVNbuZ2A4


Last one has three parts.

Adhvagat
21 March 2011, 04:49 PM
It's very interesting that ancient sages observed the nature of reality through meditation and yogic means... I think that before validating Advaita, quantum physics is in fact validating the process of yoga itself.

Don't you think?

charitra
21 March 2011, 05:06 PM
@ The One

" Remember I don't know a lot abotu Quantum Physics "

welcome to the club... it is an evolving science and they, iam going to sound pessimistic here and sorry about that, (the quantom physicists) havent got a lot to say from what the vedists have had to say already. Simply they are trying to play with words like eg., the term universe is now made a tiny fraction of larger inclusive word 'multiverse'

First there were 3 dimensions in all then a 4th one was added, more recently they started saying that there are at any given time 9 dimensions that we live in. But then I have a great respect for scientists and we should encourage them to reprove what vedists said all along: the creation is beginningless and endless. Hindus owe them big time, I mean to the scientists. :D

TheOne
21 March 2011, 08:08 PM
I agree, we must remember that first and foremost the sacred literature is of philisophical nature and not scientific. That doesn't mean there can't be scientific truths in the scriptures. I do believe that Advaita teachings are being validated by many of the Quantum Physicists experiments and theories.

One such way is that Hindus have known for a long time that the mind can alter "matter" to some degree. Now Quantum physicists have verified this by the "double slit experiment".

smaranam
21 March 2011, 10:23 PM
Namaste


Moksha is achieved irrespective of Gods existence or non-existance.
ShishupAl also achieved Moksha "irrespective of whether [he wanted] KRushNa [to] exist or not ." He just did not realize (it happened too quickly) that it was Shri KrushNa (God) who delivered that moksha by absorbing him into His effulgence i.e. wiping out ShishupAl's existence - how Merciful !


In our attempt to "prove" a "personal" god we lose sight of the real goal. Our goal is not to go to heaven and "meet" god/Gods. Our goal is moksha union with the divine and ever present spirit.

That most definitely does not represent the voice of all of Hinduism.

Prem-Bhakti-EDIT: "In our attempt to acquire impersonal jnAna, we lose sight of the real goal : P R E M, Love for the Infinite Compassionate Loving Lord. Our goal is not impersonal moksha, it is PREM, pure love of the Divine and ever-present VAsudev."

He Govind, i don't want moksha, siddhis, or heaven, just ~*~*~Y o u~*~*~ !! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PYc2IHQuWY&feature=related)


I would be just as devoted a Hindu if I was an atheist because I would say that the gods are "tools for the mind" to achieve moksha...
I see no reason why someone cannot say the gods are not external but internal because that is true as well.

It looks like MAyADevi is feeding someone's false ego that thinks "I AM THE CENTRE OF MY UNIVERSE and the "gods" are completely in my control."


Ultimately, I see the "existence of god(s)" to be [B]a personal choice which may or may not make it easier for moksha.

Hinduism-EDIT: I see acknowledging, imagining, understanding, worshiping, serving or simply loving God to be a personal choice, because He will never hold that against me, will continue to love me, and gives me complete free will.

THIS, is the difference between SanAtan Dharma and faiths. SanAtan Dharma is not a belief system. It is a natural state of being. It teaches us how to get out of the marching against the flow to marching in step with God.

The basic concept is to realize that gods are not "my tool at my disposal" but rather "i am His tool, i am here to fit hand-in-glove with His higher purpose and Design.

Sorry if that sounded rude, but it was done out of concern for your well-being. We don't want anyone to get caught up in Her mAyAjAAl. See how She is smiling :) :) :)

Om Namo Bhagavate VAsudevAya ~

wundermonk
22 March 2011, 03:57 AM
Good point. And yet, I would say that there is neither interest nor purpose in a Hindu's trying to disprove a God, unlike for atheism which seeks to disprove rather than to prove. Which, ultimately, gives greater scope?

Agreed. The average Hindu has absolutely no interest in wanting to disprove/condemn the non-Hindu faith.

I think one of Hinduism's greatest strengths is that it is completely non-contextual and atemporal. The Vedas (as far as I know) do not explicitly mention *what* will happen to Carvakas/Nastikas. One huge gaping defect I notice in the Quran/Bible seems to be explicit mention of the hell-bound status for heathens/non-believers/Jews/pagans/idolaters.

Yes, these days, the neo-atheists have become a shriller bunch. But I *do* think that they are doing an excellent job destroying Islam/Christianity. Dawkins seems to have no problem (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2014-hinduism-and-buddhism-offer-much-more-sophisticated-worldviews-or-philosophies-and-i-see-nothing-wrong-with-these-religions) with Dharmic faiths.

In any case, it is interesting to collect thoughts on this thread on how Hinduism, if at all, immunizes itself from the atheistic POV.

TheOne
22 March 2011, 05:17 AM
Namaste


ShishupAl also achieved Moksha "irrespective of whether [he wanted] KRushNa [to] exist or not ." He just did not realize (it happened too quickly) [B]that it was Shri KrushNa (God) who delivered that moksha by absorbing him into His effulgence i.e. wiping out ShishupAl's existence - how Merciful !



That most definitely does not represent the voice of all of Hinduism.

Prem-Bhakti-EDIT: "In our attempt to acquire impersonal jnAna, we lose sight of the real goal : P R E M, Love for the Infinite Compassionate Loving Lord. Our goal is not impersonal moksha, it is PREM, pure love of the Divine and ever-present VAsudev."

He Govind, i don't want moksha, siddhis, or heaven, just ~*~*~Y o u~*~*~ !! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PYc2IHQuWY&feature=related)



It looks like MAyADevi is feeding someone's false ego that thinks "I AM THE CENTRE OF MY UNIVERSE and the "gods" are completely in my control."



Hinduism-EDIT: I see acknowledging, imagining, understanding, worshiping, serving or simply loving God to be a personal choice, because He will never hold that against me, will continue to love me, and gives me complete free will.

THIS, is the difference between SanAtan Dharma and faiths. SanAtan Dharma is not a belief system. It is a natural state of being. It teaches us how to get out of the marching against the flow to marching in step with God.

The basic concept is to realize that gods are not "my tool at my disposal" but rather "i am His tool, i am here to fit hand-in-glove with His higher purpose and Design.

Sorry if that sounded rude, but it was done out of concern for your well-being. We don't want anyone to get caught up in Her mAyAjAAl. See how She is smiling :) :) :)

Om Namo Bhagavate VAsudevAya ~

It's not about "me" being the center of the universe because the true "me" is the universe. Consiousness is the ground of existence. Your claiming that I am "being selfish" by toying with the idea that the gods are not neccesasary for moksha is foolish. Bhakti's, myself included develop devotion for god by focusing the mind on him/her and therefore become better people.


Ultimately there is no difference between the Atman in you or me and in a Dog or a God there just on different levels of realization.


Now if you are Guadiya Vaishnaiva, I have no problem with you but don't go around calling others fools because you embrace one philisophical system. If you believe that YOUR way is the only way to Moksha THAT is the point were I strongly disagree with your belief.


Namaste.

Sahasranama
22 March 2011, 06:23 AM
There are two main schools of thought that deal with this question, one says mukti is a self effort and the other says mukti is achieved through grace of the divine at least to some extent. For the first view one may look into the yoga vasishta, the other view is more common in Hindu thought.

smaranam
22 March 2011, 09:00 AM
Namaste TheOne


It's not about "me" being the center of the universe because the true "me" is the universe. Consiousness is the ground of existence.

So far so good for Kevala Advaita


Your claiming that I am "being selfish" by toying with the idea that the gods are not neccesasary for moksha is foolish. Bhakti's, myself included develop devotion for god by focusing the mind on him/her and therefore become better people.

This language is much better than yesterday's : "Existence of God depends on my convenience. It is upto me whether to make up a God out of playdough or not"
However, the notion of whether or not God is/devtAs are necessary for moksha, is, forgive me, the language of mAyA again. The devtAs are always there, doing their work, whether the current "me" likes it or not. If you are that God, you speak too soon through this human body, because God is the humblest creature around.

The truth is we are qualitatively same as the Divine: rays of the Sun, but not the Sun, hence tadAtmic (one in spirit) with the Sun, marching in step with the Sun.


Now if you are Guadiya Vaishnaiva, I have no problem with you but don't go around calling others fools because you embrace one philisophical system. If you believe that YOUR way is the only way to Moksha THAT is the point were I strongly disagree with your belief.

Please note that i never called you or anyone "a fool." I could practically see mAyA so hard at work, i had to warn you. Also, those were not your words, it just shows your frank honest observation of how the vidyA (and avidyA) has been passing in circles.

I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnav. I have only one qualifying adjective : "Of Shri KrushNa By Shri KrushNa For Shri KRushNa" No sect, no dharma [other than serving His Lotus Feet], no group, no philosophy, no nothing.

I am also not fanatical. I opposed GVs, my potential shikshA gurus, when they said "Keval Advaita is against shAstra", but now i am slowly seeing where they come from and why.

So given that, how can i possibly say my way is the only way ? Adi Shankaracharya was obviously a BhAgvata from his side, he also had the title "BhAgvatpada." However, (perhaps thanks to his philosophy ?) look at some of his great-great-great-grand followers. They are too eager to take the "VedAnta" - anta of Ved, blow away and shake away all the Theistic dust. *Now* the vedAnta is ready to dive in. That was not the intention of the Ved, while summarising the anta. This Theistic dust is a big burden to some (particularly understandable if one comes from a culture other than sanAtan/Indus/vedic/Hindu in this life, although there are so many wonderful exceptions to that). The "dust" gets dangerously thinner to the point of non-existent when handed from person to person or group to group.

It is better to be an atheist or an agnostic scientist who waits for the human discoveries to unfold the eternal Truths of the Ved.

PLEASE NOTE that these comments are NOT directed personally at you. Please take them as a cautioning step or additional input.

praNAm
Shri KrushNa sharaNam mama

sanjaya
22 March 2011, 09:31 AM
Modern Quantum physics validated the Advaita teaching that all is ultimately Brahman by the discovery of the Unified Field. Remember I don't know a lot abotu Quantum Physics but it has shown some very interesting things.

Some videos because I'm not good at explaining scientific things using words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTdnFoybLQU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fWtBq8uWKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pueVNbuZ2A4


Last one has three parts.

I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I know, there's no such thing as a Unified Field. Seems like this may be a misunderstanding from the term "Unified Field Theory." I'm also slightly confused by this idea that the double slit experiment shows that the mind can alter matter, since the experiment works the same way if the observer is a computer instead of a human being.

TheOne
22 March 2011, 03:08 PM
Namaste TheOne



So far so good for Kevala Advaita



This language is much better than yesterday's : "Existence of God depends on my convenience. It is upto me whether to make up a God out of playdough or not"
However, the notion of whether or not God is/devtAs are necessary for moksha, is, forgive me, the language of mAyA again. The devtAs are always there, doing their work, whether the current "me" likes it or not. If you are that God, you speak too soon through this human body, because God is the humblest creature around.

The truth is we are qualitatively same as the Divine: rays of the Sun, but not the Sun, hence tadAtmic (one in spirit) with the Sun, marching in step with the Sun.



Please note that i never called you or anyone "a fool." I could practically see mAyA so hard at work, i had to warn you. Also, those were not your words, it just shows your frank honest observation of how the vidyA (and avidyA) has been passing in circles.

I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnav. I have only one qualifying adjective : "Of Shri KrushNa By Shri KrushNa For Shri KRushNa" No sect, no dharma [other than serving His Lotus Feet], no group, no philosophy, no nothing.

I am also not fanatical. I opposed GVs, my potential shikshA gurus, when they said "Keval Advaita is against shAstra", but now i am slowly seeing where they come from and why.

So given that, how can i possibly say my way is the only way ? Adi Shankaracharya was obviously a BhAgvata from his side, he also had the title "BhAgvatpada." However, (perhaps thanks to his philosophy ?) look at some of his great-great-great-grand followers. They are too eager to take the "VedAnta" - anta of Ved, blow away and shake away all the Theistic dust. *Now* the vedAnta is ready to dive in. That was not the intention of the Ved, while summarising the anta. This Theistic dust is a big burden to some (particularly understandable if one comes from a culture other than sanAtan/Indus/vedic/Hindu in this life, although there are so many wonderful exceptions to that). The "dust" gets dangerously thinner to the point of non-existent when handed from person to person or group to group.

It is better to be an atheist or an agnostic scientist who waits for the human discoveries to unfold the eternal Truths of the Ved.

PLEASE NOTE that these comments are NOT directed personally at you. Please take them as a cautioning step or additional input.

praNAm
Shri KrushNa sharaNam mama


I never gave any impression of taking the "veda" out of Vedanta. I could use that right back at you. Your belief that you are "saving me from maya" by saying my viewpoint of the Divine is wrong is absurd. As you were twisting my words and not pausing to read for a second I see that you did not care enough to examine my viewpoint.

Sanatana Dharma does not Depend upon the existence of Gods in the same way it does not depend on the actuality of the events of the Mahabharta. The philosophy contained in the Vedas and Gita are universally applicable no matter what culture, or opinion on the Divine one holds.

Please Note: Shankara didn't "invent" Advata, it was already present in the Gita and Upanishads. He systematized it and propagated the philosophy. If someones moral conduct depends on the existence or non-existence of Gods then they clearly have little grasp of the Vedas.

wundermonk
23 March 2011, 05:42 AM
If someones moral conduct depends on the existence or non-existence of Gods then they clearly have little grasp of the Vedas.

I couldnt agree more.

I personally find the theism vs atheism debate quite pointless actually. The atheism side starts bringing up our inability to prove existence of Pink Unicorns (existence of God is also unprovable. Since PUs are patently laughably non-existent, so is God. We win!!!). The theism side keeps asking how did something come out of nothing. Who is that first cause?

I think whatever floats your boat, so be it. As long as we can keep faith out of public policy, I dont think anybody needs to lose sleep over theism/atheism.

charitra
23 March 2011, 10:28 AM
Wundemonk Namaste,
As someone pointed out here already (Bryon from Philly?), the celebrity atheists fretted about the abrahamists and broadly speaking the dvaitist purists. They conveniently kept away from both the Brahman concept and advaita doctrine altogether. REF: ’God is not great’ by Christopher hitchens, ‘The god delusion’ by Richard dawkins. Having said that at least I respect the honesty of Dawkins who clearly stated in his book as to what type of God he doesn’t believe in. But you can be rest assured that this is nothing like an abrahamic belief system. SD doesnt ‘promote’ that type of god either. :) Explore the inner meaning of SD without any prejudice. You will be pleasantly surprised that sanatana dharma had extended a model which you can work on, I mean you as an atheist at that. Read closely.. Gracious inclusion of atheists was in the works right from the very ‘formative’ days of SD. shanti.

TheOne
23 March 2011, 08:02 PM
I agree. I would have more in common with an unbiased atheist than I would a Christian of any calibur mainly because true atheists(not the 20 year old college graduates who think they know everything and worship Ayn Rand) are a lot more open minded and logical in their thinking than Christians.

If I could, I would love to educate and be educated by great atheist thinkers such as Voltaire, Stephen Hawking, and even Richard Dawkins. Not merely because these people have advanced humanity immensely but because they are able to hold a logical conversation unlike many Christians and Muslims.


Note: I don't think Richard Dawkins is entirely correct in his branding of Hinduism as polytheism disguised monotheism but that's why I said I would love to educate them about Hindu philosophy(what little knowledge I have) and be educated by biology and his viewpoints on various things.

pineblossom
23 March 2011, 08:43 PM
If I could, I would love to educate and be educated by great atheist thinkers such as ... and even Richard Dawkins.

How could you have a 'logical conversation' with Dawkins - he had already made up his mind - we are all delusional.

TheOne
23 March 2011, 09:28 PM
If you check on his website and his works he has little to no attacks on Dharmic religions. I'm not saying I worship the man because what little he said about Dharmic religions is false. I don't believe he is ignorant I just believe he is doing exactly what most other people do in Western Culture, reject the absurd religion that they were born into. And because many of them have little knowledge about Eastern traditions they usually turn to Atheism for their answer to try to satisfy their Atma's thirst for God.

wundermonk
24 March 2011, 02:28 AM
You will be pleasantly surprised that sanatana dharma had extended a model which you can work on, I mean you as an atheist at that. Read closely.. Gracious inclusion of atheists was in the works right from the very ‘formative’ days of SD. shanti.

Namaste charitra:

I am an agnostic theist. :)

That being said, here are few atheistic arguments I personally agree with:

(1) No divine book (including Vedas) is scientific in the usual definition of the word. Vedic "truths" are self-experiential and subjectively experienced and hence not intersubjectively verifiable. That makes them, by definition, un"scientific". This is not to imply that science alone provides the only worthwhile true worldview (See scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)).

(2) We Hindus *believe* the Vedas are apurusheya (with no known human source/cause). This remains a belief and cannot be proven. So, I personally, have to concede to agnosticism on the origin of the Vedas. Could an enlightened *human* circa 5000-10000 BC have come up with them? Possibly. I dont know. But I think I know enough to concede that it could be a possibility and hence my agnosticism. That is also the reason why I feel evangelism of all stripes is fundamentally flawed and there ought to be complete separation of "church/mosque/temple" and state. If not, it is equivalent to punishing/condemning thought crimes.

(3)God is unlikely to be jealous, hatemongering, firespewing and so petty as to condemn non-believers to eternal hell and entrust his wisdom to self-proclaimed prophets who also conveniently claim they are the last messenger. Christianity and Islam fail miserably on this count and this alone is reason enough to junk them.

TheOne
24 March 2011, 05:39 AM
I agree with your position wundermonk. I am agnostic theist in the sence I KNOW I cannot prove in any way shape or form the existence of personal devas but that in no way troubles me because from the getgo I recognize the Devas as different aspects of manifested Brahman and I view the Trimurti(Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) as the ultimate aspects of god. Remember if you take half of infinity you still have infinity left. In all manners of consciousness whether it is Vishnu itself or a human or a flower all of these things have the same Atma, they are just on different levels of realization. The flower has no capacity to liberate itself. The human has the greatest capacity of living things to liberate itself. And the god is the root source of liberation.