Greetings...

[charitra]

Namaste and Welcome AG,
hope your stay here will be mutually beneficial.

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins clearly defined The GOD first and then dismissed Him next. I respect those atheists who know WHO they are talking about. Now would you care to define who you refuse to recognize first By the way hindus themselves as well dismiss those Gods that have certain unacceptable (human ?) qualities .

[Atheist Guru]

Charitra,

Namaste and Welcome AG, hope your stay here will be mutually beneficial.

Thank you Charitra - I hope so too and will do what I can to answer questions also!

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins clearly defined The GOD first and then dismissed Him next. I respect those atheists who know WHO they are talking about. Now would you care to define who you refuse to recognize first By the way hindus themselves as well dismiss those Gods that have certain unacceptable (human ?) qualities .

Interesting question. In TGD, Dawkins doesn't define a God before dismissing him. That would be tantamount to setting up your own straw man, which Atheism doesn't need to resort to; there's already plenty of Gods out there, with questionable characteristics to pick from.

The God of the Old Testament is no exception and is used as the focus by many authors to suit the demographics in support of their book sales. The same logic described in the book, applies to any deity or supernatural phenomena that requires faith in order to be believed. Read the chapter 'There is no Eastern Solution' in Christopher Hitchens' 'God is not great' if you get a chance. Dawkins also makes a reference to Hinduism in TGD, in the section discussing monotheism vs. polytheism.

Now - while I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, I am happy to share with you my perspective on the subject.

My take on it is that the Abrahamic God is obviously borne of the creative imaginations of tribal bronze-aged males. This God creates things, knowing full well of their outcomes (being omniscient), yet is angered by the actions of his creations to the point where he needs to intervene. The Abrahamic God condemns those who do not glorify and worship him to an eternity of suffering and torture, while granting immunity to those who simply believe in him and glorify him. This God also supports slavery, murder, genocide and shows a level of sexism that is unmatched.

Besides the gaping logical inconsistencies in this god's attributes, coupled with the litany of errors in the Bible leads me to few other conclusions than it being a man-made construction.

For me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If somebody you that they were Krishna incarnate and demanded that you turn over all your wealth and property purely on faith as a test for a reward in the afterlife - would you do it? No. And you shouldn't - at least not without any compelling evidence anyway. Likewise, neither would I... However I am always open to new evidence being presented in support of supernatural claims and if it is satisfactory, then I'll accept it. But for now, these are just wild claims that reside in the creative world of faith.

As far as Hinduism is concerned - I get conflicting opinions on the God or Gods that are worshipped in my conversations with Hindu colleagues. Perhaps you can help me obtain clarity on this.

My question to you is: do you believe that Gods such as Ganesha, Ram, Vishnu, Shiva and Hanuman REALLY existed - as in actually walked the earth with their special powers?

Peace,
AG

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

For me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The only evidence that will be non-disputable will be direct personal experience. No matter what others say or show you there will always be a doubt. That is why we are taught ( within sanātana dharma) that the Self (ātman) is svatāsiddha is self-revealed, self-known on a personal, subjective, intimate level. One can look for inferences , ideas, pointers - all are good to appreciate this level of Being. Yet at the end of the day the Self reveals itSelf to itSelf, so says the upaniṣad-s�.

So when you mention , show me, show me the evidence... the answer is show your Self to your Self. We encourage your introspection and search for the truth , for the 'evidence' that the Supreme exists. Within sanātana dharma you needn't look past your own Self. If you look here and there, it is certain you will miss it.

iti śivaṁ


1. Two upaniṣad-s call this out : kaṭhopaniṣad (1.2.23) & muṇḍukopaniṣad (3.2.2)

[Caltha]

Namaste, Atheist Guru,

Welcome. I mostly sit and listen here, because there are many here far wiser than me, but I can tell you that there are depths of philosophy and devotion here that will take your breath away if you let them. I myself came from a background of Abrahamic confusion and fear. The Abrahamic God stopped making sense for me but even in the Abrahamic traditions there are some sparks of light. But most of the Abrahamic tradition feels like a dense fog and the Abrahamic paths seem to wander around and lead to nowhere.

If you read books of the philosophy of Sanatana Dharma the Sanskrit terms will make your head swim. The Sanskrit terms are absolutely necessary because there are no words in English that express a lot of the ideas.

If I may sum up my own quite limited understanding, in back of and behind and before and imbuing everything there is That. Our human minds can't even begin to comprehend That. That is reality; That is beyond reality. When everything physical in this universe has stopped and disappeared That will still be there. And at the core of you, and of me, and everybody here, and everybody everywhere that ever was and ever will be is -- That.

How many universes are there? There can never be so many that That is not the basis of all of them.

I've already said so much here, and I've probably gotten a lot wrong, but this for me is the beginning of the mind's understanding. There is so much more that it will take your breath away but I really am not the person to talk about it.



Pranams,

Caltha

[Atheist Guru]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�



The only evidence that will be non-disputable will be direct personal experience. No matter what others say or show you there will always be a doubt. That is why we are taught ( within sanātana dharma) that the Self (ātman) is svatāsiddha is self-revealed, self-known on a personal, subjective, intimate level. One can look for inferences , ideas, pointers - all are good to appreciate this level of Being. Yet at the end of the day the Self reveals itSelf to itSelf, so says the upaniṣad-s�.

So when you mention , show me, show me the evidence... the answer is show your Self to your Self. We encourage your introspection and search for the truth , for the 'evidence' that the Supreme exists. Within sanātana dharma you needn't look past your own Self. If you look here and there, it is certain you will miss it.

iti śivaṁ


1. Two upaniṣad-s call this out : kaṭhopaniṣad (1.2.23) & muṇḍukopaniṣad (3.2.2)

The problem with personal experience is that it is not objective proof, nor is it a reliable indicator of reality. People are convinced of their own personal experiences to believe that they met the God of the Old Testament, who approves of burning animal flesh for his own glorification, and finds its odor "pleasing", like a barbecue. People also have personal experiences of shape shifting to reptilian form and communicating with their alien brethren (I'm not kidding). The problem is that subjective proof through personal experience is not independently verifiable no matter how many people claim to have the 'same' experience. The human mind is also exceptionally susceptible to hallucination and incorrectly perceiving external stimuli, which compounds the issue further.

I'm okay with you accepting your personal experience being evidentiary for you, however I'm sure you'd agree that it's not a very scientific way to go about verifying whether it's true or not.

Peace,
AG

[Atheist Guru]

Namaste, Atheist Guru,

Welcome. I mostly sit and listen here, because there are many here far wiser than me, but I can tell you that there are depths of philosophy and devotion here that will take your breath away if you let them.

Thank you very much for the welcome. Well, I don't think you should just come here to sit and listen. You have a critical mind and you should use it to challenge things that don't make sense to you. Sure, there may be smarter people out there at certain subjects, but there's also people who are less smart. End of the day, it's YOU that needs to be intellectually satisfied so go for it... come out and start questioning and continue posting!

I myself came from a background of Abrahamic confusion and fear. The Abrahamic God stopped making sense for me but even in the Abrahamic traditions there are some sparks of light. But most of the Abrahamic tradition feels like a dense fog and the Abrahamic paths seem to wander around and lead to nowhere.

Actually, I'm inclined to feel the opposite. The Christian God, compared to the many interpretations of the Hindu God is remarkably simplistic. He is an alpha male, who creates things for his own glorification and pleasure, who tests his creations to see whether they opt to worship him or not. As much as this God hates to see it happen... millions are sent to a torturous environment, where untold suffering in the most horrific manner is inflicted on the victims for all eternity. Those who choose to grovel and worship him are rewarded with eternal hedonistic bliss.

The Hindu God(s) are more nebulous (to me anyway) - this is where the dense fog comes in. Some Hindus actually believe the accounts in the Vedas to be historically true. That Shiva REALLY did have to rip a tiger's skin and use it as a loin cloth; That Ganesh was truly made from body dirt and had his head chopped off by his father (who is empowered to destroy the universe when the time comes). Other Hindus tell me that it's all mythology, and the accounts such as these are allegorical and should be interpreted accordingly. One Indian journalist lady I had lunch with in New York was convinced of her beliefs and considered herself a devout Hindu. When I asked her the same question... whether these gods really did come to Earth and physically walk around, while possessing superhuman power, she was stumped. An award winning, double graduate accomplished writer had a hard time answering, what I consider a straightforward question. She of course revised her answer a few minutes later to state that yes, they did really exist (that's when the conversation really got interesting!).

If I may sum up my own quite limited understanding, in back of and behind and before and imbuing everything there is That. Our human minds can't even begin to comprehend That. That is reality; That is beyond reality. When everything physical in this universe has stopped and disappeared That will still be there. And at the core of you, and of me, and everybody here, and everybody everywhere that ever was and ever will be is -- That.

If human minds cannot comprehend these texts, then what value can they possibly have? The problem here is that this creates an intellectual void; a void that demands explanation where there is none. Then voila! as if right on cue, people calling themselves Gurus (present company excluded), Sadhus, Sad Gurus, Swami etc. etc. etc. step in and spew out whatever they want, under the guise of being spiritual masters. It's really supply and demand at the end of the day.

One very famous Swami even went as far as saying that the moon landing was faked. This is ecause the moon exists further away than the sun; with the moon being a planet with a fiery surface and a cool atmosphere hosting all kinds of life. The same guru claimed that women are inferior culturally, spiritually and intellectually and points to female brain mass as proof. The same Swami stated that Hitler was actually a gentleman and he had valid reasons to destroy the Jews. The same Swami preaches about women having to be obedient and perfect little wives, or their husbands will walk out of them. Oh the same Swami walked out on his own family, while preaching family values as well. So you get the idea, manipulative idiots like that can say and do whatever they want as long as they get the VIP treatment, thousands of followers who grovel at their feet and of course $$$... lots and lots of $$$ from donations and book sales.

I've already said so much here, and I've probably gotten a lot wrong, but this for me is the beginning of the mind's understanding. There is so much more that it will take your breath away but I really am not the person to talk about it.

Please stop with the self-deprecating remarks. I think you ARE the right person to talk about it, as are others on this forum so please - continue sharing your thoughts. You can start the the ones outlined above.

Pleased to meet you!
AG

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

The problem with personal experience is that it is not objective proof, nor is it a reliable indicator of reality. People are convinced of their own personal experiences to believe that they met the God of the Old Testament, who approves of burning human flesh for his own glorification, and finds its odor "pleasing". People also have personal experiences of shape shifting to reptilian form and communicating with their alien brethren (I'm not kidding). The problem is that subjective proof through personal experience is not independently verifiable no matter how many people claim to have the 'same' experience. The human mind is also exceptionally susceptible to hallucination and incorrectly perceiving external stimuli, which compounds the issue further.

I'm okay with you accepting your personal experience being evidentiary for you, however I'm sure you'd agree that it's not a very scientific way to go about verifying whether it's true or not.

Peace,
AG

Please note that you are speaking from a different quadrant... you have mentioned the old testament on several occasions. This, for us, within sanātana dharma is outside our data-point of perfect truth or even relevence.

Our orientation are the veda-s, the āgama-s, the upaniṣad-s and the like. Yet that too comes with a three-pronged approach:

• smṛti - remembrance , reminiscence , thinking of or upon, calling to mind i.e. the whole body of sacred tradition or what is remembered by human (embodied) teachers. What fits into smṛti? The vedāṅgas ( limbs of the veda), Law books or dharmasāstra-s, the epics or ithihāsa-s and purāṇa-s.
  Hence the bhāgavad gītā is part of the mahābhārata, a Ithihāsa ( some write Itihāsa ). This itihāsa is iti + ha + āsa = 'so it was' .
• śruti - that which is cognized. This is considered the divine which is heard, seen, cognized within the consciousness of the ṛṣi-s ; we think of the veda-s as the repository of this wisdom.
• svatāsiddha is self-revealed ( per my last post) experiences of knowledge.

We find when these 3 things align perfectly, we have the highest level of confidence of truth (satta). I know of no other approach that is this thorough.

Now that said, it is my opinion that at then end of the day all things no matter what they are , remain subjective. To the 'naked' eye one can say this is objective, this is scientific. 'Scientific' suggests being reliable and repeatable, verifyable. This is how it also works within various bodies found within sanātana dharma, yet when the human condition enters into the frey so does subjectivity.


Let me say I respect your doubts. It can be fuel for one's inquiry into deeper knowledge; or it can be burden or excuse not to seriously look. As with all humans on this good earth you have a choice. May your choices bring you to fertile fields of understanding.

But that said, it is not my job ( nor others) on HDF to pursue a policy of converting or conviencing any one 'to see our way' and comply. We only ask you ( and all that come here) to respect our vision, our simplicy of views, and the wisdom that has come to us over thousands of years.

iti śivaṁ

[Twilightdance]

Twilightdance,



Thanks for the welcome.

Yes, I would agree that it would be hard to find much support of atheism in a religious philosophy that has a god at its very epicenter.

...But precisely, God is not the epicenter of the religious philosophies in Hinduism except vedanta [and its offspring].

[Atheist Guru]

yajvan

Now that said, it is my opinion that at then end of the day all things no matter what they are , remain subjective. To the 'naked' eye one can say this is objective, this is scientific. 'Scientific' suggests being reliable and repeatable, verifyable.

I would argue that under all conditions that are currently available to us, things can be objectively verified to the point where we get predictive models based on them. For instance if water boils at 100 degrees C in Australia, I can predict the same event under controlled conditions on my stove with a cheap thermometer.

Does it guarantee that water ALWAYS boils at 100 deg C 100% of the time under ALL conditions? No. But it's the most accurate information we currently have and are likely to have.

The whole point of experimentation in controlled environments to demonstrate repeatability is BECAUSE the naked eye is unreliable. That's the beauty of science.

This is how it also works within various bodies found within sanātana dharma, yet when the human condition enters into the frey so does subjectivity.

Yes, but as described above - it's likely not be objective and is therefore not subject to independent verification; and it probably can't be repeatably demonstrated under controlled conditions. Granted, I'm making assumptions about the doctrines you mentioned, so perhaps you can elaborate on their objectivity.

But that said, it is not my job ( nor others) on HDF to pursue a policy of converting or conviencing any one 'to see our way' and comply.

Does that go for your kids too?

We only ask you ( and all that come here) to respect our vision, our simplicy of views, and the wisdom that has come to us over thousands of years.

I respect people not their ideologies, as they are the ones who act on it accordingly or discordantly. I would further go on to state that when you refer to 'our' or 'we'... whom are you referring to? All Hindus? Other members of your particular sect? Does this include Satya Sai Baba and Srila Prabhupada who continually disapproved of each other's preachings?

Peace,
AG

[Mana]

हरिः ओम्


Namaste AG,

Pleased to meet you, welcome.
Some very wise words uttered already in this thread; If I might offer some more thoughts for your consideration.

The problem with personal experience is that it is not objective proof, nor is it a reliable indicator of reality.

What is your definition of a proof? After all, although Newtonian Physics still works today; it has been proven to be wrong as a model of reality.
Considering the previous statement, I would be fascinated to hear your explanation of Relativity, or, as too the nature of the inner workings of
Quantum Electro Dynamics?

Physics, as the root, or core, of modern scientific doctrine, is a great starting point for a line of thought or perspective. But let us also consider
Mathematics, as its language. Is it not fair to state that, the subjectively orientated and visionary nature of mathematicians; often puts them
century's ahead of Physicists. We might do well to consider here; what is it that defines mathematics, out side any given set of axioms?

Modern science seems to me to be far to objectively orientated, contenting its self to apply blindly the knowledge that it finds, without enquiring
as to its subjective nature of its nature; the result of which is grave ecological imbalance. This I believe to be provable in hindsight, yet it is best
seen with insight.

Incidentally, I am from a family lineage of fanatical atheists.

praṇāma

Mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय