quran scientific contradiction - geocentricism

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast� max

we have flying monkeys who swallow stars and lift mountains

you see max, within sanātana dharma it teaches truths via saṃketa� , metaphors, etc. If one reads the ved, this is the approach.
So, for the common person that chooses not to investigate the wisdom behind the words they are left with pictures in their minds of flying monkeys, or cows smashing mountains (ṛg ved 1.7.3).


If one reads the śāstra-s without knowing they are written on 3 levels�, the reader will remain confounded.


Yet that said, I would as you to please take a look at the question I have posed to you here, as I am genuinely interested in your response and POV : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...72&postcount=9

praṇām

words

• saṃketa - hint , allusion , signal or gesture; as this word is rooted (√) in kṛ ' to give a signal'

The wise tell us there are 3 levels of interpretation that occur simultaneously:

• ādhibautika आधिभौतिक - the physical level - derived or produced from the elements
• ādhidaivika आधिदैविक- the cosmic level pertaining to the devatā
• ādhytmika आध्यात्मिक- spiritual , of the Supreme, Self.

[Sahasranama]

Hanuman is rudrarupa, I am not suprised that he can fly and eat the sun, I would be suprised if he could not fly and eat the sun.

[sanjaya]

Vannakkam: I find your repetition of this statememt offensive and naive as it doesn't take into account the reader's interpretation at all. It reminds me of dealing with schoolyard bullies, when confronted, say "We were just fooling around." Then when one speaks with the victim of the bully, another statement or sadder version is given. I tended to side with the victim.

A stronger version is the murderer who tells the judge, "But I didn't mean it."

The very fact an atheist comes onto a forum to argue with Hindus, to me, is by definition derogatory by nature.

On another topic, you also stated that the development of language requires a consciousness of the self. Now if this self you speak of is anywhere near to the meaning of 'Self' within Hinduism, then you have contradicted yourself completely.

I would just like to say that no offense is intended. The idea that I refute atheism and atheists as ridiculous presumptions is not meant to be derogatory or demeaning.

Aum Namasivaya

I agree, and I would note that this behavior is common among atheists.

Maxpsycho, because you identify as Hindu I want to assume you have the same superiority complex that many Western atheists have inherited from their Christian friends. But I'm noticing the same sort of language I'd see in a Richard Dawkins book. Let's be serious. You can't say that Hinduism is ridiculous and/or foolish, and then claim that you mean no offense. I'm not saying that an atheist can't state his beliefs without being offensive. I have no problem with someone saying that they don't believe in God. But there's a difference between simple disbelief in God, and religious atheism.

Whatever atheists claim, I contend that most Dawkins or Hitchens followers practice their atheism as a religion. These new atheists base their religion around demeaning theistic religions (Christianity is what initially incited their anger, but I guess that now it's open season on any of us who happen to believe in the supernatural). They have specifically said in their writings that religions don't deserve any special respect, and should be treated the same as any other viewpoint expressed in public life. For example, political opponents will often bash each others' platforms. In much the same way, religion should be open to ridicule and should not be treated with special reverence. The New Atheism is a backlash against Christianity, which for centuries in European culture caused oppression of dissenters. Later on, in America, Christianity was still considered the "holy cow" (so to speak) of popular culture, and was treated with great reverence even by those who didn't believe in it. The New Atheists see themselves those who have overthrown this oppressive system and brought Christianity to the same status as the Republicans and Democrats (or whatever parties are in Britain).

Now here's the problem. Like most Westerners, these people think that religion=Christianity. So the New Atheists project all of their frustrations with Christianity, whether legitimate or not, on Hinduism. They come to India and think that they can strip the culture of Hinduism. To them, cows in the street are the same thing as inquisitions, and they believe that Hinduism ought to be treated with no special reverence. So of course one should get away with making comments about how our gods and goddesses are ridiculous and irrelevant in our modern, scientific society.

There is a very clear distinction between legitimate dissent and outright rudeness and arrogance. And I think it's pretty simple to avoid rudeness. No one is making any unreasonable demands by asking that atheists behave respectfully when discussing Hinduism. In short: if someone is of the opinion that depictions of Hindu gods are ridiculous, then that opinion is best kept to oneself.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

It is interesting to read other HDF members posts. Many good points have been offered.

I see max's contribution to HDF that allow us ( me ) to compare-and-contrast various value systems and beliefs.
If max's view is na+ astika or it is not so I would like to better understand this. I'd like to understand the root meaning of the Cārvāka's atheistical POV, the origin, their core view. I'd like to see if there is one piece of the puzzle that may be missing that brings the nāstika to their conclusions - I think I can learn.

If the conversations are not condesending or jalpa, we can benefit by viewing nigrahasthāna� , if that is possible. What is this fancy word? It means to view anothers argument/position that is inconsistent, perhaps even controdictory in nature. To me, it would be a 'blind spot' in the logic of application and belief of the Cārvāka's.

I think I wish to be the student and learn, observe and probe. Yet if the conversation becomes vitaṇḍā� (frivolous argument ) , then it will bear no fruit and I will admit my genuine interest was stepped on and learning perhaps is not possible within this type of forum ( suggesting 1:1 conversation may be most appropros).

praṇām

words

• nigrahasthāna निग्रहस्थान - a term we find in the nyāya school defined as the following: the position of being unfit to carry on an argument from impossibility of agreeing about first principles
• vitaṇḍā - perverse or frivolous argument; arguments or assertions of another without attempting to prove the opposite side of the question

[PARAM]

ॐ

As far as I know from reading zoological journals, no real animal "language" has ever been learned. The cases of the dolphin or the bonobos or other types of chimpanzees and apes communicating have come close to what we would call 'language'. But what I would like to point out, is that languages, the way humans have developed them, require consciousness of the self; which is something that hasn't seen to be evolved nearly to the same level as humans in any other species. And so I am fairly certain that there is no real human speaking with animals in their native tongue. Dr. Doolittle of course is simply a terrible movie and nothing more.

In this case you have less knowledge about it, many people have learnt languages of animals and can talk to them, of course not me, but it is possible. However Hanuman is Divine so he have powers, no commen person have this. And now if you have any doubt make a thread for it and members here can answer it, but no mocking or lies about Hinduism is allowed. Now please remain on topic

[Adhvagat]

I agree, and I would note that this behavior is common among atheists.

Maxpsycho, because you identify as Hindu I want to assume you have the same superiority complex that many Western atheists have inherited from their Christian friends. But I'm noticing the same sort of language I'd see in a Richard Dawkins book. Let's be serious. You can't say that Hinduism is ridiculous and/or foolish, and then claim that you mean no offense. I'm not saying that an atheist can't state his beliefs without being offensive. I have no problem with someone saying that they don't believe in God. But there's a difference between simple disbelief in God, and religious atheism.

Whatever atheists claim, I contend that most Dawkins or Hitchens followers practice their atheism as a religion. These new atheists base their religion around demeaning theistic religions (Christianity is what initially incited their anger, but I guess that now it's open season on any of us who happen to believe in the supernatural). They have specifically said in their writings that religions don't deserve any special respect, and should be treated the same as any other viewpoint expressed in public life. For example, political opponents will often bash each others' platforms. In much the same way, religion should be open to ridicule and should not be treated with special reverence. The New Atheism is a backlash against Christianity, which for centuries in European culture caused oppression of dissenters. Later on, in America, Christianity was still considered the "holy cow" (so to speak) of popular culture, and was treated with great reverence even by those who didn't believe in it. The New Atheists see themselves those who have overthrown this oppressive system and brought Christianity to the same status as the Republicans and Democrats (or whatever parties are in Britain).

Now here's the problem. Like most Westerners, these people think that religion=Christianity. So the New Atheists project all of their frustrations with Christianity, whether legitimate or not, on Hinduism. They come to India and think that they can strip the culture of Hinduism. To them, cows in the street are the same thing as inquisitions, and they believe that Hinduism ought to be treated with no special reverence. So of course one should get away with making comments about how our gods and goddesses are ridiculous and irrelevant in our modern, scientific society.

There is a very clear distinction between legitimate dissent and outright rudeness and arrogance. And I think it's pretty simple to avoid rudeness. No one is making any unreasonable demands by asking that atheists behave respectfully when discussing Hinduism. In short: if someone is of the opinion that depictions of Hindu gods are ridiculous, then that opinion is best kept to oneself.

QFT...

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Having said all this above, I'd also like to say my father was an atheist. If not a downright atheist, at least an agnostic leaning heavily towards atheism.

I learned and hopefully have kept the following values from him: sense of humour, hard work, absolute honesty, complete sportsmanship, caring of fellow men, duty to country (He was a WW2 vet.) and more. But one major difference was that he never spoke of his atheist beliefs. As an adult, I had to observe it in practice, or draw it out of him.

I did not change into a Hindu. I merely discovered from within what I already believed. We don't learn theism. We discover it via the faculty of intuition.

Aum Namasivaya

[Kumar_Das]

You are from an Arya Samaj family, and become atheist because of this, but you did not try to find out the facts.
However you should try to understand that Modern Science has proved that even animals have languages and human can learn it as well. Dr. Doolittle types of stories also express same. Hanuman was not an ordinary, he was Divine so it was not impossible for him to do anything even in monkey form, while Koran is a total nonsense kind of subject, the proofs you can find in Koran they are not in good taste, so this is not possible any such person can have some divine power

Proofs in the Quran? Really? Can you please show me?

[Rationalist]

Actually, the Quran has been proven to have scientific truth in it. Some of the scientific topics it expounds upon are; the science of jihads, genocides, hatred, intolerance, and stupidity. There is indeed much one can learn from the Q'uran.

[Kumar_Das]

maxpsycho, nice username.

from the start he has no reason to post on my thread. probably just another sullah itching to respond to my owning of his shi**y "scripture".

I'll tell what he wanted to achieve with that post. Trying to highlight some absurdity of some sort within Hindu scriptures to show that we too have flaws.

Very much like the guy who has faeces sticking to his buttocks and stinks because of that, is laughed at by others, and he as a result of this trying to scratch and point at others that they too are like him therefore both share in filthyness and him looking less stinky in comparison. Such lowliness is only characteristic of Abrahamics.