Not for aethists
-
I'm a little bored with MFC today (duh), so I was reading up some Greek mythology. Pretty amazing to see that there's so much imperfection. Jealousy, Rage, Murder, Deceit, Betrayal..........albeit at a divine level, but they are there nonetheless, that too in ample amounts. The betrayal of Hephaestus by Aphrodite, the punishing of Arachene by Athene, the castration of Uranus by Cronos and many more incidents testify that. It just doesn't feel right. Even many elements of Hindu mythology depict major divine imperfections, and these are not necessarily the acts of the demonic ones, but the acts of "good" Gods. If our Gods are not perfect, then who is? For the Hindu folks in here: In our Mythological texts, I think Rama and Krishna are the only ones who have never been shown to have committed any acts of imperfection. I would have added Yudhishtira to that list, but since he did decide to "sell" Draupadi off to the Kauravas, it's the one single act of his that can be labelled as imperfect, regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps by Hindu standards it's not imperfection, but Rama insisting that his wife prove to the world that she is pure ( i.e. still 'chaste' after being imprisoned for many months by his arch-enemy) by walking into a flaming funeral pyre that she expected would burn her to a crisp seems a little. . .um. . . idiosyncratic to this westerne
I too thought this act was inappropriate(Oh Rama, great one, forgive me for this blatant audacity to judge you, for I am a mere human trapped in this illusory world, capable of sins, but none that cannot by cleaned with your brilliant radiance and unmatched glory). But there's an explanation. (From Wikipedia): At the great shock and sorrow of the watchers, Sita walks into the flames. But to their greater shock and wonder, she is completely unharmed. Instead, she glows radiantly from the centre of the pyre. Immediately Rama runs to Sita and embraces her. He had never doubted her purity for a second, but, as he explains to a dazzled Sita, the people of the world would not have accepted or honoured her as a queen or a woman if she had not passed this Agni pariksha before the eyes of millions, where Agni would destroy the impure and sinful, but not touch the pure and innocent. Although there are other schools of thought, I strongly believe in this one. Why? While I'm afraid of sounding like an imbecile, I'll still say "because I choose to". These days I'm tending to believe in the good. :-O
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
I see. So for a public relations ploy, he let the love of his life think he was rejecting her for being such a slut as to allow herself to be imprisoned and letting her be burned to death. Jehiva pulled something similar: Told Abraham to tie his son up, lay him on the altar and cut his heart out. Like Rama, Jehova was just kidding.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
No no, see I'm not trying to find excuses to support Rama and stand against Yudhishthira. What I'm trying to say is that Rama's act can be questioned, whereas the act of Yudhishthira cannot be questioned. Besides, would you not agree that Rama's act was in favour of Dharma whereas Yudhishthira's act was not? PS: Nice to know you're from Tamil Nadu. I'd fallen in love with Kodaikanal when I visited the place. Is it still the same, or has the refined ways of the highly cultured Indian citizens managed to turn it into a litterbox like Darjeeling?
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
I'd even agree upon the fact that Rama is one of the Greatest too. I was just looking forward to how you would take up this argument, since you compare Rama with Yudhishthira. Kodaikanal is absolutely paradise on earth. I love it a lot. But then, it's been a while after I visited there. I believe that the local government body there puts in a lot of efforts to make sure that the place would not become a crap-dump any soon. Silver falls, the lake, the hill side views, mornings with a lot of mist, Man, that's just amazing. Darjeeling... I love Darjeeling tea. I mean - if you start drinking it, no other tea can satisfy you. May be for except for the tea leaf selections that come from connoisseur collection. On an additional note, I was stating you that I was from Tamil Nadu. It's been quite some time after I've moved to Mumbai. May be 7 years or so.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
But that's like accusing a Jew of not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior :). It's the entire distinction. I myself was religious (Christian bent - I grew up in the southeast USA) until I looked into it more, and in how I really related to it. I find the topic itself wildly interesting, as religious thinking is up there with counting and war as cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-age pursuits that don't have a seat in biology itself like eating/sleeping/screwing do. I've just come to the conclusion that it, like counting and war, are utterly human endeavors. That doesn't make a discussion of mono- and polytheism any less interesting :) I was under the impression, however, that Hinduism (or at least some major sects) were really monotheism with a polytheistic veneer. Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? Isn't that comparable at least to God and his plethora of Angels and Saints, at least in some Christian sects?
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated?
Brahmma/Brahma/Brammah is the lord of creations (and that's the reason behind why I gave myself that nick name earlier here at CP, or rather was misusing his name ;) ). However, he is not considered to be the supreme of all. That would be, Lord Krishna. :)
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
I saw this on youtube and thought you might enjoy it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8roxM1k02g[^]
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
I saw this on youtube and thought you might enjoy it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8roxM1k02g[^]
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
Patrick S wrote:
Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of shit and we cannot reason for what we believe in. It starts out like "Ok I believe you somewhat", after a while "You've gotta be kidding me", and finally "When was the last dose of crack bub?". So, that's that.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Patrick S You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology? . Bulky Fellow Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
Which is to say that most 'atheists' (and certainly those who regularly post in the SoapBox) and *not* able to participate in such discussions. The fact of the matter is that (most) 'atheists' *start* from the axiom "that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in" (i.e. it is not a conclusion, it is their starting point) and there is no reasoning that will induce them to reconsider -- they "define" rationality as equivalent to 'atheism;' they "determine" that an argument is rational/logical by its result/conclusion, not by its form/structure. And most certainly will these 'atheists' *not* see that their own 'atheism' is itself inherently and inescapably incoherent. For, since they have "defined" rationality as equivalent to 'atheism,' then, by definition 'atheism' cannot be inherently and inescapably incoherent. And then, when "theists" (how I hate that term!) say things like this:
Russell Morris: Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? . Vikram A Punathambekar: It's certainly not Brahma. I think you are thinking of Vishnu. The Dash Avatars were incarnations of Vishnu. However, Krishna says in the Gita he is supreme. That's somewhat confusing. But I try not to think about it too much. :)
One does understand why some 'atheists' imagine themselves justified in their pseudo-conclusion.
-
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Patrick S You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology? . Bulky Fellow Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
Which is to say that most 'atheists' (and certainly those who regularly post in the SoapBox) and *not* able to participate in such discussions. The fact of the matter is that (most) 'atheists' *start* from the axiom "that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in" (i.e. it is not a conclusion, it is their starting point) and there is no reasoning that will induce them to reconsider -- they "define" rationality as equivalent to 'atheism;' they "determine" that an argument is rational/logical by its result/conclusion, not by its form/structure. And most certainly will these 'atheists' *not* see that their own 'atheism' is itself inherently and inescapably incoherent. For, since they have "defined" rationality as equivalent to 'atheism,' then, by definition 'atheism' cannot be inherently and inescapably incoherent. And then, when "theists" (how I hate that term!) say things like this:
Russell Morris: Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? . Vikram A Punathambekar: It's certainly not Brahma. I think you are thinking of Vishnu. The Dash Avatars were incarnations of Vishnu. However, Krishna says in the Gita he is supreme. That's somewhat confusing. But I try not to think about it too much. :)
One does understand why some 'atheists' imagine themselves justified in their pseudo-conclusion.
Ilíon wrote:
The fact of the matter is that (most) 'atheists' *start* from the axiom "that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in" (i.e. it is not a conclusion, it is their starting point) and there is no reasoning that will induce them to reconsider -- they "define" rationality as equivalent to 'atheism;' they "determine" that an argument is rational/logical by its result/conclusion, not by its form/structure.
Wow. Talk about pompous hubris. I don't know a single atheist that starts from that position. Rather, their starting position (and mine) is "What can we discover about the universe." God simply never enters the equation. It's as much of a leap to proclaim that "God does not exist" with absolute certainty as it is to claim "God DOES exist" with absolute certainty. Both are unknowable. It's really quite sad that you've never made an informed attempt to actually understand the atheist argument, and yet you consider yourself so qualified to make such judgements.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Patrick S wrote:
Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of shit and we cannot reason for what we believe in. It starts out like "Ok I believe you somewhat", after a while "You've gotta be kidding me", and finally "When was the last dose of crack bub?". So, that's that.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
Fair enough. It's worth noting that I don't bother with such accusations (because I don't agree with them, to boot). While I am atheist, I find theological discussions interesting, motivating, because they're at the heart of what makes human cultures tick.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Ilíon wrote:
The fact of the matter is that (most) 'atheists' *start* from the axiom "that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in" (i.e. it is not a conclusion, it is their starting point) and there is no reasoning that will induce them to reconsider -- they "define" rationality as equivalent to 'atheism;' they "determine" that an argument is rational/logical by its result/conclusion, not by its form/structure.
Wow. Talk about pompous hubris. I don't know a single atheist that starts from that position. Rather, their starting position (and mine) is "What can we discover about the universe." God simply never enters the equation. It's as much of a leap to proclaim that "God does not exist" with absolute certainty as it is to claim "God DOES exist" with absolute certainty. Both are unknowable. It's really quite sad that you've never made an informed attempt to actually understand the atheist argument, and yet you consider yourself so qualified to make such judgements.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
There *is* no atheist argument, you pompous fool.
Patrick S wrote:
It's as much of a leap to proclaim that "God does not exist" with absolute certainty as it is to claim "God DOES exist" with absolute certainty. Both are unknowable.
But, you'd be wrong.
Ilíon wrote:
There *is* no atheist argument, you pompous fool.
*giggles* Oh I forgot, you're also a figment of my imagination. Got it. Let's just pretend all the things we don't like, don't exist, and then we can have a happy fun time in the super-happy land of gumdrops.
Ilíon wrote:
Patrick S wrote: It's as much of a leap to proclaim that "God does not exist" with absolute certainty as it is to claim "God DOES exist" with absolute certainty. Both are unknowable. But, you'd be wrong.
Awww, but poor wittle Ilion can't actually argue WHY. "The Bible says so" isn't an argument, and you know it and so you don't say it, but you have no other counterargument. I will simply never understand the evangelical bent against intellectual honesty.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
But that's like accusing a Jew of not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior :). It's the entire distinction. I myself was religious (Christian bent - I grew up in the southeast USA) until I looked into it more, and in how I really related to it. I find the topic itself wildly interesting, as religious thinking is up there with counting and war as cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-age pursuits that don't have a seat in biology itself like eating/sleeping/screwing do. I've just come to the conclusion that it, like counting and war, are utterly human endeavors. That doesn't make a discussion of mono- and polytheism any less interesting :) I was under the impression, however, that Hinduism (or at least some major sects) were really monotheism with a polytheistic veneer. Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? Isn't that comparable at least to God and his plethora of Angels and Saints, at least in some Christian sects?
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"