Who owns yoga? :Indian Americans stir a debate over yoga's soul

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Perhaps Religion has had its benefit in the past. However, if you want to live in fear just to be keep the world safe, secure and sane then there would be no logical point in living. Living in Fear means a handful end up controlling you.
Laws and enforcing authority(controlling unit) are necessary for a proper social environment. Fear of law actually keeps us safe, secure and sane. Mortal law is partly responsible, but divine law has no equivalent in enforcing righteous conduct. I dont see what is wrong if some thing controls us to be better.

For a believer, life has meaning. A believer may believe that the life is tool to attain god or heaven or whatever. Certain laws have been laid down to attain these goals. Almost always, these laws conditions that benefit the society. Like helping the poor, loving your fellow human, being upright and hardworking...etc etc. Thus a believer is guided by these beliefs. On the other hand, from an atheist perspective, this life is meaningless. I am born at a certain place, to certain parents at certain time in a certain condition. Religion tries to explain it. Atheism says that its just an accident and has no meaning. Thus, my genes, my family clout, my family wealth...etc all these are mere accidents with no relevance and with no purpose. Similarly, death is an accident. Like the body got some disease or got weared down and it died. The death has no meaning. Further, many incidents in life are similarly accidents with no special meaning. You see, from an atheist perspective, this whole life and death become accidents and nothing more. For a person born in a relatively reasonable circumstances, life may be precious. But why should some one born in absolute poverty go through the point less suffering instead of just ending it right away. Lets say, someone is bored with his life or is in great tragedy, why should he not end his life? Thus, from an atheist POV, life is meaningless and it does not explain why some needs to go through suffering of life. So, there is no logical point to life from athiest POV, while the life is important and has to be lived properly from believer's POV.

Though the above logic is scientifically sound, this is where people have to use their education to surpass their limitation. Logically an atheist is not bound by the Principles of Religion. However, even today it is the religious people who commit the most atrocious crimes ever committed. Even Hitler who was a stout Catholic encouraged beliefs of Nationalism, Racism and Religious superiority by marginalizing other faiths like the Jews and Atheist Soviet Union. Is this what you are supporting?
You say that people should use their education to go beyond our limitations. I ask you why? Why should people(from atheist POV) waste their time in useless pursuits like education or surpassing limitations? Why not simply enjoy....? Why not murder some rich guy to steal his money? Why not rape some beauty to quench the lust? From atheist perspective, it is meaningless to say that one should waste one's short life in these issues. Anyway, one would be dead, it does not matter whether he lived properly or demonically. It does not even matter whether he lived long or not. Infact, nothing matters. We are here now, so lets enjoy. If in course of our enjoyment, someone else is being pained....well...too bad.

You see, how atheist POV, hurts the society.

Hitler/Nazism are extreme examples. Overwhelmingly world is filled with religious people and hence its natural that most wrongdoers are also religious. But what you are claiming is different. You are saying that the mistakes committed are due to the religion and furthermore, if they had been atheists, then these mistakes would not have been carried out. That is the claim I am contesting. Hitler has used race, nationalism and religion as a cards to differentiate people. If we remove these cards, he will use some other cards. If religion is responsible, then majority who adhere to it must do the same mistake. Then, you have to prove that had they not believed in god, they would not have done that mistake. Its your assumption.

Even if the Charvakas had their own belief, they were true to their beliefs. Rather the people who practise religion and its laws still live like the Charvakas.
I agree, Charvakas were honest about their belief and logically followed it. Similarly, our maharshis were honest about their belief and logically followed it. But in modern day, we find that neither atheists follow their beliefs properly nor believers follow their religion properly. Atheists talk about humanity, love..etc, while believers do not shy from committing sins. Its a strange irony!!

Ideally, everyone should try to live by the beliefs they hold.

Like I said, why not trying to be good for the sake of being good rather than having someone or something control your entire life. Religion does not give you a choice and history already proves it.
Yes, religion does not give one a choice between being good and bad. Religion declares that being bad is bad and will become painful in future. But even atheism does not give one a choice, if one were to analyse logically. Atheism says that being good has no meaning. I mean why should someone not take bribe and amass wealth, when one knows that others who are doing it are prospering? If you dont take bribe, you are good, but you are foolish as well. But if you were a believer, then not taking the bribe has a meaning.

Being good for the sake of good, sounds good but is illogical. Why should someone be good at all? What is good? Each person may have his own understanding of good and bad. What definition must be accepted? And what does one gain by being good? If one gains nothing, then are we not being foolish by doing something that does not fetch any gains and may infact need us to endure pain. From atheist perspective, all this does not make sense. There is no absolute from atheist POV, everything is arbitrary. For a believer, there is a divine law which is laid down.
But it still chains us to the ground. Blessing or not, it is because of this belief that people like this exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Nithyananda
See there are wrongdoers in every profession. Its natural. There are doctors who have committed grave wrongs. There are soldiers who have done extremely brutal things. That does not make their profession wrong. Should people stop keeping their faith in a doctor or soldier? Similarly, why should people stop keeping faith in godmen because of few rotten apples.

Then, sure Nityananda did what he did. But may be he saved several people directly or indirectly. His 'blessing' may have inspired many people to overcome their difficulties. Thus, he indirectly served the purpose.

Religion has only helped CONTROL the lives of ordinary people rather than Empower and Enlighten and therein lies the difference. What you believe is a blessing is actually a controlling mechanism that people willingly allow to take over their principles for both good as well as bad. Religion has actually caused more harm than good since the list of Bad is much larger than the Good.
Religion controls, state controls, society controls, family controls, boss controls...etc. And what is wrong with it? Why is getting controlled such a big deal? It is this very control that leads to stability which gives oppurtunity for enlightment and empowerment.

As for empower and enlighten, from atheist perspective, there is no meaning to it. I mean, if I am just a body, I dont care for anymore enlightment, all I need is fun and pleasure. I will empower myself in any which way I can. I dont care for anything else. If I dont agree with your view, I will kill you, just to satisfy my ego. And there is nothing wrong with it, as I just killed a body that will die anyway.

Thus, the only empowerment that atheist people must be interested in is that which gives them pleasure. And there is enlightenment. All knowledge is meaningless because we are bodies, we die, some other body lives. In this manner, an atheist cannot believe in enlightenment and empowerment would mean only grabbing power by hook or crook.

Religion has not caused more harm than good. As I am pointing out, in a scenario devoid of religion/god, there is only mayhem. Hence, the very existence of a belief in god has been a great boon. Of course, individuals following the religion or individual religion itself may have some deficiencies. But it is nothing compared to absolute insanity that atheism can give rise to.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Look at it this way. If God exists it still does not make a difference to us. We are proven wrong, but it does not change the way we live. But, if God does not exist then that would mean massive overreaching consequences for all of mankind(only the believers of course). If you are proven wrong, then all that you have done to this day would seem a massive waste of time and you would only end up looking foolish. Do you see the difference between us now?
Not really, infact to contrary, those believe god exists will live based on that belief. Lets say there is not after-life, they are not hurt. They wouldnt even know that, because they are dead. If there is no after-life and no god, then from absolute point, it does not matter whether one lived a good life or not, it does not matter whether one enjoyed or not, it does not matter whether one lived a long life or short one. Nothing matters. One is dead, and thats all. So, in death, an atheist is same as a believer.

If say, afterlife and god do exist, then again the believer is not hurt. He lived according to that belief and he is rewarded. But the atheist who did not will suffer.

So, from neutral point of view, a believer is the smart guy. Atheist's 'fate' is hanging in balance and depends on his belief being true.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Look at the world today. Everything possible is being explained by science. Perhaps we are still too young as a species to find an answer to everything. But what were seen as religious experiences the world over in the past have been explained by science. Diseases, natural calamities, wars etc. There is an answer to everything and we are capable of finding those out for ourselves.
I dont know why scientific explanation nullifies religious explanation? My boss is unhappy with me and fires me, this is a straighforward phenomenon(call it science if you want to), yet I may believe it to be wrath of god. A natural calamity is explained by science at physical level, but man's intellect is not satisfied with it. It questions why someone is subjected to it and someone else is not. Man's sense of fairness does not accept the science's explanation that it was just a coincident that someone suffered and someone didnt. Religion satisfies this sense of fairness by giving a plausible reason.

The difference between a religious person and an atheist is really simple. We don't believe in the existence of a supernatural being. Spiritualism is nothing to us because we do not believe in anything mystic happening to our bodies after death. Death is explained by science more thoroughly than any other aspect of our bodies. Death is just a failure of life which is followed by decomposition.
Religion does not deal with mystics happening to body, it deals with soul that is occupant of the body. Body decomposes, everyone knows that. Why did the body die? Why are we not able to bring it back to life? What constitutes a body as being alive? These aspects are explained by religion by the theory of soul.

The difference between atheist and believer is that atheist believes that life, death and many other things are just coincidents or accidents which occured due to physical, chemical and biological reactions. To an atheist, there is no meaning or purpose or design in all the world. Its all one big coincident or accident....

For an atheist life is very precious. This is because we have just one. But for religious people life has no value in comparison because of the belief in the after life and the "second" chance. Hindus believe in reincarnation. This is like a game with a reset button every time you messed up. At the same time Christians believe Life is suffering and one must suffer in order to reach Heaven. We do not have either of the beliefs and this makes the life we are living now very precious. We do not believe in living life for the sole reason of satisfying a greater being. Our life is our own and spiritualism has no place in it. Death ends life.
Exactly death ends life. From atheist perspective, death ends life, simple. What is essence of life? Nothing, nada, zilch. It has no meaning or purpose. One live and one dies. Nothing matters. How can life be precious, whether its one or infinite as long as its meaningless?

On the other hand, life is extremely important to a believer. A hindu believes he is born as a human owing to great punya. He cannot fetter this oppurtunity away, if he does, he is consigned to hell for a long long time and then he has to enter all kinds of animal bodies to suffer. He may not get this human body for a long long time. Hence, it makes sense for him to use this body in the right way. Thus, life is extremely precious.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
@P2prada

I'm not trying to stop you from having an opinion rather i'm trying to encourage you to delve into concepts that perhaps may eventually help you be a better atheist.Statements and phrases such a 'higher authority' 'God exists' reflects the fact that your understanding of God and divinity has not significantly expanded since the time when you first questioned 'God'


You can be a pseudo atheist or a real one, the choice is really yours.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I do have a right to believe what I want and so do you.
God is a word that means different things to different people. To many Taoist or Buddhist the word is not part of their religion's glossary. To Hindus that word has a different meaning than it does to a Christian. Muslims have a different perspective and so do the Jews.

Taoism


Tao, the subtle reality of the universe cannot be described, That which can be described in words is mearly a conception of the mind. Although names and descriptions have been applied to it, the subtle reality is beyond the description.
Tao Teh Ching - beginning of chapter 1.

The subtle essense of the universe is elusive and evasive.
...
It is the subtle origin of the whole of creation and non-creation. It existed prior to the beginning of time as the deep and subtle reality of the universe. It brings all into being.
Tao Teh Ching - portions of chapter 21


Buddhism


"There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.

"Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed."
The Gospel of Buddha - Sermon at the bamboo grove at Rajagaha

Hinduism

Neither the multitude of gods nor great sages know of my origin, for I am the source of all the gods and great sages.

A mortal who knows me as the unborn, beginningless great lord of the worlds is freed from all delusion and all evils.
The Bhagavad-Gita - The tenth teaching, verses 2 & 3

Sihkism

There is One, only One Supreme Being, Truth Eternal, Creator of all seen & unseen, Fearless, Without hatred, Timeless Being, Non-Incarnated, Self created, Realized by the Grace of Guru (Perfect Master Only.)
Guru Granth Sahib Page 1

Judaism

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

For thus saith the Eternal that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the self existent One; and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:18


Christianity


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was present originally with God. All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without him was not one thing made that has come into being.
Gospel of John 1:1-3


Sufism

You are the Absolute Existence which causes (our) transient (existences) to appear.
Masnavi - Book 1 - Creator and Creation

Now, a definition of God.

God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.

The belief is YOURS. Believe or disbelieve.

Take Concept of God for you, as you wish to decide; and take it for what it is worth.

If there is no God, then that is for you to decide.

Let's leave God out of this since he has his hands full as it is!
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Laws and enforcing authority(controlling unit) are necessary for a proper social environment. Fear of law actually keeps us safe, secure and sane. Mortal law is partly responsible, but divine law has no equivalent in enforcing righteous conduct. I dont see what is wrong if some thing controls us to be better.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. — Denis Diderot

For a believer, life has meaning. A believer may believe that the life is tool to attain god or heaven or whatever. Certain laws have been laid down to attain these goals. Almost always, these laws conditions that benefit the society. Like helping the poor, loving your fellow human, being upright and hardworking...etc etc. Thus a believer is guided by these beliefs. On the other hand, from an atheist perspective, this life is meaningless. I am born at a certain place, to certain parents at certain time in a certain condition. Religion tries to explain it. Atheism says that its just an accident and has no meaning. Thus, my genes, my family clout, my family wealth...etc all these are mere accidents with no relevance and with no purpose. Similarly, death is an accident. Like the body got some disease or got weared down and it died. The death has no meaning. Further, many incidents in life are similarly accidents with no special meaning. You see, from an atheist perspective, this whole life and death become accidents and nothing more. For a person born in a relatively reasonable circumstances, life may be precious. But why should some one born in absolute poverty go through the point less suffering instead of just ending it right away. Lets say, someone is bored with his life or is in great tragedy, why should he not end his life? Thus, from an atheist POV, life is meaningless and it does not explain why some needs to go through suffering of life. So, there is no logical point to life from athiest POV, while the life is important and has to be lived properly from believer's POV.
You could be a spokesman for the Pope. Most poor people born in extreme poverty are the most religious people you will find. That has not helped their situation either.

Also, the fact I mentioned earlier holds true for everybody.
Be good for the sake of being good.

We atheists do not believe Life is meaningless. We actually consider life is more precious to us than suggested in any other religion. I have explained that in previous posts. Death has a very important meaning for us. Death has no importance in Religion compared to us because we live only once while a religious person is "given" many chances.

You say that people should use their education to go beyond our limitations. I ask you why? Why should people(from atheist POV) waste their time in useless pursuits like education or surpassing limitations?
You see, how atheist POV, hurts the society.
No. It is basic human emotions that makes you do good things and bad things. You could be a saint and still end up in sex scandals.

Hitler/Nazism are extreme examples. Overwhelmingly world is filled with religious people and hence its natural that most wrongdoers are also religious. But what you are claiming is different. You are saying that the mistakes committed are due to the religion and furthermore, if they had been atheists, then these mistakes would not have been carried out. That is the claim I am contesting. Hitler has used race, nationalism and religion as a cards to differentiate people. If we remove these cards, he will use some other cards. If religion is responsible, then majority who adhere to it must do the same mistake. Then, you have to prove that had they not believed in god, they would not have done that mistake. Its your assumption.
Not one bit true. Check this:



There are thousands of atheists in the world. But the biggest crimes are committed in the name of religion.

I agree, Charvakas were honest about their belief and logically followed it. Similarly, our maharshis were honest about their belief and logically followed it. But in modern day, we find that neither atheists follow their beliefs properly nor believers follow their religion properly. Atheists talk about humanity, love..etc, while believers do not shy from committing sins. Its a strange irony!!

Ideally, everyone should try to live by the beliefs they hold.
Unfortunately, like I said, if you live in Fear, only a handful of people end up controlling you.

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. — Denis Diderot

Yes, religion does not give one a choice between being good and bad. Religion declares that being bad is bad and will become painful in future. But even atheism does not give one a choice, if one were to analyse logically. Atheism says that being good has no meaning. I mean why should someone not take bribe and amass wealth, when one knows that others who are doing it are prospering? If you dont take bribe, you are good, but you are foolish as well. But if you were a believer, then not taking the bribe has a meaning.
Atheism allows a person to question the system. Atheism not only says that being good has no meaning, it also says being bad also holds no meaning. Again, it is basic human emotions that allow you to be good or bad. This can be tempered using Education or controlled using Religion.

Religion does not give you scope to question authority. In atheism, if you do good things or bad things does not make a difference after death. But in religion you may go to hell or heaven based on who you listen to. So, you don't get the choice of denial.



Being good for the sake of good, sounds good but is illogical. Why should someone be good at all? What is good? Each person may have his own understanding of good and bad. What definition must be accepted? And what does one gain by being good? If one gains nothing, then are we not being foolish by doing something that does not fetch any gains and may infact need us to endure pain. From atheist perspective, all this does not make sense. There is no absolute from atheist POV, everything is arbitrary. For a believer, there is a divine law which is laid down.
It is this understanding of good that has to be tempered using education. We all know the current universal definition of being good and being bad.

All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway

So where does that leave the rest?

See there are wrongdoers in every profession. Its natural. There are doctors who have committed grave wrongs. There are soldiers who have done extremely brutal things. That does not make their profession wrong. Should people stop keeping their faith in a doctor or soldier? Similarly, why should people stop keeping faith in godmen because of few rotten apples.
Unfortunately these Doctors and Soldiers do not control or attempt to control the ability to think freely. But, the self proclaimed Godmen have full power to control a population to do their bidding. It is not a few rotten apples but the whole tree which is rotten.

Then, sure Nityananda did what he did. But may be he saved several people directly or indirectly. His 'blessing' may have inspired many people to overcome their difficulties. Thus, he indirectly served the purpose.
The people he helped had always had the power to overcome their difficulties. It is just that they did not know about it. This can also be tempered by education rather than having to listen to some Godman who actually "took" something from you in order to help you. And we all know what he took.

Religion controls, state controls, society controls, family controls, boss controls...etc. And what is wrong with it? Why is getting controlled such a big deal? It is this very control that leads to stability which gives oppurtunity for enlightment and empowerment.
State controls, society controls, family controls, boss controls are all for positive development of society at large. Religious controls are the only controls among the above that do not allow free thinking.

As for empower and enlighten, from atheist perspective, there is no meaning to it. I mean, if I am just a body, I dont care for anymore enlightment, all I need is fun and pleasure. I will empower myself in any which way I can. I dont care for anything else. If I dont agree with your view, I will kill you, just to satisfy my ego. And there is nothing wrong with it, as I just killed a body that will die anyway.
You are merely repeating your points.

Religion has not caused more harm than good. As I am pointing out, in a scenario devoid of religion/god, there is only mayhem. Hence, the very existence of a belief in god has been a great boon. Of course, individuals following the religion or individual religion itself may have some deficiencies. But it is nothing compared to absolute insanity that atheism can give rise to.
Following are some interesting quotes:

Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night — Isaac Asimov

Faith means not wanting to know what is true. — Friedrich Nietzsche

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. — George Bernard Shaw

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile. — Kurt Vonnegut
(This quote probably puts to rest about most of your points especially your comment with "Mayhem" in it.)

A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. — Samuel Clemens

It's an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous. — Gloria Steinem

The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. — Sigmund Freud
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
p2prada,

You say you are a brahmin, so do read up on vedas and vedanta. All the questions that are generally raised by atheists are discussed and answered in them. I am sure, you will find them intellectually stimulating.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
I dont know why scientific explanation nullifies religious explanation? It questions why someone is subjected to it and someone else is not.
You are talking in the realms of spirituality. This is not religion. Spirituality allows man to think while religion does not.

Religion satisfies this sense of fairness by giving a plausible reason.
No. Religion states if you have trouble it is because you sinned. Religion does not allow you to sin or you don't get "Redemption" and you will go to hell or be born again as a cockroach.

Religion does not deal with mystics happening to body, it deals with soul that is occupant of the body. Body decomposes, everyone knows that. Why did the body die? Why are we not able to bring it back to life? What constitutes a body as being alive? These aspects are explained by religion by the theory of soul.
You are talking about the Hindu version of Spiritualism. A soul has nothing to do with Atheists because it does not exist.
as for why did the body die and cannot come back to life. It is simple biology, even if your organs can survive for hours after death, your Neurons cannot. Nor can your neurons be replicated and repaired to bring you back to life. If the Neurons and in turn the brain survives, then theoretically your body can come back to life since the rest of the body can be artificially regenerated. Science has not evolved that far. But in the future you could very well expect a human brought back to life from anything short of brain dead. Perhaps cyborg implants may very well make you immortal if it replaces the brain after death.

The difference between atheist and believer is that atheist believes that life, death and many other things are just coincidents or accidents which occured due to physical, chemical and biological reactions. To an atheist, there is no meaning or purpose or design in all the world. Its all one big coincident or accident....
Atheists do try to find a bigger purpose in life. It is just that we are left behind by Human limitations rather than any lack of interest. Logically, survival is the most logical purpose of life.

Exactly death ends life. From atheist perspective, death ends life, simple. What is essence of life? Nothing, nada, zilch. It has no meaning or purpose. One live and one dies. Nothing matters. How can life be precious, whether its one or infinite as long as its meaningless?[/uote]

You got the concept wrong. Death ends life and life isn't meaningless. Look at all the progress man has made in science. Religion wasn't involved in Science. Rather Religion condemned science.

On the other hand, life is extremely important to a believer. A hindu believes he is born as a human owing to great punya. He cannot fetter this oppurtunity away, if he does, he is consigned to hell for a long long time and then he has to enter all kinds of animal bodies to suffer. He may not get this human body for a long long time. Hence, it makes sense for him to use this body in the right way. Thus, life is extremely precious.
So, Fear and a Second chance is what makes life important for a Hindu. You don't appreciate life. You appreciate death, the right death. How does that make life worth living if you are constantly afraid of being reborn as a Mosquito.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
Free thinking entails an individuals right to think and express that though without fear of unreasonable criticism,but free thinking is also predicated upon the commitment that an individual will immerse into a thought process without submitting the process to prejudices inherent to his intellectual disposition.Only such an exercise can be considered free thinking.The biggest obstacle to free thinking is not an external overbearing authority,religious or political,but our own self declared intellectual threshold which we are unwilling to cross.

Its not just Khomeini's and Thackeray's who curtail free thinking,when they prevent you from reading an alleged blasphemous literature and form an independent opinion,when we say 'why should i believe this', 'why should i know this',inadvertently we tend to indulge in the same.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
p2prada,

You are missing percentages. How many percentage of believers are involved in the largescale mistakes? Very very small. Almost all humanity is religious, yet only few people are terrorists...that explains a lot.

Then, you keep repeating that controlling is bad. But all of our life is controlled by one factor or the other. When I point that out by giving example of boss/family/state, you are saying that while other controls are good, religious control is bad...?!!! That must be your experience or assumption, it does not hold universal validity.

I have repeated again and again. And I will repeat again, why should an atheist waste his life with education and moderation? It is meaningless. Lets assume I am an atheist. Now I believe I am the body. I want to pleasure my body with sex, why should I not rape my neighbour if I can get away from law? This is the issue. You are not able to explain why someone needs to be good. You are saying that be good for being good. I find that non-sensical. What is meant by that, please explain? Also explain what I gain from being good assuming I am an atheist.

You are trying to say that while atheism says that being good and bad are both useless. But dont you realise that atheism clubs good and bad on same level and there is nothing to distinguish the two. Being bad is easy and comfortable. Murdering someone, looting someone, raping someone is easier than to work hard and achieve the objectives through fair means. So, atheism rewards wrong doings by clubbing good and bad together.

Then, you say that life is precious to atheist because there is only one life. I find that meaningless. A flower has only one life, is it precious? It is not because, there are hundreds of thousands of other similar flowers that were born before and will be born after it. There is nothing precious about that particular flower. Similarly, from atheist POV, life is not precious. It just is. I live and I die. What is so great about it? There is nothing to be achieved, there is nothing to be rewarded for, nothing to solve, nothing to learn..nothing at all. Just as everyday is precious to us in this life, similarly every life is important for a believer. Just because they are numerous does not pale their importance.

I think the main point that you are stressing is that religion controls and you dont like that. But that is not an adequate reason to shun it. Dont parents control their toddlers? Dont teachers control their pupils? Doesnt state control its citizens? When you accept all other control, how can you selectively abhor the control of religion?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Wow from the question of who owns yoga has gone to an atheism v religious battle.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
p2prada,

You are missing percentages. How many percentage of believers are involved in the largescale mistakes? Very very small. Almost all humanity is religious, yet only few people are terrorists...that explains a lot.
Largescale mistakes eh? You quantify terrorists as not being religious. But you are mistaken. It is not your belief but their belief that makes them religious. Just because you think a guy is not Islamic does not mean he becomes atheist.

Almost all of humanity is religious. But it is the few people controlling the rest of humanity who commit crimes through God's will.

Look at the pope. He hates atheists. Just because he hates atheists and since his voice is the voice of god, automatically the other 2 Billion Christians hate atheists too. Atheists in America are subjected to marginalization and discrimination even today.

http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/09/hindu-criticises-pope-over-atheism-comments/
Rajan Zed stressed that Pope should get rid of his obsession against atheism and show some maturity and inclusiveness. Frankly, it was the fault of us religious leaders (which included Pope also) and organizations that atheism was growing in the world.
Yes. Atheism is growing in the world.

Then, you keep repeating that controlling is bad. But all of our life is controlled by one factor or the other. When I point that out by giving example of boss/family/state, you are saying that while other controls are good, religious control is bad...?!!! That must be your experience or assumption, it does not hold universal validity.
Boss controls teaches Punctuality. Family controls teaches discipline. State controls teaches you to be a Law Abiding Citizen. Religious control teaches you how to call bandhs every other day, how to marginalize smaller religions, how to persecute and control non believers and how to find new ways to kill without being questioned. Where is the positivity in that?

I have repeated again and again. And I will repeat again, why should an atheist waste his life with education and moderation? It is meaningless.
No matter what you think about Atheists, we do not have the same views. We don't consider life as meaningless. An atheist is not wasting his life with education and moderation rather it is just the exact opposite. All the atheists in the world today are atheists by choice and not brain washed into it. So, I don't see why we have to have negative views of life simply because we do not have a controlling mechanism in place to rein us in.

Lets assume I am an atheist. Now I believe I am the body. I want to pleasure my body with sex, why should I not rape my neighbour if I can get away from law? This is the issue.
7-10 years RI in prison and also that it is morally wrong to rape your neighbour. I did not learn my moral values from the Gita. I learnt it from non religious sources. Yes, they exist.

You are not able to explain why someone needs to be good. You are saying that be good for being good. I find that non-sensical. What is meant by that, please explain? Also explain what I gain from being good assuming I am an atheist.
There is only one thing you can get from being good to others, it is self satisfaction and also respect and gratitude from other individuals. Even if you say an atheist can have a free time committing crimes without regret, then you are wrong. We feel love the same as you do, we feel pain and sorrow and also joy and happiness. If we commit crimes then we have feelings of guilt and insecurity. This will lead us to sadness and misery and none of us want it. Even the hardest of persons will feel lonely if deprived of human contact. We don't need religion to know these basic human emotions.

As for what you can earn from Atheism is that you can do good things in the world without having to seek a reward. Do good for goodness sake means doing good without asking for anything in return. This selflessness in itself surpasses anything God has in store for an individual as told by Religion. Your willingness to do good to society is not bound by any kind of law or reward system.

You are trying to say that while atheism says that being good and bad are both useless. But dont you realise that atheism clubs good and bad on same level and there is nothing to distinguish the two. Being bad is easy and comfortable. Murdering someone, looting someone, raping someone is easier than to work hard and achieve the objectives through fair means. So, atheism rewards wrong doings by clubbing good and bad together.
However atheists do not share your extreme views. Even religion has not stopped bad people from committing crimes. This is purely a human emotion that is not bound by religious teachings.

Then, you say that life is precious to atheist because there is only one life. I find that meaningless.
But we don't feel the same.

A flower has only one life, is it precious? It is not because, there are hundreds of thousands of other similar flowers that were born before and will be born after it. There is nothing precious about that particular flower. Similarly, from atheist POV, life is not precious. It just is. I live and I die.
Perhaps this is why there is so much hatred linked to religion. Perhaps God also thinks there are hundreds of thousands of humans that were born before or after you. So, are humans not precious either?

There is a lot of precious things about that flower. The flower is a home to thousand of living organisms who feed and grow from its life force. Insects and Birds feed on its nectar. Once the Flower is in full bloom it falls to the ground to produce a new life. This life further produces hundreds of flowers that provides shelter and food to many more living organisms. Look at the beauty of a single life. Does Religion not appreciate this or has it become so shallow and hard that there is nothing it values in life any more. Perhaps you feel you are superior to the insect that lives off it. But for the insect its life is more precious to it than your opinion and the flower is the single greatest thing that has happened to the little insect. This proves what the meaning life has for all of us, religion or no religion.

Is the POV of an atheist so skewed that he cannot value life simply because someone else says so? But the same someone has no value for life that is smaller than itself. Unfortunately Religion is just that. It provides an unequal POV of life. In Hinduism, if you sinned you will live the life of an insect. Don't you see what is so wrong with it? You believe you are so superior that the life of an insect is not precious, let alone a flower. Also you do not realize that the flower and the insect need each other to survive. But, if you want to survive it is the union of the flower and the insect that helps your growth. If you die, the Flower and the insect will continue living. But if either the flower or the insect dies, then even you don't have a chance at life.

Has your blind faith in God eroded your ability to think? I believe it has.

What is so great about it? There is nothing to be achieved, there is nothing to be rewarded for, nothing to solve, nothing to learn..nothing at all.
We are not looking for a reward. However we do have a lot to solve and learn if we are to help people believe in themselves rather than in faith.

Just as everyday is precious to us in this life, similarly every life is important for a believer. Just because they are numerous does not pale their importance.
Unfortunately your religion does not allow equality. Sinners go to hell. Believers are rewarded. There is an obvious flaw in the great plan. Nothing for the insect and flower who make your life worth living.

When you accept all other control, how can you selectively abhor the control of religion?
So, you actually believe Religion control is good? :happy_2:
Best of Luck.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
God is a word that means different things to different people. To many Taoist or Buddhist the word is not part of their religion's glossary. To Hindus that word has a different meaning than it does to a Christian. Muslims have a different perspective and so do the Jews.
The Taoists and Buddhists are the closest to Atheists than any other religion with respect to the views about the existence of God. But the difference lies in their inability to use factual evidence to evolve their religion through factually proven laws or science or debate.

For Eg: If God is proven to exist then all Atheists by their own principles must become believers. Fact is a fact no matter how you put it forward. But Buddhists and Taoists will have a hard time stomaching the facts. If Buddhists beliefs of Spirituality are proven to be false then they may have trouble accepting that either. Also, Buddhists already do not accept Science(not sure about Taoists). So, their views could end up trapping them in their own little bubble.

Other religions who believe in the existence of God are already our exact opposites, so their views will diverge from ours. Some religions would call us Satanic. But we are not Satanic either since believing in it would go against our ethos in the first place.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top