The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[Kshatriya87]

No. They are political statements of the followers.

But more important than what I consider true God- why do you want reconciliation between different faiths as a way to prove God?

If they are just political statements of the followers, what are the true words of God? How do you know that God said them or made these laws?

In fact it's the opposite. I do not want to prove God itself. There hence never arises a question of reconciliation of different faiths.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

If they are just political statements of the followers, what are the true words of God? How do you know that God said them or made these laws?

In fact it's the opposite. I do not want to prove God itself. There hence never arises a question of reconciliation of different faiths.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You are putting all your claims of how God should protect weaklings, how he should not disseminate conflicting theories through different religions etc etc!! If that is your definition of God, then he does not exist for sure. But that is proof by construction- you assumed certain qualities God should have and showed they do not exist and hence there is no God.

All I am saying, it is much easier to make stupid assumptions about God and then disprove them.

 

[Kshatriya87]

You are putting all your claims of how God should protect weaklings, how he should not disseminate conflicting theories through different religions etc etc!! If that is your definition of God, then he does not exist for sure. But that is proof by construction- you assumed certain qualities God should have and showed they do not exist and hence there is no God.

All I am saying, it is much easier to make stupid assumptions about God and then disprove them.

This is exactly why I asked in the beginning. Your definition of God or in your words your stupid assumptions about God?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

This is exactly why I asked in the beginning. Your definition of God or in your words your stupid assumptions about God?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

It is difficult to define.

I would call it Brahman- the underlying unity between diversity that we see in the physical world.

 

[Kshatriya87]

It is difficult to define.

I would call it Brahman- the underlying unity between diversity that we see in the physical world.

Actually I do not know if brahman can be defined as that. According to one of the upanishads I've read, there was a fight among gods as to who is the most powerful. They fought among each other. Then came brahman. Brahman said here I put forth you a straw (a piece of hay stick). Destroy it. Vayu dev used his full force to blow it away, agni dev used his force to burn it and so on but none could destroy it or even move it. All gods then agreed that brahman is the most supreme.

But if that is the case, why isn't brahman mentioned in gita which is supposedly the greatest book to be followed atleast by hindus?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Actually I do not know if brahman can be defined as that. According to one of the upanishads I've read, there was a fight among gods as to who is the most powerful. They fought among each other. Then came brahman. Brahman said here I put forth you a straw (a piece of hay stick). Destroy it. Vayu dev used his full force to blow it away, agni dev used his force to burn it and so on but none could destroy it or even move it. All gods then agreed that brahman is the most supreme.

I think you are confusing the meanings.

Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2] In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][3][4] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][5] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1]

 

[Kshatriya87]

I think you are confusing the meanings.

Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2] In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][3][4] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][5] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1]

If that is the case, why does lord Krishna aka lord Vishnu declares himself as the ultimate power of the universe in gita? Why doesn't he say anything about Brahman? Don't you find this contradictory at all? After all, both theories belong to Hinduism don't they?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

If that is the case, why does lord Krishna aka lord Vishnu declares himself as the ultimate power of the universe in gita? Why doesn't he say anything about Brahman? Don't you find this contradictory at all? After all, both theories belong to Hinduism don't they?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Unity in diversity.

Shaivas and Vaishnavas have tried to play this game of declaring who is the best. Don't fall for it. In the end even they agree, it is one and same and merges in one.

I am not well versed in Gita but Shri Krishna talks about everything being divine and he being everywhere. Now whether he is Vishnu or Shiva or Brahman, how does it matter?

 

[Kshatriya87]

Unity in diversity.

Shaivas and Vaishnavas have tried to play this game of declaring who is the best. Don't fall for it. In the end even they agree, it is one and same and merges in one.

I am not well versed in Gita but Shri Krishna talks about everything being divine and he being everywhere. Now whether he is Vishnu or Shiva or Brahman, how does it matter?

Just like you said now, he is everywhere. If he is everywhere, what gives him the right to give life to an innocent being and then brutally torturing him or her while he is watching?

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Just like you said now, he is everywhere. If he is everywhere, what gives him the right to give life to an innocent being and then brutally torturing him or her while he is watching?

But he is also part of the innocent as well as brutal person. This definition is pretty nasty because he is all- the victim, the perpetrator and the watcher!!

 

[Kshatriya87]

But he is also part of the innocent as well as brutal person. This definition is pretty nasty because he is all- the victim, the perpetrator and the watcher!!

And what purpose does that solve? Why would he need to be the victim or the perpetrator and the watcher? If he is the perpetrator as well, doesn't that taint him with crimes? He's got red on his ledger then. And THAT does not make him worth worshiping.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

And what purpose does that solve? Why would he need to be the victim or the perpetrator and the watcher? If he is the perpetrator as well, doesn't that taint him with crimes? He's got red on his ledger then. And THAT does not make him worth worshiping.

Just a simple explanation- he is in everything including you. You do not have to worship anyone because those acts are just facilitators in realizing yourself.

You are looking at things from a good/bad perspective which does not help.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Just a simple explanation- he is in everything including you. You do not have to worship anyone because those acts are just facilitators in realizing yourself.

You are looking at things from a good/bad perspective which does not help.

"the doer, the subject, the seer are the same."

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

"the doer, the subject, the seer are the same."

This thread is the reason why Budhha refused to answer all questions about God!!

 

[Kshatriya87]

Just a simple explanation- he is in everything including you. You do not have to worship anyone because those acts are just facilitators in realizing yourself.

You are looking at things from a good/bad perspective which does not help.

Then at least tell me the reason to create this world. Just to create a competition and see who wins by achieving nirvana? He gives birth and life to all these people and doesn't care what happens and who suffers. If you reject the very perspective of good and bad, you can also reject praying, forgiving, repenting right? Isn't the concept of good and bad is what keeps us from going ballistic?

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

This thread is the reason why Budhha refused to answer al questions about God!!

and left regretting that the people/followers would only see his finger and not the moon towards which he indicated...

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Isn't the concept of good and bad...

this world is of duality. dual everything. albeit therein lies the subtle unity underneath, the true 'thing'. for instance, good and bad are not two separate attributes in themselves, but the absence of goodness is identified as badness and vice-versa. if there wasn't to be any absence of goodness anywhere, there wouldn't have been anything 'good' nor our identification/terming of something as good. just a slight example of how human nature and mind is conditioned for duality on here.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Then at least tell me the reason to create this world. Just to create a competition and see who wins by achieving nirvana? He gives birth and life to all these people and doesn't care what happens and who suffers. If you reject the very perspective of good and bad, you can also reject praying, forgiving, repenting right? Isn't the concept of good and bad is what keeps us from going ballistic?

Look there are mythologies. I do not have answer to all your questions. Actually, the questions are as difficult as answers.

The monotheistic creeds solved it by claiming a vengeful God who created everything in a week and then lords over it and pardons his true followers. Dharmic mythology on the other hand thinks everything is in "Shunya" and the world is just a manifestation of understanding itself. Hence the doer and seer are same.

It is like in quantum mechanics, where if you try to observe something you do not observe it correctly because your action of seeing it changes it. So in dharmic mythology, the creator who creates the world to understand himself gets confused in the creation. And the entire cosmic dance which follows after that is just to understand oneself.

 

[Kshatriya87]

this world is of duality. dual everything. albeit therein lies the subtle unity underneath, the true 'thing'. for instance, good and bad are not two separate attributes in themselves, but the absence of goodness is identified as badness and vice-versa. if there wasn't to be any absence of goodness anywhere, there wouldn't have been anything 'good' nor our identification/terming of something as good. just a slight example of how human nature and mind is conditioned for duality on here.

How can bad be absence of good when god is omnipresent and is the very definition of good? This means god is everywhere which in turn means good is everywhere which clearly is not the case.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

How can bad be absence of good when god is omnipresent and is the very definition of good? This means god is everywhere which in turn means good is everywhere which clearly is not the case.

Good is opposite of bad or absence of bad.

That's why Hindus have three basic elements:

Rajsic- +ve
Tamsic- -ve
Satvik- neutral