mishra Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 6 hours ago, Lannister said: If your religion asserts the existence of a god, then every facet of your belief structure is categorized as mythology. In atheist terms, a fictional story. It says there are many paths including knowledge. You can persue knowledge to limits of humanity. For the time being, I do not find "Theory of everything" by Stephen Hawkins as mathetimically possible as its contrary to Einstiens e=mc(square). No physicist challeneged Stephen Hawkins doesnt mean they agreed with it. Edited January 26 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 7 hours ago, Lannister said: Why do you think life consists of four phases? Life is a continuous journey. Perhaps there are better ways to lead a fulfilling life than what religion prescribes. And I am not arguing with that. Infact I will agree with your statement. You want to reinvent wheel, Go and do it. Even that is allowed in Hinduism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 11 hours ago, Lannister said: Why do you think life consists of four phases? Life is a continuous journey. Perhaps there are better ways to lead a fulfilling life than what religion prescribes. Because its an objective observation that most people go through life in four phases, just as there is objective observation of classes of people - something you idiot marxists also realise, but then poke fun at us for being 4000 years earlier than you on reading this social reality as caste. 9 hours ago, Lannister said: If your religion asserts the existence of a god, then every facet of your belief structure is categorized as mythology. In atheist terms, a fictional story. If your ideology asserts that there is no god, then every facet of your ideology is ALSO categorised as belief structure. someone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannister Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 20 hours ago, mishra said: It says there are many paths including knowledge. You can persue knowledge to limits of humanity. For the time being, I do not find "Theory of everything" by Stephen Hawkins as mathetimically possible as its contrary to Einstiens e=mc(square). No physicist challeneged Stephen Hawkins doesnt mean they agreed with it. How does that relate to the false assertions made by religions about the existence of god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 hours ago, Lannister said: How does that relate to the false assertions made by religions about the existence of god? Here in lies the problem. If you want to argue if god exists or not. Being a Hindu, I dont care! Its ur belief. Good luck with that. But you care to proove this to me that IGod doesn’t exist, Isn’t this tendency of urs matches with some belief system like Christian and Islam, Specifically Islam. Hence u havent got balls to put ur opposing view in front of them while both u and those believers hide ur predatory tendency using Sheild if Secularism . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 hours ago, Lannister said: How does that relate to the false assertions made by religions about the existence of god? It is for you to prove the assertion to be false. Unproven does not equal false, mr science fail. There is a reason why nobody was atheist in ancient Indian culture or wider eastern culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
putrevus Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/25/2024 at 10:42 AM, Muloghonto said: That is a throwaway comment, which has nothing to do with principles of hinduism, neither does it refute my points. I don't argue with fanatics who have very little understanding on things.. Hindusim is not about calling itself greater than other religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 53 minutes ago, putrevus said: I don't argue with fanatics who have very little understanding on things.. Hindusim is not about calling itself greater than other religions. Hinduism isnt about denial of facts or objective analysis either. Ironic you call me fanatic but presume to speak on behalf of hinduism without any substantiation. Now that would be fanatical. You don't argue because you are wrong and cant tolerate being shown you are wrong. Thats the only legitimate reason to comment and not argue. Edited January 27 by Muloghonto mishra 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannister Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 On 1/27/2024 at 9:30 PM, mishra said: Here in lies the problem. If you want to argue if god exists or not. Being a Hindu, I dont care! Its ur belief. Good luck with that. But you care to proove this to me that IGod doesn’t exist, Isn’t this tendency of urs matches with some belief system like Christian and Islam, Specifically Islam. Hence u havent got balls to put ur opposing view in front of them while both u and those believers hide ur predatory tendency using Sheild if Secularism . I don't care if you are Hindu or Muslim. Both religions negatively affect society. As an atheist, I prioritize truth claims backed by science and history. Your anti-democratic stance stemming from your religious beliefs is akin to an Islamist viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Lannister said: I don't care if you are Hindu or Muslim. Both religions negatively affect society. As an atheist, I prioritize truth claims backed by science and history. Your anti-democratic stance stemming from your religious beliefs is akin to an Islamist viewpoint. Unlike you, I am a Hindu, However I can deduce that athiesm negatively affects the society on basis that percentage population of athiest in Prison is comparable to Christianity follower in per thousand of population. Why, My opinion, Not for argument, or start new line of argument, its Because morality of atheism is mostly like “ Christianity - Jesus.” Chritians had option of Converting while Islam hasn’t. So they converted to atheism. They haven’t got a story of Ram to tell to their kids and bring better moral values by method of retelling. when I say better it means better than prevailing law or constitution of country. spiritually, I think atheists society will remain same ie breed same number of criminals per thousand of population as they have stopped research in field of Philosophy , morality by negating God without understanding that God of believers is NOT same as God for seekers(Hindus). Edited January 29 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) @Lannister Two days back, I made my daughter watch movie “Gandhi” , One comment she made after watching is she is surprised why Gandhiji never got angry. I told her because Gandhiji happened to understand how Ram should behave. You are about to be rightfully and legally (law of land) crowned and instead you are asked to give it up and go to Jungle for 14 years. He didn’t get angry. Lakshmana advised, fight for it and forcibly take the crown, Dasarath later advises him to arrest him and forcibly take the thrown. But he chose to follow the “niti” . Now, You tell me which book of atheiesm and Constitution in world would say stand down not to fight for his right in Court of Law? Edited January 29 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannister Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 2 hours ago, mishra said: Unlike you, I am a Hindu, However I can deduce that athiesm negatively affects the society on basis that percentage population of athiest in Prison is comparable to Christianity follower in per thousand of population. Why, My opinion, Not for argument, or start new line of argument, its Because morality of atheism is mostly like “ Christianity - Jesus.” Chritians had option of Converting while Islam hasn’t. So they converted to atheism. They haven’t got a story of Ram to tell to their kids and bring better moral values by method of retelling. when I say better it means better than prevailing law or constitution of country. spiritually, I think atheists society will remain same ie breed same number of criminals per thousand of population as they have stopped research in field of Philosophy , morality by negating God without understanding that God of believers is NOT same as God for seekers(Hindus). Not true. If you look at any religious society, it's the believers who often engage in serious atrocities, whether it's directed at women, caste-related incidents, or discrimination against homosexuals. Additionally, they often display higher levels of corruption, with a notable portion of the wealthy being religious. Atheism arose as a reaction to religious ideologies, promoting science and reasoning without aligning with any particular faith. Watch Western atheists and their views on Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Lannister said: Not true. If you look at any religious society, it's the believers who often engage in serious atrocities, whether it's directed at women, caste-related incidents, or discrimination against homosexuals. Additionally, they often display higher levels of corruption, with a notable portion of the wealthy being religious. Atheism arose as a reaction to religious ideologies, promoting science and reasoning without aligning with any particular faith. Watch Western atheists and their views on Christianity. Ghantaa. Absolutely false. What I mentioned is factual statistical data. There is no supposition. You can check it yourself. The number of Christian and number of athiest in prisons of West are similar to proportion of pupulation they are in Western Society. Muslims are 10 times more likely to be in prison then athiest or Christians. And I made supposition that prisonable ratio is 1:10. ie For ever 10 crime in West, just 1 gets into prison. If I am to guess, People saw problem in Chistianity which ideology was against Science, So they started converting to athiesm. Isalm revised the syllabus and introduced concept of apostasy to stop athiesm. Please dont equate these two adavanced religions with way of life of say Red Indians or aborigins or latin Americans as they didnt kill Copernicas or books claiming sun is centre of our solar system. They simply accpeted what Science told them without throwing a single stone at book publisher Edited January 29 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannister Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 2 hours ago, mishra said: @Lannister Two days back, I made my daughter watch movie “Gandhi” , One comment she made after watching is she is surprised why Gandhiji never got angry. I told her because Gandhiji happened to understand how Ram should behave. You are about to be rightfully and legally (law of land) crowned and instead you are asked to give it up and go to Jungle for 14 years. He didn’t get angry. Lakshmana advised, fight for it and forcibly take the crown, Dasarath later advises him to arrest him and forcibly take the thrown. But he chose to follow the “niti” . Now, You tell me which book of atheiesm and Constitution in world would say stand down not to fight for his right in Court of Law? A good fictional story, but a significant portion lacks relevance to the real world. You don't need to refer to books to derive moral values. If you're still inclined to read, there are plenty of outstanding novels available. Edited January 29 by Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Lannister said: A good fictional story, but a significant portion lacks relevance to the real world. You don't need to refer to books to derive moral values. If you're still inclined to read, there are plenty of outstanding novels available. Name one novel which has a Raghuvansha or Surya Vansha kind of detailed history with moral display? Lord of Rings or Harry Potter Dont get confused with what is legal , what is lawfull vs what is moral or ethical? As research in former is coming from political thinkes while later is coming from Society and Spirituality. Have you wondered why there is no word in other languages for terms like "Rajniti" or "Niti" or simple day today use for "Sankalp". Because these are alien concept to non Bharat people. I think you need to understand difference between DharmSansad (Religious Congregration) prevelant among Western and Middle East as well as India vs Satsang (No english Term). I believe Sansad as well as Dharma Sansad needs to get feed Intellectiuals, Society and Satsang. You believe Sansad should only get feed back from Intellectuals. PS: Gandhiji didnt read any of those unknown novels which you may mentioned but Ram. Atleaset that is historically recorded. And there hasnt been anyone like Gandhi as a person in modern world. Edited January 29 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannister Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 16 minutes ago, mishra said: Name one novel which has a Raghuvansha or Surya Vansha kind of detailed history with moral display? Lord of Rings or Harry Potter Dont get confused with what is legal , what is lawfull vs what is moral? Have you wondered why there is no word in other languages for terms like "Rajniti" or "Niti" or simple day today use for "Sankalp". Because these are alien concept to non Bharat people Morality is inconsistently portrayed in Ramayana and Mahabharata; they are not flawless narratives. In the 21st century, I would prefer novels like Harry Potter over them any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Lannister said: Morality is inconsistently portrayed in Ramayana and Mahabharata; they are not flawless narratives. In the 21st century, I would prefer novels like Harry Potter over them any day. What is inconsistent in behaviour of Ram? Even, anecdotal will do. I am like that Angad, will accept your arguement or clarify ur doubts. Mahabharat is different ball game. You have to understand difference which Dr Jaishankar says. Ram means Rule based order ie achieving something on basis of Niti. Mahabharat means what happens if Lokniti and Rajniti do not follow Niti Edited January 29 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diga Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 I dont understand how someone can critique deep subjects like Ramayana or Mahabharata or the nuances of it without even a comprehensive read.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 12 minutes ago, diga said: I dont understand how someone can critique deep subjects like Ramayana or Mahabharata or the nuances of it without even a comprehensive read.. Bhai is writting Novel. In the new novel he will have something for each character of Raghuvansh or Chandravansh .Not just Ram, He will create Mandhata, Harishchandra . And then he will convince whole India to Read it because people love reading fiction, learning from it and passing it on to next generation that his fiction is must read. He will plant new evidences which are aligned to his fiction so that later generation accept that what he wrote is true. After all, even He knows that scheitifically, minimum requirement for taking moral lessons from those characters is that people have to accept his work as truth. Edited January 29 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannister Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 32 minutes ago, mishra said: Gandhiji didnt read any of those unknown novels which you may mentioned but Ram. Atleaset that is historically recorded. And there hasnt been anyone like Gandhi as a person in modern world. Gandhi followed a pacifist approach, placing emphasis on life rather than freedom. The morality of this perspective is subjective; some argue that freedom holds greater value than anything else, and their perspective is equally valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts