What's new

I have faith that Lord Rama exists: Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord Ram at best may be a historical figure imbued with mythical qualities.

Just like prophet Mohammad who probably said to be a prophet to help spread islam.

Same with Jesus Christ.


If you accept Lord Ram exists then the Greek and Nordic mythological figures exist too.
 
Lord Ram at best may be a historical figure imbued with mythical qualities.

Just like prophet Mohammad who probably said to be a prophet to help spread islam.

Same with Jesus Christ.


If you accept Lord Ram exists then the Greek and Nordic mythological figures exist too.

At least no pedophilia associated with Hindu mythology:pop:
 
you mean hindus who kill the cow, should be killed too?

I am curious too. Because in a democracy people should follow what they believe in. My parents and I ate beef while we were in Kerala. In fact beef is very popular there.

So Nair Saab's answer to Islamists is to be like them?
 
I am curious too. Because in a democracy people should follow what they believe in. My parents and I ate beef while we were in Kerala. In fact beef is very popular there.

So Nair Saab's answer to Islamists is to be like them?

Cows hate you :D
 
At least no pedophilia associated with Hindu mythology:pop:


Well you have to look at it through historical relativity. What Muhammad did during his time may not be seen as a bad thing, but now will raise eyebrows.

Islam in my opinion was not spread through some divine mandate, but rather people gave in initially because of the speed and ferocity of the conquests.

If you look at the Quran, it is outdated now.

Cows hate you :D

Holy cow batman! :D
 
Well you have to look at it through historical relativity. What Muhammad did during his time may not be seen as a bad thing, but now will raise eyebrows.

Islam in my opinion was not spread through some divine mandate, but rather people gave in initially because of the speed and ferocity of the conquests.

If you look at the Quran, it is outdated now.



Holy cow batman! :D

All religious scriptures are outdated now!

Religion is a primitive concept:smart:
 
All religious scriptures are outdated now!

Religion is a primitive concept:smart:

Religion can become extinct for all we care :agree:

Dharma will still remain :omghaha:

Well you have to look at it through historical relativity. What Muhammad did during his time may not be seen as a bad thing, but now will raise eyebrows.

Islam in my opinion was not spread through some divine mandate, but rather people gave in initially because of the speed and ferocity of the conquests.

If you look at the Quran, it is outdated now.



Holy cow batman! :D
Oops - now get ready for a divine fatwa. :lol:
No offense mate :)
 
All religious scriptures are outdated now!

Religion is a primitive concept:smart:

Look, just because I am an atheist, I don't want to bash other religions. Nair Saab has the right to believe Lord Ram exists.

Science over the last 500 years has consistently chipped away at the edifice of god. 700 years ago, people believed it rained, earthquakes were made, mountains and forests were made, oceans were made because of god.

God's dominion is now the last vestiges of ignorance. Whatever can't be explained by science is not the purview of god.

What grates me the most is when people use Humanity's fear of death and possible life after to justify all sorts of atrocities.

There are atheist mass murderers too. The problem is dogmatic belief. That you are never wrong and any new ideas or thought represent a challenge.


Dharma will still remain


There used to be a rationalist school in Hinduism. called Carvakas I think. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
About the existence of Lord Rama. He is a mythological figure and is not a historical one. About Ramayana, it is said that Ramayana was written long before the birth of Ram. This speaks that Ram was not born and is not a human being.

At some point of history the people of India started to believe Ramayana as the source of historical account and in his existence as a human being. There is no proved account of Rama and His father Raja Dashrath in the history of Ayodhya. It is a mythological account.

Whatever it may be I am against destroying that old line of land bridge between Indian south and SL.
 
Look, just because I am an atheist, I don't want to bash other religions. Nair Saab has the right to believe Lord Ram exists.

Science over the last 500 years has consistently chipped away at the edifice of god. 700 years ago, people believed it rained, earthquakes were made, mountains and forests were made, oceans were made because of god.

God's dominion is now the last vestiges of ignorance. Whatever can't be explained by science is not the purview of god.

What grates me the most is when people use Humanity's fear of death and possible life after to justify all sorts of atrocities.

There are atheist mass murderers too. The problem is dogmatic belief. That you are never wrong and any new ideas or thought represent a challenge.


Dharma will still remain


There used to be a rationalist school in Hinduism. called Carvakas I think. Correct me if I am wrong.

Science cannot compete with religion. Both are complementary.

Science is for the day to day matters, religion for the big questions which are outside the pale of science - which is why big scientists like Newton, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg etc were all deeply religious.

Rationality is a good tool for science, but it is a poor and perverse method for religion. Try rational reasoning for questions like "What is the purpose of existence", and the best you get is hypermaterialistic theories such as Communism.
 
Science cannot compete with religion. Both are complementary.

Science is for the day to day matters, religion for the big questions which are outside the pale of science - which is why big scientists like Newton, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg etc were all deeply religious.

Einstein was not deeply religious. You might want to correct that for future reference!

Rationality is a good tool for science, but it is a poor and perverse method for religion. Try rational reasoning for questions like "What is the purpose of existence", and the best you get is hypermaterialistic theories such as Communism.

Rational reasoning is obviously a poor and perverse tool for a poor and perverse concept like God. An omnipotent omnipresent entity that requires blind faith as a pre-requisite. No scientific tool can explain that BS!

Besides, trying to explain human existence and thoughts requires philosophical thinking not any religion:pop:
 
Einstein was not deeply religious. You might want to correct that for future reference!



Rational reasoning is obviously a poor and perverse tool for a poor and perverse concept like God. An omnipotent omnipresent entity that requires blind faith as a pre-requisite. No scientific tool can explain that BS!

Besides, trying to explain human existence and thoughts requires philosophical thinking not any religion:pop:

Discussion of philosophies of science and religion requires a deeper interaction which obviously is not available on this forum. so I will let your non-arguments remain unaddressed.
 
Rationality is a good tool for science, but it is a poor and perverse method for religion. Try rational reasoning for questions like "What is the purpose of existence", and the best you get is hypermaterialistic theories such as Communism.


Hyperbole masquerading as discussion. communism is a deeply irrational ideology that does not take into account basic human nature or basic human tendencies. Fascism, the flip-side of Communism but suffers the same follies.

If I try your reasoning, then using religion to answer our existential questions will inevitably lead to Islamo-fascism, Christian Fundamentalism and other extremist ideologies. I think I did put a disclaimer that dogmatic thinking is the real enemy. Communism, which is dogmatic, is flawed due to it not being open minded. Rational thinking, demands the evidence of god's existence. If it can be proven, then god/gods can be believed.

I get more compelling, interesting and meaningful discourses from philosophers and scientists on our existential questions than we do from religious figures.

I don't understand the point of rational reasoning for answering life's questions as perverse when Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle did.

Rational reasoning doesn't preclude religion. You still can dissect human morality and thinking by looking at it objectively through the lens of Human history, Human behavioral psychology, neuroscience, astro physics.

Science complementing religion is a viewpoint, just as science usurping religion is a viewpoint.

From a rationalist point of view, everything is upto question, god, atheism, current norms of sexuality. That is how society has evolved. by questioning.

I don't know how you came up with communism for scientific enquiry, when communism has been discredited by a lot of economists who have carried out rational thinking.
 
Discussion of philosophies of science and religion requires a deeper interaction which obviously is not available on this forum. so I will let your non-arguments remain unaddressed.

Typical "believer" reply! As expected :cheers:
 
Rationality is a good tool for science, but it is a poor and perverse method for religion. Try rational reasoning for questions like "What is the purpose of existence", and the best you get is hypermaterialistic theories such as Communism.


Hyperbole masquerading as discussion. communism is a deeply irrational ideology that does not take into account basic human nature or basic human tendencies. Fascism, the flip-side of Communism but suffers the same follies.

If I try your reasoning, then using religion to answer our existential questions will inevitably lead to Islamo-fascism, Christian Fundamentalism and other extremist ideologies. I think I did put a disclaimer that dogmatic thinking is the real enemy. Communism, which is dogmatic, is flawed due to it not being open minded. Rational thinking, demands the evidence of god's existence. If it can be proven, then god/gods can be believed.

I get more compelling, interesting and meaningful discourses from philosophers and scientists on our existential questions than we do from religious figures.

I don't understand the point of rational reasoning for answering life's questions as perverse when Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle did.

Rational reasoning doesn't preclude religion. You still can dissect human morality and thinking by looking at it objectively through the lens of Human history, Human behavioral psychology, neuroscience, astro physics.

Science complementing religion is a viewpoint, just as science usurping religion is a viewpoint.

From a rationalist point of view, everything is upto question, god, atheism, current norms of sexuality. That is how society has evolved. by questioning.

I don't know how you came up with communism for scientific enquiry, when communism has been discredited by a lot of economists who have carried out rational thinking.

We can certainly carry this discussion forward if you are aware of the basics of philosophy of science and metaphysics. Otherwise, statements such as "then using religion to answer our existential questions will inevitably lead to Islamo-fascism, Christian Fundamentalism and other extremist ideologies." can be put down to ignorance or "knowledge" gleaned from popular literature, and therefore unsuitable for a deeper discourse.

Typical "believer" reply! As expected :cheers:

Your extreme position taking clearly indicates a closed mind, and therefore not conducive to discussion.

Atheist can be as fanatic in their beliefs as some religious followers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom