CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
IS Islam a violent religion?
The title says every thing.But still,911, 2611 are just a few of major terrorist attacks but what do u think y is that most of the terrorists attacks are islam related ? is it a religion or the people which are bad????????????
I personally don't like the religion much, Sure every religion has their bunch of nut jobs who take it to the extreme, But it's a little too common in Islam
People in Iran take the Quran to literally and killed teenagers by literally stoning there head with concrete simply because they followed an Emo trend .
All in all my view may be based on my perception, and for this case , I trust. If Islamist can be tolerating of other peoples sentiments and beliefs without causing a riot , then sure I can live peacefully with them too.
I feel the need to clarify a couple of things, stoning is a form of punishment mentioned in the Sharia and not the Koran. Stoning happens when a person has taken the life of another unjustly or committed adultery. The Sharia is simply the followings passed down from generations, and honestly speaking it is quite outdated. But then again the practices in Iran shouldn't generalize the Muslim's in general.
And yes you are right in believing that people are often misguided in Islam but does not mean that Islam does not tolerate other beliefs, a little insight on the religion would do wonders for you my friend.
"Any attempt at an argument against that is simply ignorance of what hinduism truly is."
You really shouldn't be making such categorical statements about something you clearly know very little about. I have read the Tao Te Ching, I have read the philisophical part of the Hindu sacred scriptures (as the other parts are rather incomprehensible to me) the upanishads, and I have read almost 10 books by popularisers of eastern philosophy, religion and thought, i.e. Alan Watts, Jiddu Krishnumurti (who is in a league of his own), and Daisetsu Suzuki
You should check some of them out, I can guarantee they will fuck with your head:)
I understand what you are saying, Hinduism is monotheistic in the strict sense of the word, but any attempt to use that fact to relate it to the other major monotheisms does it a massve disservice. I couldn't the find the video I wanted so this will have to suffice:
Alan Watts Western Difficulty With Hindu Mythology
Also, my parents travelled through India for 4 years int he early 70s, and they have never stopped telling how much it changed them as people, they were completely assimilated into the culture, and they told me when the time came to go back home to Ireland, they were literally petrified at the prospect.
"Hinduism has often been confused to be polytheistic because of one leading denomination, Smartism, which follows the Advaita philosophy of absolute monism, and includes worship of all kinds of personal forms of God. Absolute monists see one unity with all personal forms of God as different aspects of one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colors by a prism. Thus Smartas consider all personal forms of God as equal including Devi, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh and Skanda but generally limit the recognized forms to be six. Other denominations of Hinduism don't adhere to the Smarta viewpoint, but are quite unlike Western perceptions of monotheism. Additionally, like Judeo-Christian traditions which believe in angels, Hindus also believe in less powerful entities, such as devas.[1]"
Hinduism does not speak in plain descriptive language, it does not use the language of fact, it uses the language of mythology, this is because images can describe far more than concepts. Hinduism attempts to describe the undifferentiated existence beyond our own minds in using colourful metaphor, aphorism, image, etc., because there is no such thing as non-human idea, as nothing we describe can be put in terms that exist beyond our own minds. Therefore any reductionist debate on Hinduism will be fruitless, but maybe by engaging in it you will realise why.
""Hinduism has often been confused to be polytheistic because of one leading denomination, Smartism,"
Hinduism is generally regarded to be a polytheistic faith, particularly outside Asia, while no Hindu would attest this to being the case. However, from a non Hindu perspective this is exactly how it appears, as all schools of Hinduism beleive in Brahman as the ground of all being - this is even true of atheistic schools (which stress the subjective self) within Hinduism as Brahman cab be considered Brahman as everything and "no-thing" (or personal and non-personal) - which can be split into several distinct and separate "Gods", "Deities", or etc., (i.e. Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti), nearly all schools, sects, and/or disciplines of Hindusim beleive in these beings as being representative of different aspects of Brahman's personality or being, and they are revered separately as separate Gods i.e. any Hindu that worhsips Vishnu does not simultaneously worship Shiva except the school of Smartism which accepts all the major Hindu deities as forms of the one Brahman.
So, in some sense, the different schools of Hinduism are like individual religions of there own, except for Smartism which unifies the four main schools. But this is far from where the complexity ends, in fact this is only where it begins, each aspects of Brahman also have different aspects to them, i.e. Vishnu can be considered Krishna depending on the school.
The question of God, and God's in Hinduism is a very interesting one, it is one that many academics have tried to pin down to some degree, but it is pointless excercise, it's like trying to bite your own teeth.
Hindu' also worships devas, in fact many Hindu's have their own personal deves (a little bit like guardian angels, and in effect, these are no different to Brahman), they are Godlike, and their literal english translation is: "God". This reminds me of a great story from the Upanishads but I won't get into it here. This is really the kind of discussion that needs to be had face to face.
The number of Gods in Hinduism has been put at 3.3 million, but it is really as many as you like, as they believe almost all beings are representative of the one reality, the unknowable Brahman.
You see the ultimate Brahman is a concept people the west are not familiar with, so they call it God, like the Judeo Christian God, but this loses sight of the whole thing. Brahman is better understood as the undifferentiated void, or the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, it is linked with the idea of the self, the fundamental thing, the centre of existence, i.e.
Undifferentiated Aesthetic Continuum
"Because Western scientists, philosphers, and religious people are accustomed to think only about facts in experience and knowledge which are differentiated, and hence determinate, factors that are this rather than that it is, in the writers judgement, impossible or at least unneceesarily difficult, to convey to Westerners the empirical evidence for this Buddhist-Hindu concept of any persons self in terms of Buddhist and Hindu philoospy, whether Westerners read this philosophy in the original Sanskrit and Pali or in translation or whether they listen to expert Asian scholars’ expositions of it. What happens again and again when Westerners try to understand Nirvana, or the Atman-that-is-Brahman exists and can be real, they always read into Nirvana, Atman, and Brahman Western determinate concepts of reality, conscious personality, and the religious object."
"I will openly conceed you are entirely correct to regard Hindusim as a monotheistic faith"
And if Hinduism is monotheism, then Christianity is too.
They both are...
By the way:
"Hinduism has often been confused to be polytheistic because of one leading denomination, Smartism, which follows the Advaita philosophy of absolute monism, and includes worship of all kinds of personal forms of God. Absolute monists see one unity with all personal forms of God as different aspects of one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colors by a prism. Thus Smartas consider all personal forms of God as equal including Devi, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh and Skanda but generally limit the recognized forms to be six. Other denominations of Hinduism don't adhere to the Smarta viewpoint, but are quite unlike Western perceptions of monotheism. Additionally, like Judeo-Christian traditions which believe in angels, Hindus also believe in less powerful entities, such as devas.[1]"
Hindu's don't generally worship a monothiestic God. It is considered by most to be a polythiestic faith, although this doesn't do its doctrines complexity justice. Meant to pres clarify, ah well.
And you are quite wrong about it being polytheistic."
I'm trying to tell you your attempt to put Hinduism in the same category as the major monotheisms is a gross oversimplification. It is difficult to compare the Christian/Islamic/Jewism monothiestic God to the monotheistic God in Hunduism. The only real tangible similarity it shares with others is the fact that Western people like refer to it as "God", their conception of God bears very little relation to that of the other faiths. The reason Hinduism is generally regarded as polythiestic religion is because Brahman can manifest himself/herself in several forms, and Hindu's are given a chioce as to which form is most appealing for them to worship, therefore, in practice it is a polythiestic faith as each Hindu worships a different God, although they are all representative of the same divine ground of all being, so technically it is a monotheism, but this isn't what it looks like in practice. A weak analogy would be if Christians were free to worship the father, the son, or the holy spirit, and were not requried to worship the entire trinity, although I am loath to resort to relating Christianity with Hinduism as you have attempted to do, trying to compare them and put them on equal terms is disingenuous.
In Hinduism, Brahman (bráhman) is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe; that is the one supreme, universal spirit.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead[2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of all being. Brahman is conceived as personal ("with qualities"), impersonal ("without qualities") and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school.
It is difficult to compare the Christian/Islamic/Jewism monothiestic God to the monotheistic God in Hunduism.
I agree that the term 'god' is a bit of a misnomer in regards to hinduism. That is akin to saying Jesus is one god, god is another god, and the holy spirit is another god.
The reason Hinduism is generally regarded as polythiestic religion is because Brahman can manifest himself/herself in several forms
But the same being...
Hindu's are given a chioce as to which form is most appealing for them to worship, therefore, in practice it is a polythiestic faith as each Hindu worships a different God
I don't see how this yields to hinduism be a polytheistic religion. They are all worshipping the same being. The manner or path they choose is irrelevant as the ends is the same.
Hindu worships a different God, although they are all representative of the same divine ground of all being, so technically it is a monotheism, but this isn't what it looks like in practice.
Exactly my point. But again I fail to see how it is even polytheistic in practice, the term 'god' being a misnomer.
"That is akin to saying Jesus is one god, god is another god, and the holy spirit is another god."
Don't push that anaolgy too far, in fact I regret making it at all, it muddies the waters of any real understanding of Hinduism.
"But the same being..."
Brahman is not a being, Brahman is everything and nothing, the incomprehensible idea, the self, the void...
"I don't see how this yields to hinduism be a polytheistic religion."
They all call themselves Hindu's but very few Hindu's worhsip the same God, or representation of the divine ground of all being.
"They are all worshipping the same being."
No, they beleive the centre of existence is undifferentiated.
"The manner or path they choose is irrelevant as the ends is the same."
I do not disagree in the least, that is why Hindu's do not consider their faith to be polytheistic, but it incredibly important to garner some vague understadning of why, and this is not easily accomplished, I can assure you.
You know what I meant. I couldn't think of word to describe it.
Brahman is ...nothing
Do you mean the sense that Brahma exists independently of and not bound by time and space?
the void...
I'm not disputing, I just have no idea what you mean by that.
They all call themselves Hindu's but very few Hindu's worhsip the same God
They all worship Brahma (at least that's the spelling I always used for Brahman). Do you disagree that in a purist sense, all of these "gods" are merely manifestations of Brahma? Manifestation is the closest word I could come up with for the concept.
I do not disagree in the least, that is why Hindu's do not consider their faith to be polytheistic
I guess this is where we disagree. I don't see the Hindu gods as "gods" in the traditional sense. I see them as a means to attain an ends (being a monotheistic entity). Which goes pack to your other point about it being polytheistic in practice. I don't believe the practice to be at all relevant to the ends itself.
"Do you mean the sense that Brahma exists independently of and not bound by time and space?"
Yes, but I must stress the impossibility of any intellectual understanding of Brahman, there is no way to explain it, explanation is just another form of complexity.
"I'm not disputing, I just have no idea what you mean by that"
In order to have any real understanding you have to be able to lose your sense of self.
"They all worship Brahma (at least that's the spelling I always used for Brahman)."
Brahma is a deva, Hindu's use the word Brahman to describe the centre of existence.
"Do you disagree that in a purist sense, all of these "gods" are merely manifestations of Brahma?"
Of course I don't, they are merely trying to expose through the use of image the different aspects of his/her personality, the personality of existence, i.e. how it manifests itself.
Hindu's don't beleive these "Gods" actually exist in the literal sense, they are merely used to describe forces of cosmic significance.
"I see them as a means to attain an ends (being a monotheistic entity)."
Hindu's don't understand the idea of an "end" in any sense of the word. Nobody knows how old Hinduism is precisely because Hindu's don't really beleive in history - time for them is cyclic.
In order to have any real understanding you have to be able to lose your sense of self.
Interesting. I guess I never thought of the self as a barrier (if that's what you are implying).
Brahma is a deva, Hindu's use the word Brahman to describe the centre of existence.
Oh come on, garry! I'm not a complete idiot (yet). I know that! I just always spelled both the same way.
they are merely trying to expose through the use of image the different aspects of his/her personality
AH! That is what I was trying to say by "manifestation." You just did so better. There simply aren't words to describe half these concepts...
Hindu's don't beleive these "Gods" actually exist in the literal sense
That is what I meant when I said Hindus don't worship multiple gods/believe multiple gods exist. I guess I mean that they pray to different "aspects of his/her personality, the personality of existence." I think that is a much better definition than "god." I think god is a misnomer. Do you agree?
Hindu's don't understand the idea of an "end" in any sense of the word.
I was referring to moksha. But isn't moksha an ends of sorts? It is a release from the "cycle."
time for them is cyclic.
Cyclical things may not have ends, but moksha is attained by becoming independent and unbound from/by the cycle, so why can Hindus not believe in an "ends?" Even if that ends is merely a beginning?
-
Another one of my random musings was that non-hindus don't exist. Tell me if i'm wrong, but in Hinduism, anyone can achieve moksha, regardless of whether they declared themselves as "Hindu" in their lifetimes.
"Interesting. I guess I never thought of the self as a barrier (if that's what you are implying)."
The self, the I, or the ego can be thought of as the only barrier, but this barrier isn't real, in fact, by its very nature it is completely illusory.
"Oh come on, garry! I'm not a complete idiot "
Oh right, fair enough, I just saw you use it a few times.
"(yet). "
What did you mean by that, just curious?
"There simply aren't words to describe half these concepts..."
That is because grammar and yes, even mathematics, are self limiting in the eyes of Hinduism, they are symbolic, and therefore metaphorical. They not only control how we orgnaise our thoughts but they determine exactly the kinds of thoughts we can have.
"I think that is a much better definition than "god.""
"Furthermore when we try to think philosphically, and think in abstract concepts about the nature of the universe, we often do some very weird things, you see it is considered nowadays nieve to consider god as an old gentlemen with an old white beard who sits on a golden throne and is surrounded by winged angels. And we say now, no sensible person could possibly beleive god is like that, so we get more sophisticated, we beleive that god is necessary being (if you follow Thomas Aquinas), or if you think with Buddhist, you think of god as undifferentiated void, or as infintite essence, but actually however rarefied, those concepts are just as anthropomorphic as the picture of god with the white bread, because all ideas about the world whether religious, philosophical, or scientific, are translations iof the physical world (and worlds beyond) in terms of the human mind"
- Alan Watts
"I think god is a misnomer. Do you agree?"
Of course.
"I was referring to moksha. But isn't moksha an ends of sorts?"
This is just the Hindu world for what the Buddhists call enlightenment, it can be considered and end if you like, but by the same token it can be considered a beginning.
"It is a release from the "cycle.""
Yes, it can be described that way, but I don't think I need to tell you that kind of description does it a massive disservice.
"Cyclical things may not have ends, but moksha is attained by becoming independent and unbound from/by the cycle, so why can Hindus not believe in an "ends?""
Let me use an anaolgy, losing your sense of the I, or the ego (i.e. being able to slow down your thoughts to the point of complete cessation, and thereby garner some understadning of our essential nothingness), is like diving head first into a deep ocean.
Acheiving enlightenment is like plundering the deepest darkest depths of that ocean in order to smash through the bedrock and break through to the other side.
"Even if that ends is merely a beginning?"
"Another one of my random musings was that non-hindus don't exist. "
Well, in a sense you are correct as Hindusim is just a term used to describe the different religious and philosophical traditions of India, and since all human can achieve enlightenment, there is a sense in which we are all Hindu's, i.e. some of their beoleifs transcend all religions
In reality however you must be born a Hindu in order to follow their traditions, customs and religious rites, and worship as they worship.
"but in Hinduism, anyone can achieve moksha"
It is to do with the way in which they view our material reality, anyone can acheive Moksha as that is just the word they use for waking up from the dream of reality. Buddhism teaches that anyone can acheive enlightenment (same thing), and Buddhism is open to all, but that doesn't mean there are no non-Buddhists.
You may find this documentary informative, it is done by National Geographic anthropolopgist Wade Davies, all his documentaries are very good, and are easily comprehensible to a wide audience:
Light at the Edge of the World-The Science of the Mind
Well all forms of communication are, no? Another random musing: Existence is a "metaphor" of sorts for our essence. The only "being" with existence is Brahman.
we beleive that god is necessary being (if you follow Thomas Aquinas)
Is Thomistic Cosmological Argument not sound?
those concepts are just as anthropomorphic as the picture of god with the white bread, because all ideas about the world whether religious, philosophical, or scientific, are translations iof the physical world (and worlds beyond) in terms of the human mind"
Hence the incomprehensibility of God...
it can be considered and end if you like, but by the same token it can be considered a beginning.
I stated this later in the argument...so I agree.
Acheiving enlightenment is like plundering the deepest darkest depths of that ocean in order to smash through the bedrock and break through to the other side.
I don't completely understand what you mean.
In reality however you must be born a Hindu in order to follow their traditions, customs and religious rites, and worship as they worship.
But I disagree that being a Hindu requires engaging in traditional rituals. But I see your point.
You may find this documentary informative, it is done by National Geographic anthropolopgist Wade Davies, all his documentaries are very good, and are easily comprehensible to a wide audience:
Will do.
-
Also, thank you for our discussion (however one-sided it was...). You don't have to respond if I am becoming annoying, but regardless. It was fascinating.
I'm very glad to hear that, the meaning of this is not easily communicable, especially via this medium.
"Well all forms of communication are, no? "
Yes, all forms of communication are metaphorical, that fact they exist at all is testament to their novelty. But this is what makes me question the limits of logic itself, while I would never try to claim there are any tangible limits to scientific reasoning (as such a claim would be foolish), I still doubt the capacity of science to deliver answers on transcendental truths about our own existence. But then again, who knows, anything can happen with another noetic paradigm shift, and God knows (pun intended) we’re due one. The theoretical questions which science cannot answer, and which I think may never be able to answer, were articulated well by Bertrand Russell in his essay: “Philosophy for Laymen”, he states them as being:
”Do we survive death in any sense, and if so, do we survive for a time or forever? Can mind dominate matter, or does matter completely dominate mind, or has each, perhaps, a certain limited independence? Has the universe a purpose? Or is it driven by blind necessity? Or is it a mere chaos and jumble, in which the natural laws that we think we find, are only a phantasy generated by our own love of order? If there is a cosmic scheme, has life more importance in it than astronomy would lead us to suppose, or is our emphasis upon life mere parochialism and self-importance?”
I find such questions useful as they can be used to create other questions, however if you think you can answer any of these question you’re either a prodigal genius of epic proportions, or more likely, an idiot.
"Another random musing: Existence is a "metaphor" of sorts for our essence. "
Yes, that's a very interesting and sharp observation, you sound like an existentialist philosopher. In fact, if you swapped “existence” and “essence” and replaced “essence” with “self-awareness” it would sound just like a Jean-Paul Sartre quote (and possibly removed “of sorts”).
He distinguishes consciousness from everything else by its ability to become aware of itself, but this leads to one his most famous philosophical problems, you see consciousness existing (i.e. existing in order to become aware of itself or its true essence) for itself is nothingness, because its true essence is nothing at all. You see when you try to focus on the “self”, by the very process of using your conscious mind to focus on “yourself” you are simultaneously preventing yourself from accessing your true essence, i.e. by directing your awareness onto your own awareness
He essentially teaches (I’m practically paraphrasing him at this point) that no matter how many higher order awarenesses you invoke something will always remain outside the grasp of your own consciousness - this is because you must utilise your own concious mind in order to focus on your concious mind.
And how does all this relate back to Hinduism? Well, it isn’t that easy to explain, so again I must resort to some form of analogy. If you look at Sartre’s philosophy it strikes me as being an attempt to lose your awareness of yourself (he would disagree with this premise if he were alive, or any other existentialist philosopher ) by focusing/ concentrating ever harder on one’s self. However, he realises the inherent contradiction in this (here is the simple analogy), it seems to me like trying to throw something away by grasping it ever tighter, it is obviously doomed to failure, whereas in Hinduism/Buddhism/etc. - they essentially try to teach you to simply let go.
I do realise how vague all of this sounds.
Russell’s point about creating laws out of a love of order makes a lot of sense to me based on deep experiences I have had with my own consciousness, however I realise this is cheap debating currency, and is not amenable to any real intellectual exposition. It seems to me that most people find some metaphor (i.e. ideology/code/set of rules) by which to live their lives (or else they invent their own, however very few allow this to prevent them from satisfying their base desires or wants) - this gives their life meaning, it allows us/them to freeze certain aspects of the natural chaos that is our existence, the problem with most people is they believe too strongly in one thing or another, they convince themselves it is real because they are real, they associate it with themselves as who does not associate their own thoughts with themselves? It is nature of the human ego, even if that person didn’t have those thoughts, once they accept and assimilate them – they view them as their own. I could go much deeper with this but I need to cut it short here as there are other points I want to comment on and I don;t think you want to read a book.
“The only "being" with existence is Brahman.”
Ah, but you see, Brahman is nothing and everything, it’s like trying to claim we’re the only beings with existence.
” Is Thomistic Cosmological Argument not sound?”
It's probably about as sound as the argument from logic, I’m sure you’re well aware of the problems with the Thomistic Cosmological Argument - there is no point in me repeating them, the point I was making is that all arguments for the existence of God are moot by virtue of trying to making the arguments themselves, that is why the Hindu’s worship aspects of the manifestation of Brahman, as opposed to the thing “itself.”Although I think you’ve grasped this point.
“I stated this later in the argument...so I agree.”
Yes I know, I suppose what I meant to say is that it can be considered an end or a beginning, but personally I don’t consider it right to consider it either – there is no logical reason I can fathom as to why it is neither, all I would say is that trying to ascribe properties (i.e. products of the human mind) to anything that (by its nature) resides outside the domain of time is a fruitless exercise.
“ I don't completely understand what you mean.”
I don’t blame you because even I don’t understand what I mean. I am not some guru or yogi, and nor would I want to be (yet anyway), I have never reached anything that can be called enlightenment, and in fact I still struggle to lose my sense of self without some external assistance, but even if I was a great Zen master , I strongly doubt whether there would be any intellectually satisfying answer I could I give to describe what it is I mean.
“But I disagree that being a Hindu requires engaging in traditional rituals. But I see your point.”
I don’t have enough knowledge of Hinduism to refute this, I am not even sure if it can be refuted so I’m going to assume you are correct until find out otherwise.
“Also, thank you for our discussion (however one-sided it was...).”
No problem, and it wasn’t one sided at all, the questions you posed were the questions any rational person approaching this topic for the first time would pose, I grappled with many of them myself for a long time, and I still do.
“You don't have to respond if I am becoming annoying,”
Not at all, I have a passionate interest in subjects such as this, I am always happy to discuss them with someone as capable as yourself when I have the time.
“but regardless. It was fascinating.”
I’m glad, and I must thank you for not being overtly dismissive of the topics being discussed, many people would have been. I would also like to say that I consider myself a rationalist first and foremost, I live my life in a rational way and always have, however my interests are diverse. I have in the past been scoffed at for referring to myself as a spiritual atheist, and I must admit some of my views are not easily reconciled with your standard atheist world view, but it is my belief that as time moves on topics such as this are going to be forced into the mainstream discourse.
I would also say when dealing with subjects such as this they can lead a person to a sort of insanity, or well, I can’t really describe it. I have had the experience of being cognisant of the irrational while fully awake, it gives you a deep insight into the state of mind a schizophrenic lives with. It’s sort of sad when you consider how most ancient/primitive cultures revered the schizophrenic, as soon as a child displayed the signs of it they were taken from society to live with the witchdoctor/shaman (another schizophrenic) in order to concentrate and focus his abilities into something useful for the society. In our society we say there is something wrong with them -then we pump them full of pills so they might “fit in”, or else we ship them off to some psychiatric ward to live in destitution, interesting contrast. Note: I don't subsribe to any alternative medicine, alternative mediciine is rightly viewed as medicine that hasn't proved its own efficacy yet.
I can tell I’m rambling so I’ll stop here, shit I wrote a lot, I also didn't mean to dispute you, sorry bout that.
I'm very glad to hear that, the meaning of this is not easily communicable, especially via this medium.
I agree. Through any medium, I would say.
But this is what makes me question the limits of logic itself
But doesn't logic exist independently of the mediums through which it is communicated?
I still doubt the capacity of science to deliver answers on transcendental truths about our own existence.
Correct me if I am wrong, but to objectively confirm anything about our existence, one must be outside and independent of our own existence. And as none of us are, we cannot definitively say anything about it. Especially considering science is bound by empirical facts. If that makes any sense...
I find such questions useful as they can be used to create other questions, however if you think you can answer any of these question you’re either a prodigal genius of epic proportions, or more likely, an idiot.
Which may confirm my other point above. Or, as is usually the case, I am wrong in my philosophical cogitations.
you sound like an existentialist philosopher
An existentialist? In the sense that I don't believe the self cannot fully be understood.
A philosopher? HA! Alas...I will not sully the names of philosophers by calling myself such.
In fact, if you swapped “existence” and “essence” and replaced “essence” with “self-awareness” it would sound just like a Jean-Paul Sartre quote (and possibly removed “of sorts”).
Now that I don't understand. How can one be self-aware if one's self is only part of a greater existence, an existence that one cannot be conscious of until moksha is achieved.
Also, on an unrelated note, is Sarte the guy who turned down a nobel prize? I remember something like that.
He essentially teaches (I’m practically paraphrasing him at this point) that no matter how many higher order awarenesses you invoke something will always remain outside the grasp of your own consciousness - this is because you must utilise your own concious mind in order to focus on your concious mind.
That was essentially my point.
it seems to me like trying to throw something away by grasping it ever tighter, it is obviously doomed to failure, whereas in Hinduism/Buddhism/etc. - they essentially try to teach you to simply let go.
Ok. Now I understand it.
It seems to me that most people find some metaphor by which to live their lives - this gives their life meaning; it allows us/them to freeze certain aspects of the natural chaos that is our existence
Isn't that the ultimate truth? To explore the realms of, not only our existence, but that which is outside of our existence. To make sense of the chaos, to counteract the entropy of our universe to a physicist, is to begin to understand our true selves and that which is greater than ourselves.
the problem with most people is they believe too strongly in one thing or another, they convince themselves it is real because they are real, they associate it with themselves as who does not associate their own thoughts with themselves?
My last random musing: With knowledge comes the risk of ignorance.
I don;t think you want to read a book.
If you ever write a book, I would gladly be the first to buy it.
Brahman is nothing and everything, it’s like trying to claim we’re the only beings with existence.
But we are merely a part of Brahma. We exist through Brahma, no?
I was making is that all arguments for the existence of God are moot by virtue of trying to making the arguments themselves, that is why the Hindu’s worship aspects of the manifestation of Brahman, as opposed to the thing “itself.”
I completely agree.
I would say is that trying to ascribe properties (i.e. products of the human mind) to anything that (by its nature) resides outside the domain of time is a fruitless exercise.
But isn't thought merely a unit of time? Without thought, how can time exist? So I guess I disagree in the sense that... I see time as a product of consciousness.
I am not even sure if it can be refuted so I’m going to assume you are correct until find out otherwise.
Well, I guess that brings up the question of what it means to be an adherent of a specific religion. Religion, at its core, is really nothing more than a set of guidelines to achieve something (in this case moksha). You could argue it does more, but really, religion itself--the human creation--is merely that. So an adherent of such a code is merely someone who upholds the ideals of it. So how can ritual itself be a fundamental requirement? I agree that ritual itself is a good means by which to uphold, practice, and exercise the ideals set forth by religion, but it is not a part of the ideals themselves.
I would also like to say that I consider myself a rationalist first and foremost
Sorry for the late reply, been fairly busy lately.
“But doesn't logic exist independently of the mediums through which it is communicated?”
Yes, the laws of logic are non-physical; their existence is not contingent on us or our thoughts. However, the reason we have any comprehension of them stems from our desire for classification as a means to control the world with which we are presented. How much these laws can be stretched in the pursuit of eternal truths is debatable.
It reminds me of that Voltaire quote: “If God did not exist it would be necessary for man to invent him”
I think the same could almost be said of logic, for if logic did not exist, how could man create? And if man could not create, we would truly be without purpose.
I have to admit the comparison is not an entirely fair one.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but to objectively confirm anything about our existence, one must be outside and independent of our own existence. And as none of us are, we cannot definitively say anything about it. Especially considering science is bound by empirical facts. If that makes any sense...”
Exactly, nothing can be understood unless it is in reference to something else, but you wouldn’t realise that from the self-congratulation attitude of certain sections of the scientific community.
“Which may confirm my other point above. Or, as is usually the case, I am wrong in my philosophical cogitations.”
No, I believe you to be entirely correct.
“An existentialist? In the sense that I don't believe the self cannot fully be understood.”
Well, yes, it is implicit in the statement: Existence is a "metaphor" of sorts for our essence
“Now that I don't understand. How can one be self-aware if one's self is only part of a greater existence, an existence that one cannot be conscious of until moksha is achieved.”
Well, to be self aware means to be aware of your greater self, so in that sense becoming self aware is not to be confused with individualism.
“Also, on an unrelated note, is Sarte the guy who turned down a nobel prize? I remember something like that.”
That’s him.
“Ok. Now I understand it.”
Well, that was my own attempt at drawing a parallel between enlightenment and Sartres notions on self awareness, so I wouldn’t take it too seriously.
“Isn't that the ultimate truth? To explore the realms of, not only our existence, but that which is outside of our existence. To make sense of the chaos, to counteract the entropy of our universe to a physicist, is to begin to understand our true selves and that which is greater than ourselves.”
I can see how attractive that argument is, but I think the idea of an “ultimate truth” is not one I am comfortable with. The only thing that approximates “ultimate truth” that I would subscribe to (at least to some extent) is Nietzsches idea of reality as an aesthetic continuum, but even with this rather ambiguous concept I still hold some reservations.
“My last random musing: With knowledge comes the risk of ignorance.”
In many instances I would go as far as to equate knowledge with ignorance.
“But we are merely a part of Brahma. We exist through Brahma, no?”
I think it is probably more correct to say that we are Brahman. Most eastern philosophies agree with the idea that existence is undifferentiated, like in Hinduism, they would say any person is simply another manifestation of Brahman.
“But isn't thought merely a unit of time? Without thought, how can time exist? So I guess I disagree in the sense that... I see time as a product of consciousness.”
Thought is a movement and time is a movement, and many would say the two are one and the same. Again in order to delve into this topic requires a degree of subjectivity that is incomprehensible to someone not acquainted with the experience, i.e. the dissolution of one’s own consciousness
“Religion, at its core, is really nothing more than a set of guidelines to achieve something (in this case moksha). You could argue it does more, but really, religion itself--the human creation--is merely that.”
I agree completely, although I question the true value offered by the guidelines. That is the main source of my uncertainty.
” “So how can ritual itself be a fundamental requirement?”
You’re right; there is no logical reason as to why the rituals would be a fundamental requirement.
” “An existentialist second?”
Yes, among many other competing ideologies. I can see the sense in many ideologies, but rationalism is the only one that provides any real certainty in my day to day existence.
This is rapidly degenerating into an argument over semantics. I will openly conceed you are entirely correct to regard Hindusim as a monotheistic faith, but it is certainly not wrong to also regard it as a polythesitic faith, as most people do, as that is how it presents itself. At the same time it is panthesitic, and athiestic, depending on the school. As I said before, it is complex, that is why it is never thrown in with the other major monotheisms, because it is simply not comparable to them.
The fact that a religion like Buddhism (which is practically atheistic when you remove its belief in reincarnation) could be spawned from it shows how unrelated it is to the others.
You see, when Hindu's talk about God's, they are usually not referring to Brahman, the ground of all being, because they don;t see themselves as being seperate from Brahman, they use God's as images of reality to represent the various ways in which brahman presents himself/herself, i.e.
"The Hindu scriptures refer to celestial entities called Devas (or devī in feminine form; devatā used synonymously for Deva in Hindi), "the shining ones", which may be translated into English as "gods" or "heavenly beings".[102] The devas are an integral part of Hindu culture and are depicted in art, architecture and through icons, and mythological stories about them are related in the scriptures, particularly in Indian epic poetry and the Puranas. They are, however, often distinguished from Ishvara, a supreme personal god, with many Hindus worshiping Ishvara in one of its particular manifestations (ostensibly separate deities) as their iṣṭa devatā, or chosen ideal"
Oh Come on... This is so ignorant! Do you really believe that? I mean... there are primarily 3 supreme Gods- The Trimurti- i.e- Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu and Lord Brahmana. Okay... And the other Gods like Lord Ram or Lord Krishna are supposedly the incarnations of the three major Gods. That is how the line runs. Apart from that there are also the Goddesses like Goddess Laxmi or lord Gayathri. You see... There are so many of them.
you are absolutely wrong if you think so please give some evidence for you statement where you said Islam is violent religion. For example the faces of religions like Muhammad (SAW) or Jesus the weren't violent persons, if you know.
"Erections don't rape people, people rape people."
Yes, but don't you think if the state forcibly regulated erections (by utilising chemical castration or some other means) the rape rate would decrease?
People may be the ones killing people, but it's the ideology caused by the religion itself that CAUSED them to do it. A gun can't plant ideas into peoples' heads or indoctrinate, but religion can!
I personally feel that its people who are bad not the religion.I don't no much about islam but u c just because a few major terrorists attacks were related to islam v should not say that the religion is bad.
where u get this info? May be this information belongs to those terrorists who are against this brilliant religion-Islam. don't trust to everybody and every source ok!!!
I am in the same opinion with u, there are some people who is not clever and who is wrongly have understood the idea of being Muslim. Islam is the religion of piece, friendship, love and briefly the way of happy life.
Right, that's why they call it the religion of peace. Fundamentalist Muslims don't speak for the millions of other Muslims in the world and no, not all of them are violent. Besides, didn't an American, Christian pastor burn the Quran? Why isn't anyone raging about that?! >_<
No, I don`t agree that Islam is a violent religion. Islam is not a violent religion. Some think that because a faction of extremist terrorists act in the name of Islam that this religion is a violent one. In fact, it is actually a peaceful religion. Small numbers of violent extremists make the religion look bad. Terrorists don't have the right idea of Islam. The Qur'an teaches that all human life is sacred and although you should try to bring peoplethe message of Islam, you should do it in a non-violent way. Islam is derived from the Arabic root "salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience.
No " kill the Infidel" does not mean Muslims must kill non-Muslims. There is historic proof: When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.
As for slay them where you find them, that is only a snipped version and it does not mention who, this is the full version: "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).
let me clear u sumthing man what the hell u r talking ,,you cant attack on any religion which is very offensives and ISLAM is the Relgion which teaches you peace not violence whatever happens 911 or 2611 are the terrorism act after that day to till whats going on dont you know daily natto attacks are going on ,many islamic countries have been destroying since that time so this thing is very clear now who is violating,,,,,,,,,,
Any religion which supports the killing of an innocent life is not a religion. Islam talks about love and peace, yet most Muslim's are happy to have animals killed slowly and painfully for their enjoyment. I am a vegetarian and don't get me wrong as I think killing animals altogether is wrong! So can Muslim's out there clarify that do they think killing animals is wrong?? If they don't, then yes Islam is a violent religion!
oh you of no knowledge do you believe everything you hear without studying or learning no muslim told you we kill them like that ill tell you the muslim must first make sure his knife is sharp the cut must completely kill the animal also none of his friends are allowed to see him being killed the name of god must be mentioned and also a couple of other things that are only significant to muslims please dont take this to be true until you have studied from some other source then just little old me plenty of scholars out there
the debate over weather Islam is a violent religion vs. the people who practice the faith are a violent people are two entirely different things. Are there more extremists who practice Islam in comparison to other religions such as Christianity or Judaism ? perhaps but that is not to say that the religion of Islam itself is violent in nature. in fact the principals of the faith are not very different compared to Christianity, in fact they even regard Jesus as a prophet , as well as Moses and many others, they simply believe that Mohammad is the most recent of prophets, that in actuality is the biggest difference between the two.
Those terrorists are nothing more than fundamentalists, if you say Islam is evil by that logic, then Christianity is evil and my proof is the KKK. That is pretty stupid proof is it not?
Your argument completely ignores the fact that the Qur'an NEVER provides context. Any Muslim who seeks context for any given surah must look to the haditha (sayings of Muhammad) or the sira (biographies of Muhammad), as well as the vast body of commentary and exegesis in existence, which in turn confirm that Islam/Muhammad DOES enjoin physical violence, if necessary, in the name of the faith. You'd do well not to repeat platitudes and opt for good research instead.
What do you mean it never provides context. It does provide context but not if you snip out a word from the verse. If you go see my newest debate I debunk the argument kill the infidel and I say the WHOLE verse. By reading the whole verse you will find the context.