"According to rationalists, anything that cannot be proven does not exist. Therefore, since God's existence has not been proven, he too does not exist. I want to ask them: Has it been proven that God does not exist? So, why are you so eager to believe that God does not exist? " -- This is a poor argument. There is a concept called burden of proof, which always lies with the one making a claim. Thus, if I claim that there is a five headed green monster that feeds on the flesh of the living in the deepest forests of the Amazon, I have to prove it exists. Similarly, if someone claims God exists, the burden of proof lies with that person to first prove that, since they introduce the concept (still waiting on that one). Then, once it has been proven, the burden shifts to the rationalist who then has to prove God does not exist.
Religion and science seek to achieve the same goal - to understand why are we here, how are we here, how did we get here etc. They take two completely different approaches, and people choose to believe what they want. At least Togadia has the right perspective on Karunanidhi... He is an atheist, so why would he say anything different? When religious people claim god is great, why cant an atheist profess his faith (or lack thereof)?
RE:Poor argument put forward...
by sanjay choudhry on Sep 26, 2007 03:27 AM Permalink
Dude, if atheists do not beleive in God, then they should shut up. Or have the guts to go in front of a mosque and say Allah does not exist.
Also, if I don't beleive in motherhood, it does not mean I start abusing everyone's mother. Atheists have no right to insult beleifts of others. THey should just say, they do not beleive in any god and are happy about it.
RE:Poor argument put forward...
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Sep 26, 2007 03:35 AM Permalink
Why should an atheist shut up if they dont believe in god? I dont see religious people keeping their faiths to themselves? Yes, karunanidhi specifically targetted ram, but that was an aside. My post was in the larger context of religion and science - you cannot prove god does not exist before someone proves that god exists - how do you disprove something that hasnt been proven?
RE:Poor argument put forward...
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Sep 26, 2007 03:45 AM Permalink
Well, as far as motherhood is concerned, dude, you are way off the point. Motherhood can be proven... DNA is one way of doing it. Many other ways... It's not a vague concept that means different things to different people. So, questioning the concept of motherhood will make you look stupid (unless you can prove that motherhood is a myth... you might get a PhD and a nobel prize for that one). So... poor argument again mate :D If u say I dont believe a black cat crossing the road is bad luck, do you insult ppl who believe that? Should you be allowed to make such statements? No proof that black cats bring or dont bring bad luck, is there?
RE:Poor argument put forward...
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Sep 26, 2007 04:49 AM Permalink
Very convincing argument... just make a statement and expect me to take your word for it... just like the God argument. Nice... What exactly is illogical in what I wrote above? Apply your logic and let's see if you can prove me wrong!
Well everyone knows why he is doing what he is doing... ask some better questions... I can even disprove his Athiesm, he is not even a good atheist. You need intelligence to even talk like a Athiest. He is a filthy worm in the dry piece of shit. ... should I glorify him further?
RE:RE:Poor argument put forward...
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Sep 26, 2007 03:36 AM Permalink
No, you've done quite enough. But you miss the point of the whole post... It wasnt about karunanidhi at all...
RE:Poor argument put forward...
by sridhar gorantla on Sep 26, 2007 03:30 AM Permalink
I CAN TELL WHAT IS GOD AND PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS AS WELL. LOOK IN MY BELOW POSTINGS. YOU WILL GET ANSWER.
RE:RE:Poor argument put forward...
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Sep 26, 2007 03:38 AM Permalink
Instead of wasting your time here, please publish this in some journal of repute. You will surely be awarded the nobel prize for proving a concept that has, for millenia, eluded the best minds. Even the buddha eschews that discussion!
RE:Poor argument put forward...
by sridhar gorantla on Sep 26, 2007 03:51 AM Permalink
IT WAS ALREADY PROVEN SINCE AGES AND BEING PROVEN BY EVERY SAINT WHO CAME TO REALIGN THE BEHAVIOR OF THE HUMANITY.
SAINTS ALL OVER THE WORLD HAVE BEEN AFFIRMING THAT GOD IS ALL PERVADING AND EVER EXISTING AGAIN & AGAIN. ITS PEOPLE WHO DONOT UNDERTAND IT UNTIL THEIR MODERN SCIENCE PROVES IT SO. BUT BY THE TIME YOUR MODERN SCIENCE PROVES IT, IT MAY TAKE A ANOTHER 1000 or 10000 years. TILL THEN, I GUESS HUMANS WHO TRUST MODERN SCIENCE FOR EVERYTHING HAD TO SUFFER IN THIS WORLD.
MODERN SCIENCE IS STILL EVOLVING AND IT BY ITSELF IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING CURRENTLY.
RE:RE:Poor argument put forward...
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Sep 26, 2007 04:27 AM Permalink
You dont understand what a proof is then. Repeated affirmations do not constitute a proof. All saints have been saying is that there is god. Well, repeating something over and over again does not make it true. Science cannot prove everything yet - nor does it claim to. But it is open to new ideas, new thoughts, something religions can hardly claim to do. Science has an organized way of data gathering, interpretation and theorizing. Religion does the same, but is farm more random, and makes huge leaps in reasoning. The problem with that approach is that if you have something you dont understand, you will not try to find out more about it (because religion tells you God did it - you have your answer right there, what's left to search?). I'll bet there has been more than one occasion where you owe your life/health to modern medicine or modern technology. Instead of having a tantrik/ojha exorcise the disease out of you... So, don't undermine science so much... mankind's progress, lead by the europeans has been primarily because they got sick of the doing exactly what the bible/God tells them to and ask questions for themselves.
Don't feel sorry for me. I'm not the one believing in tall tales and unsubstantiated claims.
RE:Poor argument put forward...
by deepak sarkar on Sep 26, 2007 08:31 AM Permalink
Can science explain the origin of consciousness?In Bhag.Gita,Lord Sri Krsna states,avinashi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam tatam'(2.17),that is, consciousness is the symptom of the 'spirit soul'.He also states that the spirit soul is eternal,it cannot be divided,is insoluble,non combustible and cannot be dried by air.(Bhag.Gita 2.23)Now all you have do to disprove Lord Krsna, is to create consciousness by the combination of matter.If you cannot do that then you have to accept Lord Krsna.Also consider our senses.They are not perfect.Consider vision,we cannot see objects at great distance,or behind a wall or in a dark room we cannot see our own hands.If you gather data by using imperfect sense perception the result is bound to be imperfect.Of course, material knowledge is important since in this world we have to eat to keep our body and soul together but do not forget that it is the soul that keeps the body energised and conscious.The food for the soul is Vaishnavism,ie,devotion to Lord Krsna.It is the natural tendency of the soul since it is part and parcel of the Supreme Soul,Lord Krsna.This natural tendency is also called 'Sanatan dharma'(intrinsic nature,swabhava).Only that will revive and reestablish our loving relationship.This is what the soul hankers for but due to our rebellious tendency we try to seek happiness in sense gratification and thereby further augmenting our karmic reaction and misery.At present we are polishing the cage and forgetting to feed the bird.
