This forum realtors likes atheism vs theism. My question is why don't we argue other things for a change?

@Hitchslap - I'm not a member of the 3 Abrahamic religions so I doubt you'd find much interest there. Plus there are not enough high quality debates between Hindu Theists and Atheists. I could give you a list of scriptures, but I doubt you'd have the intellectual or cultural capability to understand Hindu metaphysical notions. That being said you did say you were biased...that kind of implies you're opinions have already formed for the pro-Atheist side. That is completely fine. I have tons of atheist friends and I'm not trying to belittle you. Just saying the act of watching a debate is mute at that point.

I am perfectly capable and willing to change my views if there is compelling evidences that my views are wrong.

Oh boy, how classic... the science supporter nonsense.

"Look at me, I'm an open minded Canadian. I studied all kinds of religions without the slightest bias and after comparing the evidence in a strictly scientific way I came to the conclusion that evolutionism has it right."

Well, you know what? I do believe that you believe in your own claim. Of course everyone (except for yourself) reading your posts should see immediately how delusional you are about yourself.

The christians in my familly actually hate creationists more than i do, because of the way they make religious people look stupid and crazy.
Never heard the term 'hate' before in a scientific context.

@Jai
i don't know anyone who doesn't have an opinion on the matter, wether he admits it or not, and if you think watching a debate is pointless just because you already have an opinion on the matter before the debate then you really don't understand what debates are about. Or what conversations on any topic are about for that matter. Debates are all about challenging your opinions and prejudices, by listening to new arguments, by going indepth into a topic in order to have a better understanding of it. This is how opinions works, if you don't look for more information and knowledge, then of course chances are you are going to stay with your opinions and pregudices, you just stay in your own echo chamber

hahaha that's a classic. The first time i saw this clip i thought the guy was an atheist trying to ridicule religious thinking. Turns out ray comfort was serious, but i honestly don't think many christians endorse this kind of argument.

The guy is bloody rich and lives in a mansion. Don't underestimate the power of stupid arguments on everyday humans who aren't inoculated with a skeptical mindset.

@Hitchslap - That's exactly what I'm saying the point of a debate is!!! You've obviously watched tons of Theists vs. Atheist debates and you've said none have convinced you. I just publicly voiced my opinion that no theist argument would suddenly convert you to a man of religion or God. In general society is way to polarized for people to suddenly switch over to radically new philosophical maxims. Again I can give you a list of hindu scriptures to read that may influence your belief in a higher power, but your response makes me believe you're more interested in debating your defense of debates then in finding a source of information for changing your views on religion. I would start with the Vachanamrut. Here's an english pdf with a glossary at the back if you're interested:

http://www.bhujmandir.org/upload/documents/scriptures/vachanamrut/vachnamrut%20english.pdf


Besides you gloss over the fact that a belief in religion is in itself an act of faith. There won't be statics or numbers to prove it. Experiences in your life have a better chance of convincing you than a debate. Trust me. Even I used to be an atheist.

then in finding a source of information for changing your views on religion.

Does anyone watch debates or does anything "for changing his opinion"? Of course not, this is ridiculus. You listen to debates, or read books, or watch videos, documentaries, etc, FOR INFORMATION. With the information you find, you can have informed opinions, more nuanced opinions, and if new information makes you change your mind about something, then so be it. No-one watches debates so that they make you change radically your opinion, people watch debates to have material to think about and upon wich they can build a more sofisticated views.

Anyway, thanks for the links. I think i'll chekc it out. I don't know much about hinduism, and this should be remedied. Also, as i understand, hinduism isn't a religion in the same sense as abrahamic religions. For example i hear there are many path possible in hinduism, most of them actually being atheistic...

I doubt you'd have the intellectual or cultural capability to understand Hindu metaphysical notions

the lesson here is to completely miss the point, try to steer the conversation to be about you personally, and to talk down to the other person. this is how you win all debates.

@Hitchslap

You could watch it for either reason really but all the start of your post could make me think of was. Every odd debate I'm a thesist every even debate I'm a atheist now that's what watching something to change your opinion should be like.

Edited 12/13/2015 23:18:03

I doubt you'd have the intellectual or cultural capability to understand Hindu metaphysical notions.

LMAO. Can we keep the Eastern metaphysics fetish out of this? Thanks. :)

I don't know much about hinduism, and this should be remedied. Also, as i understand, hinduism isn't a religion in the same sense as abrahamic religions. For example i hear there are many path possible in hinduism, most of them actually being atheistic...

I would disagree. The disclaimer should be that hinduism has a multitude of sects. And sometimes even these sects can branch out because of minor philosophical and religious disagreements. People sometimes complain there are so many types of Christians (Methodists, 7th Day Adventists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc)...the sects of Hinduism in just 1 region of India easily trumps this.

Some sects of Hinduism emphasize it more as a philosophical "way of life" over a more institutional based religious experience. But hinduism is a religion in the traditional sense as well - we have customs, devotional hymns, a long litany of scriptures, temples of worship, tenets and strict codes of behavior and values, priests, etc. I wouldn't describe Hinduism as being atheistic. Neither would I describe hinduism as polytheistic. My sect of Hinduism actually teaches that all manifestations of God (Shiv, Krishna, Ganesh, Vishnu - these are the most common names you've heard of Hindu deities) are just avatars or forms that God (singular as in one) takes.

My sect of Hinduism (http://www.baps.org/) is most similar to the Roman Catholic Church. I realize this analogy is flawed and isn't the best, but its probably the closest thing people are familiar with.

Trust me. Even I used to be an atheist.

What caused you to change your mind? What convinced you?

^Just...personal issues. I'm sorry, its not really something I would reveal publicly.


Everyone finds faith in different ways...in my life some of the most passionate and sincere believers I've met are those who find it spontaneously and unexpectedly (as in something pushes them toward God). All the people I've known who've grown up in religion from their birth (mostly Christians in my town) are just believers in name only. They don't really read the Bible or follow all the tenents of their church. And that's not just for Christians...that's for Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. Although this may just be a result of the region of the US I live in...where religion isn't really a major feature in people's life.

I believe there is a creator of everything that is something we as humans can't and will never comprehend.

I believe there is a creator of everything that is something we as humans can't and will never comprehend.

If you can't comprehend it, why do you believe it? And, if you can't comprehend it, how can you know anything at all about it?

Edited 12/14/2015 05:30:40

I personally am an Atheist due to the fact that a good majority of religions seem to be attempting to knock science, which I view as more valuable to human knowledge than belief in an existence of a superior being.

That being said, I have no problem with religious persons who aren't trying to debunk science left and right.

Just to be clear before we delve into any discussion on Hinduism- as someone who used to be Hindu:

- Hinduism is an umbrella term for multiple worldviews that don't share the same metaphysical framework (although many of them borrow concepts from one another- turns out horizontal transfer occurs in religions, too). There are variants/sects that are atheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic. I've personally mainly been involved with the vaguely polytheistic variants that are super-common in India as well as a strongly monotheistic one that's more or less a cult centered around a single man; there are multiple schools of thought, with some being far more predominant than others

- The main similarity between members of the set of worldviews described as "Hinduism" is regional- i.e., they're more or less grouped (largely by outsiders and later in the process of nationalistic unification) based on the proximity of the cultures they influence (as well as the tendency of their texts to be written in some Indo-Aryan language, commonly Sanskrit)

- I've also been involved with BAPS and would agree with Jai's characterization of them as a monotheistic organization with some appeals to polytheism. Hinduism is very, very, very syncretic and absorbs trends (like virtually every major religion)- for example, Puranic Hinduism (which largely occurred as a response to the dominance of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent) initiated a trend toward incorporating Buddhist ideology and treating the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu, which you can see in multiple modern manifestations

- Before some mystic declares themselves intellectually superior and claims that you aren't able to understand the "metaphysics" of Hinduism, keep in mind that it's not very complicated (although I'd argue it's still interesting because it doesn't quite follow the same patterns as Western religions) and definitely should not be elevated to the level of high philosophy, just as ancient Indian medicine should not be considered a form of science. I understand that there's a tendency to be edgy/trendy and claim intellectualism for other/marginalized cultures, but remember that in the process of doing so you are likely engaging in patronization and (more importantly) nationalistic revisionism of cultural backgrounds. Hinduism, especially since 1947 (when India has struggled to separate itself from Pakistan in a way very similar to how the former Yugoslav republics have shifted their identities to distinguish themselves, inventing new languages in the process) has been redefining itself and rewriting its own history as part of a set of campaigns in the realm of identity politics.

TL;DR: Jai is a nationalist tool. Be a little bit careful before you sip his Kool-aid. I can't do much but I can at the very least contest him when he claims to speak from authority about Hinduism, so feel free to hit me up there. (Yes, I am nonreligious now- no I'm not here to circlejerk about it either.) Moreover, if you're looking for the logical conclusion of Jai's ideology, simply join any predominantly-Indian Facebook group (especially one with religious nationalist undercurrents) and rejoice that you don't encounter the same third-world ideology every day. (That said, some of us still see India as a secular republic, but of course I've run away from the land of designated shitting streets).

Edited 12/14/2015 06:21:08

If you can't comprehend it, why do you believe it? And, if you can't comprehend it, how can you know anything at all about it?

I comprehend the idea that there is something that is un-comprehendible. We can't know anything about it yes but we can and will try. But I accept it the way it is.

I accept that nobody can understand. You can say the big bang created the universe. But why? How did it happen and why? That's my initial thought process.

Nobody can find true evidence to the answer of "Why?"

It's deep man. But in the end, I'm not wrong. There could be a god or a creator, but its something that no human can imagine.

You can say the big bang created the universe. But why? How did it happen and why? That's my initial thought process.

:D The cosmological argument- if you're ever bored on a weekend, there's a good bit of literature on it out there. Even just the Wikipedia page (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cosmological_argument) is a good place to start.

If you can't comprehend it, why do you believe it? And, if you can't comprehend it, how can you know anything at all about it?

I comprehend the idea that there is something that is un-comprehendible. We can't know anything about it yes but we can and will try. But I accept it the way it is.

That doesn't really answer my question. My question is *why* do you believe it? And my second question is how can you know *anything at all* about it? But I'll settle for an answer to the first question first, if you want to take things one at a time.

I accept that nobody can understand. You can say the big bang created the universe. But why? How did it happen and why? That's my initial thought process.

This doesn't answer my question either. I'm asking you about what *you* believe. If you want to ask about what I believe, we can have that conversation, but it won't answer my question to you.

It's deep man. But in the end, I'm not wrong.

How do you know you're not wrong?

There could be a god or a creator, but its something that no human can imagine.

"could be" suggests the possibility of "could be not", which suggests that you're saying you could actually be wrong then. But you say you're *not* wrong, as if that's *not* a possibility. Which is it?