Atheists, smarter than religious people

Something fishy is going on here, this thread has no sole without Frank the Fish one Bad Bass with an attitude!

Hey, Chumly, You're a pretty smart guy. I'm sure you can find some other topics on a2k that will provide you with the challenge you are seeking to satisfy that Frank syndrome. I, for one, enjoy your posts.

What caused Frank to quit on us?

Don't speak of Hinduism if you don't know anything about it. In (most forms of) Hinduism, the Gods are simply ways to cut Brahman down into imperfect pieces that we can understand. The ultimate goal is to relinquish worldliness and understand Brahman- which, in itself, renounces the 'Gods'.

The topic came up because I don't believe in any Gods, but I still have a religion, and was "Agnostic" for a while- but I realized that Hinduism accepts almost all practices and beliefs within itself, so it actually gives me a good focus as far as religion goes.

Really, the only truth in Hinduism is this: Brahman is everything. Basically everything else varies greatly based on tradition and different sects of the religion. What is Brahman? Some believe he has a will and is more like a God- though I, and many others, believe that he(I use the term lightly, as Brahman is beyond gender) is simply the essence of the universe, the essence of everything, a spiritual force. He is not all-knowing, he is knowledge. He is not all powerful, he is power.

The caste system, which I for the most part reject, determines your social status and Dharma- your spiritual duty in life, your place in society; what you must do to earn good Karma- the reflection of your soul (Atman, or Brahman Within You) and how good or bad it is- and when you die, your Karma determines where you are reincarnated to- I believe this happens because when you die, your Atman is without a vessel and simply applies itself to the thing that resembles it most, so you want good Karma to be reincarnated as a higher caste.

In descending order, the castes are:
Brahmin(Priests, Teachers, Scholars)
Kshatriya(Warriors, Princes)
Vaisya(Merchants, Farm Owners, "Middle Class")
Sudra(Laborer, Farm Workers)
Outcast(Untouchable, Work with the dead, Work with waste and filth)

I, unlike most Hindus, do not believe that your caste restricts who you are, but simply reflects what your Karma is like when you ended your last life.

The goal of life is simple: You must understand Brahman. Why? Because no one can understand him. We are imperfect, and so we cannot possibly hope to understand the perfect. (I found this to be a much more logical approach to religion than trying to explain perfection in God form like so many other religions). I believe that when you understand Brahman, you understand that the universe is in perfect harmony, and that everything that happens happens as it must- and so you are content with it, knowing it could not possibly go any other way. Perpetual contentedness. And since you understand Brahman and Brahman is everything, you understand everything. Perpetual knowledge and wisdom. Because you know everything, you can never be fooled- so you will never not understand Brahman again.

These traits, I believe, will make you perfect. Once you are perfect, you are exactly like Brahman. And because you cannot be reincarnated, as nothing in the universe is perfect, then you end the cycle of rebirth and become one with Brahman, the essence of everything, the Ultimate Reality.

Of course, Hinduism is often viewed as a polytheistic religion. Why? Because it is the job of the Brahmin to work to understand Brahman- yet the others must understand as well. The lower castes (and many Brahmins as well) worship gods such as Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva- among thousands and thousands of others (you can make up your own Gods!) Why? The goal of this is to separate Brahman into imperfect pieces that our imperfect minds can understand, and hence we become closer to our goal of Moksha- unity with Brahman.

Does that make sense?

I don't need to "understand' Hinduism like you do, because I don't believe in gods and reincarnation. Belief in an afterlife can't be proved.
When our body dies, it begins to declay. Our mind is part of our biology and chemistry. When we're gone, it's all gone.

Thanks, very interesting!

How does Brahman account for Brownian Motion given Brahman is perfect?

If we are imperfect, and so we cannot possibly hope to understand the perfect, how is it I can understand the number 6? In what way is the number 6 not-perfect?

If we are imperfect, and so we cannot possibly hope to understand the perfect, it would follow we can only understand imperfect things. If this is the case, what argument do you have that understanding imperfection is less advantageous than understanding perfection?

There are no Gods in what I believe.

Chemistry is not enough to explain the universe- it can explain everything, save for one thing: Consciousness. Sure, chemistry will tell me how I do something, but it will never tell me why I am.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that. Could you explain or link me to it?


The Universe is Brahman, and Brahman is perfection. If we cut him down into pieces, it is not all of perfection, therefore it is no longer perfect. The number 6 is but a piece of Brahman we can understand- just like the Gods that many Hindus worship- they are small pieces of a perfect whole, cut down that way so that we might understand them.


Deep. But isn't that just it? No matter how hard I try, I cannot think of perfection. What could possibly be perfect? We know that being perfect would be better than being imperfect because while we are imperfect, we see that the less imperfect something is, the better it is. And though I can't fathom perfection, I know that it is greater than all of those things.

There are no Gods in what I believe.
That's interesting, because Hinduism has many gods. Are you sure you're a Hindu? The following from a website on Hinduism:Hinduism is generally regarded as the world's oldest organized religion.

Most forms of Hinduism are henotheistic religions. They recognize a single deity, and view other Gods and Goddesses as manifestations or aspects of that supreme God. Henotheistic and polytheistic religions have traditionally been among the world's most religiously tolerant faiths. However, until recently, a Hindu nationalistic political party controlled the government of India.

Chemistry is not enough to explain the universe- it can explain everything, save for one thing: Consciousness. Sure, chemistry will tell me how I do something, but it will never tell me why I am.
The "why" of life has been the topic of mankind from the very beginning of man. Science and technology has been successful in explaining many of the so-called mysteries of life. Chemistry does explain "why I am." The biology and chemistry in the brain explains many things including mental illness (important research being done today), happiness, depression, disabilities, and intelligence. What makes you think a religion created in India is the only true religion?

Here you be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

I give/receive love because of imperfection not despite imperfection.

With perfection there would be no need for love. I would not want perfection in myself, nor in any other way. There would be nothing left, if all was perfect. Perfection equates to nothingness.

Something is not better simply because it's less imperfect.

Think of a beautiful woman putting a beauty mark on her face with makeup.

Since you do not believe in perfection, how does imperfection have any meaning?

How did you come to the conclusion I do not "believe in perfection"?
What do you mean by "believe"?
What do you mean by "perfection"?
Why do you presume that "imperfection" can have no meaning unless there is a belief in "perfection"?
Why do you always use the same set of logical fallacies?

On a another note, me and my better half got our cat down out of a tall tree, down a steep incline, up an extension ladder, in the dark.

Leap of faith.


Here ya go


Why do you presume that "imperfection" can have no meaning unless there is a belief in "perfection"?[/quote]
Presumption and assumption are ever so much more convenient than legitimate critical thinking.



That's the way a one-trick-pony works. He's consistent, ya gotta give him that.


I'm sure the cat was a big help throughout the excersize, and showered you with gratitude and affection once the rescue had been accomplished. I trust nobody wound up needing stitches.

Nice punt, Chumly. Though it would have been simpler to admit that in the absence of a standard of 'perfection' that 'imperfection' has no real meaning.

Nice job on the cat, but it probably would've come down on it's own without you risking your neck. Have you ever seen a skeleton of a cat in a tree? Likely not. It would have have figured out a way.

Phoenix, i have rarely seen you post such bullshit on this site. Frank is intolerant of dissent with his point of view to a degree which few theists ever display. Your post sounds like the feel-good eulogies people puke up at actual funerals. Frank tolerated no point of view but his own; his own point of view was simplistic to what ought to have been an embarrassing extent--but when challenged, and having reached a point at which he could not answer criticism, he resorted to reviling those who had the temerity to disagree with him. Although he may be a nice guy--and the evidence i have from those who have met him is that he is a nice guy--his obsessive agnostic crusading, with a simple-minded and unsupportable contention of his "moral" superiority because of his own personal point of view, followed by the extremely crude vilification of those who would continue to disagree with him, do not leave an admirable image of him.

Fresco has said it best:



Most especially, he is most accurate in describing Frank as the most dogmatic of us all.

yowza!

Setanta- Yes, Frank is often pig headed, and inappropriate. But I think that I understand where he is coming from. Personally, I have no problem with atheists. I have no problem either with theists, who keep their religion in the proper perspective.

I think that some of the theists have taken their religion to a point where their beliefs are creeping areas of society where they do not belong. What some of the radical fundamentalists of a number of religions are doing is detrimental to the freedom, and in some cases, lives, of other people.

Frank can be noisy, and he can rant. But he is an excellent counterpoint to those who would change society to suit their particular religious views. I actually am in agreement with him, but I never get myself into problems on A2K. So I think that what we have here is some defensiveness about his style, which admittedly can be abrasive.


By showing theism (and atheism) for what it is, he is getting people to question, to think. And that is a GOOD thing.

Your problem, Phoenix, is that he shows neither theism nor atheism for what they are--you're begging the question. He only rants on and on about the simplistic manner in which he chooses to see them. Now you're attempting to make him out to be some voice crying in the wilderness, some spiritual knight-errant protecting us from the excesses of extremists. Few extremists, of either the atheist or theist variety, are more or even as extreme as is he. You protest too much. Frank is a close-minded bully.