tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post1575996582631287811..comments2023-03-23T15:08:05.008+05:30Comments on Inverse Squared: Sanatana DogmaLijehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-49586111700685400112013-07-28T02:30:19.699+05:302013-07-28T02:30:19.699+05:30Hey Blogger, It shows you are one of those people ...Hey Blogger, It shows you are one of those people who has been troubled by some Hindu Elements. Well try to keep your language unprovocing. I also want to say that if your identity is revealed, i am sure you are going to have the sorest ass in India. You seriously are a inverted piece of shit. If you are not one of those cowards hiding behind a screen name and trying to create nuisance in the cyberspace, then reveal your identity to all. We will see how many days you are going to survive after that. I am sure that you are one of those pathetic people who have no muscles to have a real fight and so try to get your taste of fight by these provocating blogs. I advice you to either delete your blogs or someone would track your ip and give you a nice.....Well you can get whatever you deserve.Genius Simplifiedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13520793480815748266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-20134994329454246712012-02-15T14:44:04.460+05:302012-02-15T14:44:04.460+05:30Yes, I see very little common ground too. Anyways,...Yes, I see very little common ground too. Anyways, best of luck with the blog.Prongsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-51413581257902785972012-02-03T05:46:51.558+05:302012-02-03T05:46:51.558+05:30@Prongs,
The second point of this article says wh...@Prongs,<br /><br />The second point of this article says what kind of atheists I'm talking about. I know quiet well that there are <a href="http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Answering-the-laments-of-Hindu-atheists" rel="nofollow">other kinds of atheists</a>. In fact India has no dearth of atheist bigots <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar#Hindutva" rel="nofollow">like this</a>.<br /><br />I will readily admit that consciousness is unexplained by science (while <a href="http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm" rel="nofollow">keeping this in mind</a>). But that is no excuse to think that 'Karma' is not absurd. You can stay within any philosophical framework and find it consistent without any absurdities. But <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOrBCkQ6WY" rel="nofollow">drawing upon Dawkins' example</a>, no matter how consistent a philosophical framework is, reality has a way of not caring about it. So I don't really care about how complex, contrived or aesthetic a philosophy is. Nor have I any patience for academic discussions. The only thing I care is <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/" rel="nofollow">does the philosophy pay rent</a>. You may not care about that, which is totally fine. Karma may seem non-absurd to you (in whatever frame of reference you want to use), but what I care about is what it means to people; as in <i>"Hey shudra, perform your dharma well and get some good karma! In the next life you will be born into much better circumstances".</i><br /><br />See how I didn't use the words "natural" and "supernatural"? Arguing by definitions <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/" rel="nofollow">has its pitfalls</a>. Also, it appears that we have no common ground. You want to evaluate stuff like Karma within Hindu metaphysics. I want to evaluate it in terms of what is empirically observed, where the observations have been corrected for cognitive biases. So any more arguments on such lines will be orthogonal and will serve no purpose.<br /><br />PS: Science is philosophy.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-33694266079522866392012-02-02T13:33:28.064+05:302012-02-02T13:33:28.064+05:30"The majority I know believe karma carrying o..."The majority I know believe karma carrying over to the afterlife. You accuse me of ascribing a minority position to a majority, but my article and the preceding comments make it abundantly clear as to what positions I'm criticizing. And yet you pick a minority position and defend that as if it is that I've criticized."<br /><br />Lije, I have no intention of accusing you of anything. I was not trying to defend a minority position, since I think that the proposition that "past karma influence's one's present" presupposes that "one carries one's karma to an afterlife". What I meant was that I see nothing 'absurd' in the latter, within the framework of Hindu metaphysics. You are able to term the Karma theory supernatural only beacuse you have defined 'natural' in such a way as to exclude explanations of this sort. This procedure merely begs the question. Once this is recognized, the debate gets shifted to whether the naturalist has sufficient and compelling grounds for her definition of 'natural'. Thsi is what I meant in my first post when I said that "The whole strategy of idealist philosophies (of which Vedanta is a variant) is to call into question the very distinction between the natural and the supernatural and the physical and the mental. To talk about supernatural explanations in this context is to miss the point."<br /><br />After your last post I am not sure whether your blog only aims to debunk Hindu dogmatists or whether it aims to challenge hindu philosophy as such. But assertions like "Of course today we know enough about the brain to explain the states of brain which result in dissolution of the self and those states were interpreted to mean Brahman. Just like a junkie would rave on about his high, the people who experience the oneness also rave on about it." makes me think that your project includes debunking the claims of any Hindu philosopher. What exactly has neurobiology discovered that makes you think that we can now challenge the veracity of so-called mystical experiences? If you think it through you will see that even in the case of the junkie, nuerobiology cannot help us in determining whether her experiences are veridical. While neurobiology can explain what chemicals trigger the experience and what parts of the brain are involved in it, the belief that the experience is non-veridical borrows from our account of what counts as veridical perception, which is a prescientific account. Ultimately, the task of proving whether what the junkies experience is true or not, is a task for philosophy not science.Prongsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-12594265562856846082012-02-02T05:19:06.448+05:302012-02-02T05:19:06.448+05:30" The next assumption is that an explanation ..." The next assumption is that an explanation should be useful in the sense that it should predict something. Natural explanations are testable in that you have a theory at hand which you then verify with observations. Things like Brahman don't fit that bill and hence are supernatural."<br /><br />This conception of a 'natural explanation' is inadequate. It would not even suffice as a definition that can account for existing scientific theories. For example, non-local hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics (a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics) are neither observable, nor can any predictions be made on their basis. <br /><br />"Nope. You are wrong with that. New atheists at a minimum are familiar with the scientific method. "<br /><br />When I said that a belief in the scientific method may not correlate with the views of a majority of atheists, I was not referring to the new atheists. I am referring to the millions of people in the world who do not believe in a god or a soul. Many of them would know less of science than they would of god. Some of them would be hostile to science (Foucault for example). The new atheists are only a section, and their views are derived in large measure from a minority (naturalist philosophers and other specialists) whom I said that we can consider as representing the majority's beliefs in a systematic way. This would be true to a lesser or greater degree for any tradition whether its atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, Christianity, Marxism, post-modernism or even artistic movements like modernism.<br /><br />"Since you want to include other content of my blog, it should be obvious that I clearly mean a doctrine like the scientific method which is anything but a minority position amongst new atheists. "<br /><br />My point here again, was to direct your attention to the fact that the new atheists themselves are a minority among the fragmented atheist community of the world. I am sure that the carpenter who is an atheist, the primary school teacher who is an agnostic or to give a real life example, my grandmother who was an atheist had never heard of any kind of naturalism and know little about the scientific method.Prongsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-56140205492529235202012-02-02T05:13:48.346+05:302012-02-02T05:13:48.346+05:30"Hinduism is a non-naturalistic worldview. Bu..."Hinduism is a non-naturalistic worldview. But all non-naturalistic worldviews are not Hinduism. What I did say to a Hindu apologist is to substitute the word Hinduism with any word he likes"<br /><br />Okay, my mistake. A general introduction to the blog and an FAQ section would be useful. Can you say which of these come closest to your position? <br />1. All non-naturalist world views do not resort to supernatural explanations but Hinduism does and does so in a way that is clearly and demonstrably absurd.<br />2. Both non-naturalist world views and Hinduism resort to supernatural explanations. But while many non-naturalist world views does so in a way that requires complex philosophical refutation, Hinduism does so in a way that is clearly and demonstrably absurd.<br />3. Though Hinduism resorts to supernatural explanations, at least some Hindu philosophers require complex refutation. It is only the fanatics and the majority whose explanations are absurd and demonstrably absurd.Prongsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-89902061544277759082012-01-24T10:51:53.600+05:302012-01-24T10:51:53.600+05:30I meant to say that you haven’t said anywhere what...<i>I meant to say that you haven’t said anywhere what is illogical in claiming that past karma influences one’s present. What is untenable about that concept?</i><br /><br />Are you familiar with Hindu culture and how the word karma is commonly used? I know it is fashionable in some circles to use karma merely as <i>"What you did in the past can influence you today"</i>, but they are a minority. The majority I know believe karma carrying over to the afterlife. You accuse me of ascribing a minority position to a majority, but my article and the preceding comments make it abundantly clear as to what positions I'm criticizing. And yet you pick a minority position and defend that as if it is that I've criticized.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-47812885144449391712012-01-24T10:50:45.306+05:302012-01-24T10:50:45.306+05:30If I understand correctly, you have said somewhere...<i>If I understand correctly, you have said somewhere else in this blog that the word Hinduism can be substituted for any non-naturalistic world view.</i><br /><br />I haven't said anything close to that. I define Hinduism <a href="http://nirmukta.net/Thread-A-simple-questionnaire-for-the-Hindu-apologist" rel="nofollow">something like this</a>. Hinduism is a non-naturalistic worldview. But all non-naturalistic worldviews are not Hinduism. What I did say to a Hindu apologist is to substitute the word Hinduism with any word he likes if it so pains him to read about his beloved Hinduism in the manner written about in this blog.<br /><br /><i>I haven’t read everything on this blog but the general impression it gives is that, inspired by the New Atheists, you are claiming that any non-naturalist philosophy is not based on reason and ignores scientific and other evidences. Now, this is a very large philosophical claim and I expect that you would need several books, not merely an article....So to say that this is a blog article to do with Hinduism and not intended for a philosophy journal is not a defence.</i><br /><br />It is quite clear at what claims this article is directed. Those claims are not academic, but pertain to what the average Hindu is likely to believe in. Maybe you should head over to <a href="http://www.naturalism.org/systematizing_naturalism.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><i>So can you please define what you mean by natural and by natural explanation?</i><br /><br />To begin with, the assumptions are that there exists a world independent of the human mind, that inductive reasoning is valid, and that the world has certain properties that can be known by observation and induction. The next assumption is that an explanation should be useful in the sense that it should <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/" rel="nofollow">predict something</a>. Natural explanations are testable in that you have a theory at hand which you then verify with observations. Things like Brahman don't fit that bill and hence are supernatural.<br /><br /><i>Also, by Hinduism if you mean some common denominator of the religious views held by Hindus, it would doubtlessly resort to absurd explanations</i><br /><br /><b>Which is exactly what I mean</b>.<br /><br /><i>But as I said before, this is as true of a large group of agnostics or atheists. When you use the term naturalism here, I doubt you are referring to beliefs that correlate with the views of agnostics and atheists scattered throughout the world.</i><br /><br />Nope. You are wrong with that. New atheists at a minimum are familiar with the scientific method. I did not go into cultural naturalism in this article (or elsewhere in the blog in general) which includes issues which you can heartily say that don't correlate very well with agnostics and atheists all over the world.<br /><br /><i>By naturalism you mean the clearly expounded philosophical doctrines of a minority, which we take as representing, and as giving conscious conceptual articulation and clarification to the unconsciously and intuitively held world views of a majority.</i><br /><br />Since you want to include other content of my blog, it should be obvious that I clearly mean a doctrine like the scientific method which is anything but a minority position amongst new atheists. For example, using the scientific method, it is known that there is no evidence for a soul that keeps taking rebirth. So it is absurd to talk about methods of escaping the cycle and becoming liberated.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-54774824919657787212012-01-24T03:27:59.036+05:302012-01-24T03:27:59.036+05:30Examples of Dawkin's ignorance of the philosop...Examples of Dawkin's ignorance of the philosophical and religious tradition are too many to cite. <br /><br />Giving links to two articles by Terry Eagleton, the Marxist literary critic. Disclaimer- Apart from his criticism of Dawkins, I don't endorse the rest of his views. Whether it's Jesus or Marx.<br /><br />http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching<br /><br />http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/09/17/religion-for-radicals-an-interview-with-terry-eagleton/Prongsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-4213215568249760992012-01-24T03:26:26.625+05:302012-01-24T03:26:26.625+05:30Firstly, congrats on the blog. Something like what...Firstly, congrats on the blog. Something like what you are trying to do on this blog relieves a bit of my pessimism that as a country we are just incapable of being critical. Now to the tedious specifics.<br /><br />"This article is not meant for publishing in a philosophy journal, but addresses beliefs that correlate very strongly with Hinduism. The charge of misunderstanding don't stand given the way I define Hinduism (see previous comments in the article)".<br /> <br />If I understand correctly, you have said somewhere else in this blog that the word Hinduism can be substituted for any non-naturalistic world view. I haven’t read everything on this blog but the general impression it gives is that, inspired by the New Atheists, you are claiming that any non-naturalist philosophy is not based on reason and ignores scientific and other evidences. Now, this is a very large philosophical claim and I expect that you would need several books, not merely an article (whether in a blog or philosophical journal) to establish this. If what you are saying is correct, more than 80 per cent of all the debates and issues in all the philosophical traditions in the world are obsolete and hundreds of philosophy departments all over the globe would have to be disbanded. So to say that this is a blog article to do with Hinduism and not intended for a philosophy journal is not a defence. I suspect that it actually points to the fact that you are severely underestimating the scope of the claims you are making.<br /><br />"I do consider entities like Brahman as supernatural. But this again is just a dispute over definitions. A clear way of saying it is Hinduism resorts to absurd explanations whereas naturalism does not."<br /><br />This is not merely a dispute over definitions. However, before I try to demonstrate what I think is involved, I think it would be useful to have some definitions. It is impossible to conduct philosophical, scientific or any other discussions without some initial definitions of the terms involved. So can you please define what you mean by natural and by natural explanation?<br />Also, by Hinduism if you mean some common denominator of the religious views held by Hindus, it would doubtlessly resort to absurd explanations. But as I said before, this is as true of a large group of agnostics or atheists. When you use the term naturalism here, I doubt you are referring to beliefs that correlate with the views of agnostics and atheists scattered throughout the world. Just like the Hindu dogmatists that you castigate, I very much doubt whether they too have heard of either metaphysical or methodological naturalism. By naturalism you mean the clearly expounded philosophical doctrines of a minority, which we take as representing, and as giving conscious conceptual articulation and clarification to the unconsciously and intuitively held world views of a majority. Mutatus Mutandis, if by Hinduism we mean the philosophical doctrines of Hinduism, then I am not aware that it resorts to any absurd explanations. Can you substantiate? <br /><br />"Er, what is so incoherent? That dogmatists believe that there is some account of one's karma which survives past one's death and decides what one is born again as?"<br /><br />I meant to say that you haven’t said anywhere what is illogical in claiming that past karma influences one’s present. What is untenable about that concept?<br /><br />"A belief in a golden age is not so irrelevant as you seem to be suggesting."<br /><br />You are quite right if you mean it in a political sense. It no doubt provides intellectual and ideological grounds for the Hindutva Right’s reading of Indian history. It also helps the Sri Ravi Shankars and Baba Ramdevs of this world to find more recruits.Prongsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-3942642672203548252012-01-19T06:43:03.943+05:302012-01-19T06:43:03.943+05:30"It is quite true that a lot of Hindu dogmati...<i>"It is quite true that a lot of Hindu dogmatists do say this.." <br /><br />"But his assertion that Hinduism invokes the supernatural to explain things is a philosophical misunderstanding"</i><br /><br />This article is not meant for publishing in a philosophy journal, but addresses beliefs that correlate very strongly with Hinduism. The charge of misunderstanding don't stand given the way I define Hinduism (see previous comments in the article). I do consider entities like Brahman as supernatural. But this again is just a dispute over definitions. A clear way of saying it is Hinduism resorts to absurd explanations whereas naturalism does not.<br /><br />Also can you cite some examples of Dawkin's arrogance?<br /><br /><i>"Apart from a lot of rude name calling, I found this section completely incoherent."</i><br /><br />Er, what is so incoherent? That dogmatists believe that there is some account of one's karma which survives past one's death and decides what one is born again as?<br /><br />"Apart from anthropological interest, doesn't seem essential to Hinduism or anything else."<br /><br />Again, it is essential to the way I define Hinduism. A belief in a golden age is not so irrelevant as you seem to be suggesting.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-76257601036280945712012-01-19T06:08:55.416+05:302012-01-19T06:08:55.416+05:30It may be a bit too late to join the debate, but I...It may be a bit too late to join the debate, but I will thrown in my penny's worth.<br /><br />1. Belief that their belief is not based on faith, but based on the Ultimate Truth.<br /><br />It is quite true that a lot of Hindu dogmatists do say this, but there are some problems with this assertion. The dogmatic members of any tradition will say something of this sort. Atheists and naturalists not expected. Also, it seems essentially correct that the hermeneutic tradition in Hinduism did not take recourse to the 'revealed nature of the vedas' as a criteria for truth. The philosophical argumentation in the upanishads and the brahmasutras are dialectical and to my knowledge, the revelation argument is rarely resorted to. And the criteria for verification of truth in most schools of Hinduism and Buddhism seems to be empirical (based on perception)<br /><br />2.Belief that atheism too is accepted in their Sanatana Dogma.<br /><br />Depends on whether the context of the claim is historical or philosophical. It relates to the position of the Charvaka school within Hinduism. Charvakas were materialists and were not part of the orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy and did not believe in the vedas. However, they were allowed to propagate their doctrines freely. Amartya Sen makes this point when making a case for the existence of hetrodoxy in ancient India. But Lije is perfectly right in saying that it makes no sense to say that you believe in the vedas and then say that it is compatible with atheism. But his assertion that Hinduism invokes the supernatural to explain things is a philosophical misunderstanding. The whole strategy of idealist philosophies (of which Vedanta is a variant) is to call into question the very distinction between the natural and the supernatural and the physical and the mental. To talk about supernatural explanations in this context is to miss the point.<br /><br />3. Belief that morality has an objective existence and that it is eternal.<br /><br />Same problem. For idealist philosophies, the universe is mental and the physical is an emergent state whose properties are ontologically reducible to the mental. Such a universe would care about morality. The charge of uncritical use of pseudo-science is absolutely true. But to be fair, the appropriation of physical science and the simplistic equating of it with naturalism by dabblers in philosophy like Dawkins, do also reek of ignorance.<br /><br />4. Belief that the Varna system is good<br /><br />The varna system is bullshit. Completely as an aside, it has interesting parallels with the four houses in Harry Potter.<br /><br />5. Belief in Karma<br /><br />Apart from a lot of rude name calling, I found this section completely incoherent. What are the philosophical or conceptual problems with the Karma theory? Please explicate.<br /><br />6. Belief in a decaying world.<br /><br /> This is some mythology about the Kali yuga. Most ancient civilizations including Greeks held similar beliefs. Apart from anthropological interest, doesn't seem essential to Hinduism or anything else.Prongsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-74810256897361569632011-12-29T11:18:04.485+05:302011-12-29T11:18:04.485+05:30Dear F,
Please learn about the naturalistic falla...Dear F,<br /><br />Please learn about the <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy" rel="nofollow">naturalistic fallacy</a>, and then also about <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/" rel="nofollow">ethics</a>.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-1420103602742001032011-12-29T10:19:34.270+05:302011-12-29T10:19:34.270+05:30"Of course it is a made up word (which word i..."Of course it is a made up word (which word isn't?) and I completely agree with the article. It is meant for people like you who the moment they see criticism of Hinduism start complaining about what is "true" Hinduism and what is not and only serve as a distraction in the goal of reducing irrationality."<br />I am one of them now defend my attacks..."Science also has facts and myths...and majority beleive in myths...or what's written (even proved)....in the books(or whatever)..." Is that enough to criticize science(Don't say foolishly..that don't compare sciece and sanatan dharma).....Answer no that's why science is changing every time...Now people we know are never always qualify as scientists so no other choice then to follow them if any of these scientist goes wrong the people follow the wrong....thus majority...The past you talk about is resyult of one of these scientists(provided you exclude the loss of heritage done by Britishers and muslims)...and You are smart(lol)...enpough to pick it and make a matter of discussion(lol^2)....<br />And ephemeral is right we don't have time to argue...as sanatan dharma teachs discussion is good debate is a waste of time....You can even prove by straw man that cannibalism is good See the statement posted in fb and dare to challenge it(in fb itself)....<br />"Let's become Cannibals::Friends and foes we all know how meat is nourisious to health....so is chicken so is mutton,beef,fish even egg...and aha! human flesh is far more nourishes then any of above(Biological fact) ....let's take pledge we will eat Human meat from nowadays...come-on Yaar....we are fact based persons....."<br />Source::http://www.facebook.com/groups/IndianAtheists/295870597115111/?notif_t=group_activityI M THE TFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-22513323263785667352011-09-13T20:10:02.679+05:302011-09-13T20:10:02.679+05:30Dear Anonymous,
You win the Internets in this par...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />You win the Internets in this part of netspace for making the most ignorant and illogical statement. Congratulations! You may now give your thank you speech.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-15775764752060147592011-09-13T15:36:58.671+05:302011-09-13T15:36:58.671+05:30Rest assured Christian propagandist like you will ...Rest assured Christian propagandist like you will never win, you kind will be exposed. Its only a matter of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-39548884657273915192011-09-07T20:48:39.054+05:302011-09-07T20:48:39.054+05:30What do you want to convince me about? I've al...What do you want to convince me about? I've already said I'm not interested in semantic games. Whatever needs to be said on that front has been said. <br /><br />If you have any arguments to offer against the <b>content</b> of my blog, post a comment under the relevant article.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-29010294042539356182011-09-07T20:22:15.367+05:302011-09-07T20:22:15.367+05:30This debate has stretched two days .I tell you wha...This debate has stretched two days .I tell you what we are both wasting each others time.I have a suggestion either we can do this real time ---you can add a chatbox widget(Its easy to do that) we can have a chat or we can do any other way you like(gmailchat,messenger facebook chat etc).If you say yes to this we can fix a date and time.If you do not agree I am not going to write anymore to any of your comments you further make.ephemeralnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-83731303520432700962011-09-07T20:02:37.596+05:302011-09-07T20:02:37.596+05:30P-2
I am saying you can criticize as much as you ...P-2<br /><br /><em>I am saying you can criticize as much as you want I really don't care.</em><br /><br />Oh, you do. Whatever I've been saying on this blog concerns three-wicket-cricket and most people reading it will agree that it is three-wicket-cricket and in you come posing about five wickets because <em>you do</em> care for the three-wicket-game.<br /><br /><em>I have not even read it man why are you so bitter.</em><br /><br />Your opening comment is "You are a big idiot". It is quite easy to see who is "so bitter". Me? I'm just having fun ripping apart your apologist antics. That's how I reply to apologists such as yourself on this blog, if you haven't noticed that already. Don't you see Dawkins having a blast with religious nutcases? <a href="www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc" rel="nofollow">He is a fun guy</a>. Not that I'm comparing myself with Dawkins, I wouldn't dream of it, just explaining to your semantic-hair-splitter-mind what the word bitter means not. Afterall, I do call myself a new atheist.<br /><br /><em>I mentioned sati because..</em><br /><br />You mentioned it because I called you an apologist (and I still do) and you were eager to not appear in the same category as the kind of apologist who would support easy-to-pick-on superstitions. Don't change your words. That's disgusting. <br /><br /><em>Nor do you again comment on nimrukta post you gave yourself which says the same thing about hindu being a made up word.</em><br /><br />Of course it is a made up word (which word isn't?) and I completely agree with the article. It is meant for people like you who the moment they see criticism of Hinduism start complaining about what is "true" Hinduism and what is not and only serve as a distraction in the goal of reducing irrationality. It was a one time effort so as to address claims which people like you keep making on that site. Just like this comment thread will be my one time effort in dealing with your kind. Btw, did you comment on that article under the name <a href="http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/28/is-hindu-atheism-valid-a-rationalist-critique-of-the-hindu-identitys-usurpation-of-indian-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-14535" rel="nofollow">rahul</a>? 'Cause his arguments look just as pathetic as the ones you made here.<br /><br />Finally, I don't care how "correct" my definition is. Because the arguments I make on this blog don't hinge on definitions and a word can always be replaced with lower-level constituents without the argument losing any validity. As the great man once said, "a rose by another name smells just as sweet" or as I say "crap by any other name stinks just as bad". Replace the word Hinduism with whatever I've defined here if it is so painful for you to read about your beloved Hinduism on my blog. Or copy my articles in a text editor and do a search for "hinduism" and replace it with "asdfsdf" or whatever and then read them.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-66916743282225718252011-09-07T20:01:06.203+05:302011-09-07T20:01:06.203+05:30P-1
Again now you did not admit that you were inc...P-1<br /><br /><em>Again now you did not admit that you were incorrect about ooga-booga analogy.</em><br /><br />I admit that proposition given in point 5 is wrong. Before you jump in joy, here is the correct version:<br /><br />5. Any person who criticizes the King James Bible by definition:<br /><br />i) is not aware of the contentious definition of ooga-booga-wooga.<br />ii) had/has a very faint idea of ooga-booga-wooga.<br /><br />Mind you, in my analogy the person who criticizes the King James Bible does not accept the definition of ooga-booga-wooga because it clubs all philosophies together many of which contradict each other.<br /><br /><em>You do not admit,fist your refute the ad-populum then you ,then you accept your own definition again.</em><br /><br />In formal logic, saying that a proposition is true means it is true in all cases permitted by the axiomatic system it is based on. So <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/" rel="nofollow">read this</a> again as I'm sure you did not understand it if you had indeed read it, and ask me for clarifications if you still cannot fathom what it means.<br /><br /><em>First if you are making such posts you should prove why all other defintions of hinduism are incorect and yours is correct.</em><br /><br />True to my empirical nature, I have been observing people who call themselves Hindus. A majority of them believe in a god or in the supernatural. It is only logical to infer that the set of all people who call themselves Hindus mostly have irrational beliefs. When I address an argument to them, they immediately know it is them that I'm addressing. <br /><br />In your eagerness to get me to concede something to you, as a response to my ooga-booga-wooga analogy, said "class sports criticism of one sport does not imply criticism of all.". If Hinduism were cricket, a majority of people play cricket with three wickets. But there are some fringe players who use five wickets to play the game and they call that cricket. If I were to go on the streets and ask random people "how many wickets are there at the batsman's end in a game of cricket", the answer I'd get most of the time is three. Not five. Why should I care about those fringe players when I got my hands full with players who play cricket with three wickets and they <b>accept that</b> it is proper cricket? <br /><br />That is how pathetic your semantic hair splitting is. Before you start slicing the semantics of this analogy, don't take it literally and whine that nobody plays cricket with five wickets or introduce other variations of cricket like book-cricket etc... It is just an analogy that makes clear the kind of inane definitions game you play. Again, it is for the purpose of future reference.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-47850541362131503532011-09-07T17:32:09.173+05:302011-09-07T17:32:09.173+05:30Again now you did not admit that you were incorrec...Again now you did not admit that you were incorrect about ooga-booga analogy.You do not admit,fist your refute the ad-populum then you ,then you accept your own definition again.Nor do you again comment on nimrukta post you gave yourself which says the same thing about hindu being a made up word. First if you are making such posts you should prove why all other defintions of hinduism are incorect and yours is correct.I am saying you can criticize as much as you want I really don't care.I am not a Santana dogmatist.I have not even read it man why are you so bitter.As for your criticism of vedas,ramayana etc good i know about it and i do not defend it, good job.I mentioned sati because it will be part of your defintion of hinduism as having beliefs in "prayer, rituals, superstitions, and the supernatural" or the one i mentioned in the first post.ephemeralnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-43955490835881147812011-09-07T11:59:08.472+05:302011-09-07T11:59:08.472+05:30P-2
I just wanted to point to you that what you h...P-2<br /><br /><em>I just wanted to point to you that what you have been criticizing is culture its endless it keeps on evolving.</em><br /><br />You are the kind of supremacist bigot I think I have mentioned elsewhere on this site. Do you think culture evolves only in people who call themselves Hindus? Get out of your egotistic well and you will see that not all Christians and Muslims believe in the literal interpretation of their books (surprise, surprise!), and are more "spiritual" than "religious" (oh, the horror!) and (gasp!) they too have a culture that evolves. And Dawkins criticizes <em>such culture</em> as well. (If you can dig up a link of Dawkins talking about Islam, I'm sure you can also lookup links where he firmly advocates a naturalistic worldview.)<br /><br /><em>Puranans were added around 4th century AD .Rigvedas have been transmitted since 1500BC(Michael witzel).Mahabharata ,puranas ,vedas yoga manusmiriti,varnas ramayana, and the list goes on and on</em><br /><br />Puranas - Some <a href="http://nirmukta.com/2011/07/01/shrimad-bhagavata-purana-a-portrayal-of-fantacies-and-idiosyncrasies/" rel="nofollow">nonsensical stories</a> which millions believe have <a href="http://indianatheists.com/2011/01/18/the-myth-of-lord-ganesha-re-examined/" rel="nofollow">happened really</a>.<br /><br />Vedas - Stuff about performing rituals to curry favor with the gods and <a href="http://nirmukta.net/Thread-The-Vedas" rel="nofollow">untenable philosophical ideas</a>.<br /><br />Mahabharata - an epic ala Lord of The Rings but millions of people believe in the nonsense of Mahabharata really taking place as it was described.<br /><br />Ramayana - another fictional story which millions believe has taken place really and they also believe in the <a href="http://nirmukta.com/2011/08/21/beyond-the-shadow-of-role-models-and-rogue-mannequins-lessons-from-the-ramayana-revisited/" rel="nofollow">primitive morals espoused in it</a>.<br /><br />Manusmriti - <a href="http://nirmukta.com/2011/08/27/the-status-of-women-as-depicted-by-manu-in-the-manusmriti/" rel="nofollow">Do I need even go there?</a><br /><br />Yoga - Untenable philosophical ideas and in part uses <a href="http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/how-%E2%80%9Chindu%E2%80%9D-is-yoga-after-all/" rel="nofollow">"non-hindu" exercise forms.</a><br /><br /><em>and the list goes on and on</em><br /><br /><b>Do keep the list coming</b>. It is really helpful for me so that I can use these comments as a reference to point to when apologists like you feel indignant about the definition of Hinduism.<br /><br /><em>I only wanted to make a general comment on all your posts which are about hinduism the nature of which you had/have a very faint idea.</em><br /><br />Then educate me, o liberated soul, educate me. Most of what you have done so far is bitch about definitions. Give me some substance.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-91664827477358349502011-09-07T11:55:32.423+05:302011-09-07T11:55:32.423+05:30Splitting my reply into parts to get around commen...Splitting my reply into parts to get around comment size restriction:<br /><br />P-1<br /><br /><em>I am not a hindu apologist.Heck hindus practices evils like sati</em><br /><br />How very cute. Let me throw your pointless definitions game <a href="http://agniveer.com/3309/women-in-hinduism/" rel="nofollow">back at you</a>:<br /><br /><em>2. Sati Pratha has nothing to do with Vedas. Vedas, on contrary, appeal to a widow to start life afresh and not waste life merely remembering the past.<br /><br />3. Dasi Pratha was a gift of Christian, Muslim and Jew cultures or their predecessors. There is nothing about this in Vedas. However Testaments and Quran (modern versions) are replete with it.</em><br /><br />So you, the great defender of Hinduism, who was so concerned that "from all your posts it was clear you were not aware of the contentious definition of hinduism", have no compulsions in associating the word "Hindus" with the word "Sati". But when I do something similar (criticize Hindu beliefs) with my articles, you moan and wail and moan and wail. I'll tell you why. Sati is obviously evil and indefensible. So it is easy to spit on it. But when I criticize other ideas of your beloved Hinduism, you can't digest them. Hence all the pissing about definitions. You are blinded to the fact that you yourself have a working definition by which you say "I am not a hindu apologist". Hypocrisy at its best.<br /><br /><em>they cannot become atheists because majority of hindus still believe in this crap.Thats absurd.</em><br /><br />It's not absurd. I defined Hinduism as having beliefs in "prayer, rituals, superstitions, and the supernatural". I also defined atheism. They cover non-overlapping sets of people. After that you bitched about definitions, and I said, my definition is good enough (for what I do on this site). You know from my very first reply, I've been saying you can't read properly. Heed that and make an effort.<br /><br /><em>I also make mistakes in haste sometimes ignorance at least i have the balls to admit it.</em><br /><br />You have balls not for admitting mistakes (you knew you'd gotten roasted if you stood by it), but have them for making troglodytic assumptions like this:<br /><br /><em>You do not even admit that you did not know the that definition of hinduism is contentious neither you were aware of atheist schools of philosophy</em>.<br /><br />I know there exist apologists like you who bitch about definitions whenever anyone criticizes Hinduism. However, as I said earlier, my definition of Hinduism describes what most Hindus do. I know that you don't agree with that definition (duh, which Sanatana Dogmatist would?). I'm more interested in addressing those majority beliefs which are non-naturalistic rather than split semantic hairs.Lijehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01089766586196455989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-46248625472632365732011-09-07T05:59:21.543+05:302011-09-07T05:59:21.543+05:30and I do not exemplify the NTS fallacy because the...and I do not exemplify the NTS fallacy because there is no universal definition of Hinduism.ephemeralnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6467541529999311681.post-80732594656169781332011-09-07T05:49:04.923+05:302011-09-07T05:49:04.923+05:30yeah and thanks for the No True Scotsman fallacy.L...yeah and thanks for the No True Scotsman fallacy.Learnt something new.thanks.ephemeralnoreply@blogger.com