Monday, September 05, 2005

 

Condemning Atanu Dey's deprecation of theists.

This is an open letter to Mr.Atanu Dey of www.deeshaa.org, condemning his belittling of believers in God.

Dear Mr.Atanu Dey,

I quote your words in your post, Billions and billions: 'I said that only feeble-minded people need the crutch that faith provides against the terrors of non-existence that follows death.'

I, for myself, and on behalf of billions of theists (in your words, 'people with faith') strongly condemn your deprecating comments on theists as feeble-minded and terrified. I don't understand what made you think that theists are feeble-minded and so on. It is not proven that there is no God. Though it is also not proven 'scientifically' that there is God, it may be that science has not evolved enough to prove the existence of God, or that some things are beyond science just as some things are beyond mind. Even if there is no God in the real sense, you can't deprecate people who believe otherwise without showing definite proof of the absence of God.

I was glad, as many reasonable people were, when you condemned Mother Theresa and other fundamentalists who believe that their God is the only God and whose main goal of service was to convert as many people as possible to Christianity and not because of humanitarian reasons. I was also glad when you condemned fundamentalists of other religions. But, pardon me, I fail to understand why you are not a fundamentalist too. My understanding of a fundamentalist is one who thinks what he believes is true and the contrary false. Theists are not necessarily fundamentalists, as atheists are not necessarily liberal (as exemplified in your post).

Hinduism, or more accurately 'the religion of Vedanta' in Swami Vivekananda's words, never condemned other faiths or even atheists. In his words, 'not just tolerance, but we accept all religions as equal and true'. To a person who uses his reason, the works of Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna on God are enlightening. (http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info). Sri Ramakrishna has said that man's chief aim should be to realize God. Swami Vivekananda has said that every human being is potentially divine and his life's goal is make people realize their potential. Swami Vivekananda's arguments convince the vast majority of people in the existence of God. Initially, he was an atheist, but Sri Ramakrishna showed him God. His experience should be enough. You never looked at the proof of E=mc2 (square), yet you believe in it, don't you? Why should this be different?

It is strange that, despite being a Bengali, you missed to read/understand the works of two of the world's greatest people, who are also incidentally Bengalis. Yet, you believe in people that made little difference to the world, like Carl Sagan whom I have never heard of before - despite my being a reasonably well informed person.

You also say, 'I don't have faith in soul. I am not one who believes that the universe is made up of 'matter' and 'spirit' . It is all of one thing - matter or spirit - take your pick. But you can't have both.'

This might be another of your 'beliefs'. I wonder why we can't have both matter and spirit. The uniqueness and eternality of spirit/soul is the core principle of Hinduism/Vedanta. I know the law of conservation of matter/energy, or mass-energy equivalence - whatever you call, yet soul doesn't convert from one form to another or release/absorb energy. At the most it merges with the supersoul/God which process is called moksha/salvation/'liberation from the chain of life and death'.

You are inclined towards the atheistic religion Buddhism and its founder Buddha, I'm led to believe from your posts. Buddhism believes in re-birth (which should imply soul), but not God. If you have read his own words, you should know that he took 50,000 births to realize himself. If there is nothing called soul, what is it that continued between those births? I learn that people who appear to use their reason fail to use it in the core sense.

Comments:
Subhas,
You have said that "non-existence of God is not scientifically proven"...
The problem is that you can't ever prove the non-existence of something which doesn't exist.
For example, I don't have a green shirt. But I can't prove that I don't have a green shirt through exhaustive reasoning; for one can always say that one of my green shirts is in Andromeda galaxy without my knowing.
But I do agree with you that extreme atheism is nothing less than fundamentalism, even thoug I am one of them.
 
Similar to the ideas of Shivaji, after reading your post, I can compare you beliefs with a different example.

It hasn't been proved that the world will end tomorrow at 6:44pm. But it also hasn't been proved that it will exist thereafter. So we can safely assume that the world will end at that point of time if it suits us (for example, a child's excuse to not study for the test).

I feel it is better to follow the 'status-quo' policy. Given the way things have been, it seems unlikely that the world will end tomorrow at 6:44pm. If someone can prove it won't, we will accept it. Same goes for god. Given the state of things that exist, there is no reason to include god into the world. If you can prove it, we will accept it. But please maintain 'status-quo' until that proof has been established.

I know to come upto such radical proofs, someone (maybe you) will have to dedicate entire lifetime (and this is how science works). So I won't ask you to give up faith. All I ask you is not to cry 'wolf' when there's none. It will reduce your chances of being heard when a real wolf comes up.
 
Shivaji, thanks for agreeing that extreme atheism is nothing less than fundamentalism.

Shivaji and Ambuj, Swami Vivekananda asks not to blindly believe that there is God just because he or someone says there is, and asks us to reason and test for ourselves. After reading Swami Vivekananda's works, I'm convinced that there is God. It is neither my intention nor my desire to convince atheists that there is God. If you are not convinced, the world doesn't go topsy-turvy. My bone of contention is denigration of theists, not atheists per se. When you have time to kill, I suggest you read 'The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda'. I think it makes some interesting reading. If there is nothing in it, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose couldn't have been inspired by it and become a national leader; and Gandhi couldn't have said, 'after reading Vivekananda, my love of my country increased thousand times'. Well, you can build arguments and hone your arguing skills by critically reading it, if not anything else! Good Luck!
 
i thought your blog was cool and i think you may like this cool Website. now just Click Here
 
I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. So please Click Here To Read My Blog

http://pennystockinvestment.blogspot.com
 
Hello..

By all means I agree with you when you said:
"My understanding of a fundamentalist is one who thinks what he believes is true and the contrary false. Theists are not necessarily fundamentalists, as atheists are not necessarily liberal (as exemplified in your post)."

In one of the forums that I go to, one atheist said, "Anthony Flew was not a real atheist". When asked for the reasons for saying so, the atheist simply differentiated the negative/positive atheism claiming further that AFlew never really embraced either of both. It seems to me that atheism is following the path of some of religions - becoming "boxed" into a rigid "doctrine" of non-belief.

And so, is atheism going to become a societal group riddled with "disciplines" and marked excluvism?

just curious.
 
Get any Desired College Degree, In less then 2 weeks.

Call this number now 24 hours a day 7 days a week (413) 208-3069

Get these Degrees NOW!!!

"BA", "BSc", "MA", "MSc", "MBA", "PHD",

Get everything within 2 weeks.
100% verifiable, this is a real deal

Act now you owe it to your future.

(413) 208-3069 call now 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?