Freethought, Atheism and Religion discussion from Delhi Freethinkers fb group
#1
This is a thread from the Delhi Freethinkers group, moved here in accordance to new rules requiring all discussion on ideological subjects to be limited to the forums (here) and to the discussion sections on IA fb page and Nirmukta fb group.

Lalit Mohan Chawla
we have members who have been a witness to quiet a few miracles, have activites including reiki and spirtuality, music including soul chants, and we are getting invites to plays that describe what we actively are critical of , unless we agree that this is what we, delhi freethinkers represent, i think we can be more clear in describing our group so that new members can have an idea of what to post, why not link the group with indian atheists in the description itself , since we were talking about co-branding with them, i have already been verbal about the effect of the word in repelling such posts
on Monday · Like · · Unsubscribe
Aarti Tikoo Singh and Manu Singla like this.
Ajita Kamal Good idea, I'm for including a mention of Indian Atheists in the description.
Yesterday at 12:45am · Like · 3 people
Narendra Nayak I think you should have a training program for debunking such things and to learn the methods of doing that.
Yesterday at 12:50am · Unlike · 5 people
Ajita Kamal Prof Nayak, do you have any plans of visiting Delhi in the near future?
Yesterday at 12:52am · Like
Narendra Nayak Will if needed. No plans as now.
Yesterday at 1:04am · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Perhaps in a few months it would be good to organize something like Yukti in Delhi. In any case, the next time you visit Delhi members from this group will be glad to meet with you!
For those who are not aware, we reported on prof Nayak's 2...See More
Yesterday at 1:31am · Like
Gagandeep Singh second that
Yesterday at 1:59am · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla we can have a fun event of which passers by can also be a part of , i read an article once "we are serious about atheism , we walk on coals", it would be a great sight to see amateurs doing what is usually considered extraordinary like walking on hot coals and it will be fun too, and not much of a trouble to arrange for though obviously we should be careful that we do not burn anybody and it needs to be properly organised with medical assistance and fire extinguishers at hand
Yesterday at 2:05am · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1..._16965051/
Yesterday at 2:05am · Like
Gagandeep Singh dude....thats just stretchin it too far...although the idea dsnt seem so bad...lol
Yesterday at 2:08am · Like
Ajita Kamal Yup, prof Nayak has been performing firewalking demonstrations around India for 3 decades: http://nirmukta.com/2009/02/17/narendra-...a-part-iv/
Yesterday at 2:08am · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla ‎@gagan that has been done before many times in india and i think we can arrange it in delhi too if we get enough support
Yesterday at 2:09am · Like
Gagandeep Singh wel...personally i'v never seen it myself...bt it seems a fun thing to try...n if there will be medical staff nearby...count me in!!
Yesterday at 2:11am · Like
Ajita Kamal Gagandeep, these types of demonstrations have a very powerful impact on the general public. If we say to them, look I do not believe in any god or religion, and then walk on the coals like the swami frauds do, that is very powerful in getting people to think.
Yesterday at 2:16am · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla what the real motive is to change the perception that it is a very hard thing to do many of such feats achieved by babas can be reproduced though some may require practice like watching blind folded while some do not and only need careful setup like dipping hand in boiling milk
Yesterday at 2:19am · Unlike · 1 person
Ankush Mittal Basically we need to start out own "Mythbusters" TV Show based campaign we can re-enact their episodes in India which are relevant here. And the walking on coal is a classic example which they have Busted on Episode 107 – "Water Stun Gun" 3 years back.
Yesterday at 3:27am · Unlike · 1 person
Manu Singla Ajita, Do you expect that people like gagandeep would say that he does not believe in religion when he still finds so many good things in religion. Ethics and morals are not the sole property of religion but religion try to grab them to improve its brand image, so one shud not confuse on this aspect.
Yesterday at 4:01am · Like
Ajita Kamal ‎@Manu: I'll go one further and say that religious ethics is a poison on humankind in our modern era. But it is true that there are many social benefits that religion provides to people, and the rational response to that is not denial but creating secular social alternatives that help people discard their superstitions for reason.
Yesterday at 4:05am · Like · 5 people
Aayushi Awasthy I suggest we put a blasphemous description to our group.
Yesterday at 4:17am · Unlike · 4 people
Gagandeep Singh ‎Manu Singla..uh...first of all...being an "atheist" means someone who doesnt believe in GOD....its a term derived from roots "anti" and "theism" with a slight change in its original definition, but the basics remain the same....so being an "atheist"....i do not believe in GOD!!

second of all....as ajita mentioned above....religion DO have some basic(howsoever small) social benefits to the society...n if ur talkin in response to the "atheism 3.0" post....please try n understand what context i was talkin abt...its just a misunderstanding.

oh n religion DO have some intrinsic value to society at large....its just that the "hatred" n "superstition" spread by religious gimmicks is stupendous as compared to the so called "benefits"...i DO think(n its a matter of perception....you are very much free to believe otherwise) we need to drop the whole institute of "religion"....n in the process of dissolving it, still practice the positive things that may have some benefit to the society(mentioned in the "atheism 3.0" post)

still...thank you for your insights...if i, on some point find myself supporting the wrong cause i WILL let you make me see the "light"...after all, thats what the purpose of this group is right??....SPREADING freethought!!....n not discussing it in closed groups!!
Yesterday at 4:23pm · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Let is be clear that Nirmukta is anti-religion in a political sense, since we seek out ways of replacing religious social norms and practices with secular and rational ones. But factually we must be accurate about even the ideas we are criticizing. Nirmukta's policy on religion is described clearly on our Indian Atheists website: http://indianatheists.com/religion/
This part is relevant to this discussion:
"There is no doubt that some of the qualities that religions have conferred on humanity have served useful evolutionary functions in the past. But today, in almost every aspect of human culture that religion once held monopoly over, there lies the possibility of better, more effective and ethical alternatives that are the product of reason and compassion. Modern Freethought groups seek out these alternatives."
Yesterday at 5:44pm · Like · 3 people
Gagandeep Singh we are absolutely on the same page ajita...i don knw hw my thought abt some of religion's "aspects" represent my thought on the entire "institution of religion"....i m really sorry if any1 was able to draw this conclusion...please note that even in advocating for some of the "aspects" of it(mentioned in the "atheism 3.0" post), i DO believe in "dissolving of any religious institution"
Yesterday at 5:59pm · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Gagandeep, I agree with you, and I don't think the conclusions drawn about your positions were accurate.

Your position that you
///"still finds so many good things in religion" ///

which is itself an exaggeration of your actual position (SO MANY good things?) does not in any way imply "ethics and morals are the sole property of religion". So I think your position was misrepresented. We need to understand nuance, especially on cultural issues. Things in culture are not black and white. We can definitely say that religion has offered some good to some people, but that doesn't imply anything close to giving religious ethics a pass.

The idea that morality comes from god is in itself against logic and reason, so religious morality is founded on false premises. The idea of god, being unfalsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), can be used to justify anything, and frequently is. For Freethinkers, it is superstitious thinking as a way of viewing the world that is the biggest problem, and must be the focus, above and beyond each individual superstition. Failing to do so translates to a failure to address the ultimate causes of superstition. Therefore we have a duty to not just disregard religious ethics, but to aggressively promote a scientific understanding of facts that underlie moral understanding, which will help us build a compassionate and comprehensive humanistic ethics. Simply put, freethinkers are against religious ethics on basic foundational grounds. Reason and Compassion.
Yesterday at 6:07pm · Like · 1 person
Gagandeep Singh lol...i feel like someone spoke out of my mind...thnx fr the "falsifiable" link...was a good read!!
Yesterday at 6:20pm · Like · 1 person
Manu Singla ‎@GAGANDEEP, I am really sorry if I have hurt your feelings in any way. here is a platform where we share our thoughts and views and I read your comments regarding some goodness of religion on atheism 3.0. What I would like to share with you is that religion evolved with conmen to rule and befool the common masses. Certainly religion is still a tool in the hands of ruling people to exploit humanity and that is why religion is responsible for maximum killings of human beings in the history. To improve its reach to unsuspecting innocent people, religion has grabbed some ethics and morals to hide its reality and that is reality in society when we find the religious heads commanding a position of epitome of marality and goodness in the society. I still hold my views that religion has never been able to offer anything good or constructive to the society and this is the biggest desease by which the mankind is suffering from years.
23 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Manu, this is exactly what I meant when I said we need nuance when talking about culture. Nobody here disagrees with the first part of what you said. We all realize that religion had murky origins in primitive times and that religions are tools of oppression. These are not contested points, and we are being redundant here.

Where you go off the road is when you say "religion has never been able to offer anything good or constructive to the society". Do you really believe that to be true? That statement is factually incorrect.
23 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Manu Singla Would you please elaborate what good or constructive the religion has offered so far......
23 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Manu, I have been most critical of religion. It is a core purpose of Nirmukta.
But when someone misrepresents facts about religion, it has the effect of turning those of us who are freethinkers to arguing against those false facts. I do not want to be defend religion here. But you are forcing me to by misrepresenting facts.
We may despise religion, but we must not be reactionary to the point where we are blinded by our point of view and simply oppose everything that we see as "the other". Most important of all is that we must strive to understand the truth. So please stop making it seem as though you are the only one opposed to religion and we are all defending it. What we are calling for is understanding what religion is. Millions of people gain social benefits from religion. This is a fact. Now let's talk about how we can offer secular alternatives that make them realize that they don't need religion.
23 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Manu Singla Ajita, I am not forcing you to defend religion which you will never do but I also a keen observer from last many years has not been able to search any social or intrisnic value of religion. If you mean offering free foods to poor people out of compassion is in anyway one of the benifit of religion than I am sorry we certainly need two classes in the society. But honestly speaking I have not been able to see any goods of relgion so far to my existence on the earth. Pl. send me any link so that I may really educate myself on this aspect of religion.
23 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal ‎" I have not been able to see any goods of relgion so far to my existence on the earth."

OK, despite your statement to the contrary, by asking me to say something good about religion you are putting me on the back foot. So let me present the disclaimer that all the things I list below can be replaced by reason and compassion in the modern world. Also, it must be noted that religion has always been part of mainstream culture, until modern democratic governments tried to change this. Religion, for most of history, included everything from the food you ate to the language you spoke. Even today religion has a tight hold on society, and sanctions much of what people do and do not do. This is what we must change if we are going to get rid of religion. So, here is a tiny list of things that religion has done for people- things that can be considered good.

The majority of people on earth will tell you absolutely that religion gives meaning to their lives. It brings them together, and gives them a reason to live in depressing and hard conditions. (Various studies have shown, for example, that religious belief is highest when circumstances are difficult- when the struggle for survival is high, and people are desperate). Religious provide people with social cohesion, bringing them together to celebrate and have fun, during family gatherings, at festivals and elsewhere. Art, Music, Literature Architecture, all of these are areas where religion has had immense impact in human history. From the music of Bach to the Hindustani classical music, religion has been a strong influence and religious organizations and people have supported these monetarily and by dedicating their lives. Even today many still do. Without the religious scholars debating ideas during the golden Age of India 2100 years ago, we would not have developed the great philosophies of India that gave the world advanced logic, epistemology and the decimal number system. The greatest painters and story tellers of history have been inspired by religion. Some of the most incredible buildings of the world are religious- the incredible stone carved temples of the east and the magnificent cathedrals of Europe. From the hills of Machi Piccu to the serene Buddhist monasteries of Burma and Japan, religion has inspired great beauty and peaceful contemplation. And any objective reader can recognize that this is only scratching the surface. One can go on and on in this vein.

People like Dennett and Harris, considered stalwarts of the New Atheism, often make the point that religion has indeed served useful functions, and that it does bring great comfort to a great many people.

These are areas where religion can easily be replaced. And of course these "good" traits of religion do not justify supporting religion, because as we all know there are many things that are much worse that religion sanctions. The point of all of this is to understand that religions are a lot more complicated and ingrained in culture than some atheists give them credit for, and to deal with such institutionalized superstition a proper understanding of religion is needed.
22 hours ago · Like · 3 people
Ajita Kamal Manu, you said: "If you mean offering free foods to poor people out of compassion is in anyway one of the benifit of religion than I am sorry we certainly need two classes in the society."

The fact that society is not fair does not take away from the fact that some religious organizations do good charity work (although, again, we can argue that religions contribute to keeping people down and are a big reason why the work they do is necessary in the first place). Instead of simply denying that many religious people do charity work, it is more useful to promote secular charities. That is what a freethinker does. Here is a list of secular charities from our forums: http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Secular-phila...-charities
22 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Gagandeep Singh ‎Ajita Kamal....lemme just make a quick statement here...based on your reply here n the work u put up in the description of this group...the next time i need a "detailed, to the point, effective n clear" descrition about something....n m havin some difficulties puttin it frwrd(language can be such a bitch somtimes...lol)i know were to go....;)
22 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Thanks man smile
21 hours ago · Like
Manu Singla Ajita, when the money coming from the loot and exploitation of common man is donated to the poors than this is named as charity. You are right that the historical buildings like temples and palaces were created thru religion but these are the symbols of looted labour of millions as you see in case of taj mahal. Why you have to think in terms of need of charity, pity and compassion. Why dont we think in terms of equitable rights of every person and a classless society which can take care of itself. Why dont we take it as our obligation towards the society to help each other rather thinking of booking a seat in heaven in turn of doing charity. Music, art and culture even flourished in the era of kings also so would we support the monarchy and its associated loot. As far as its benifits in curing the desease like depression, surely religion benifits like opium and even a doctor would prescribe some intoxications like opium so religion is definitely like an intoxication where a person can be treated and exploited like a dog. I think one must go for study of evolution of society to better understand these things.
21 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Manu Singla The words like charity and donation are in a sense derogatory and originate from religion and are done in anticipation of some divine favour. They shud rather be replaced from the words like help and obligation (towards society) as Mr. Bill Gates has prefered to use.
21 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Manu, you are doing exactly what I said you would do. You made me point to a few benefits of religion by saying falsely that there was absolutely no good in it, and are now attacking me for doing so by acting as though only you understand the bad things and that I was ignoring all the bad things. This is frankly insulting and infuriating. I have dedicated my life to replacing religion with reason-based alternatives. I think I have a much better understanding if what my positions are than you do.

Religion is simply wrong on many levels. But stop denying that many people also benefit from religion, and stop making it seem as though the recognition of this fact is a justification of religion itself. As I said, by denying these facts, you are actually disagreeing with people like Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris.

PLEASE STOP ACTING AS THOUGH YOU ARE ONE CRITICIZING RELIGION AND I AM SUPPORTING IT.

I am arguing for a recognition of why religion is so persuasive. When the world finally rids itself of the disease of religion, it will be because we have overcome the social benefits of religion with reason-based alternatives. Instead of ignoring those social benefits like you are trying to do, and making it seem as you are the only one who understands that religion is evil, let us talk about how we can overcome the disease.

All those things that I pointed out as things that people benefit from religion, you point to negative aspects as though I am clueless about them. This is what is insulting, because if you actually read what I wrote with a mind open to facts, you will see that is exactly what I am saying. All things that religion sanctions, there is a lot of bad also associated with them. This is, frankly, a very simple observation for a freethinker. You seem to think that I am not aware of this. Let me assure you that I am. You are not telling us anything new. But by denying that religion means so much to many people and makes their lives better, you are simply wrong.
21 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Manu Singla Ajita, I am sorry if I have hurt you in any way and I have already stated that you can never support religion. This is simply a discussion and everybody has his own point of view so pl. dont take it to heart.I hope we can personally have a good discussion whenever we meet in our next meeting. I still firmly hold my views that religion can ever have any positive or good role towards the society in any form and except this we are on the same wavelength. The good facts of religion as you have wrote with open mind need more scrutiny and I believe and can prove that religion is wrong at all levels.
20 hours ago · Like
Ankush Mittal Manu, frankly speaking our objectives are beyond that of only talking about religion all the time.
20 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal ‎"The good facts of religion as you have wrote with open mind need more scrutiny and I believe and can prove that religion is wrong at all levels."
This is again a false argument. Of course religion is wrong on all levels. You are simply not recognizing what my argument is. If a single person died peacefully because of a stupid belief, that is something good to that person that religion provided. The fact that there are many more bad things that came about through that belief does not mean that the particular person did not receive some benefit from religion. To that person, religion helped him or her. To millions, it helps them every day. That is the reason why religion is persuasive.
Of course each of those reasons can have many more negative consequences, as we all recognize. But you are not even trying to see that many millions- no billions- benefit from religion (even while it keeps them down and oppressed) which is why religion continues to be successful.
20 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Let me get personal. If my mother is on her death bed and she benefits from the belief that she will be with god, unless I can provide her with something more powerful, I will not tell her that her belief doesn't do her any good. Of course, if she was never conditioned as a child and forced to live that religious life, she may never have needed that crutch of religion. But the fact remains that she is benefiting from that belief, and that is not some abstract idea but a real living example in front of us.
20 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Yes, i agree with Ankush. Enough discussion on religion, especially on such a silly point. We have much freethought to discuss. Let's talk about science or organizing something fun for a change, so that we can actually go about making a difference.
20 hours ago · Like
Hirday Patwari Since Satya Sai Baba has established large net work of charity[of course with gullible followers money],his pseudo religious practice and perception needs to be accorded total social acceptance.Again it is beyond comprehension how supremacy of reason and scientific temper is to be developed without religious idiocy defined by some people as so called good religious practices.Tradition of respective social culture is more or less an integral part of various religious faiths.At the same time it is a well known established fact that religion as a whole is perfect tool of exploitation for exploiting class.In a class society nothing above class and religion and religiosity though lofty in metaphysics is mostly a sanctimonious means to harness divine support for power and pelf.Sangh Parivar,Akali dal,Shiv Sena,Muslim League etc is classical example of sanctimonious means and methods.Whether it is Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or Sikhism,every religion has inculcated an intolerant spirit among its followers which has resulted in bloody clashes,murders and torture of those who do not submit to that particular faith.All the theoretical arguments are very bad indeed,but its practical and social consequences are infinitely worse.Theism and its practice in any form is the negation of both reason and genuine pro people ethics.The future society ,at least must realize that it is sanctimonious nonsense to talk about certain progressive ethics and so called beneficial sacredness of the old order.Anyhow we have got "freethinkers" among us who do believe that one can be "rationalist"along with so called religious ethics,despite the bitter truth that religion in its totality and rationalism are two contradictory terms.How can one prevent any person to call himself Hindu-Sikh-Muslim freethinker or rationalist?
18 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal ‎"Anyhow we have got "freethinkers" among us who do believe that one can be "rationalist"along with so called religious ethics"

You are wrong, sir. Please go back and read all the comments from the beginning of this thread before commenting. You are dead wrong, and frankly insulting.
18 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Those of you intent on continuing this false understanding, please excuse yourselves. We have put a lot of time and energy into Nirmukta and Indian Atheists, and I will not tolerate being accused of defending the very barbaric ideas that I have dedicated my life to criticizing.
18 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Ajita Kamal Mr Patwari: Here is the relevant comment from above:
|"The idea that morality comes from god is in itself against logic and reason, so religious morality is founded on false premises. The idea of god, being unfalsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), can be used to justify anything, and frequently is. For Freethinkers, it is superstitious thinking as a way of viewing the world that is the biggest problem, and must be the focus, above and beyond each individual superstition. Failing to do so translates to a failure to address the ultimate causes of superstition. Therefore we have a duty to not just disregard religious ethics, but to aggressively promote a scientific understanding of facts that underlie moral understanding, which will help us build a compassionate and comprehensive humanistic ethics. Simply put, freethinkers are against religious ethics on basic foundational grounds. Reason and Compassion."

Please immediately take back your false and slanderous attack. Please remember that there is a person behind that computer screen, and be careful when you throw mud at them.
18 hours ago · Like
Ankush Mittal I feel we're going off topic here, and frankly this is a group for friendly discourse. Our objectives are very clear, and there is no room for personal attacks. If any particular person feels their views do not align with that of Nirmukta's, as we have previously outlined, is more than welcome to leave. But, we will not tolerate selfish agendas, of promoting negativism within our group.
18 hours ago · Like
Manu Singla Ajita, pl. dont get emotional and nobody is criticising you or throwing mud over you. I have great respect for your continous work on this front. On one hand, you see some positives in religion and on other side you accuse to be criticised for that. Mr. Ankush is acting as if he is sole owner of this platform. Who has given him the right to stop what members like to comment. This is the platform of freethinkers but your thinking is working under this so called nirmukta so what sort of free thinking you are talking about. In fact, we are the people with free thinking so stop advising and threatening.
18 hours ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla we "are" getting off topic , we can continue discussion in Delhi atheists in the post where it originally started i have already moved the discussion forward ,here "We have much freethought to discuss." (quoting from above)
17 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Manu Singla Lalit, I fully agree with you. The name freethinkers seems to be deceptive when one cant have his opinion and the difference in views are taken as the personal attacks. Hence, I quit this discussion.
17 hours ago · Like
Hirday Patwari I stand by my remarks,but it was not meant for you.It was exclusively meant for Gagandeep Singh,who only few days back had made a sarcastic remark about me that since i did not subscribe to religious ethics[read good practice] i was not rationalist at all.Though it was insulting for me,one who is practicing atheist since more than four decades.I don't believe in naming persons and it is only due to somewhat extraordinary and immature reaction that i have named the person.At the age of 67 years i don't need any certificate for rationalism.In case you are satisfied more in quantity rather than quality,it is no problem for me.No further discussion please.With best wishes.
17 hours ago · Like
Ankush Mittal Above are just classic examples of negativism I am talking about and Manu thanks for proving my point in your earlier post.
17 hours ago · Like
Aarti Tikoo Singh In our last Delhi meet, Gagandeep said:
1) Atheism is also a religion/belief. A belief that god does not exist.
2) Science and scientific method is just about hypothesis and does not lead us to the "truth".

Does Nirmukta accommodate such mind-boggling insights and ideas? Is there any basic criteria that qualifies one as a free-thinker? I thought I read a comprehensive description of the group the other day and interestingly, some people don't seem to have absorbed it.
16 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Ajita Kamal ‎@Aarti: "Does Nirmukta accommodate such mind-boggling insights and ideas? "
Whatever happened in your group was not discussed here. Is in necessary to belittle Nirmukta's objectives and cause? How are we supposed to discuss anything if the attitude is confrontational. Why did not a single person say what you did in the conversation above?

I reacted the way I did in my previous post because accusations were being thrown about without any context. And now after I have been arguing so much on different grounds, wasting time on matters that frankly are common knowledge in the atheist community, the context comes out. Aarti, did you read the conversation above. Do you think MY positions were wrong and not in keeping with Nirmukta? Did you not see how MY positions were misrepresented and freethinkers attacked? I'm asking why did anyone not actually say what this conversations was about?

Right from the time it was decided to split this group up we have been careful to make sure those who wanted to focus on atheism alone have their own space, with the promise of us leaving the group to them. You know Nirmukta's agenda. You read the comprehensive description of the group, and our decision to move forward. Why then was this discussion had here in such a fashion, rehashing an old debate that I and many of us have no idea about?
15 hours ago · Like · 3 people
Aarti Tikoo Singh Ajita, you are fine. I just wanted to let other self-proclaimed free-thinkers to get a hint that Nirmukta is not about their delusional views and agendas. I also wanted them to understand that you are not on the same page as theirs.
15 hours ago · Like
Aarti Tikoo Singh Ajita,
And yes, I take the partial blame for not informing you about the idiotic debate we had on what constitutes as free-thinking in our Delhi meet. I intended to write to you about it but the Anna Hazare story kept me awfully busy at my work.
15 hours ago · Like
Aarti Tikoo Singh Just my opinion - I think Delhi Freethinkers group could do very well if we elect @Rajesh Kher as our leader.
15 hours ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla ajita, i can see now in the previous posts that you were not aware of the discussions in the meet , i was following the posts and suspected on going discussions are a result of misunderstandings you appeared to manu singhla to be defending an idea that you were actually against of but just so you know manu singhla too had not attended the meet anyhow i ,
but i was of the view that minutes of the meetings had been known to you, anyhow to make it clear why the above happened here is a chain of events:in the meet we discussed for a long time this:
1) Atheism is also a religion/belief. A belief that god does not exist.
2) Science and scientific method is just about hypothesis and does not lead us to the "truth".
in recent post in delhi atheist there was a post of atheism 3.0 by Nipun Thukral which reignited the debate mainly between gagan , manu and hirday
which was both hirday an manu were talking about
4)manu later commented about it above dragging you into discussion which , you obviously did not know about , and that explains your posts ,
Mr hirday too was replying in context to gagan , but it obviously appeared to you that he was replying to you because of the series of events
15 hours ago · Like
Gagandeep Singh OH MY GOOD "GOD PARTICLE"(no religious thinkin intended...just an expression...i'v made it as scientific as i could)

i have only 2 points to make on which i feel i cudnt convey(or ppl cudnt absorb) where my position lies...if after that "most" of you still believe my views are religion "oriented" i'l be happy to leave this group n go on a self-thinkin process....again!!

before i begin i wud like to apologize to ajita...i was at work all day n cudnt reply to the earlier posts...or i'd have made my positions clear...n i feel it wsnt fair on ur part to b bombarded with(as u say) "insulting" questions.

the first one is about the discussion held at our meet in lodhi garden....i believe i am being mis-quoted here...some things have been added to what i said in such a way that have completely changed the nature of my argument...what i said was:

1. "wen i was in the process of transforming n self realisation...i noticed a similarity between religion n science....in science...(particularly n exclusively in astrophysics...please make not i was talkin about astrophysics only)...i'v seen entire "THEORIES" being proved false...(ajita this info is for you....i took the example of quantum theroy....n "Einstein's relative theory"....n how one theory explains some thins n not all....which are explained by the other theory)...i put this point frward fr discussion that the scientific data on how thins work in the universe dat we have now is based on these theories which are kind of ironical in nature(again i was strictly on astrophysics)....n maybe some day a new "unified" theory will be put frwrd(work is already on its way..."stephen hawkings-black hole and baby universes")...i did put this point and i was open to discussion about it...that maybe the scientific model we have as of now...is not "complete"...it maybe that some day we might find ourself living in a matrix(again this was jst to elaborate my point that theories are not the "TRUTH" about the universe...n i don believe that we ARE livin in the matrix...)...after talkin about this i proposed a point that maybe whatever we think today about the "UNIVERSE" may come about to be a "belief" after all....how we percieve "REALITY" may just be our belief(as the "reality" as we knw is based on 2 ironical "THEORIES"....but again...in strict "astrophysics" sense)....n to that i further added that i think MAYBE atheism is also a kind of a belief system....BUT...even if atheism wud hav been a belief system(considering the WILD n EXAGERATED argument i put...it was to be a point of debate...wanted to know wat others think about this observation)...we(n i write "we" here coz i do consider myself an atheist) would STILL hav had the freedom to question our beliefs....n den i said which is what is absent in any religious institution...n hence EVEN den atheism would have been the logical and rational option"

what you have written above mam is not accurate...I NEVER said anythin about "A belief that god does not exist."... i DO NOT believe in GOD....i have ample proof(or i shud say "absence of proof")...of its/his/her "NON EXISTENCE"...neither did i said "Science and scientific method is just about hypothesis and does not lead us to the "truth""....as it shud be clear i was talkin abt some astrophysic's THEORIES....although i do understand it maybe a misunderstanding or miscommunication on my/your part....there are absolutely no hard feelin on my part.

the second point i want to clear is my take on religion...as that is what sparked the argument according to lalit....n before i say anythin on this lalit i will like to say that i repect Mr. Hirday patwari very much....and his passion for the cause....i did congratulate him on that day of the meet for that....if it is within your power please bring him back to this community.

on this point i think much have been said above....still i want to point out an interesting observation....WE ARE ALL TALKIN ABOUT THE SAME THING....i have written countless times....i DO NOT BELIEVE IN RELIGION....n i think it should be dissolved....if i think some "PRACTICES" in religion(for watever reasons it is for them) have done some good to the society does it mean i think religion is "good"??.....its like saying....u like "honour"....then u must like "honour-killings"...its such a irresponsive argument for me and i think thats what hapened with ajita too

i felt like i was talkin abt the possible "good" thins hapening now(the langar etc)...n the next thing ppl saw it like "u like ppl killing in the name of religion, its loot money that the food is made of)....lol...it was a lil disppointing to knw hw ppl react to thins before tryin to see thins from others perspective....i was NOT trying to defend religion in any case....not today....not in the meet....i was merely trying to make a point...."religion is like our enemy(metaphorically speaking)....n before we can win againt that enemy we need to understand how it works)....how are we supposed to spread the word that religion is harming our society wen we cnt even understand how it works"....religion DO have some good thins....good "basic ethics" that have an intrinsic value...which are done to attract the unsuspecting people...no doubt abt that @manu(i think he has left the group too...as i was not able to tag him)....but that is "good" nonetheless...just coz an atomic bomb was dropped in hiroshima killin millions of people dsnt make atomic power the "DEVIL"(PLEASE its not meant to sound in a superstition kind of way....again JUST an expression)....please try to understand what i m trying to say here....n please do not use examples other than what i'v mentioned to disregard my position on religion's "good ethics"

NOTE(a special note to lalit "my fren"): even in the high heat of argument to use abusive words and aggresive behaviour shows some kind of negativity(also weakness to some extent)....i believe(as i don knw u that well yet) that u r better than that....please refrain YOURSELF from using such parameters in the future.

NOTE(to aarti mam): i believe having a "leader" system is anti-"nirmkta's thought" too....what we need are "guides"...else "freethinkin" is just meaningless!!...n if in future u find that something i have said or done is not in tune to "nirmukta's" goal....please mam....PLEASE do "CORRECT" me....instead of dismissing my dedication to being a "freethinker"....n i say this with absolute respect of you being one!

NOTE: ONE final note to Mr. Hirday Patwari....n i know this post is gettin too big....believe me i wud not b writtin it if i didnt believe in the cause of "freethinking"......Mr. Hirday Sir....do come back....lets share our views....we have a lil miscommunication(n i STRONGLY believe i have never in my conscious mind even thought about giving a "sarcastic" remark to dismiss your rationalism....i don knw in wat context did u felt this way or i'd have explained my position on that too).....n sir even if we have some unshared views we WILL discuss them...n by doing so u'l HELP us grow....or vice versa(although its possibility is low)...n we'l come to a common conclusion...u r like a source of inspiration to the likes of us.

if any of you after reading these post feel that i m in any way a "pseudo-freethinker, n one who is not willing to grow towards a scientific n rational path" please express your views...if u think this post is not meant for individual agendas like this post has become....then message me what u feel....i'l willingly withdraw from this group...maybe join you after a self-introspection session.

n thnx for all your time....this is gagan(with sore fingers...but totally worth it)
10 hours ago · Like
Rajesh Kher OK I think arguements have gone awry. Its obvious that atheism is merely a position of denying a religous GOD period. Beyond that is continous exploration of finding why or try to answer the so called QUESTIONS. Within this exploration we have to understand the arguements of other side and some of them may have no answer from us at a given moment of time. Let the search begin. As a fundamental rule we are not in position to say or talk in terms of absolutes except for 6.9 level of atheism. Let the evidence point out the way and Gagan you can explore together.
9 hours ago · Like · 4 people
Aayushi Awasthy well said, Rajesh sir
8 hours ago · Like
Gagandeep Singh absolutely sir...thats why i have joined this group...n thank u fr ur insights...
7 hours ago · Like
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#2
This is the second thread that was moved from the Delhi Freethinkers fb group to here.

Lalit Mohan Chawla
please Ankush Mittal refrain from mocking a 67 year old atheist, Hirday Patwari who has immense knowledge of hindu scriptures and history, is committed enough that he has attended both the meets when most of the members of 1st meet did not attend(only 3 of us had attended both meets) , who comes all the way from jammu and kashmir to attend our meets, and who has been fighting for the cause since 4 decades
14 hours ago · Like · · Subscribe
Aarti Tikoo Singh and Manu Singla like this.
Ankush Mittal Lalit, I am sure Mr. Patwari can answer for himself if he has a problem with what I said. And this is the attitude which we are talking about.
16 hours ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla i stated this since in a pm expressing his displeasure to me, he vowed not to post here again and not to attend , where he be dictated over as a paid servant ,please understand that he is not related to me in any way he is not my father or ...See More
16 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ankush Mittal I stand by what I said.
16 hours ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla sad, he has left the group that is one member less, obviously we will have 100 member count pretty soon but i am more concerned about quality than quantity, i would not enjoy a meet with a 100 members mostly pseudo freethinkers where most of the time is wasted on discussing that "atheism is a religion" like in our previous meet rather than brainstorm and put forward constructive ideas
16 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Ankush Mittal Our objectives are to go beyond Religion, by starting things like debunking events. It is not only about the meets, but much much more than that.
15 hours ago · Like
Ankush Mittal Lalit, it is quite clear that attacking and fighting is your form of getting your point across, on that note, our meets are also for calm discourse not for getting hyper and using abusive language.
15 hours ago · Like
Aayushi Awasthy Ok, I am sorry I did nt see this. Can someone explain this to me?
8 hours ago · Like
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  individuality and atheism praggy1973 4 3,426 04-Mar-2016, 04:18 PM
Last Post: praggy1973
  Roots of Religion satheeshpaul 1 1,808 04-Oct-2015, 09:14 PM
Last Post: LogicalAtheist
  Why I Became An Atheist - My Journey from Orthodox Hinduism to Atheism nayakan 0 2,930 20-Sep-2014, 11:10 AM
Last Post: nayakan
  Should the State enforce Atheism? civfanatic 0 2,850 01-Dec-2013, 11:59 AM
Last Post: civfanatic
  On how I landed up in Nirmukta: An anecdote of my journey into Atheism. Poonguntan Cibi 0 3,916 08-Feb-2013, 10:30 PM
Last Post: Poonguntan Cibi
  Militant Atheism Deleted User 1 4,457 27-Nov-2012, 12:27 AM
Last Post: Captain Mandrake
  A documentary on the relation between religion, terrorists and financial organization fall13vox 2 3,753 17-Nov-2012, 11:21 PM
Last Post: fall13vox
  Karl Marx on criticism of religion madhav 1 10,868 29-Oct-2012, 07:08 AM
Last Post: Deleted User
  Why Atheism+ is need of the hour Kanad Kanhere 0 2,902 08-Sep-2012, 07:50 PM
Last Post: Kanad Kanhere
  How can religion be made to finally disappear? madhav 8 7,149 12-Jul-2012, 06:48 PM
Last Post: nick87



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)