Howdy
#1
Hi folks:

I am a theist - in love with Hindu philosophy. None of the other religious philosophies can even come close. It is a no contest. Thumbup

OTOH, atheists provide nice counter-arguments but no actual arguments that establish their position. The usual counter-arguments do not seal the deal, IMO.

What are the specific reasons posters here are against Hindu philosophy?
Reply
#2
Science-denial, pseudoscience, stifling orthodoxy and supremacism have all too often been peddled here under the ostensible guise of 'Hindu philosophy', which members here have little patience for. Consider consulting item # 7 in the forum rules that suggests an alternative venue for the sort of exercise you propose.
[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#3
I am fine with your linking me to other of your posts, but please provide context.

In any case, why would you impose the issue of beef-eating (that is an interesting moral issue in itself...why would we eat beef but not fellow humans?), speed of light in the Vedas, arranged marriages and caste here. Are these all the issues you think Hinduism is about?
Reply
#4
(25-Jun-2012, 11:52 PM)KalBhairav Wrote: I am fine with your linking me to other of your posts, but please provide context.

In any case, why would you impose the issue of beef-eating (that is an interesting moral issue in itself...why would we eat beef but not fellow humans?), speed of light in the Vedas, arranged marriages and caste here. Are these all the issues you think Hinduism is about?

As for meat-eating, here is a discussion devoid of the sanctimonious certitudes that religious prohibitionists of certain kinds of meat stifle the debate with. Religion in the abattoir
The posts linked to earlier were intended to be case studies of the sort of debate NOT encouraged here, namely the ones with supernatural assumptions and supremacist assertions of the 'None of the other religious philosophies can even come close. It is a no contest.' variety. Hence the suggestion of a more suitable venue.
[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#5
I did not bring up the issue of beef-eating. You did in your opening post in this thread.

Well, theism is definitely supernaturalistic. If no discussion of that sort is allowed here, I will bid adios. I do not post often on FB.

In your opening post, the supremacy you were referring to was the caste system (which btw exists among Indian Muslims and Xians also, and has existed in a different name/form in capitalistic and socialistic setups too). Now, however, you accuse me of making a supremacist assertion when I say "None of the other religious philosophies can even come close. It is a no contest." How are the two equivalent, pray tell me. Do you not feel atheism is superior to theism?
Reply
#6
(26-Jun-2012, 12:22 AM)KalBhairav Wrote: I did not bring up the issue of beef-eating. You did in your opening post in this thread.

Well, theism is definitely supernaturalistic. If no discussion of that sort is allowed here, I will bid adios. I do not post often on FB.

In your opening post, the supremacy you were referring to was the caste system (which btw exists among Indian Muslims and Xians also, and has existed in a different name/form in capitalistic and socialistic setups too). Now, however, you accuse me of making a supremacist assertion when I say "None of the other religious philosophies can even come close. It is a no contest." How are the two equivalent, pray tell me. Do you not feel atheism is superior to theism?

The point is that members of this forum are not obliged to provide 'equal time' to a worldview which they find opposed to theirs, on grounds of reason and compassion rather than faith, authority, revelation or tradition. If the 'Hindu philosophy' you espouse is free of the pre-occupations with notions of inherited merit and bovine exceptionalism that characterize the most commonly encountered manifestations of practiced Hinduism, then it is not representative enough of ground realities to merit the investment of time in engagement by rationalist debaters. If still interested in seeing these issues spelt out in a Q&A form, here is an exchange outlining what freethinkers stand for vis-a-vis the faithful and more usefully, here is a questionnaire for Hindu apologists to help clarify whether indeed your supposedly sanitized 'philosophical' version is free of the faults that rankle rationalists.
[+] 4 users Like arvindiyer's post
Reply
#7
(25-Jun-2012, 10:18 PM)KalBhairav Wrote: What are the specific reasons posters here are against Hindu philosophy?

There are many, a majority of which you will find here. Though they don't explicitly deal with Hindu philosophy, they are a result of it.
Reply
#8
(26-Jun-2012, 06:23 AM)Lije Wrote:
(25-Jun-2012, 10:18 PM)KalBhairav Wrote: What are the specific reasons posters here are against Hindu philosophy?

There are many, a majority of which you will find here. Though they don't explicitly deal with Hindu philosophy, they are a result of it.

This is a claim that needs substantiation. So, I look forward to seeing you establish the causal chain from "Hindu philosophy" (as you understand it) to its purported effects.
Reply
#9
(26-Jun-2012, 12:43 AM)arvindiyer Wrote:
(26-Jun-2012, 12:22 AM)KalBhairav Wrote: I did not bring up the issue of beef-eating. You did in your opening post in this thread.

Well, theism is definitely supernaturalistic. If no discussion of that sort is allowed here, I will bid adios. I do not post often on FB.

In your opening post, the supremacy you were referring to was the caste system (which btw exists among Indian Muslims and Xians also, and has existed in a different name/form in capitalistic and socialistic setups too). Now, however, you accuse me of making a supremacist assertion when I say "None of the other religious philosophies can even come close. It is a no contest." How are the two equivalent, pray tell me. Do you not feel atheism is superior to theism?

The point is that members of this forum are not obliged to provide 'equal time' to a worldview which they find opposed to theirs, on grounds of reason and compassion rather than faith, authority, revelation or tradition. If the 'Hindu philosophy' you espouse is free of the pre-occupations with notions of inherited merit and bovine exceptionalism that characterize the most commonly encountered manifestations of practiced Hinduism, then it is not representative enough of ground realities to merit the investment of time in engagement by rationalist debaters. If still interested in seeing these issues spelt out in a Q&A form, here is an exchange outlining what freethinkers stand for vis-a-vis the faithful and more usefully, here is a questionnaire for Hindu apologists to help clarify whether indeed your supposedly sanitized 'philosophical' version is free of the faults that rankle rationalists.

As far as I can see, there seems to be a general reluctance to allow representation from the other side. While Hindu philosophy is grounded on faith, scripture and tradition, it can be established on purely rational grounds ALSO. Also, please refrain from putting forth false dichotomies "reason and compassion" versus "faith, authority, revelation or tradition". The two are not mutually exclusive.

Regarding inherited merit - Karma - it is one of the key metaphysical premises of Hinduism. But this is related to the question of how God (assuming He/She/It) exists will allocate souls (assuming such a thing exists) to newborns. Absent Karma, one reduces God to an arbitrary being that does this allocation randomly. The only other alternative is Karma.

Regarding bovine exceptionalism - I have a personal question for you, if you do not mind. You have mentioned this on each of your posts in this thread. Do YOU personally like to eat beef? I believe there are places anywhere in India where beef for consumption can be obtained illegally. Do you want cow-slaughtering to be made legal in all states? Is that what you are arguing for? There are many other sources of nourishment available to Indians these days. Food Corporation of India has bumper procurement and its godowns are overflowing with food grains some of which unfortunately rot away due to lack of proper storage facilities. If the goal is to help nourish every Indian and eliminate starvation deaths, it is still possible without slaughtering cows. Cows are sacred for present-day Hindus. The reasons are many. We can get into it, if necessary, at a later stage. I just want to know what is the fundamental reason why you have a beef (no pun intended) with Hindus having a soft-corner for the cow. Huh
Reply
#10
Well, you have thrown open the board all gung ho to defeat us atheists with your arguing skills. The only problem is, we've had these arguments over, and over, and over again. Which is why I pointed you to a forum. It is upto you to go through it (and other forums here as well), rather than think you've moved your pawn and then wait in expectation that one of us to move our pawn. We have better things to do than play the same old boring game, unless you can come up with some original moves, which I think is highly unlikely. If you think that by saying so, I've forfeited the game, then yes, I've lost. These forums aren't run for winning games.
[+] 2 users Like Lije's post
Reply
#11
(26-Jun-2012, 09:13 AM)KalBhairav Wrote: I just want to know what is the fundamental reason why you have a beef (no pun intended) with Hindus having a soft-corner for the cow.

That bovine exceptionalism has more than once resulted in murderous excesses is reason enough for outrage from any humanist. My own dietary preferences have little to do with it.

(26-Jun-2012, 09:13 AM)KalBhairav Wrote: Also, please refrain from putting forth false dichotomies "reason and compassion" versus "faith, authority, revelation or tradition". The two are not mutually exclusive.

The primacy accorded to reason by the rationalists and the relegation of reason and even conscience by several influential spokespersons of the faithful into something overriden by tradition, render the two stances prima facie incompatible.

(26-Jun-2012, 09:13 AM)KalBhairav Wrote: Regarding inherited merit - Karma - it is one of the key metaphysical premises of Hinduism. But this is related to the question of how God (assuming He/She/It) exists will allocate souls (assuming such a thing exists) to newborns. Absent Karma, one reduces God to an arbitrary being that does this allocation randomly. The only other alternative is Karma.

'God' or 'karma' would be a called-for hypothesis if indeed some sort of Cosmic Justice were in evidence demanding an explanation, when one dispassionate admission obviates the need for any such explanation: that underlying the Universe is a blind, pitiless indifference.

Reply
#12
I hope this isn't off-topic GoodMorning, but I've always viewed the argument: " Hinduism is a philosophy; a way of life" as the same as Christianity's :" It's not a religion, but a personal relationship with God".
Any way you dice it, Hinduism as any other religion is not infallible and has its fair share of ethical and moral issues.

Kudos to the other users and mods for linking up to the various threads that discuss these issues. Also please allow me to point out that Double posting is generally not allowed and that users should practice good Net-tiquete and merge their posts.

Cheers,
Nick.
"It's alright, I rarely meet anyone who's able to read it properly. Although personally, I never thought that it to be an odd of a name. Once I give people the pronunciation, they tend to remember my name by easily associating me with it. A unique face, a unique moniker."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)