Typical reactions to criticism of God / Godmen

[Krishna]

Below are some typical reactions from the "men / women of God" when faced with uncomfortable questions / criticism.

A) Put down the questioner

1) You are just a bachcha (kid) in the field of Spirituality - better keep your mouth shut rather than intrude into our (badey-log, big people, adults) conversations !

2) You have too much ego! That's why you are asking such questions. Be careful. By asking such questions or even by entertaining such thoughts, you are hindering your own spiritual growth!

3) You are jealous - that's why you criticize! (this is typically directed towards the followers of another Guru or Cult)

B) Threaten the questioner

1) God will punish you if you criticize!

2) You will rot in hell!

3) Your chances of God Realization will be lost forever !!!

4) Beware of the Guru's anger - you could be burnt to ashes !!!

C) Pose as the hurt party / martyr

1) You don't love me any more! (If the follower begins to question some unacceptable behaviour on the part of the Guru)

2) If nothing else works in shutting up the criticizer, then the criticized person poses as a martyr ... "even Jesus Christ was criticized by the Romans and then they crucified him" !! (the implication here is .. "see, even I am being criticized just like Jesus was .. therefore, I too am a very exalted spiritual being"!!!)

D) Leave it to God

1) Finally, if nothing works in shutting up the questioner, make God responsible - The Lord tolerates anything, even things which damage His Personality

2) God Himself will give you a convincing reply in His own mysterious way.

---------------

Interested readers are invited to add more examples to this list.

[Lije]

Good list Krishna. These are some reactions that I've experienced:

1. Did you read the book? The meaning can only be understood if you read it in Sanskrit.
2. You and your science! Can science prove XYZ? No? Then it is useless. The scriptures have all the answers.
3. Things have this way for thousands of years. Do you think you are so smart that you can question them?
4. Some ancient Indian philosophies are actually quite interesting. Believers quote some profound statements from them and argue that since some statements are true, all other statements are also true.

[Ajita Kamal]

This is an interesting thread, Krishna. Much of these arguments are filled with logical fallacies. Unfortunately, most Indians seem to be unaware of how to carry on a rational conversation. For example..

Quote:Below are some typical reactions from the "men / women of God" when faced with uncomfortable questions / criticism.

A) Put down the questioner

This is the ad hominem fallacy.

Quote:B) Threaten the questioner

The appeal to fear (argumentum ad metum)

Each case can be further broken down, because there are actually multiple logical fallacies going on here (logical fallacies overlap quite a bit). Over the past 3 years I have heard every single logical fallacy from believers!

[Krishna]

(31-Mar-2010, 09:15 PM)Lije Wrote: Good list Krishna. These are some reactions that I've experienced:

1. Did you read the book? The meaning can only be understood if you read it in Sanskrit.
2. You and your science! Can science prove XYZ? No? Then it is useless. The scriptures have all the answers.
3. Things have this way for thousands of years. Do you think you are so smart that you can question them?
4. Some ancient Indian philosophies are actually quite interesting. Believers quote some profound statements from them and argue that since some statements are true, all other statements are also true.

Thank you for the inputs Lije.

E) Refer to the Holy Book / Way of Life ...

1) It says so in the Book .. so that's that!!!

2) Our own Guru's interpretation of that passage is correct, that other fellow (rival Guru) is a fool!

;)

[Krishna]

Quote:This is an interesting thread, Krishna. Much of these arguments are filled with logical fallacies.

Thank you Ajita. My intention was to list out these arguments in layman terms and also attempt to add some humor to it in the process.

Quote:Unfortunately, most Indians seem to be unaware of how to carry on a rational conversation.

Maybe we need to first of all unlearn the art of irrational conversation and then graduate to learning the science of rational conversation.

Quote: Over the past 3 years I have heard every single logical fallacy from believers!

Please do write about these fallacies from believers. Knowing these would go a long way in helping one to get over them, if they are willing.

[Ajita Kamal]

Quote:Thank you Ajita. My intention was to list out these arguments in layman terms and also attempt to add some humor to it in the process.

I completely agree. We need simple and easy to understand explanations of the religious arguments, because the primary purpose of the arguments are to confuse us! Adding humor is a good idea. I would add that when we attempt to list these arguments we can make use of the detailed categorization and study done by many researchers before us. This is why it is useful to study logical fallacies. Many of them may have Latin names and sound complicated, but they are very pertinent to this matter of understanding why these religious arguments are erroneous.

Quote:Please do write about these fallacies from believers. Knowing these would go a long way in helping one to get over them, if they are willing.

A comprehensive list of fallacies can be found here, compiled by Don Lindsay.

A shorter list of 20 of the most commonly used fallacies was posted by the makers of the SGU podcast, here.

We're thinking of starting a separate forum for logic and debate, in the philosophy section. What do you guys think?

[Sal]

(01-Apr-2010, 04:57 PM)Ajita Kamal Wrote: We're thinking of starting a separate forum for logic and debate, in the philosophy section. What do you guys think?

This is a good idea, Ajita. Maybe you can start a section for debating religious arguments by studying logical fallacies.

Sal

[K. P. S. Kamath]

Here is typical Brahmanic response to criticism of Hinduism, most of which have been noted by members above. Ajita brought this to my attention. This Brahmanic loyalist's response to my articles in Nirmukta:



1. Personal Attacks: "The author is a brahmin by birth but is throwing gas all around." (Obviously there is a lot of Brahmanic gas out there!)

2. Degrading the attacker: "This just goes to prove that a brahmin is not a brahmin by birth. This dingaling author writing against brahmins and against hindus shows the character of a chandala." (He forgot that Shankaracharya fell at the feet of a Chandala when the latter pointed out the former's hypocricy).

3. Brainwashing by a Guru is a must to study the Bhagavad Gita: "Whoever taught him a little of bhagavat and gita should have rejected him as a student based on his true varna." (This man still hangs on to the Varna system!!!!)

4. The technical mistake tactic: "The author has made several technical mistakes which is a waste of time to correct them. If it was one or two mistakes possibly it would have been worth it."

5. Atheists are not able to understand the "deep philosophy" of Hinduism: "The problem with these atheists is that they know somethings here and there about texts like bhagavat and gita to malign them, but do not know the true purport of the verses. They pick only those things which they like to criticize. (At last some admission that there are some chinks in their armor)

6. Accusing dissenters as suffering from Ahamkara (egoism): "Then they give an impression as though they know everything." (This is Brahmanism's Brahmmastra).

7. Dismissing the argument by branding: "The good thing about the author is even though he is a confirmed jackass, he is quite straight forward. He an out and out rationalist (still biased) and does not hide behind any other philosophy like judaism, bahaism, hedonism, history, science, or buddhism.

[Krishna]

Quote:6. Accusing dissenters as suffering from Ahamkara (egoism): "Then they give an impression as though they know everything." (This is Brahmanism's Brahmmastra).

The Sanyasi's Brahmastra: "You are too worldly-minded to understand the deep spiritual truths!"

[shobhitg]

Some more....

A) Put down the questioner
If you don't understand, then don't argue.
Beta, you are young right now. You will understand by the time you grow older.

B) Threaten the questioner
When you will have serious issues in your life; then you will come to god. (Yes, I consider that as implicitly threatening me)

C) Pose as the hurt party / martyr

D) Leave it to God

E) Associate atheism with immorality
If you don't believe in god, then you go ahead and murder people around.

[K. P. S. Kamath]

Here is the discussion taken straight from http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/ which shows how Shankaracharya indulged in duplicity. This is the story of Satyakama Jabala in Chandogya Upanishad, which I discussed in one of my articles in Nirmukta. This is the story of an illegitimate young man born of a Dasi who goes to a broad-minded Guru and asks to be admitted as a student. The true intent of this story is to expose Brahmanic hypocrisy of birth, not character, as the criteria for admission. His mother tells him that she conceived him in the course of her service in her youth and that she does not know his father. Let us see how Shankaracharya distorts this story:

The writer states in the Hindudharmaforums blog:

"I am aware of the original Sanskrit text of the verse (Ch.Up.4.4.2), whose transliteration is as follows:

sA hainamuvAcha na aham etat veda tAta yadgotrastvamasi
bahvahaM charantI parichAriNI yauvane tvAmalabhe
sAhametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi jabAlA tu nAmAhamasmi
satyakAmo nAma tvamasi sa satyakAma eva jAbAlo
bravIthA iti || 4.4.2 ||

sA--she, enam--to him, uvAcha--said: "tAta--my child, tvam--you, yat-jotraH--of what lineage, asi--are, etat--this, aham--I, na veda--don't know. aham--I, bahu charanti--who was engaged in many works, parichAriNI--as a housemaid, yauvena--in my youth, tvAm--you, alabhe--got; sA--having been such, aham--I, tvam--you, yat-gotraH--of what lineage, asi--are, etat--this, na veda--could not know. aham--I, tu--however, jabAlA--JabAlA, nAma--by name, asmi--am, tvam--you, satyakAmaH--SatyakAma, nAma--named, asi--are. saH--that (so you), satyakAmaH--SatyakAma, jAbAlaH--JAbAla, eva--only as, bruvIthA--speak (of yourself).

2. She said to him, "My child, I do not know of what lineage you are. I, who was engaged in many works as a housemaid, got you in my youth. Having been such I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am JabAlA by name and you are named SatyakAma. So you speak of yourself only as SatyakAma JAbAla."

The write then states:

"The translation given above is typical and literal. The inferences vary due to the underlined line of the text."

Then he submits Shankaracharya’s twist on it:

"1. When her son asked her about his father, Jabala answered, "I don’t know in which gotra you were born."

2. Her son then asked, "Why don’t you know?" She answered, “I used to be engaged in my husband’s house. Then I was so busily engaged in household work, serving guests and so on, that I was too absorbed in service to remember things like the gotra.

3. Then I had you when you were still young and your father died. So now I am a widow and I don’t know your gotra.

What word in Shankara-bhAShya indicates that her husband died? It is 'alabha'--loss as against labha--gain; that is, she gained her son, but lost her husband.--sd

4. My name is Jabala and you are Satyakama. So you can tell your teacher that you are Jabala Satyakama (i.e. Satyakama, son of Jabala) when he asks you."

Shankaracharya simply cannot accept the reality that Jabala was thoroughly taken advantage of by all the upper class people in the course of her service in her youth. So he creates a father for Satyakama and even kills him in the process. Then he makes Jabasa say that she did not know Gotra of her husband. If this Dasi was married, how could she know the Gotra of her husband since he, like her, was a Sudra?

Shankaracharya got away with such deceptions all the way till the end.

[Krishna]

Quote: sA hainamuvAcha na aham etat veda tAta yadgotrastvamasi
bahvahaM charantI parichAriNI yauvane tvAmalabhe
sAhametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi jabAlA tu nAmAhamasmi
satyakAmo nAma tvamasi sa satyakAma eva jAbAlo bravIthA iti ||4.4.2||

The following is Max Muller's translation of the above stanza.

She said to him: 'I do not know, my child, of what family thou art. In my youth when I had to move about much as a servant (waiting on the guests in my father's house), I conceived thee. I do not know of what family thou art. I am Gabali by name, thou art Satyakama (Philalethes). Say that thou art Satyakama Gabala.'

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/upanishadindex.asp
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscript...ndogya.asp

In this translation, from where can "waiting on guests in my father's house" be inferred?