Me and Amit have been having this debate since the past 2 and a half years now. It’s on the existence of god … I take the side of the theists and Sharma takes the side of the atheists. In fact he has gotten so good at that that by now he is a moderator in one of such inane communities. I just believe in god. I cant prove god’s existence, its a premise for me. And its blind acceptance to that fact.
This weekend, I had been to my family’s guru’s ashram. I was going there after an absence of 12 years (not that I missed not going there). Whilst on the way, I was questioning the many practices followed there … no leather items, lower castes may not enter certain areas, lower castes have to wait for the brahmins to finish their meals, et al. My mother seemed to take this to heart, the next day when we were having a discussion with the high priest over there, she asked him this question about why no leather … and the explanation he gave … or rather the answer he gave set me thinking.
The disciple does not have to look at question or logic for answers, he needs to look at his faith for those answers. The moment we start looking at other sources than our own faith, we have lost our faith in that particular thing. Be it god, be it science, be it the paranormal. Mulder had faith in aliens, Scully had faith in science, I have faith in god … what do you have faith in?
The question Aunty should have asked should have been pertaining to the lower castes and not leather one (thats pretty obvious – leather comes from animals, and We are not supposed to kill animals).
Also, here is one point for your debate (if not already thought about) – believe in God, not in organized religion which is a man made thing. Religion should have rules, not laws.
The question Aunty should have asked should have been pertaining to the lower castes and not leather one (thats pretty obvious – leather comes from animals, and We are not supposed to kill animals).Also, here is one point for your debate (if not already thought about) – believe in God, not in organized religion which is a man made thing. Religion should have rules, not laws.
Let us look at it from a business perspective. Let us say we have two conglomerates, religion and reason!
what each looks for is customer faith or trust or loyalty or whatever we choose to call it! To win faith, religion conglomerate successfully launched GOD many centuries ago. And boy, did it sell. In order to compete with religions growing popularity with GOD and to counter the same, Reason Conglomerate launched SCIENCE. With Brand Ambassadors like Copernicus and Galileo to begin with, slowly but surely, Reason seemed to have garnered their market segment.
well i was just trying to draw a parallel for the sake of an argument,and this comment has turned out to be a blog entry by itself. he he! But yes, I believe Faith is good! Be it in god, science, society, life, nature, booze or whatever we choose.
Let us look at it from a business perspective. Let us say we have two conglomerates, religion and reason!what each looks for is customer faith or trust or loyalty or whatever we choose to call it! To win faith, religion conglomerate successfully launched GOD many centuries ago. And boy, did it sell. In order to compete with religions growing popularity with GOD and to counter the same, Reason Conglomerate launched SCIENCE. With Brand Ambassadors like Copernicus and Galileo to begin with, slowly but surely, Reason seemed to have garnered their market segment.well i was just trying to draw a parallel for the sake of an argument,and this comment has turned out to be a blog entry by itself. he he! But yes, I believe Faith is good! Be it in god, science, society, life, nature, booze or whatever we choose.
@ashish – Yes, my mom should have but its kind of a futile effort, plus she knew that our guru used deer skin … so that was worth a shot.
@sudhir – awesome parallel!! drove the point home sirji :-) … liked the last line the best .. I guess Ill take up bacchanalia soon!!
I don’t agree to Sudhir on the ‘reason launched science’.
Whatever knowledge you obtain that is observable, verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable is science. It is not a certain holy book or ‘holy concept’ that is sacrosanct.
That is a strawmen certain theists use to try to validate their faith. (Sorry Kida for starting again :D)
And yes, I also think auntie should have talked about the caste discrimination… which place is this that discriminates based on caste in 2008, and you, an engineer, a IIM-ite, an epicurean, and a Rand fan went there and did not raise dissent? :o
@lucifer – thanks for the comments :-)). As I said, its futile to raise your voice … the whole point of faith is that … undeniably accepting the things without question … I am trying my hand at it. Regarding asking questions against this, why do you think I had not gone there for the last 12 years :-). The earlier comment, bhavnaao ko samjho … lets not get too specific here :-) … yeah and a linkback would be preferred once in a blue moon as well!!
Faith does not mean undeniably accepting the things WITHOUT questions. But if you are adamant, question the “protectors of the faith” if not faith itself.
Yes I agree to ashish here. If people wouldn’t ever question anything or anyone related to faith, then be prepared to have caste discrimination, child abuse in churches, devdasis, sati etc and not do/say something about it. Have to have a rationality check on everything you do. Having faith of your own, ie personal faith is not bad. It is when you don’t have faith and are expected to try and have it or worse still act like you have it, just to conform. That was my case before I declared to my parents that I don’t have it.
@ashish – See, this is as I see it. If you do not have faith, then you will ask for reason … and yes, the protectors of faith often need to be questioned from keeping them astray
@lucifer – If you do not have faith and are still conforming to the norms, then you are not being true to thyself. And it is a good thing you chose not to adhere to the norms put forth on you.
Btw, Amit meet Ashish and Aina meet Lucifer.
Hi lucifer!! Nice name for a guy with out faith. But then if there is no faith, then there is no Lucifer to tempt us. Something like “The Grandfather paradox”?
@ashish – hahaha .. good one … amit, go figure! why do I think this is going to be one hornets’ nest
Ha ha… Hi Aina.
Well if I do not have faith, the name does not have weird connotations for me. I like the sound of it, and the meaning – bearer of light. Hence.
@lucifer – bearer of light or faith? :-)
i got faith in myself than these lame retro superstitions.btw you can anyday wear patent-leather for it is man-made:P doesnt have the animal hide.hehe
I really wish caste thingie evaporates by the end of this summer.Well this kind of myth or superstition is positive,wht say?:P
@ vyshale – That thought came in my mind as well (besides, you cant really tell real leather from patent one by just giving it a glance) :-))
That’s an interesting concept, why cant the rationalists of the world be ignorant about the other ignoramuses of the world :-)
light. bearer of faith is good ol’ Jeebus :P
now about why the rationalists can’t be ignorant of something… we (ahemm) are the enlightened lot, and being enlightened is the opposite of being ignorant. so there.
(I know there would be a word-meaning-based CP from you on ‘enlightened’ and ‘ignorant’, but it’s worth the risk ;) )
@lucifer – think more closely on the word play :-) and the CP will become more clear to you!