You & I will ruin the stereotype.Not me, I am not fun loving & good looking.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You & I will ruin the stereotype.Not me, I am not fun loving & good looking.
The 1=3 as the equation for Holy Trinity is justified by wave-particle duality.The problem is, a hypothesis really does need at least something to justify its very existence.
The Bible does not mention God? But how that verse: "In the Beginning God"?
Their parents.Who taught the first children? Who taught the first adults?
God is parent of Adam and Eve.Their parents.
Their parents.
Dawkins at al. have come only yesterday. India has a long history of atheism. As I mentioned, the oldest mention is in RigVeda which is about 3,000 years old. Then we had Buddha, Mahavira, Charvaks, Ajivakas, who were atheists, around 2,500 years ago. By the beginning of Christian era we had atheist philosophies like Samkhya (Nireeshwarvada - opinion that there is no God) and Vaisheshika, the Indian atomic theory of Kanada which also refuted existence of Gods. So, you cannot say that atheism has no history. It has a long history in India.
I too have read nothing by Western atheists except a book of essays by Bertrand Russell (which I liked very much). My atheism is rooted in Hindu and Buddhist philosophies.
Lastly, I am a practicing Hindu atheist. I believe in Advaita (non-duality), and my belief is closely related to the latest in science.
In this way, much of what you have said is your opinion and does not apply to me.
Templeton Foundation is basically a Christian organization. I get this from Wikipedia:
Perhaps they just want to belong to the popular crowd.
Everyone knows that atheists are all fun loving & good looking.
(Of course, they haven't yet met me.)
It all started with Neanderthals. They had some kind of religion. They put red ochre on their dead and even flower petals when they buried them.You hit the problem of infinite regress, because at some part of the past, there was no human parents, because there was no humans. So you are left with the problem, who taught the first humans religion.
That's the problem with God. What is the actual basis for the God hypothesis? "There's stuff, and we can't explain that. Therefore there must be a stuff-causer." Now, that may be an okay hypothesis, but you know utterly zilch about that stuff-causer. And yet, we call it God, and wonder-of-wonders, every god ever imagined by we naked beach apes has become in every sense "a person," a being with intelligence and purpose. And there is no reason whatsoever for that hypothesis.
It all started with Neanderthals. They had some kind of religion. They put red ochre on their dead and even flower petals when they buried them.
There are many theistic scientists, for example, Albert Einstein, Newton. Look for the list of Christians on Wikipedia. Thus, even a theist can mean something to an atheist.And how does it matter to me if Mr. A, B, or C is not an atheist. I am.
There are many theistic scientists, for example, Albert Einstein, Newton. Look for the list of Christians on Wikipedia. Thus, even a theist can mean something to an atheist.
I just do not know about Richard Dawkins. I have read his name mentioned as a leading atheist. You too mentioned his name in your post. Otherwise I would not have even talked about him. We have many Hindu atheists of our own, to name two, Gaudapada (Gaudapada) and the pupil of his pupil, the first Sankaracharya (Shankaracharya). We have various Upanishads which promote atheism and non-duality. I do not really need Richard Dawkins.I'm kinda confused of what the disagreement is. Unless you believe in Dawkins and feel he's the head guy of atheism, the only thing that sounds disagreeable is how science has anything to do with atheism. Even then, though, people come to or reasons they disbelieve in deities for many reasons. I'm not familiar with most Buddhist cultural concepts and no near Hinduism; so, I don't see where you're coming from.
Apparently his prize in physics doesn't extend to other areas.
I don't believe in things that lack reason & evidence.
Nothing unscientific about that.
He has personally rejected the claims, that he is an atheist. He has thought of the beauty and wisdom of the Creation as of something divine. He was not a pantheist, but he was a very special theist. He has invented his own way to be the theist. It is the way of joy standing before the Spirit of Science.Evidence that Albert Einstein was a theist.
I haven't. I merely say that there is quite literally nothing that would cause me to entertain that hypothesis.But claiming to know utterly zilch about that stuff-Causer, how can you declare in your heart that there is no God?
OKGod is parent of Adam and Eve.
The problem is that you don't understand evolution.You hit the problem of infinite regress, because at some part of the past, there was no human parents, because there was no humans. So you are left with the problem, who taught the first humans religion.