| Author | Message | ||
     Jkm Side Hero Username: Jkm Post Number: 2901 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 216.235.145.222 Rating: N/A |
 | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4230 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 68.206.110.236 Rating: N/A |
Not sure if this is always true- it depends on the atmosphere in the family - adi adagakoodadu apacharam anedi chala sarlu vinnanu outside my immediate family  BTW, thought you mentioned Atlantis sometime back ... My son and I were discussing random stuff - and he said Dolphins built Atlantis ..but we explored the idea with what if scenarios - what if Atlantis drowned and the progeny of the inhabitants evolved to survive under water? What would be a reasonable cause for mammals to be in the sea ? Dolphins do have a very evolved communication system.. and interestingly there is a freshwater dolphins in the Ganges I believe.. Wonder what secrets they hide - Matsya avatara ?aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1139 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 63.161.147.10 Rating: N/A |
i feel it is mainly because most believers follow traditions without questioning them. There are very few believers who know what they are doing, but most do not. When someone poses a question about their belief, their lack of knowledge about the traditions makes them very uncomfortable. I firmly believe you can be a believer and still question it(may be its partly because of my hindu up bringing), In christianity and Islam, questioning faith or tradition is considered heresy. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4229 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 68.206.110.236 Rating: N/A |
Cool - I do that too - and I have been told that cos I always talk about myself, my opinions and there are so many I's in my writing- I am an egoist - welcome to the club 
Absolutely You can only go against the flow if there is a flow in the first place
Is this because their beliefs are being questioned and they cannot blindly follow tradition ? Or because their scientific education conflicts with the belief system pushing believers towards agnosticism ? This is one aspect - but belief /faith gives a moral safety net , just like parents are a safety net for children - they trust they will be taken care of - which is a huge benefit that believers have and atheists don't, agnostics are not sure if they see a net - is it real or an illusion The tricks the mind plays on us aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1137 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 63.161.147.10 Rating: N/A |
Anand garu, definetly it is easier when there is no conflict, but doesnt the conflict arise based on the surroundings. Lets take an athiest, and if he is surrounded by athiests does he not have it easier, than a believer surrounded by athiests? In today's generation atleast believers, also are facing troubles carrying on with their faiths.
may be i should not have used fundametalist, but there are extremists in athiests too, i had them in mind when i compared with a religious fundametalist. I did not know the term for extremist in athiest:P
In my view Agnostics who do not put themselves the need to understand what they are, usually bend towards one of either athiests or believers. Usually they are bent towards belivers, but they are not sure if what they believe is correct or wrong. The agnostics I was talking about are the one's who believe that they can be wrong by chosing either way, as there is no definite answer yet. I am not sure if my point is clear.
thats the dilemma i was talking about, an agnostic will never know whether to pray or not to pray. sometimes he feels the need to pray, and sometimes he feels its silly to pray. thats the confusion i was referring to. though it appears as he does not have to care for it passionately either way, he is still caught up with the feeling that he is not fully happy with what he is. I did not feel that you asked me a personal question, but to carry on the discussion I had to put forth where I stand, as i cannot speak for others. Apologies antha pedha words avasaram ledhu lendi. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mrhyderabad Comedian Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 1701 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 167.230.38.118 Rating: N/A |
 Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... | ||
| Risingstar Side Hero Username: Risingstar Post Number: 8625 Registered: 08-2008 Posted From: 67.132.206.254 Rating: N/A |
 Now everybody will use Colour Paper & Colour TV in Toilet | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4225 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 68.206.110.236 Rating: N/A |
Sorry - got busy yesterday - ippudu chestanu aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mrhyderabad Comedian Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 1700 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 167.230.38.118 Rating: N/A |
Edo article email chestha annaru? Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4224 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 68.206.110.236 Rating: N/A |
' I guess my definition of a fundamentalist is different from yours which is why when you put them in the same bracket - I though it was unfair. I like the way you described the challenges each group faces...I have all of them in my close family and in watching them , I feel people who follow tradition without questioning have it the easiest, pain comes from conflict... Agnostics are under no pressure to understand either, unless they put it on themselves...they tend to take the path of least resistance as they do not passionately care either way...and like you said they gravitate towards one or the other in the end.. Ritualistic marriage chesukovatam, rituals perform cheyyatam for others ok - I know many atheists/agnostics who will sit thru a puja for the spouse I myself do the temple rituals, volunteer at the temple, sponsor pujas to support the temple etc. for the kids so they understand and have their options open...I personally do not believe in ritualistic prayer/worship..but roju deepam pedatanu, harathi istanu..ritual is for the kids/husband, dhyanam is for me My question was do the agnostics personally pray/worship at all - what drives whether they do or don't- isn't that making a choice in itself...It was not meant as a question to you personally ...I apologise if it came out that way
Agree on that - spirituality does not need to be theistic, infact I would go so far as to say it is very much removed from religion aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1136 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 63.161.147.10 Rating: N/A |
Anand garu, I cannot answer for everybody, but to me it is more like a restless journey, I have identified many schools of thought that i am comfortable with, one of them is athiesm. but in many spiritual schools, athiesm is not very far. for instance to me advaitha philosophy advocates athiesm but in a different form. this probably is the most comfortable with. coming to devotional procedures, following traditions like marriage, or performing a gruha pravesha are more cultural bindings to me, rather than some religious manifestations in the procedure. it is just not the agnostics, most athiests do not mind getting married according to religious principles either. agnostics as far as i know , have their own view on everything, there is no common back ground among agnostics. some believe life after death(speaking of hindu's), some dont. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1135 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 63.161.147.10 Rating: |
anand garu, i am not sure if i sounded negative against athiests, but i admire the strength of each of the type. the only issue i faced with an atiest is usually, they are rigid enough similar to a religiously bent person, usually they are also as closed to discussions, to me there is no difference between a person who argues saying whether there is god, or who says there is no god. i can argue both ways, and i am at home with both arguments. each of this groups athiests, believers, agnostics all need their own strengths. athiests, like you pointed need mental strength to believe that whatever they do they are on their own, but they also have flexibility in areas where they do not have to concern with moralities, restrictions based on religions. it is more of their conscience. believers have some sort of mental support that everything will turn out good by the grace of god. but they also need strength and the resolve not to step out of the restrictions placed by the religion, it is not as easy as it appears. infact most believers choose a life style, that is defined only for them, by bending the laws of the religion of what they believe in. there is a constant urge in them to find the sense of belonging to that particular group. agnostics need their own strength, as they do not belong anywhere. they are under constant pressure to understand the situation, usually they are more like athiests in that they believe that they are on their own, but they tend to tie up themselves with the moralities related to a religion. since they are confused most times, they usually tend to continue to struggle to figure out what they are, most eventually end up being athiests or believers, unable to find an answer for a question which has never been answered, or might never be answered. they usually become an athiest or believer not because they found answers, but they chose the one that matches their life style and thought process. the reason i might have sounded a wee bit against athiests, is that the people i have interacted with usually question the belief that "there is GOD", but they are not open to question the belief that "There is no GOD?". to an agnostic both are unanswered questions. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Unknown Junior Artist Username: Unknown Post Number: 400 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 71.57.54.110 Rating: |
bedar..I did not read it completely..but it is the same view I also have on God..I am not athiest or strong believer..I say there is SOMETHING..it is still Unknwon. Scientists are trying to explain this puzzle logically with experiments and proofs. I am believe they will NOT be able to conclude anything in next million years.. Religious people...created a package that works for everyone..chanda maama raave jaabilli raave ani thalli pillaliki manchi abaddaalu cheppi pani kaanicchinatlugaa...religions do the same for adults..nothing different... Neither scients/athiests nor religious people are correct or know it completely.. One thing that is correct is what we see in this universe...can anyone explain how this is created to start with... its back to square one..its a never ending discussion.. okadu chukkalu lekka petti total yenno cheputhaa antaadu.. inkokadu chukkalu mottham ivey..noru moosukoni vinu antaadu.. evaru right evaru wrong..evadu cheppagaladu..  | ||
| Mrhyderabad Comedian Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 1690 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 98.221.99.83 Rating: N/A |
 Thank you !! Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4214 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 68.206.110.236 Rating: N/A |
Well they are progressive - not tied to the beliefs handed down to them - they have moved on while the others have stayed rooted in the past......and maybe that is a perception issue from the believers point of view as well However,atheism is hardly new - it has existed/thrived since times immemorial as well I personally have a lot of respect for atheists - they need to have the mental and emotional strength to deal with the fact that everything is their doing - there is no escape clause like "God/Fate willed it otherwise"...which we believers take refuge in and find solace in when things do not go our way ... I am always confused as to how agnostics act - do they follow devotional practices or don't they ? If they choose a path why do they do so ? aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1133 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 75.139.40.4 Rating: N/A |
anand garu, I am not against athiests, I treat them equally, but so far among the people I have interacted, athiests tend to picture themselves progressive, and talking about religion or god to them is dwelling in the past. arrogance wise, religious conservatives are usually more fixated, and give no room to any sort of arguments or discussions. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mallik Side Hero Username: Mallik Post Number: 5348 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 162.116.29.69 Rating: N/A |
"The couple will care for their offspring more, and strive to make them good citizens, which ultimately benefits the society. The society incorporates in to the conscience of the people, how they should train the children, so that they are maximum useful to the society. "  In this db, there's always someone watching you!!  | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4213 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
I think this is true of either end of the spectrum - that people believe their idea is more evolved, why else would they believe it so passionately..so may be you are being a wee bit unfair to atheists The difference is atheists feel free to question belief and ask for rational answers in ways many God-fearing theists are afraid to.. aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1132 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 63.161.147.10 Rating: |
It is just that the author is speaking of GOD as to entire human civilization has accepted as one concept. There are more schools of thought that define GOD as not something that not either an entity with powers or with a need to fear this GOD, but as a mere observation of the universe in a more empirical or meta physical view. GOD in these schools of thought is completely different as to what the author is speaking about. Like I said, the author's point of view is usually the first step when one tries to understand how GOD must have evolved as a part of myths. definitely, there is no convincing reasoning as to which school of thought is more evolved. Paradoxically, an athiest offers the same number of questions or instances to prove that there is no physical or meta-physical entity(just like how the author says about believers "When certain individuals question the existence of god, the enforcers counter them with questions beyond anyones comprehension, like, what runs the world ") , but no concrete proof. But somehow most athiest's believe that their ideas are more evolved, than the rest of the proponents. I am neither an athiest, nor a believer, I do not know where i stand , i am not able to comprehend myself. To me an athiest is no different than a religious fundamentalist, both offer the same, questions and instances to drive their point, but no credible explanation. until something gets proved either way, i think i will remain confused. coming back to the article, i understand the author's point of view, and ofcourse there is no denying that he has given a good overview of how "God"(according to him) might have evolved. but to me this article seems to be very basic. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mrhyderabad Comedian Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 1688 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 167.230.38.118 Rating: N/A |
I guess you didn't read the article completely  The whole article is about how he thinks "GOD" has been created. When he thinks that concept of GOD has been "created" by humans.. what else does he need to explain. Or am i missing anything? Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4210 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
I agree Style without substance aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Comedian Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 1131 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 63.161.147.10 Rating: N/A |
I think this article summarizes the first step in evolution of individuals thought process on good. Good writeup, but not much impressive content wise. First of all, the author need to explain what he thinks GOD is, if someone really wants to delve into this area, first they need to give a clear definition of what/who they think GOD is. The first usual impression of GOD is a physical entity with magical powers, but usually most people cross the realm of this definition fairly quickly, and new questions and conceptions arise. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mrhyderabad Comedian Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 1686 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 167.230.38.118 Rating: N/A |
Sure... TIA Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4200 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
This is the oldest theory of evolution of God and Religion..the idea that man made God..to explain the unproven and drive social behavior. I agree with the religion part and how people defined/packaged God thru the ges to suit the society However ,the theories do not prove/disprove the existence of God... If you are interested, I hava a rather long,but very well-written article on this theory - I can email it to you ... aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mrhyderabad Comedian Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 1677 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 167.230.38.118 Rating: N/A |
 Do you agree with any part of it? Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 4196 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Pretty good write-up - RGV anukunta kada raasindi ? aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Mrhyderabad Comedian Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 1674 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 167.230.38.118 Rating: N/A |
GOD - Origin of the Idea and Necessity (Ignore the author... check the content) Man, as he was endowed with intelligence, unlike the animals, began to think. He got curious about his surroundings and himself. He was bewildered by the things that were out of his reach, like the sun, the moon, the stars etc., and was amazed by the power of the wind which he couldnt see. Whenever he came across things like gigantic mountains, he was in awe of their size. Whenever strange phenomenon occurred in the atmosphere, such as the thunderstorms etc, he used to be scared of the immense power they exhibited. Slowly, an idea originated in him that there is a power whose magnitude is beyond his comprehension and that everyone and everything is negligible in comparison to it. In addition to his interest in his surroundings, he slowly began to think about himself and ask questions like, why he was born, the purpose of life, what death is, etc. But it was beyond his understanding. So, whatever was beyond his reach and understanding, he attributed it to a supreme force. But, at this point, this force or more correctly, his belief in the force didnt in any way affect him. He just acknowledged its presence and feared its power. He christened this force as god. As man grew intelligent, he realized that dominance of other animals will improve his standard for which, strength is needed and strength was in numbers. When the numbers increased, in order to maintain unity among a large number of people, he needed a force, and here, the force god began affecting his life. In ancient times, when men used to live in small groups, each group was led by the strongest man in the group. By the means of his physical strength, he used to command the group. Like in all pack animals, the others in the group acknowledge his strength and fear him. They abide by his orders and take shelter in his strength against their enemies. They respect his ability to protect them. But, as the numbers grew, the same rule that the strongest man will dominate did not work. For, in large number of people, it is difficult for one man to take control, as his physical prowess is limited. It was impossible for him to control every individual. Also, in relation to the number of people, the number of strong people also grew. These started having following of their own, which created fractions and the group inevitably split into smaller groups. As there was strong need for unity, men have to stick to some standards. But, these have to be implemented by a superior force. Here, the force of a one man or a group of men will not be sufficient, as it is limited. To make the people stick to some standards, fear and respect should be induced in them. This can be done only by a supreme force whose magnitude can never be understood fully. People will allow the rules set forth by this force, and some like the kings and priests will see that they are doing it correctly. The creation of priests and such people was inevitable as it will be difficult for the rulers alone to maintain faith among the people. A ruler, as he has to attend to many aspects, inevitably mixes with the people and in times of need, he himself has to bend or break the laws. This results in a loss of faith among people. So, there was a need for separate department to look after this problem, and here the priests and such people came into the picture. In the way he dresses, behaves and speaks, he creates an aura of mystery around him. Here, it is not said that it is the plan of an individual or a group of individuals to implement this. It is all a process developed in steps as per the necessity of the prevailing circumstances. When certain individuals question the existence of god, the enforcers counter them with questions beyond anyones comprehension, like, what runs the world ….? ..etc. Also, in order to stunt such thoughts, fear is induced in them. They proceed to describe in detail, the power of god. They frighten the people by saying things like; they would be struck down by lightning if they persisted in entertaining such thoughts or if they break any laws set by the religion. But, as intelligence in people grew, this was not able to satisfy people that god will punish them if they committed any wrongs. This was disproved by their observation that even when certain individuals committed any wrongs, they were going unpunished. So they began to doubt the enforcers of god, and this started them thinking again. So, in order to stop such thought, a master stroke of brain created heaven and hell. Heaven was described as divine place where you went if you did everything good in your lifetime, believed in god, and strictly adhered to the principles of concerned religion. In the Hindu mythology, the bait offered was beautiful women like Rambha, Urvashi, etc; and in addition, good liquor. As these are the greatest pleasures in our knowledge, it was beyond their imagination to offer greater pleasures. Similarly, as they were incapable of imagining greater pain than that is caused by burning, lashing, etc, they frightened the people that they will be eternally tortured in hell if they did not trust in god. But here, there was a problem that if an individual did anything wrong, he will think that as he had already been condemned to hell, he will continue doing things as per his liking. So, quickly, provisions were made that the duration in hell and heaven depends on the number of good things that you have done in your life. By this, the individual was given a chance to reform himself and again walk in the religious path and thus make use of the chance that has been given to him. As hell and heaven were beyond people’s reach, their existence can neither be confirmed not denied. As people were already curious about what lies after death, they took this theory, as there was no alternative easy to understand explanation. When a few individuals still insisted in pursuing truth, they were condemned by the society, which was led to believe that only because of such people there is misery in this world. These people, whenever discovered, were punished ruthlessly and examples were set with them. The people who inflicted punishments claimed that god himself was punishing those people through them. These people could not retaliate as they were less in number. So finally the majority of people surrendered their thoughts and the remaining few surrendered to the coercive powers of the majority. As it was stated earlier, in order to improve standard of living, there was a need for a large number of people to be united. It is because when men lived in small groups they used to hunt for their food. Here, there was the necessity of everyone hunting as one could not sit idly or he will be left without food. But if the people were more in number, there was a scope for learning other things, instead of hunting alone. Because, here, as there are a large number of people some of them can experiment on new things such as agriculture etc, while they are fed by other people. With this, knowledge in various fields will be advanced. And with the invention of writing, this knowledge was stored in the form of books. The greatest advantage of writing is that the generation can start developing from where the previous generation left off. They need no go to the trouble of learning everything again by themselves. With the help of a book, one was able to learn in a few days, which many people took their lifetime to find. Religion helped a lot in maintaining unity in the society. Certain principles were set, which would benefit the social progress. It was stated that men should help each other and such other things. This helps in a stronger binding in the society between the individuals. Also, the animal in the man with its instinct to get whatever it needs by means of its physical strength will turn violent at times. To curb this, it was induced in to him that hurting or killing another man is a sin. But here, there was a danger of the fighting ability of the man being dulled, as he begins to detest it. But the society needs it at times, such as a foreign invasion. So they exploited the fighting instinct in man, only as long as it benefits society by inducing in to him patriotism, and urging him to fight the evil in the society, evil in the sense of whatever is antisocial Regarding the sexual relations, there were no restrictions during the pre-historic times, just like there were no restrictions in the animals. But it was realized that restrictions were necessary for maintaining a strong bond between the individuals. For example, if sexual relations were restricted between a man and a woman by means of marriage, the attachment between them grows by means of their love or by the force of the virtue. The couple will care for their offspring more, and strive to make them good citizens, which ultimately benefits the society. The society incorporates in to the conscience of the people, how they should train the children, so that they are maximum useful to the society. Also, a society needed strong and healthy people. Weak and unhealthy people burden the society and hinder its progress. So, whenever there was a chance of such procreation, it was stopped. As a result, incest and such things were banned and termed as sin. But, here too, the rules were flexible depending on the religion and the personal whims of the people who set them forth. So, everything that benefited the society and promoted its progress was termed as virtue or moral and virtuous people were said to be the chosen favorites of god and a place was reserved for them in heaven. And, whatever was anti-social and worked towards the deterioration of the society was termed as sin. The sinners were supposed to face the wrath of the god and condemned to hell. And so, the people lived under the shadow of god, some of them believing, some of them fearing and some others fearing the some who believed. Whatever the reason is, this ultimately resulted in a society where everyone lived for one another and accelerated social progress and giving themselves a better standard of living. Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... |
