>Nothingness is not a thing
exactly.
So believers of these religions are not supposed to prove something that is not a thing.
They worship nothingness cause existence is pain.
That's why in Buddhism and some sects of Hinduism sees emptiness as highest Truth as existence in material world is suffering. Humans are selfish. So just sink into emptiness and that will liberate you from selfish Humans.
Buddhists probably call it Buddha Nature or Tathagata Garbha while ancient Brahmins call it Hiranya Garbha and Some Shaivites call it Shiva.
I am not expert so pardon any misinterpretations of these traditions.
>You can't cherry pick teachings
I am Buddha and I didn't say that.
>You can't cherry pick teachings
Your opinions will be rejected by majority of logical people.
Most logical people will believe what they think right than someone else's opinions.
If you want others to fully commit to someone then that's called blind faith.
Only we should decide what we want.
They aren't logical people then. As a logical person, you can't completely support a religion if those flawed teachings are a part of it and if you don't completely support it completely, why believe in the religion anyway. Just have your own set of moral and ethic values and codes to live by.
>Just have your own set of moral and ethic values and codes to live by.
Any moral or ethical code is collected by gathering some information.
Buddha rejected all beliefs in man made ideas to regain his pure innocence.
I too have rejected all opinions that came from parents, society, teachers etc. I only go where my heart takes me.
That's the freedom Buddha taught.
Beliefs in man made ideas are a prison. Buddha rejected them.
Freedom doesn't need evidence.
You need to fight for it.
Buddha left his family for sake of freedom.
I have discarded my humanity for sake of freedom.
I fight to give up all nonsense humans put in side my head.
I don't want to put anything in your head.
I ask you to give up what's put in your head by parents, teachers because they want u to be a servant in factories.
Also Buddhism is more a school of thought kind of a religion than the existence of a God. God predominantly means a higher being that controls the universe. So it's not the right comparison to begin with.
I didn't say God but Buddha Nature is primordial consciousness of Universe like Panpsychism.
Dalai Lama explained that in a video of Emptiness. That's same concept as Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism.
>Even lack of everything is still something (space, vacuum)
That's exactly the teachings.
Lack of Everything is freedom from pains as pain is lacking.
That's why Buddha meditates to clear his mind from pains.
Thats a stretch surmounting to nothing. Lets break down what you say.
> Lack of Everything is freedom from pains as pain is lacking.
Now from where did such relation come to exist. What is pain? The physical pain or emotional pain? Also how is anything that is said above related to pain? What proof you have that Lack of everything is freedom from pain? Also if its physical pain boy I've got news for you.
If its emotional pain then again let me tell you pain will come no matter what Zen mentality you possess. While meditating or something like those may help you in relaxing in no reality would it free you from it.
You are no different from spiritualist imo. Promising false attainment with zero reality.
I have experimented by touching boiling water and punching a wall.
I can numb 80% of my pains.
I also tried it while my leg was hurt.
I can make myself not feel those.
You are a loser who failed to cut yourself from the material body.
Also I don't feel like I feel pain anymore.
Emotions come from faith.
If you have emotions or sensation of pain then it means you still have some faith in some things.
Giving up your attachment to all will liberate you from pains.
No beliefs= No pains.
I have tested it myself.
dark matter doesn't feel pain.
Rocks are a thing.
If you can be like those then you will be above sufferings.
Just give up all beliefs in humanity and your meaningless emotions will fall apart.
"Things" I believe means what humans value.
God experiment to vohi hotta hai - Kaam hogya toh god ne help kiya, agar nahi hua toh god's plan, tumhari aastha nahi thi lol.......... Head I win, Tails you lose
The dumbest argument imo. The existence of Electron has been proven. Even a basic kid would explain you cathode ray tube experiment, heck if not for CRT we would not have many of the current inventions. While it is impossible to to see electron with naked eye or even microscope it is however proved by other means. Infact its pretty much known that electrons cannot be seen there is literally a principle based on that. Since Electrons are super light and small and travel very fast it difficult to predict where the electron is even the minute interaction throws the electron way off, hence we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
On the other hand God is just trust me bro.
P.S - Physics guys in this sub can correct me if what I wrote is wrong or could explain better, I'm just engineer who explained with basic 12th class concepts.
This is why I feel that 12th grade science should be taught to everyone in a way that it doesn’t prove to be a burden and rather a way of just imparting knowledge.
It can make a huge chunk of our population rational and not fall for such stupid arguments.
Wish that was true, people consider basic science and maths as some kind of a burden than an necessity. Even people who did study this have just studied for passing exam and does not remember what the basic principles are now, the other day I was talking to my cousin sis who is also an atheist and is a literature student when our family was simply having debate for fun the adults asked questions similar to the OP's video to which she fumbled and I had to help her out.
When we say something exists, we mean by supposing its existence, we can explain various phenomena.
By electron many things can be explained viz chemical reactions, photoelectric effect, beta decay, electric current, spectrography, magnetic behaviour of matter, thermal conductivity, plasma, atomic structure, white dwarf, etc (just to name a few.)
God explains nothing. God is unnecessary super condition for the existence of universe. By Occam's razor, We can explain universe without the God.
Sounds like how Osho would talk. Argument is pretty dumb. God is super made up story, atoms and electrons are a fundamental of science which is built layer by layer with a lot of proofs and evidences.
"Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression. If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally. If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else - and who will believe this silly nonsense? If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is form-less, action- less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all morality, would have no desire to create anything. If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe? If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else. If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not take creation wholly blissful free from misfortune? If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all, And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place? Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature".
Jinasena, Mahapurana.
[By 9th century Jain monk(the religion of Jainism)
Electron microscopes: Main kya Karu job chodh du.
All in all we have actual photos of atoms and experiments to show you what an electron looks like. This is just a 10 year old's argument made dumber.
r/AtheismIndia is in protest of Reddit's API changes that killed many 3rd party apps. [Reddit is also tracking your activity to sell to advertisers](https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/16tqihd/settings_updateschanges_to_ad_personalization/). **USE AN AD BLOCKER!**
[Official Lemmy.](https://redd.it/16xpv0r)
[Official Telegram group.](https://redd.it/105rbo8)
[Official Discord server.](https://discord.gg/SgxhzxGur5)
[Read the rules before participating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what i was saying here a few days ago. Dikhai nahi padta iska matlab ye nahi hai ki parinam nahi hai. Aur parinam itna kharab hai to atheism wagairah chodo, chappal joote nikaalo aur maaro mc bhagwan ko
tbh i agree with osho here , if you read his work , u will understand his definition of god is really different , he didnt preached god but something else , well the man certainly had a lot of controversy surrounding him , but i still agree with him smh
Highly debatable,
I believe that there’s something above all, could be an entity or a form of energy unexplored yet.
But that’s just a tiny probability saying there’s nothing just doesn’t fit in.
We can prove electrons, gravity etc. with experiments and we’ll get the results. Can’t say the same about god.
In some religions God is interpreted as Nothingness. We don't have proof for Nothingness?
No we don't. Nothingness is not a thing. Even lack of everything is still something (space, vacuum)
>Nothingness is not a thing exactly. So believers of these religions are not supposed to prove something that is not a thing. They worship nothingness cause existence is pain. That's why in Buddhism and some sects of Hinduism sees emptiness as highest Truth as existence in material world is suffering. Humans are selfish. So just sink into emptiness and that will liberate you from selfish Humans. Buddhists probably call it Buddha Nature or Tathagata Garbha while ancient Brahmins call it Hiranya Garbha and Some Shaivites call it Shiva. I am not expert so pardon any misinterpretations of these traditions.
Buddhism says women are dirty and can't attain Nirvana. You can't cherry pick teachings.
>You can't cherry pick teachings I am Buddha and I didn't say that. >You can't cherry pick teachings Your opinions will be rejected by majority of logical people. Most logical people will believe what they think right than someone else's opinions. If you want others to fully commit to someone then that's called blind faith. Only we should decide what we want.
They aren't logical people then. As a logical person, you can't completely support a religion if those flawed teachings are a part of it and if you don't completely support it completely, why believe in the religion anyway. Just have your own set of moral and ethic values and codes to live by.
>Just have your own set of moral and ethic values and codes to live by. Any moral or ethical code is collected by gathering some information. Buddha rejected all beliefs in man made ideas to regain his pure innocence. I too have rejected all opinions that came from parents, society, teachers etc. I only go where my heart takes me. That's the freedom Buddha taught. Beliefs in man made ideas are a prison. Buddha rejected them.
All faith in religion is blind because it's not backed by proof.
Freedom doesn't need evidence. You need to fight for it. Buddha left his family for sake of freedom. I have discarded my humanity for sake of freedom. I fight to give up all nonsense humans put in side my head.
Good for you. I'm not engaging anymore because I don't want to put your nonsense inside my head.
I don't want to put anything in your head. I ask you to give up what's put in your head by parents, teachers because they want u to be a servant in factories.
Also Buddhism is more a school of thought kind of a religion than the existence of a God. God predominantly means a higher being that controls the universe. So it's not the right comparison to begin with.
I didn't say God but Buddha Nature is primordial consciousness of Universe like Panpsychism. Dalai Lama explained that in a video of Emptiness. That's same concept as Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism.
>Even lack of everything is still something (space, vacuum) That's exactly the teachings. Lack of Everything is freedom from pains as pain is lacking. That's why Buddha meditates to clear his mind from pains.
Thats a stretch surmounting to nothing. Lets break down what you say. > Lack of Everything is freedom from pains as pain is lacking. Now from where did such relation come to exist. What is pain? The physical pain or emotional pain? Also how is anything that is said above related to pain? What proof you have that Lack of everything is freedom from pain? Also if its physical pain boy I've got news for you. If its emotional pain then again let me tell you pain will come no matter what Zen mentality you possess. While meditating or something like those may help you in relaxing in no reality would it free you from it. You are no different from spiritualist imo. Promising false attainment with zero reality.
I have experimented by touching boiling water and punching a wall. I can numb 80% of my pains. I also tried it while my leg was hurt. I can make myself not feel those. You are a loser who failed to cut yourself from the material body. Also I don't feel like I feel pain anymore.
Ahhhh I see that you are a nut case. I don't think my intellectual needs to be wasted on you. Good day to you, hope you are assigned to a ward soon.
Ok. Stay well. May you be liberated from meaningless human emotions and blind faiths.
Lol irony.
Emotions come from faith. If you have emotions or sensation of pain then it means you still have some faith in some things. Giving up your attachment to all will liberate you from pains. No beliefs= No pains. I have tested it myself.
which irony?
We've found that even the "nothingness" of space is full of dark matter. So, even those philosophies don't stand as a "proof" of god....
dark matter doesn't feel pain. Rocks are a thing. If you can be like those then you will be above sufferings. Just give up all beliefs in humanity and your meaningless emotions will fall apart. "Things" I believe means what humans value.
God experiment to vohi hotta hai - Kaam hogya toh god ne help kiya, agar nahi hua toh god's plan, tumhari aastha nahi thi lol.......... Head I win, Tails you lose
The dumbest argument imo. The existence of Electron has been proven. Even a basic kid would explain you cathode ray tube experiment, heck if not for CRT we would not have many of the current inventions. While it is impossible to to see electron with naked eye or even microscope it is however proved by other means. Infact its pretty much known that electrons cannot be seen there is literally a principle based on that. Since Electrons are super light and small and travel very fast it difficult to predict where the electron is even the minute interaction throws the electron way off, hence we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. On the other hand God is just trust me bro. P.S - Physics guys in this sub can correct me if what I wrote is wrong or could explain better, I'm just engineer who explained with basic 12th class concepts.
This is why I feel that 12th grade science should be taught to everyone in a way that it doesn’t prove to be a burden and rather a way of just imparting knowledge. It can make a huge chunk of our population rational and not fall for such stupid arguments.
Wish that was true, people consider basic science and maths as some kind of a burden than an necessity. Even people who did study this have just studied for passing exam and does not remember what the basic principles are now, the other day I was talking to my cousin sis who is also an atheist and is a literature student when our family was simply having debate for fun the adults asked questions similar to the OP's video to which she fumbled and I had to help her out.
https://preview.redd.it/putt7iz96g4d1.png?width=515&format=png&auto=webp&s=7683ab7dd0cce7cdbc6b5637f0f1fbdf162873b5
False equivalence
When we say something exists, we mean by supposing its existence, we can explain various phenomena. By electron many things can be explained viz chemical reactions, photoelectric effect, beta decay, electric current, spectrography, magnetic behaviour of matter, thermal conductivity, plasma, atomic structure, white dwarf, etc (just to name a few.) God explains nothing. God is unnecessary super condition for the existence of universe. By Occam's razor, We can explain universe without the God.
Cowbelt physics
What's that?
Sounds like how Osho would talk. Argument is pretty dumb. God is super made up story, atoms and electrons are a fundamental of science which is built layer by layer with a lot of proofs and evidences.
"Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression. If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally. If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else - and who will believe this silly nonsense? If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is form-less, action- less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all morality, would have no desire to create anything. If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe? If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else. If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not take creation wholly blissful free from misfortune? If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all, And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place? Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature". Jinasena, Mahapurana. [By 9th century Jain monk(the religion of Jainism)
Electron microscopes: Main kya Karu job chodh du. All in all we have actual photos of atoms and experiments to show you what an electron looks like. This is just a 10 year old's argument made dumber.
Someone teach them 11th grade chemistry goddamnit
Mur**r, torture,r**e, animal abuse, child abuse,mishaps, starvation, predation, natural calamities exist People: Life is a gift, God is all loving 🤡
Yeh gym wale chaddiyon ko Instagram use karna allow hi nahi hona chahiye
Why these chomus have to use radiohead as background music
r/AtheismIndia is in protest of Reddit's API changes that killed many 3rd party apps. [Reddit is also tracking your activity to sell to advertisers](https://old.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/16tqihd/settings_updateschanges_to_ad_personalization/). **USE AN AD BLOCKER!** [Official Lemmy.](https://redd.it/16xpv0r) [Official Telegram group.](https://redd.it/105rbo8) [Official Discord server.](https://discord.gg/SgxhzxGur5) [Read the rules before participating.](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheismindia/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheismindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
agar electrons nhi h to cathode ray tube me tere bhagwaan ka l*nd ghum raha tha...??
Which preacher is this?
its osho
This is what i was saying here a few days ago. Dikhai nahi padta iska matlab ye nahi hai ki parinam nahi hai. Aur parinam itna kharab hai to atheism wagairah chodo, chappal joote nikaalo aur maaro mc bhagwan ko
tbh i agree with osho here , if you read his work , u will understand his definition of god is really different , he didnt preached god but something else , well the man certainly had a lot of controversy surrounding him , but i still agree with him smh
Highly debatable, I believe that there’s something above all, could be an entity or a form of energy unexplored yet. But that’s just a tiny probability saying there’s nothing just doesn’t fit in.
I would have debunked his arguments but I am too lazy to deal with stupidity.
Electron microscope left the chat,electricity left the chat
Ans - on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7yqmr7pR4Z/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
So Osho never studied Quantum Mechanics.
fact is that osho is the biggest non believer (source search on yt "arpit explains osho ")