Monday, July 25, 2011

Bhagavat Geeta

Bhagavat Geeta is very huge. So why we read the Bhagavat Geeta, even if we can't understand it? I always wondered why! I am starting with a story . . .

An old farmer lived on a farm in the mountains with his young grandson. Each morning, Grandpa was up early sitting at the kitchen table reading his Bhagavat Geeta.

His grandson wanted to be just like him and tried to imitate him in every way he could.

One day the grandson asked, "Grandpa! I try to read the Bhagawat Geeta just like you but I don't understand it, and what I do understand, I forget as soon as I close the book. What good does reading the Bhagawat Geeta do?"

The Grandfather quietly turned from putting coal in the stove and replied, "Take this coal basket down to the river and bring me back a basket of water."

The boy did as he was told, but all the water leaked out before he got back to the house.

The grandfather laughed and said, "You'll have to move a little faster next time," and sent him back to the river with the basket to try again.

This time the boy ran faster, but again the basket was empty before here turned home. Out of breath, he told his grandfather that it was impossible to carry water in a basket, and he went to get a bucket instead.

The old man said, "I don't want a bucket of water; I want a basket of water. You're just not trying hard enough," and he went out the door to watch the boy try again.

At this point, the boy knew it was impossible, but he wanted to show his grandfather that even if he ran as fast as he could, the water would leak out before he got back to the house. The boy again dipped the basket into river and ran hard, but when he reached his grandfather the basket was again empty.

Out of breath, he said, "SEE.... it is useless!"

"So you think it is useless?" The old man said, "Look at the basket."

The boy looked at the basket and for the first time realized that the basket was different. It had been transformed from a dirty old coal basket and was now clean, inside and out.

"Son, that's what happens when you read the Bhagavat Geeta. You might not understand or remember everything, but when you read it, you will be changed, inside and out. That is the work of GOD in our lives."
 
So sometimes, thing we do we do not see the results for them, we have to just perform. Latter in life we tend to see the results. Some take time, some take even more time. Some make you more talented and perfect. 

. . .

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Hypothesis of Andrew Stankiewicz (1.0):

Olivia Cassandrae

Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae  -  Yesterday 1:20 AM  -  Limited
Beta version 2.0:
+modifications made by Dave Pearson

Hypothesis of Andrew Stankiewicz (1.0):

Theory: If there is a person who believes in God is 99% atheist!

Answer:...
Expand this post »
  -  Comment  -  Share
+1
 by Badger (stealth)
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - Not that I think this approach makes sense, but I think the function you want to define, if you must, would be called isAtheistInRespectOf(), and which takes a list of deities. That's the point here.
Yesterday 1:22 AM   
Heather Wiech's profile photo
Heather Wiech - "Number of gods = 100" is false. There are thousands of different deities in mythology. India alone has more than that. This is a foolhardy endeavor.
Yesterday 1:25 AM   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - I think you'll find that the 100 figure is the deity count version of ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
Yesterday 1:30 AM   
Miles Kurland's profile photo
Miles Kurland - I have to respectfully disagree (and I know it's a joke) because atheism is the lack of believe in any god or supernatural phenomena or agencies.

99% atheist is a little bit like 99% pregnant: it's a binary condition. The atheism bit is either flipped on or off.
Yesterday 1:32 AM   
Adam Hirschfeld's profile photo
Adam Hirschfeld - Very few humans truly believe in any god anyway. Do you wonder why they spend so much time perpetuating the same garbage? that is why. Only the severely mental ill have what is called true faith.
Yesterday 1:33 AM   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - It'd be generally understood, and would be binary, if one said "I am atheist in respect of the Flying Spaghetti Monster".

It's true, of course, that you can't really be 99% atheist, but... yeah, it borks the joke. ;-)
Yesterday 1:34 AM   
Marshall Gillson's profile photo
Marshall Gillson - First of all, I don't think you can be an atheist "with respect to" a specific god. I consider atheism an absolute state. If you do not believe in any gods then you're an atheist. Otherwise you're not.

Second, as some blogger pointed out to me once (maybe PZ Meyers?), this line of reasoning is counterproductive. Theists don't decide on their god by looking at a list and systematically eliminating ones they disbelieve. They are by-and-large taught a god and stick with it. The other gods are just out by default.
Yesterday 1:35 AM   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - +Marshall Gillson It's not uncommon parlance, and would be understood within context, to describe someone as atheist in respect to a deity.

But, of course, it shouldn't be confused with being atheist, period.
Yesterday 1:37 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Heather Wiech I wrote there to suppose: Let's suppose. It is used in Maths, when trying to prove a hypothesis.
Yesterday 1:39 AM  -  Edit   
Marshall Gillson's profile photo
Marshall Gillson - Just because it's understood doesn't make it correct. I know what she means, I just don't think it makes much sense to call people who are clearly theists "atheists".
Yesterday 1:40 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - There may be hundreds or thousands of Gods but here in my thesis I said let's suppose, Number Of Gods = 100;

Therefore it's not wrong.
Yesterday 1:40 AM  -  Edit   
Heather Wiech's profile photo
Heather Wiech - +Olivia Cassandrae And in philosophy, which gave birth to math, all premises must be true for the conclusion to be true.
Yesterday 1:40 AM   
Marshall Gillson's profile photo
Marshall Gillson - +Heather Wiech: Then we can't ever ask any questions about fictional universes? PS... triple points for being another Rhode Islander.
Yesterday 1:42 AM   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - I'd say it's correct in context, but the context is being lost a little (mostly because it seems it's a joke that's being dissected). Moreover, the other bit of context that it has been stripped of is this is a way of explaining, to a theist, how one can even be an atheist in the first place and that, and this is the vital bit, it isn't about the god they believe in, their god is not special.
Yesterday 1:42 AM   
Jim Lloyd's profile photo
Jim Lloyd - atheist: a person who believes god is an unnecessary explanatory concept.
Yesterday 2:01 AM   
Kyle Grove's profile photo
Kyle Grove - An atheist doesn't believe in any gods... this is kinda pointless.
Yesterday 2:03 AM   
Badger (stealth)'s profile photo
Badger (stealth) - This is fun to watch! ^.^ /popcorns <is glad he circled Olivia>
Yesterday 2:09 AM   
Miles Kurland's profile photo
Miles Kurland - Jim, I think many atheists would say that it's not a matter of belief: they'd assert that atheism is a logical conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of god, gods, or supernatural phenomena.
Yesterday 2:12 AM   
Miles Kurland's profile photo
Miles Kurland - Dave: that joke has elsewhere been posed as "You know how you don't believe in any of those other gods beside you God? The only difference between you and me is that I disbelieve in just one more god than you do."
Yesterday 2:18 AM   
Jim Lloyd's profile photo
Jim Lloyd - +Miles Kurland - Yes, many would say that. But I think they've let the faith-heads hijack the world believe to imply belief without evidence.
Yesterday 2:23 AM (edited Yesterday 2:24 AM)   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Badger (stealth) I am taking it as a compliment, therefore thank you gentleman.
Yesterday 2:24 AM  -  Edit   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - Yeah, although it's an old sentiment, it's one that was, arguably made popular by Dawkins (in tGD, wasn't it?).
Yesterday 2:25 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Badger (stealth) I was just wondering who is 'he' in your attribute, I am glad he . . .?
Yesterday 2:27 AM  -  Edit   
Chris Gomersall's profile photo
Chris Gomersall - Crazy thread. Much misunderstanding. Olivia's thesis is what it is, unaddressed for what it is. The clear exchange of ideas through text is still SO lame...
Yesterday 4:13 AM   
Badger (stealth)'s profile photo
Badger (stealth) - Olivia: he=me, meaning I'm glad I started following your timeline. ^.^
Yesterday 4:17 AM   
Dave Spencer's profile photo
Dave Spencer - Theists and atheists both based on belief. I don't believe a purple bunny with green eyes that speaks and understands klingon exists. While unlikely, can not rule it out, although one might consider it a fools errond to spend a life searching for said bunny. Goes to the earlier truth thread, belief is subjective and even when it is widely held we cannot afford to make the mistake of calling it truth. There is no shame in saying "The evidence suggests, but we cannot prove or disprove the existance of the klingon bunny".
Yesterday 5:38 AM   
Adam Hirschfeld's profile photo
Adam Hirschfeld - You are making the rainbow mistake again. I see no example of how Atheists have faith in anything.
Yesterday 5:39 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Adam Hirschfeld are you suggesting that Atheists don't have faith at all?

+Dave Spencer thank you.
Yesterday 9:42 AM  -  Edit   
Jim Lloyd's profile photo
Jim Lloyd - +Olivia Cassandrae Consider the various connotations of these three words:belieffaithtrust. They aren't all purely synonymous, yet they are often used interchangeably, even by atheists. But a pedantic atheist (well, this one anyway) is likely to say that while we have trust in our friends, we don't have faith in them. Faith is belief without evidence, or even despite contrary evidence. A claim for which there is no evidence for or against the claim is provisionally false, even if millions of people have faith the claim is true. Especially if the claim is tied to one culture.
Yesterday 10:48 AM   
Edward McGuire's profile photo
Edward McGuire - The argument hinges on a definition of "atheist" which is artificially narrow. The word "atheist" was made up by the religious. For 2,000 years it was a term of contempt. It meant a blasphemer or heretic, and did not mean actual disbelief. If you offend the gods, they will abandon you and you will then be godless (atheist). So atheism began as a social construct, not a self-identification. The word "atheist" has been adopted by atheists themselves for about 500 years, but also still has its original meaning when spoken by a believer. So it is not necessarily true that a person who believes in Yahweh but not in 99 other gods is 99% atheist. Despite his belief in Yahweh, if the Yahwist community considers him a blasphemer, he is an atheist according to them also, and therefore 100% atheist.
Yesterday 10:51 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Jim Lloyd wonderful explanation of faith. So crystal clear.

+Edward McGuire Why does a Yahwist considers him a blasphemer when he believes in Yahweh. He should be considered as theist. Right? I do not understand this logic.
Yesterday 11:37 AM  -  Edit   
Edward McGuire's profile photo
Edward McGuire - For example, he might believe the "wrong" thing about Yahweh, the thing that makes the community consider him a heretic. Or, he might believe in Yahweh but be angry with him, and speak about him with disrespect, so that the community considers him a blasphemer. In either case the community can think of him as having lost his god. It is still true today that such people are called atheists even when the people themselves deny they are atheists.
Yesterday 11:48 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Edward McGuire very well explained about atheists and how they are emerged.

Ha! Now I totally got you. Thank you.
Yesterday 11:53 AM  -  Edit   
Add a comment...

Hypothesis of Andrew Stankiewicz:

Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae  -  Jul 15, 2011  -  Limited
Hypothesis of Andrew Stankiewicz:

Theory: If there is a person who believes in God is 99% atheist!


Answer:

Let's suppose,

Number of Gods = 100;

Well, if there are 'Number of Gods, already and you believe in one,
=> 100 - 1 = 99

Then you're an 99% atheist in eyes of other gods.

Therefore, hypothesis is proved.
Collapse this post
  -  Comment  -  Share

+4
 by Andrew Stankiewicz, Sharath B.S, Tony Lakey, Badger (stealth)
Larro AVA's profile photo
Larro AVA - Technically that would be 99% theist.
Jul 15, 2011   
Badger (stealth)'s profile photo
Badger (stealth) - Larro: No it wouldn't. She did her math right. o.o

And yes, I'm being silly - but this whole question is for fun, yes, Olivia? ^.^
Jul 15, 2011 (edited Jul 15, 2011)   
Wayne Chen's profile photo
Wayne Chen - Atheism isn't a percentage. You can't be 50% atheist, you would be agnostic. Atheism is the belief in no gods. Zero. Nada.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist An Atheist denies, or frankly does not care, about the existence of supernatural beings. You can't be partly atheist, because you would then be agnostic or religious.
Jul 15, 2011   
Andrew Stankiewicz's profile photo
Andrew Stankiewicz - It's just a joke Wayne :) I completely understand failure of my hypothesis..
Jul 15, 2011   
Larro AVA's profile photo
Larro AVA - Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you're hypothesis.
Jul 15, 2011   
Larro AVA's profile photo
Larro AVA - I'm atheist agnostic.
Jul 15, 2011   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - Wayne, "50% atheist" wouldn't mean "agnostic". You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic does not mean "undecided" or "somewhere between". You can't be just agnostic.

And the idea of being an atheist in respect to one or more posited deities is a sound one. If you hold a belief in god A but don't hold a belief in gods B, C, D or E then it's right and proper that you be described as an atheist in respect to those posited gods.

And also note that (to the wider point here), the existence of those gods has nothing to do with this. You wouldn't be an atheist in "the eyes of those gods", you'd be an atheist, in respect of all the gods you don't hold a belief in, in your own eyes and everyone else's.
Jul 15, 2011   
Larro AVA's profile photo
Larro AVA - I'm not being a wiener :P

It's all in fun.
Jul 15, 2011   
Ralph Mettier's profile photo
Ralph Mettier - Actually Wayne, that wrong. The theist/atheist question deals with if you believe that one or more gods exist or not. The gnostic/agnostic question deals with what you 'know'. These two are not exclusive. If you are uncertain if a god exists or not, but tend to think it's slightly more likely no gods exist, that makes you an atheist. If you claim to know that no gods exist, that makes you a gnostic atheist. If you think it's likely that a god exists, but not certain, you're an agnostic theist. etc.
Jul 15, 2011   
Jarn Vermote's profile photo
Jarn Vermote - “I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in” -- Dan Fouts
Jul 15, 2011   
Aaron Faby's profile photo
Aaron Faby - Atheism is simply the default position concerning belief in the existence of a deity. No more, no less.
Jul 15, 2011   
Badger (stealth)'s profile photo
Badger (stealth) - I like hot cherry pie with a scoop of vanilla ice cream. nods decisively
Jul 15, 2011   
Jon Cortelyou's profile photo
Jon Cortelyou - So by this logic, since I'm a human I'm therefore less than 1% mammal? Because there are 100's of mammals in which I'm not.
Jul 15, 2011   
Aaron Faby's profile photo
Aaron Faby - Jon: No. Biological makeup and religious belief are not comparable in this sense.
Jul 15, 2011   
Jon Cortelyou's profile photo
Jon Cortelyou - They are because each is a category.
Jul 15, 2011   
Aaron Faby's profile photo
Aaron Faby - No, not really. The atheism comparison is made in reference to the other gods someone could choose to believe in. You cannot choose to be another species, so therefore you cannot say you are a certain percentage mammal in relation to something else.
Jul 15, 2011   
Andrew Stankiewicz's profile photo
Andrew Stankiewicz - one is physical and other metaphysical so we can't really draw same analogy?
Jul 15, 2011   
Tony Sidaway's profile photo
Tony Sidaway - One is one hundred percent unbeliever with respect to the other gods. Actually I believe the first first
Jul 15, 2011   
Tony Sidaway's profile photo
Tony Sidaway - Recorded use of the word atheist was to describe the Christians, who denied the Roman gods.
Jul 15, 2011   
Aaron Faby's profile photo
Aaron Faby - No. A percentage is calculated based on a number of possibilities. It's possible for someone to believe in any of the 100 theoretical gods in this analogy. It's not possible for a human to not be a human or a mammal.
Jul 15, 2011   
Jon Cortelyou's profile photo
Jon Cortelyou - Thus you believe or your don't. You are getting it. You are so close.
Jul 15, 2011   
Hugo Moors's profile photo
Hugo Moors - Indeed, we atheists just go 1 god further than most people
Yesterday 12:53 AM   
Kraken Calamari's profile photo
Kraken Calamari - that only works in the case of a finite number of gods. In the case of an infinite number of gods, anyone who believes in any finite amount of them is still 100% atheist.
Yesterday 1:04 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - Comparison between atheist and mammals is called regression in Maths. They are no way related but we are calculating both in same manner and trying to fit two of them under one umbrella.

That's also one kind of Math of course.
Yesterday 1:04 AM  -  Edit   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Ralph Mettier that's a wonderful explanation. But I did not understand a bit. Hmm! It's so confusing, atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, theist, and so on . . .

It'll take some time to digest your definitions, but they sounded so cool.
Yesterday 1:06 AM  -  Edit   
Kraken Calamari's profile photo
Kraken Calamari - I'm just extending the hypothesis to accommodate and infinitude of deities.
math was my first love :)
Yesterday 1:15 AM   
Andrew Stankiewicz's profile photo
Andrew Stankiewicz - +Kraken Calamari after rereading your post it makes complete sense :)
Yesterday 1:17 AM   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - It strikes me that the 1/100 thing is a misused example here anyway, or at least is heading off the rails. The point, when it comes to it, is normally this:

I've got a book on my bookshelf that lists something like 3,000 posited deities from all of recorded history. When confronted with a theist who can't understand why I'm an atheist they generally always think in terms of the deity they are positing.

It helps to remind them that my being an atheist has nothing to do with the god they believe in, it's to do with all posited gods. And the key point here is that myself and that theist have a 2,999 posited deity overlap.

It's a line of reasoning that aids them in appreciating and understanding how one can be an atheist at all because they are, in effect, an atheist in respect to 2,999 posited gods, I just go the one more.

It's an old line of explanation, but a key one.
Yesterday 1:28 AM   
Hugo Moors's profile photo
Hugo Moors - I've heard Matt Dillahunty (from the Atheist Experience) explain it as such (and I agree with him):
as long as you don't say "I know god exists" you're an atheist if you say maybe god exists, I'm not sure ... you're an atheist with various levels of gnosticism the reasoning is that "atheist" means a lacks of a positive believe in a god, if you doubt in any way you do not have that positive belief only the ones who say "I know god exists" have such a positive believe in a god and thus are not atheists.
But most people spin their own definitions, I've seen questionaire results where people ticked atheist and a few questions further ticked "I believe in god" so anything is possible.
Yesterday 1:35 AM   
Tony Sidaway's profile photo
Tony Sidaway - Theists (and like many people I was raised as a theist) do tend to regard their own god's existence as self-evident. You can compare their god to the others but I don't think they often take that approach seriously. You really do need to combine it with a head on attack on their god's plausibility.
Yesterday 1:41 AM    
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - +Hugo Moors Atheists who say they believe in a god exist all over the place. Here we call them The Church of England. ;-)
Yesterday 2:09 AM   
Olivia Cassandrae's profile photo
Olivia Cassandrae - +Dave Pearson So I am the Church of England? LOL.
Yesterday 9:20 PM  -  Edit   
Dave Pearson's profile photo
Dave Pearson - You should be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm sure by the time the current one gives up they'll stop being horribly sexist and let women hold that position.
Yesterday 9:24 PM   
Add a comment...