======== Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: A Serous Question From: Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu dasa) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:50:15 GMT Smedley wrote: >Maybe. I don't know enough about it. Funny, I hang out with >alot of atheists and none of them say that though. Astronomers >may say things like that...i have no idea...i'm not an astronomer. Most people are simply victims of the massive atheistic propaganda and don't really ponder much over things. They just accept as truth what has been drilled into their minds throughout their whole lives. >Does it sound weird, yes? Do the existance of god's sound weirder? >yes. Does it really? Actually it does not. An accepted scientific principle is that the cause can be found in the effect. So we are undoubtedly consious and since the properties of consiousness cannot be found in matter why would anyone suggest that the cause of consciousness is to be found in matter? Isn't it more reasonable to deduce that the cause of consciousness must itself contain some properties of consciousness? What do you think? >>I mean, even a 5 year old child can understand that something comes >>from something and that nothing comes from nothing. >5 year olds also believe almost anything that is told to them. >In fact, since many 5 year olds have not mastered the concepts >of conservation I beg to differ with you. >But that is all besides the point. That's right. > I don't think there is any >scientist who believes that "something" comes from "nothing" So where did it come from? >>Of course these professors should actually be given partial credit for >>their wild speculations since it is explained in the Vedas that the >>universes do indeed come out in seed forms from the exhaling of Maha >>Vishnu and that they are again contracted into His body when He >>inhales. In the interim - in the beginning - there is no material time >>or space. >Even a five year old would think that is pretty ridiculous. Not my five year old kid. He thinks it is far out. >>But there was always spiritual time - eternality - and spiritual space >>- infinity. >And you know this because of...? It's in the Vedas. >>To view everything materially, with no spiritual basis, is >>actually quite brain dead, wouldn't you agree? >No more brain-dead than making up answers to questions because you >are not satisfied with ignorance. I'm not making anything up. I'm simply repeating the timeless message of Krishna. And why be satisfied with ignorance? Ignorance makes you suffer and causes all the problems of the world. >>Please describe a situation in which there is no space, no nothing. >>Please describe it, eh? Everything is solid, or what? What's it like? >>Please give some evidence. >I can't I know nothing about such a universe. But I'm not afraid >to admit it. Of course not. You have to admit it so as to not look pretty foolish. >>You won't believe in an intelligent >>creator, even though it is obvious that nature is intelligently >>created, >Obvious to John McCoy and the Krishna's. What is your evidence for >this? And thousands and millions more. In fact the majority of the people of this planet still believe that the universe came from God. The evidence is that everything seems to be intelligently directed and not unintelligently directed. If the sun rises every day at the exact same time, what does that indicate to you? That it is intelligently directed or unintelligently directed? What do you think? >>but you'll believe in brain dead speculations like that. >>You say you don't believe in God because you see no evidence of His >>existence. Then why believe in the above nonsense? Do you see any >>evidence of no time or space? >No. So I make no claims about it. Who does believe in that? Do >you have any names? Yes, big, big scientists like Steven Hawkings and Carl Sagan seriously entertain this idea. > If someone reputable does believe it it would >spark my interest and when I have the time I might read up on it. In Sanskrit there is a saying; andha yathandair upaniyamanas - Blind men are leading other blind men. You know what happens if you are blind and are being led by another blind? They both fall head long into a ditch. That's all. You may go to Steven Hawkings and hear from him, but he won't be able to do anything for you. Certainly he can't relieve you from suffering. Why, he can't even relieve his own suffering, but Krishna can relieve you from all suffering once and for all. >You said some atheists change their minds. I said some Krishna's >change their minds. You do not have a monopoly on mind-changing. That >was my point and your point that you know 1000's of krishas who keep >the faith does nothing to change it. But more atheists change their minds and become Hare Krishnas than Hare Krishnas who change their minds and become atheists. So what does that tell you? In fact no Hare Krishna will ever become an atheist again. If he does, it means that he was never a Hare Krishna. He was merely checking it out on the surface or pretending. To be a Hare Krishna means to know God, in various degrees, and therefore such a person can never anymore become an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who is ignorant of God. >>I know of >>thousands of atheists, myself included, who changed their minds and >>became Hare Krishnas. What does that tell you? >It tells me nothing since you define atheist as anyone not believing >in Krishna. No, That's not my definition. > Most of them were probably Christians. I doubt it. Most of the Hare Krishnas I know were atheists before they joined. Maybe not down right hard core atheists, but thoughtful people who actually tried to understand what everything is all about. I think there are many thoughtful atheists. That's why I post in this group. >>I Know thousands of Hare Krishnas who are the most blissful and >>satisfied people I've seen and who have been living in celebacy for >>20-30 years. They are satisfied simply being engaged in Krishna's >>service, chanting His name and dedicating all their activities to Him. >>What does that tell you? >Because someone is satisfied does not make them right. >Every religion claims the same thing you claim about the >Krishnas. So maybe there is something to it afterall. >>And nobody in this universe has ever been able to defeat the Vaishnava >>philosophy, so what's your point? >No one can defeat an unfalsifyable claim. What are you saying? That only something which can be proven false is true? Is that it? > You cannot defeat the theory >that killing people painfully and without mercy leads one's soul to >heaven. But it doesn't make it right, does it. I can defeat that theory. It is nowhere stated by God in any religion or any scripture that killing people painfully and without mercy leads to Him. Someone may say so, but so what? There has to be some reference point for your claims other than what's in your mind, isn't it? >>Really? I think you are just full of garbage. Who are those people? >What you want me to give you names? Forget it. They have not >given me permission to do that. I know of 3 people who did this. >One of them even tried to convince me. We sat around eating some >damn good free Krishna food and explained to me how he did not even >miss sex. Boy has he changed. ( I'm glad you at least liked the food :) Ok I accept that. I'm sorry I called you full of garbage.But since you are a psychologist you should know basic human psychology. Sometimes a person does not like to admit defeat in his own mind and therefore he often formulates a philosophy to justifiy his activities. In the Vedic philosophy it is explained that of all the urges the sex urge is the strongest and can lead away a man even of strong intelligence. There is nothing shameful in admitting that I cannot control my sex urge at my present point of spiritual developement, but some persons take it as a personal defeat, and instead of admitting that they are simply being overpowered by their senses they rather rather reject the knowledge they have learned so they can engage in sensegratification without a second thought. This is actually a well known psychological mechanism in humans. >I agree that there are always examples of exceptions. But my point >is that if I cannot use these 3 as evidence, you cannot use examples >of atheists (that is REAL atheists) joining Krisha as evidence either. Ok. >Really though, what is the percentage of people who become Krishna's >who die Krishnas? >Just curious. How could I know, they are not dead yet :) But there are some statistics I can share with you. In Denmark (population 5 million) where I come from, which is an extremely atheistic country, there has been joining app. 100 persons since 1980. Joining means to actually move into the temple community which requires that you follow the 4 rules and regulations and chant 16 rounds of the Hare Krishna mantra every day on your prayer beads. The 4 regs. are; no meat, fish or eggs. No illicit sex - sex outside of marriage. No intoxication, incl. coffee and cigarettes and no gambling. Beyond the inner circle of devotees there is of course a larger congregation of maybe 1000 people who consider Hare Krishna their religion and who practice Krishna consiousness to the best of their ability in their own homes. This mostly means that a person becomes a vegetarian, offers his food to Krishna, chants a little Hare Krishna every day and studies the philosophy.You see Krishna consciousness is all imbrasive and can be practiced on all levels. It is not required that a person moves into the temple and gives up his friends and family to practice Krishna consciousness. So of the hundred persons who joined and became full time devotees maybe 50 left, and of the 50 who left only a small fraction, say 5-10, actually left and never came back again. The rest merely moved from strict temple life to the less strict life of Krishna consciousness in the congregation. There is a Danish psychologist who is conducting a survey of all the people who have joined the Krishna consciousness movement in Scandinavia. If you want I can share it with you when it is ready. -Jahnu http://webcom.com/~ara/col/vv.html http://www.users.wineasy.se/storm/ http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/hkindex.html