An audio link from an interfaith discussion where the speaker (H.H Hridayananda Dasa Goswami) speaks about entrenched ideas of divinity within the american constitution, the necessity of religious tolerance and the question of this being possible under systems of militant metaphysical relativism
Social Sustainability and Religious Tolerance
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
A fascinating lecture, Lightgigantic. Thanks for sharing.
However, what bothers me is this: If we allow some truths to be held to be beyond the ken of man to evaluate, and premise them purely as a means whereby we can achieve something, is not this an inevitably instable system? That is, does not this work against the very stability the speaker wanted?
However, what bothers me is this: If we allow some truths to be held to be beyond the ken of man to evaluate, and premise them purely as a means whereby we can achieve something, is not this an inevitably instable system? That is, does not this work against the very stability the speaker wanted?
I'm about 2 minuites in, and I already object to one assumption, that it's accepted Buddha is a "devine" figure.
He fails to demonstrate that religious society created a universal morality (universal sufferage). The religious society of the middle ages was one of an elite ruling class based on heredity. The bible reinforces monarchy, rather than equality.
He equates religion with the notion of a "highest truth", which science does not deny (unified field theory).
He fails to acknowledge the philosophy of the east, apart from the Vedas, which is almost the exact opposite of the notion of devinity.
The idea that all men are created equal is not necessarily an acknowledgement of divinity. Our creator could just as easily be inanimate natural forces.
Atheism isn't necessarily militant. The speaker fails to explain how reason can tolerate ideas that are unreasonable.
He fails to demonstrate that religious society created a universal morality (universal sufferage). The religious society of the middle ages was one of an elite ruling class based on heredity. The bible reinforces monarchy, rather than equality.
He equates religion with the notion of a "highest truth", which science does not deny (unified field theory).
He fails to acknowledge the philosophy of the east, apart from the Vedas, which is almost the exact opposite of the notion of devinity.
The idea that all men are created equal is not necessarily an acknowledgement of divinity. Our creator could just as easily be inanimate natural forces.
Atheism isn't necessarily militant. The speaker fails to explain how reason can tolerate ideas that are unreasonable.
Spidergoat, Jesus said that in Him, there is no race, color, creed, or gender.
Forces were created by the Creator, by definition, so forces can't be the Creator, hello?
Forces were created by the Creator, by definition, so forces can't be the Creator, hello?
- Didn't Stalin say that, too?
- I'm sure it's pretty dark "in Him".
- Perhaps forces are the creator?
I wasn't aware that Stalin said that in Jesus there is no race, color, creed, or gender, must have been on his death bed, thanks for the info.
Once again Satyr, forces result from matter, and matter began at some point, so forces cannot be the Creator, you have no point there.
Matter isn't everything. There are forces without matter known as energy.
I think you probably were homeschooled by Christian fundamentalists. Don't take it as an insult, I'm sympathetic. You need to cut the apron strings and get yourself a real edumacation.
I think you probably were homeschooled by Christian fundamentalists. Don't take it as an insult, I'm sympathetic. You need to cut the apron strings and get yourself a real edumacation.
Yes, a real "edumacation" is a worthy goal, work on it.
Energy came from somewhere, right?
Energy came from somewhere, right?
No one was around at the time, I don't know where it came from. Neither do you.
Matter and energy, because of the second law of thermodynamics, must have had a beginning, from nothing, or from a Creator.
You say something came from nothing, I say it came from a Creator, scoreboard Creator.
You say something came from nothing, I say it came from a Creator, scoreboard Creator.
No, actually the second law of thermodynamic implies that there could never have been a beginning.
Also, the big bang doesn't postulate that everything came from nothing, only that everything expanded from a small, dense, very hot state.
Also, the big bang doesn't postulate that everything came from nothing, only that everything expanded from a small, dense, very hot state.
Iceage,
No that is not correct. We only know that matter and energy can be interchanged and that there is no net loss or gain. There is absolutely nothing to indicate they must, could, or need come from anything or anywhere or that they will ever dissapear. That doesn't support a beginning or a creator.
No one is saying anything came from nothing. That's a theist distortion.
Matter approaches entropy from a beginning point, by definition.
And if the Big Bang proponents admitted that the thesis necessitates a bounded universe, then they'd have to admit that gravitational time dilation caused the stars to appear much older than they really are.
You have no Big Bang Theory with an unbounded universe, mutually contradictive notions.
So is the idea that God created everything, because if there was a God, there was something, and how did that something come to be?
Unfortunately for all of you, this is wrong. You are harboring the naive notion that the BB was an explosion from a single point and gave rise to some roughly spherical region called the universe.
The current conceptualization of the BB is that the universe is indeed infinite and probably unbounded and that the expansion of the metrics used to describe spacetime most likely occurred throughout the infinite universe simultaneously.
Please remember. This was not an explosion in space, but an expansion of spacetime.