Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[fineleg]

I found this blog mentioned in Cricket Jokes thread and many people seem to like this blog, so thought I'll check it out:

Found an interesting discussion on existence of God   : Does God exist or not?

http://knittins.blogspot.com/2005/07/god-bad-ugly_20.html

Still reading through it.

[Blwe_torch]

Great work!


ETC.

[fineleg]

Great work!


ETC.

Yes, after a few more people get the visibility in the main folder in next day or two.

[senthilpeter]

fineleg, good job. applause.
i'll post what I may have after reading the stuff...

[LosingNow]

Fineleg:

Good find.. but notice the "Jesus came to me" comments by one of the "evangelist" posters. Interesting, isn't it!

While his argument - that religion is designed to bring discipline to those who cannot or are not capable of discipline  - is a good one and one I believed in for a long time..I think the "use" of religion by most to convince the "ignorant masses" and propogate recent conflicts .. sets that theory/belief back.

BTW, I am a believer.. I have a problem with others trying to impose their beliefs and others not respecting the right of everyone in believing what they believe in !! Live and Let Live.

[fineleg]

Fineleg:

Good find.. but notice the "Jesus came to me" comments by one of the "evangelist" posters. Interesting, isn't it!

While his argument - that religion is designed to bring discipline to those who cannot or are not capable of discipline  - is a good one and one I believed in for a long time..I think the "use" of religion by most to convince the "ignorant masses" and propogate recent conflicts .. sets that theory/belief back.

BTW, I am a believer.. I have a problem with others trying to impose their beliefs and others not respecting the right of everyone in believing what they believe in !! Live and Let Live.

Losing Now,
I agree...I am a believer, although once in a while I do get questions in my mind for which there are no easy answers...I accept that Live and Let Live - as long as u dont go infringe on someone else's rights, then u should be able to abide by your beliefs.

[senthilpeter]

guys, the argument that God is an invention for discipline is just a raitonalistic explanation of something for which we have no easy answers or real explanation.
On some level, it may well induce discipline in people, but to believe that our ancients (across the globe) invented this concept just for the sake of discipline is really to shotchange them. In a way, we are attributing our modern mindset to them and making their actions less mystifying to us. But I believe they may well have grounded thier 'invention' in reality. Its upto each of us to see if that reality is indeed accessible to us.

Each age and each culture has had its share of 'God' - which makes me think its probably not all as hogwash as it may appear. We should probably delve deeper into the phenomenon if we really are bothered by it, rather than take the easiest option as this chap on his blog has -- which is use some effort-free logic and come to quick conclusions. If its too much work, well, at least we ought not to have a formed opinion on it.

[worma]

I believe God existed, once upon a time, but his range was limited to off-side only ;-)

[gouravk]

No. That God still exists. WHat no longer exists on the offside is the one next in line. On the other hand God still exists - that God who was so declared by the God-in-waiting-of-the-off himself ... after Adelaide 2003.

[tombaan]

guys, the argument that God is an invention for discipline is just a raitonalistic explanation of something for which we have no easy answers or real explanation.
On some level, it may well induce discipline in people, but to believe that our ancients (across the globe) invented this concept just for the sake of discipline is really to shotchange them. In a way, we are attributing our modern mindset to them and making their actions less mystifying to us. But I believe they may well have grounded thier 'invention' in reality. Its upto each of us to see if that reality is indeed accessible to us.

Each age and each culture has had its share of 'God' - which makes me think its probably not all as hogwash as it may appear. We should probably delve deeper into the phenomenon if we really are bothered by it, rather than take the easiest option as this chap on his blog has -- which is use some effort-free logic and come to quick conclusions. If its too much work, well, at least we ought not to have a formed opinion on it.

god is humans way of dealing with the unknown....it gives many of us peace of mind to know there is someone out there watching us. it also gives us hope of life after death. we are not able to deal with the fact this is it...there is nothing out there. look at this human beings have existed on this planet for almost 50000 years and god and religion for 5000 years. where was god during all this evolution? caveman to deal with the unknown created god and look at our gods...be it wind, fire, sun etc and this is common of many ancient cultures including tribals in remotest areas. Many a men are not able to deal with the fact that we exist and there is nothing more to it. ....there is an interesting quote from lovecraft i posted on the etc forum...read it....religion is good moral tool which helped humans to evolve as a species...anyway that is enough talk for a cricket forum

[senthilpeter]

tombaan, what proof (even allowing for a loooong evolution) do you have that God deosn't exist? I am not saying he does. Just that I dont see you make a convincing argument for proving that he does not exist. Have you done anything special to ensure that he doesn't? Like scientists do zillions of expirements to 'prove' something....?

It follows to me that only those of us who have actually made some sensible and honest effort at resolving this puzzle to themselves can actually speak about his. Otherwise, any assertion that God exists or not is just another belief. Nothing more. its like me in my infinite Physics wisdom denying Einstein or someone else's theories. They aren't real to me, but I can't claim I right in my assertion.

I believe an attitude of honest and curious discovery (just as much as healthy disbilief) befits such topics as this that seem to have mystified and held allure to man from time immemorial.

[bouncer]

tombaan, what proof (even allowing for a loooong evolution) do you have that God deosn't exist? I am not saying he does. Just that I dont see you make a convincing argument for proving that he does not exist. Have you done anything special to ensure that he doesn't? Like scientists do zillions of expirements to 'prove' something....?

This is strange logic. Who has the burden of proof here? The one who proposes a theory. And the theory is that GOD exists. This way everything exists since nothing can be disproved for sure, like ghosts, ghouls, goblins, dragons, yetis, lochness monster, ten-headed Ravanas, sensible-Indian-selectors etc.

[devatha]

tombaan, what proof (even allowing for a loooong evolution) do you have that God deosn't exist? I am not saying he does. Just that I dont see you make a convincing argument for proving that he does not exist. Have you done anything special to ensure that he doesn't? Like scientists do zillions of expirements to 'prove' something....?

This is strange logic. Who has the burden of proof here? The one who proposes a theory. And the theory is that GOD exists. This way everything exists since nothing can be disproved for sure, like ghosts, ghouls, goblins, dragons, yetis, lochness monster, ten-headed Ravanas, sensible-Indian-selectors etc.

Applause bouncer. I liked your argument.

[cardus]

rofl, bouncer...

[flute202020]

tombaan, what proof (even allowing for a loooong evolution) do you have that God deosn't exist? I am not saying he does. Just that I dont see you make a convincing argument for proving that he does not exist. Have you done anything special to ensure that he doesn't? Like scientists do zillions of expirements to 'prove' something....?

This is strange logic. Who has the burden of proof here? The one who proposes a theory. And the theory is that GOD exists. This way everything exists since nothing can be disproved for sure, like ghosts, ghouls, goblins, dragons, yetis, lochness monster, ten-headed Ravanas, sensible-Indian-selectors etc.

bouncer, funny, we disagree even on non-cricket topics. But, you are correct about burden of proof. But, if I understand Senthil correctly, the idea is not about disproving existence of God, but rather finding out answers to those puzzling, philosopical questions. To me, that spiritual question is more important than religions. Every one of us face that eternal question about what was there when we were not there, what are the beginnings of creation? are there any such other universes? who are you? Is it just flesh and no soul? what happens when you are sleeping and have no sense of body but still accomplish a lot in your dreams. If you dwell deeper, there are so many unanswered questions that needs to be answered before someone can say, "God or some supernatural power' doesn't exist.
An athiest is called an athiest because he has a theory about non-existence of God. If you simply do not care about existence or non existence of Brahma, then you are not an athiest but a agnostic guy. Buddha simply refused to dwell into these debates and declared that he is neither agrees nor disagrees with existence of God. I think, that in assence is the ideal way of thinking on this subject I suppose. Lets not jump to conclusions, keep an open mind and just like any other scientific pursuits, let these eternal questions be explored by people into those things.

Hope I made sense above.

[tombaan]

tombaan, what proof (even allowing for a loooong evolution) do you have that God deosn't exist? I am not saying he does. Just that I dont see you make a convincing argument for proving that he does not exist. Have you done anything special to ensure that he doesn't? Like scientists do zillions of expirements to 'prove' something....?

This is strange logic. Who has the burden of proof here? The one who proposes a theory. And the theory is that GOD exists. This way everything exists since nothing can be disproved for sure, like ghosts, ghouls, goblins, dragons, yetis, lochness monster, ten-headed Ravanas, sensible-Indian-selectors etc.

well said....even if god exists...sensible selectors that cannot happen...
Senthil
If a god exists shouldnot he tell us and give us some sign send some lightning once in a way and strike george bush for all the innocent deaths in Iraq, or thackeray and modi for the riots and innocents killed....I believe it was rajnesh or who said "religion is opium for masses"
Religion is a sane drug to take and handover posterity and immortality too

[cardus]

Are we witnessing the rise of a (few) new Jerry Falwell(s) here?

[bouncer]

tombaan, what proof (even allowing for a loooong evolution) do you have that God deosn't exist? I am not saying he does. Just that I dont see you make a convincing argument for proving that he does not exist. Have you done anything special to ensure that he doesn't? Like scientists do zillions of expirements to 'prove' something....?

This is strange logic. Who has the burden of proof here? The one who proposes a theory. And the theory is that GOD exists. This way everything exists since nothing can be disproved for sure, like ghosts, ghouls, goblins, dragons, yetis, lochness monster, ten-headed Ravanas, sensible-Indian-selectors etc.

bouncer, funny, we disagree even on non-cricket topics. But, you are correct about burden of proof. But, if I understand Senthil correctly, the idea is not about disproving existence of God, but rather finding out answers to those puzzling, philosopical questions. To me, that spiritual question is more important than religions. Every one of us face that eternal question about what was there when we were not there, what are the beginnings of creation? are there any such other universes? who are you? Is it just flesh and no soul? what happens when you are sleeping and have no sense of body but still accomplish a lot in your dreams. If you dwell deeper, there are so many unanswered questions that needs to be answered before someone can say, "God or some supernatural power' doesn't exist.
An athiest is called an athiest because he has a theory about non-existence of God. If you simply do not care about existence or non existence of Brahma, then you are not an athiest but a agnostic guy. Buddha simply refused to dwell into these debates and declared that he is neither agrees nor disagrees with existence of God. I think, that in assence is the ideal way of thinking on this subject I suppose. Lets not jump to conclusions, keep an open mind and just like any other scientific pursuits, let these eternal questions be explored by people into those things.

Hope I made sense above.

In fact I was not prepared to delve into all these when I replied to Senthil. My point was narrow, focused only on his argument that there exists an equivalency in proving existence and nonexistence of GOD.

I am also skeptical whether the major religions are willing to explore these things following the principles of science.  Most of the elements of religion including belief in existence of GOD are in the realm of faith and will not pass the basics of scientific tests. And they do not claim to....

[tombaan]

bouncer
I have newfound appreciation for you 

[flute202020]

tombaan, what proof (even allowing for a loooong evolution) do you have that God deosn't exist? I am not saying he does. Just that I dont see you make a convincing argument for proving that he does not exist. Have you done anything special to ensure that he doesn't? Like scientists do zillions of expirements to 'prove' something....?

This is strange logic. Who has the burden of proof here? The one who proposes a theory. And the theory is that GOD exists. This way everything exists since nothing can be disproved for sure, like ghosts, ghouls, goblins, dragons, yetis, lochness monster, ten-headed Ravanas, sensible-Indian-selectors etc.

bouncer, funny, we disagree even on non-cricket topics. But, you are correct about burden of proof. But, if I understand Senthil correctly, the idea is not about disproving existence of God, but rather finding out answers to those puzzling, philosopical questions. To me, that spiritual question is more important than religions. Every one of us face that eternal question about what was there when we were not there, what are the beginnings of creation? are there any such other universes? who are you? Is it just flesh and no soul? what happens when you are sleeping and have no sense of body but still accomplish a lot in your dreams. If you dwell deeper, there are so many unanswered questions that needs to be answered before someone can say, "God or some supernatural power' doesn't exist.
An athiest is called an athiest because he has a theory about non-existence of God. If you simply do not care about existence or non existence of Brahma, then you are not an athiest but a agnostic guy. Buddha simply refused to dwell into these debates and declared that he is neither agrees nor disagrees with existence of God. I think, that in assence is the ideal way of thinking on this subject I suppose. Lets not jump to conclusions, keep an open mind and just like any other scientific pursuits, let these eternal questions be explored by people into those things.

Hope I made sense above.

In fact I was not prepared to delve into all these when I replied to Senthil. My point was narrow, focused only on his argument that there exists an equivalency in proving existence and nonexistence of GOD.

I am also skeptical whether the major religions are willing to explore these things following the principles of science.  Most of the elements of religion including belief in existence of GOD are in the realm of faith and will not pass the basics of scientific tests. And they do not claim to....

Hmm, sure religions are a different beast altogether and in my opinion, established religions actually stand in the way of spiritual pursuit in a open way. Religions tend to freeze any insight about things spiritual and no development is possible from within the confines of a established , organised , missionary style religion. In this respect, what we had in ancient India was wonderful, open and liberal in many respects. Ancient India had only what can be loosely called 'schools of thought' and no established religion as such. A guy being into brahminical way of practice might have a guy totally into jain philosophy and it was nothing unusual during that period.

Coming to religions willing to explore these things following the principles of science, did anyone hear of the great memamsa or tharka tradition in ancient India? A lot of Indian upanishads actually contain great debates about spiritual insights and surprisingly a few of  those even have agnostic & athiestic conclusions, even though they become few or absent with the later day scriptures, indicating either rejection after rigorous intellectual excercise or our right degenration into 'closed mindednes'. We also had these great lokayata tradition in ancient India where they were into complete rational ,materialistic followers asking proof and explaination for all things. All these schools of thought coexisted then and only in the later ages, with advent of organised religions, all those different schools of philosophy got branded as hindhuism, thereby loosing some of the dynamism in the process

I know you did not intend to dwell into these things , but I blabbered just since it seemed to be related to the questions you raised. Anyway, my 2 cents.

[RicePlateReddy]

This thread should be banned by the moderators.

Because you don't like gourav's opinions, it doesn't mean that he does not exist! That is just too low a blow.

[dhruvdeepak]

This thread should be banned by the moderators.

Because you don't like gourav's opinions, it doesn't mean that he does not exist! That is just too low a blow.

[dhruvdeepak]

No. That God still exists. WHat no longer exists on the offside is the one next in line. On the other hand God still exists - that God who was so declared by the God-in-waiting-of-the-off himself ... after Adelaide 2003.

  alert. what the hell ?!?

[fineleg]

This thread should be banned by the moderators.

Because you don't like gourav's opinions, it doesn't mean that he does not exist! That is just too low a blow.

LOL

Gouravk - ur comments needed in this thread on ur behalf.

[senthilpeter]

Flute, thanks for your thoughts and attempted clarifications on mine. I think you were speaking my mind. Let me add a few thots to what you've already said....

Bouncer:

The people who have truly engendered faiths/following by attesting to the existence of some great power/being/consciousness, often termed 'God', have always provided you some kind of proof..and a lot many have laid out the way too. So my point was that, similarly Tombaan (or anyone else saying what he did) would immesely help people like me that are really curious about the larger and ever-mysterious questions of life if he could some substantiate the notion that 'God' does not exist. This is where the proof comes in. Otherwise, his statement has as much value has my (hypothetical/unstated) assertion that God does exist.

But this was not really the crux of my post, as Flute thankfully pointed out. I used this argument only to butress my greater concern that matters of the spirit (which is what God amounts to in my book) have occupied humanity for ages and deserve to be dealt with in a patient, scientific and positively enthusiastic way whatever you initial hypothesis and final goal ((which btw, is not how religions go about doing it). When viewed from this perspective, it ceases to be not as much about tombaan asserting that God doesn't exist as much as whether we are willing enough to suspend belief/disbelief till a more informed stage.

On a personal note, I dont care whether God exists or not, but utterly care about some questions like the kind that Flute mentioned, or one that Tombaan asked - why doesn't someone make Bush pay for the Iraqi blood. Questions like the point of existence on earth. On whether one life is it or many? And to all these, the answers available out there and that pique my interest always tend to be from people who have experienced (or claim to) realms of consciousness that are not my own as yet. I may or may not agree or feel inclined to learn more on those fronts, but I sure cannot rule them out without something more than cursory thought if I wish to infact be scientific, and not dogmatic, in my methods of discovery.

[tombaan]

so god created man in his own likeness or did we come from apes???
which has more validity? in terms of scientific proof? we know adam and eve and whoever is such a hogwash with scientific proofs for dinasour to human existence for over 50000 years. evolution is a slow process i had in posted an article on human evolution happening even know from NYT in the etc forum....or in jest like saturday night live said dinasours are jesus's horses or kailas is actually a peak...or cows after all are not divine nor is sun a god. Many of this same expostulations would have me stoned death say 100 years even know could happen if i visit middle east certain other parts of the world. if man could exist 45000 years without god where did he come from in last 5000 years? man has an image of self which makes him think in terms of soul and life after death.....to me a god as defined any religious books doesnot exist...buddhism has dealt with this in what it terms as nirvana a state of nothing ....or like thich nhat hanh says how come something which is not there exist or not exist. what exists is our genes which still can evolve and who knows what it will be thousands of years hence that is if we dont blow up the toposphere with nuclear devices.....man today lives stronger and better than what he did in ages......we could once who knows conquer death itself. Am i afraid of death definetly....that is what stops us from doing lot of stupid things.....but i know there is no heaven with 52 maidens or indras apsaras waiting for me in yonder. a benovolent god as described in various books definetly is not out there.....

[fineleg]

so god created man in his own likeness or did we come from apes???
which has more validity? in terms of scientific proof? we know adam and eve and whoever is such a hogwash with scientific proofs for dinasour to human existence for over 50000 years. evolution is a slow process i had in posted an article on human evolution happening even know from NYT in the etc forum....or in jest like saturday night live said dinasours are jesus's horses or kailas is actually a peak...or cows after all are not divine nor is sun a god. Many of this same expostulations would have me stoned death say 100 years even know could happen if i visit middle east certain other parts of the world. if man could exist 45000 years without god where did he come from in last 5000 years? man has an image of self which makes him think in terms of soul and life after death.....to me a god as defined any religious books doesnot exist...buddhism has dealt with this in what it terms as nirvana a state of nothing ....or like thich nhat hanh says how come something which is not there exist or not exist. what exists is our genes which still can evolve and who knows what it will be thousands of years hence that is if we dont blow up the toposphere with nuclear devices.....man today lives stronger and better than what he did in ages......we could once who knows conquer death itself. Am i afraid of death definetly....that is what stops us from doing lot of stupid things.....but i know there is no heaven with 52 maidens or indras apsaras waiting for me in yonder. a benovolent god as described in various books definetly is not out there.....

Just a question:
How do you know it is DEFINITELY not out there?
Neither u nor I know for sure what and if something is "out there"?
So, how do u say DEFINITELY? How do u get that certainty?

[flute202020]

so god created man in his own likeness or did we come from apes???
which has more validity? in terms of scientific proof? we know adam and eve and whoever is such a hogwash with scientific proofs for dinasour to human existence for over 50000 years. evolution is a slow process i had in posted an article on human evolution happening even know from NYT in the etc forum....or in jest like saturday night live said dinasours are jesus's horses or kailas is actually a peak...or cows after all are not divine nor is sun a god. Many of this same expostulations would have me stoned death say 100 years even know could happen if i visit middle east certain other parts of the world. if man could exist 45000 years without god where did he come from in last 5000 years? man has an image of self which makes him think in terms of soul and life after death.....to me a god as defined any religious books doesnot exist...buddhism has dealt with this in what it terms as nirvana a state of nothing ....or like thich nhat hanh says how come something which is not there exist or not exist. what exists is our genes which still can evolve and who knows what it will be thousands of years hence that is if we dont blow up the toposphere with nuclear devices.....man today lives stronger and better than what he did in ages......we could once who knows conquer death itself. Am i afraid of death definetly....that is what stops us from doing lot of stupid things.....but i know there is no heaven with 52 maidens or indras apsaras waiting for me in yonder. a benovolent god as described in various books definetly is not out there.....

The word "definitely" may not be appropriate here which is what myself and senthil are trying to convey. Going by your current knowledge and going by your current inclination of not dwelling into the matter, seems like you are sceptical of any such thing as heaven. Actually, I too happen to incline towards non-existence of heaven. Heaven, as in people with all kinds of fecilities might really be streching it. But if you dwell deeper, questions of soul,universe etc. cannot be completely ruled out. They are valid questions and no knee jerk reaction will help a person.

*hi said truth is God after a lifetime of dedicated to truth & non violence
Bagavadh Gita said many universes explode into existence only to vanish/collapse into brahma at the end of creation..lot similar to big bang theory, only with talk of many such occurances.

think along those lines tombaan, you did be surprised how the question is still open and noone can claim to have understood it all.  While you are at it, try to ignore the BS from different religions , religion has nothing to do with what I am trying to say. holy cow or creation theory or beautiful maid filled heaven has nothing to do with open questions I am talking about.

[tombaan]

as a spiritual experience I like buddhist stream of thoughts better than anything out there....atleast it doesnot force you to go to church and pray 10 times a day as a means of passage to heaven...try this guy thich nhat hanh he writes some very neat stuff....

i agree to some of your thoughts......but i know one thing for sure God as described by any religion is not out there.....i stopped going to church for more than 4 years. In india I used to go to temples pretty regularly to listen to discources and debates on religion......it was good but not what i was looking for. I even tried Japapnese buddhism with chanting and what not for an year but then felt it was not working for me.....Krishna leela is good but I think him and jesus and many others became god with passage of time with their real life clouded in a shroud.....I can understand the connectivity you are talking about but I dont have answers yet....maybe someday

[flute202020]

as a spiritual experience I like buddhist stream of thoughts better than anything out there....atleast it doesnot force you to go to church and pray 10 times a day as a means of passage to heaven...try this guy thich nhat hanh he writes some very neat stuff....

i agree to some of your thoughts......but i know one thing for sure God as described by any religion is not out there.....i stopped going to church for more than 4 years. In india I used to go to temples pretty regularly to listen to discources and debates on religion......it was good but not what i was looking for. I even tried Japapnese buddhism with chanting and what not for an year but then felt it was not working for me.....Krishna leela is good but I think him and jesus and many others became god with passage of time with their real life clouded in a shroud.....I can understand the connectivity you are talking about but I dont have answers yet....maybe someday

exactly my thoughts about Jesus, Krishna & Rama. Especially in India, we tend to kill our heroes by making them Gods. Once they become Gods, their life (now attributed with magical or healing powers) is no longer an example to be followed, but rather to be worshipped. IMHO, same happened with Jesus too. He was this great personality with great energy and spiritual power who was born into a strife torn and violent culture and was so much ahead of his times. Sadly, his followers made him a Son of God and you achieve salvation ONLY if you follow him, a *hi or a Buddha stand no chance for it is not the Christ way.

My personal favourite is Sri Rama. Think of him like a human and he comes across as this giant and epoch making personality who laid the foundations of Indian nationcivilization. Think of him as God and you fail to figure out why he killed Vali or why he cut a woman's nose etc. If you start with him as human, ultimately you will have no problem in drawing inspiration and example from him. I don't demand much else from my God. 

[tombaan]

rama i am not sure....I think he was a king who fought to get his wife back.....of all hindu gods this is one guy i am totally uncomfortable with...he who casts his wife away to win brownie points....cannot be my ideal for a person to follow irrespective of what the dhobis wife said.....then ravana was not such a bad guy as the mythology makes him out to be....he was not even allowed to take part in the swayamwar ....ofcourse he would be spiteful and want her.....my favourtie character was always ganpati....the elephant god 

[toney]

Krishna is my favourite among the incarnations. I like the fact that he is not bound by popular opinion and doesnt sound as idealistic as Rama does. Correct me if I am wrong but the reasons for the differences between Rama and Krishna were mainly because of the different eras (Satyugam and Kalyugam) they were in, right? In which case, I'll rephrase and say, I find Krishna as god very agreeable to me.

[devatha]

Krishna is my favourite among the incarnations. I like the fact that he is not bound by popular opinion and doesnt sound as idealistic as Rama does. Correct me if I am wrong but the reasons for the differences between Rama and Krishna were mainly because of the different eras (Satyugam and Kalyugam) they were in, right? In which case, I'll rephrase and say, I find Krishna as god very agreeable to me.

Correction comes here, the eras were Treta & Dwapara. The Satya yugam is normally called as Krutha.

[flute202020]

rama i am not sure....I think he was a king who fought to get his wife back.....of all hindu gods this is one guy i am totally uncomfortable with...he who casts his wife away to win brownie points....cannot be my ideal for a person to follow irrespective of what the dhobis wife said.....then ravana was not such a bad guy as the mythology makes him out to be....he was not even allowed to take part in the swayamwar ....ofcourse he would be spiteful and want her.....my favourtie character was always ganpati....the elephant god 

tombaan, topic for another day, but will have to say, you got it wrong about Rama. Its been historically proven now that casting away wife part of the story was woven during a later age, and is not written by Valmiki. It was a later day addition by brahmin strong soceity to reinforce the caste  based soceity idea. In this new addition they even make Rama kill a low caste guy simply because he is doing tapasya. Its always what you believe but to me, Rama was this great hero , who spread civilization over most of Indian subcontinent, was not a bore , but rather a great warrior with
loads of real world wisdom. This is how Rama comes out in Valmiki's ramayan. Later day works, in an attempt to make him perfect, made him an unimaginative and boring hero. He was also probably the first prince to have vowed to a single woman when polygamy was the norm with royal families. Probably Rama is our George Washington, laying the foundations of the idea of India.

[devatha]

In this new addition they even make Rama kill a low caste guy simply because he is doing tapasya. Probably Rama is our George Washington, laying the foundations of the idea of India.

Who is this low caste guy? Are you not committing blasphemy by equalizing Rama to George Washington?

[toney]

Blasphemy is allowed where thought is allowed.
flute, what you said is news to me. Why is it that no attempt is made to show what the authentic Valimiki product is and what came in later on? How does this reinforce the caste based society that the Brahmanas wanted?

I learned an interesting thing yesterday. I had always assumed that Hrishikesha (as in Sri Kirshna) was the combination (sandhi) of Hrishi + Kesha but heard yesterday that the actual words were Hrishika +Isha. Hrishika means the senses (taste, smell...) and Isha means god. So, that seems apt for Krishna too.

[flute202020]

In this new addition they even make Rama kill a low caste guy simply because he is doing tapasya. Probably Rama is our George Washington, laying the foundations of the idea of India.

Who is this low caste guy? Are you not committing blasphemy by equalizing Rama to George Washington?

nope I did not equate anyone to anyone..simply said Rama too did lay the foundations of the idea of India like Washington, only in a more enduring manner. Considering that all humans have Brahma in them, may be a spark of Rama was there in Washington and made him achieve what he did.  

do you still think I committed blasphemy?

[devatha]

But who is this low caste guy doing tapasya, whom Rama killed?

[bouncer]

Flute,

Who was Rama? There is no historical basis of his existence. Why do you keep saying that he is your favorite? It is the mythical charcater who you like, right? You do not mean to say that Rama indeed was the king who attacked Lanka with the monkey soldiers and killed a ten-headed monster!

[Cover Point]

Since you guys have doubted the existence of God and raised doubts over all religions I am going to start a new eligion called Gangulism.

The followers will

- Whine endlessly for the loss of faith
- Heaven will be Ganguly's villa and hell will be Chappel's academy
- Fail to play the rising delivery
- Declare crusade on all spinners
- Wear burning effigies instead of crosses or taweez or Om signs