Saturday, December 22, 2007


A tricky subject, especially something that I don't know much about. But, I'm really intrigued by the whole concept. Questions like, What if He did exist , come to mind... Ok, Most of you would have realised that I've an atheistic bent of mind. For the rest, here goes, I'm an atheist, i.e , a non-believer in the existence of God, various theologies etc....

But I really love the concept. Having the notion of a supreme controller, the ultimate being, all powerful, all pervading, yada yada..brings in a sense of self-restraint among individuals. But my feeling is that ,when you let your fate to be decided by someone else, only to face the implications, it could either bring in that permanent sense of self-consciousness [ in a bad kinda way], or might make you immensely nonchalant about the whole process.

I have some doubts however. It is often seen in religious books, that God is referred to as "He" [ apparently its blasphemy if you don't put the capital 'H' ]. I wonder why Gods are not represented by 'She'. But that's a trivial doubt. One might argue that major prophets, messiahs were male, and keeping with the standard terminology, its 'He'.

But how foolish must we be to assign such meaningless attributes such as gender, a concept that is so trivially mortal, to a character that we so seriously visualize to be much higher than us.

I believe agnostics are the worst kind of people. The most fickle minded of them all. I have nothing against believers. To each his own. But the kind of people that say.. " I don't believe that there is a God or anything , But I do believe that there is a Supreme Force that controls our thoughts and actions, and the universe in general; ". Tell you what... Screw you guys. Get some balls. and jump to one side.

For if the notion of the supreme force were to be remotely true, shouldn't we refer to God as "It", with a capital "I". Examples in religious literature would probably include, "It saves", " It will forgive you ", " It knows what you're doing " etc ... Man, that would seriously turn some heads, and primarily sound like some corny line from a M.Night.shyamamamalan movie....

Belief is a disposition, not something to be enforced upon. It should be a cumulative set of self reflections that you perceive over time. Something that will make you think about your actions, the consequences, about life, the universe and everything else. If you need a God to guide you on that path, well, good for you. If you somehow think you can manage on your own, that's good too... But if keep looking for support when you need it, and then be a pompous ass later, you seriously suck....

Ok.. That might have sounded like I was preaching from my bottom. But its an issue that I really like and amd passionate about. Feel free to disagree.

P.S: This post has substituted another ; something that was to be titled "GRE chombu".. and would complete the chombu trilogy. i.e, GATE, and CAT. But unfortunate for many perverse readers who dwell on other people's miseries, it was not to be...[ fading drumroll....]...




  1. jakra7:10 AM

    Curious to know what your views are about Darwin's Theory versus Intelligent Design...

  2. To put it in the simplest manner possible,
    Darwin's Theory -1 , Intelligent Design - 0.

    Maybe a detailed viewpoint might figure out in some later post.

  3. good that u have a the nest question
    which of these u agree with

    a)macro evolution
    b)micro evolution

    suggested readings here

  4. @jakra...I'll do some reading on these topics before presenting my opinion. But i strongly disagree on the concept of intelligent design, more so when its blended with neo earth fails to even agree on elementary points with currently accepted scientific evidence, and on most levels reduces to the absurd. Agreed science is also a faith of sorts, but it atleast lets us question its very core.a rational set up is very much in order when any kind of faith is to be embraced.true, it might remove some of the mystical parts from it, and hence the necessity to question is itself questioned unfortunately.this is where people with dual interests come to help.people with an inclination to philosophical issues, and with a scientific bent of mind must take on the most important task of leading the masses to a state of rational enlightenment, yet maintaining that veil of mysticism and spiritual feeling.these are gen views and a i mentioned before, may not be in direct reply to your question..

  5. might I add 2 corrections. In the original Hebrew versions of the Bible, at least some of the terms used for God were in the feminine. Its lost in the translation into English like so many other things.
    And generally Agnostics are people who understand that somethings are unknowable, aka that they really don't know if there is a God or not.
    (sake of full disclosure = I'm a Christian raised, agnostic) Personally I don't see why anyone would bring God into the about debate evolution; If God existed and is omnipotent then he could create evolution correct? If God doesn't exist then evolution is evolution (shrugs). Finally to kick up a little dust before I exit, modern science isn't so much built on rationalism as it is built on empiricism: experimentation, observation, and theory. If you want irrational>>big bang theory and quantum physics are a perfect example.

  6. @ Pio.
    1. I'm glad that u informed me about that hebrew bit. Lost in translation, i guess, as u rightly mentioned. But I was actually referring to the fact that, whenever anyone prays to God, or describes God, it is usually in the masculine form, atleast for language sake. This is probably a reflection of the human male self, and probably symbolises the dominance that exists.

    2. There are two ways in which the human mind progresses.
    a) Accept postulates, believe them as if they're unquestionably true. Then build upon current wisdom based on these facts.
    b) The eternal skeptic- question the fundamental, make sure they're irrefutable, then follow step a).

    Most thinkers follow a reasonable mixture of both views, and arrive at their theories.

    The poor agnostic however, chooses to accept the fact that there is something beyond his realm of wisdom, and unfortunately, does nothing whatsoever either to look for it, or to find means to refute it. Sounds a bit casual, n dimwitted to me...

    As to your views about empiricism, bang on. That is the main reason why significant new research or theories don't pop so often. Excess belief is often hazardous. Unless you choose to inquire the truths yourself, you will not learn anything new.

    True, the dragging of God into the aspect of evolution, as happens in most U.S. States, in the guise of intelligent design, is probably hated by both the factions, if u get what I mean.

  7. about the he/she - your correct that is a reflection on the patriarchal nature of most western and eastern cultures. I am sure in classically matriarchal societies this might be reversed. I know in Christianity many still pray to the "Blessed virgin" or "mother Mary" which are throw backs to these ancient pagan religions who saw God in the feminine/mother aspect.

    I think you don't give enough credit to the agnostic. At heart the agnostic is a skeptic, someone that understands that human beings are limited by their very nature and can't necessarily know everything. for example - I can't fathom infinite or the opposite, infinitely small. These are concepts that exist, and I accept that, but can you REALLY visualize or realize it beyond a concept. God to me is a function like Pi something that can't be calculated, only accepted on faith. Even the Heisenberg uncertainty principle points to the fundamental limits of human observation at the quantum level. Here ( a (albeit controversial) theorist who points towards the observer effect on the universal size. Finally, agnostics accept that somethings simply have to be accepted on faith, the only people who could think they have definite proof of god would be prophets or madmen.

  8. Ok. To begin with , good that we agree on one point.

    As to the skeptic part.
    The fact that one cannot fathom the infinite n the infinitesimal, is immediately obvious to everyone. But both the non-believer-rational thinker and the plain believer would try to explore the limits in either directions, albeit in their own methods, but still an effort is done.

    Agnosticism is by definition, lack of knowledge; well if that's bliss, good for him. I personally would like to evaluate my opinions and beliefs. If I believe in God, why so. If not, why not.

    My lack of visualization or perceiving would neither refute the existence of god, nor accept it.It JUST shows my ignorance.
    [ ignorance, and agnosticism have very similar etymological origins btw, no offence].

    God as a function, well that's new. Interesting idea.
    just to clarify though. Pi is not an idea. It exists. It can be calculated. We get an accurate picture day by day. Similar with the notion of God.Some people explore divinity, others choose to dwell deep into the mysteries of nature.

    Which reminds me, why don't you read the "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel. It addresses many such issues, analysing from various perspectives.

    In proof, lies the beauty.
    In proof lies the truth.
    I still accept your last line though.LoL.

    I like your views, it is fun to argue.

  9. "I believe agnostics are the worst kind of people. The most fickle minded of them all"

    What about agnostic theists? I personally belive these guys have the most rational and logical arguments about the existence of God.. Check out wiki for some detailed info..

  10. @kitta....
    Agnostic Theists eh?..

    Definition:- " I don't know whether a God exists or not... But, what the heck, I'll believe in Him anyway.. Its not like I've to search for a proof or anything.."...

  11. Rakesh Babu G R12:52 PM

    Since, this is one of my favourite topics, I can't help but comment on this post.
    Bertrand Russell was an agnostic, and he said that if you don't know something perfectly then you shouldn't say you do. So, agnostics say that they just believe that "you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god"(I think I can take the liberty of using a small g). There is nothing drastically wrong in that.
    But, it is very important to realize that when they say god's existence can't be proved or disproved, they are not saying that we cannot disprove that Jesus was God or that Krishna or Allah( to hell, I care) was God. It is important to know the view of Einstein on this topic. He doesn't believe in the idea of a personal god(aka Jess, Krishna, Allah etc etc). So, basically agnostics are atheists if you define atheists as not believing in Krishna, Jesus etc etc.
    Sample this piece by Feynman.
    Though you cant disprove that there are no UFOs, the possibility of UFOs as existing in the way portrayed in the popular media is nil. Same with gods like Jesus, Krishna etc etc.
    As Richard Dawkins said,
    "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."