Banner Advertiser

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

No you are not saying any thing impractical. I have nothing to say if you limit this kind of God to one's personal life only. Because you will have define what is good for you and what is not. But what about making this kind of God relevant for collective life? Who will define the good and the bad? Thus a whole bunch of ethical and moral questions become relevant in both the cases. The religion for collective life is more complicated as some formula has to be devised to determine the good and the bad and their various mixes. 
An ideology like communism is also, in your sense, like a religion. Communists have told what is good and what is bad. 
God is like the Polaris of one's life like the life of mystic Rabindranath. Is your God also some thing like this? Do you communicate with your God? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 6, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Jiten Roy [mukto-mona] <> wrote:


Dr. Bain, dictionary only defines things based on the existing popular perceptions. You should not use dictionary to understand any contrary opinions.
My understanding of God is not the existing perception, even though it should be. As per Hindu religion - God lives in every living being, and so does the evil. What does that mean? Only plausible explanation is - God and evil must live in spirit in all living beings.
You must have experienced, in your life, that you achieve better success, when your effort is whole-heartedly supported by your heart and mind, but, you get undesirable outcome, when your efforts are half-hearted.

One can interpret - the former endeavor as being done as per the will of the God, but the later ones were done against the wills of the God, meaning evil-spirit contributed to the negative outcome in the later cases. Did I say anything impractical here?
Jiten Roy


From: "Sukhamaya Bain [mukto-mona]" <>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2014 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

Good, discussions gentlemen! Let me provide the definitions of God and god as per two dictionaries.
God in Oxford Dictionaries: (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
"God" in Merram-Webster Dictionaries: The perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe.
"god" in Oxford Dictionaries: (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. An adored, admired, or influential person.
"god" in Merram-Webster Dictionaries: A spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people.  One of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions. A person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired.
To answer Jiten Roy's questions to Sanjeev Kulkarni, rational people (atheists) do not have to accept the God/god as a spirit either; they can probably accept that some people (believers) might find a way to keep themselves contented by believing such spirits. Of course, if the beliefs were kept within oneself, the imaginary character of God/god would not be much of a problem. Emphasize "oneself"; it should not include anyone else. Now, if the belief requires one to put a burqa on his wife, for example, it is a problem; it is like enslaving others for an idiotic belief.
It is too much of a shame for humans to accept the kinds of injustice that have been going on in the world for the nonsensical beliefs in God/god.
Sukhamaya Bain

On Friday, December 5, 2014 10:12 PM, "Shah Deeldar [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

God is simply an idea without any material basis. There are tribes in Amazonas, who have no concept of God and they are perfectly OK without that imaginary figure. It is understandable why mortal humans want to imagine a God for a secure unknown future. The question is whether anybody has secured their future yet?

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 8:38 PM, "Jiten Roy [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

Yes, Sanjeev, you need to define God first. If I say, my God has no existence, He lives in the spirit, then where the question of existence of God come from? Atheists should not have trouble accepting this God. Isn't it? 

Jiten Roy


From: "sanjeev kulkarni [mukto-mona]" <>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

Define god ?  Poison by any name will kill.


From: "Jiten Roy [mukto-mona]" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 4 December 2014 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

Excellent points! I have some issue with atheism; it appears to be incomplete idea. Most atheists think they are atheist because they have rejected God, as defined in the religion. Religionists, obviously, have distorted the concept of God; they made it some kind of human-like character. First thing is to define God, then love or hate it.  
Jiten Roy

From: "Kamal Das [mukto-mona]" <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

Haven't the Buddhists made Buddha their supreme god? There are Amitava Buddha, the sun god with limitless radiation, Kacchapa Buddha looking like a turtle and representing the sky god, Maitreya Buddha yet to come etc. My atheism sees gods and goddesses everywhere. God, having been derived from Godde, a Persian word meaning leader, leads in every place. Religion, by definition, is something that holds together. Even communism is a religion, but atheism or agnosticism, being glue less, are not.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:13 AM, "Sukhamaya Bain [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

If Buddhism is considered a religion, surely God is not needed for all religions. But what is this nonsense of what God needs or does not need? The imaginary character needs whatever the believer thinks he needs. To a rational person, there is no such thing as God needing this or that.
I find the statement, 'Atheism itself is regarded as a religion. So Subimal Chakrabarty's atheism or my atheism or anybody else's atheism does not mean that we are all clue-less non-sensical people', totally absurd.
Let us look at the definition of "religion" in the Oxford Dictionaries. It is, "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Atheism is probably regarded as a religion only by people, including some Christians, who cannot think beyond religions. The idea that atheists would be 'clueless and nonsensical' without accepting that their rational thoughts are also a religion sounds too ludicrous to me.

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 6:26 PM, "ANISUR RAHMAN [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

Jiten Roy is probably forgetting his own religion (if he has any), when he says religion needs God. Have you got a God or more widely, have Hindus got a God? There may be a number of gods and goddesses, but not a single all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent God, as understood in the monotheistic religion. Buddhism does not believe in gods or goddesses. So to assert that 'religion has no existence without God' is blatantly wrong. Religion is a faith, quite often a blind faith.You can have faith in whatever you like - God or no God. Atheism itself is regarded as a religion. So Subimal Chakrabarty's atheism or my atheism or anybody else's atheism does not mean that we are all clue-less non-sensical people, as Jiten Roy claims. In fact, such egregious claim is itself devoid of sense.

- AR  

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty [mukto-mona]" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2014, 0:27
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

First thing first. Your account might have been hacked. I tried to contact you but I do not know your telephone number. Check on that first. 

Now with respect to your query, my short cut answer is that I am talking about the teachings of a religion. You can learn great virtues from a religion. That's why many believers are good human beings. 
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 1, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Jiten Roy [mukto-mona] <> wrote:

Mr. Chakraborty, you cannot partially support a religion; you may partially follow a religion; in fact, most people do that. That does not mean, they have partial support for their religion. Maybe that's what you meant. Even then, you are contradicting yourself.
You have said in a previous post that you are an atheist for 45 years, meaning you don't believe in God. You must know - religion have no existence without God. How can you partially support religion without believing in God? You are not making sense here.

God is a metaphysical concept; God does not need religion, religion needs God, meaning one can believe in God without religion, but the reverse logic is not true. 

Deepak Chopra in a recent article discussed how: Physics needs God, but God does not need physics. The concept of God is the same, whether it is in physics or religion. You can find his article in the following link:

Religionists have given a distorted view of God. Enlightened people should not get swayed by such distortion.

Jiten Roy


Posted by: Subimal Chakrabarty <>

Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:




"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190