Poison in nano dose is excellent pain killer. Devotees kill to establish the supremacy of their ideas. An abstract idea as God has nothing to do with it.
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:08 PM, "sanjeev kulkarni jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Define god ? Poison by any name will kill.Sanjeev
From: "Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
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 kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
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 subain1@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> 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.SuBain===============================================On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 6:26 PM, "ANISUR RAHMAN anisur.rahman1@btinternet.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> 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 subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2014, 0:27
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God
