Richard Dawkins

[VijaySandhu]

For several months now I have been watching clips of Richard Dawkins on you tube. There is no doubting the mans intellect when it comes to science. Im sure you would all agree that just like Dawkins, smashing superstition was also one of Guru Nanak ji's talents. With this in mind I feel that Dawkins the modern guardian of Logic would impress Guru Nanak had they have ever met. The root of Dawkins Atheism and the main hurdle in my own progress is in my view the unwillingness to dedicate time to Naam Simran. Gurbani makes it clear that thee really is no other way. There are countless references to this in Gurbani , specifically regarding mans confidence in his own cleverness when trying to prove the existance of god eg. Japji Sahib.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this , I would be interested to read. Sorry if I offend anyone .

Thank you

Sandhu

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

Baba Nanak spoke against superstition because it was a manifestation of human egoism and caused by ignorance of spiritual wisdom. Modern science totally rejects superstition because it cannot be proved by sensory data as perceived by our sense organs. Scientists are actually worse than the superstitious people BabaJi condemned because they worship maya purely and do not even believe in God. So to compare dawkins with Satguru Nanak, I find quite insulting and naieve, as dawkins the arch-fool does not even believe in God. In Gurbani there is a prophecy of modern scientists, they are known as Shakta durjan. Shakta is one who worships Maya only and does not know or recognise the consciousness half of shakti - Shiva. Or in other words materialists.

[Genie Singh]

How about man's need for meditation can a human be psychologically healthy without active clearing of mind?

[laalsingh]

Moderators. why can't I use 'like' button? It gives a error something like 'reached a quota'.

[Genie Singh]

Richard Dawkins is intelligent.. he makes arguments on the basis of evolution mainly so a biolgist at heart. Rather then a big-bang man going from physics angle. Richard looks through nature. But he deduces a human in nature is not different to animals. Do animals need law and order? Why does man require such special framework? Humans are not instinctively governed without having inherent violent actions otherwise there would be no crimes or prison systems. Unless we want to percieve God from a new angle being the social interactions we have with one another and place more importance in that.

There is a requirements for governing, policing so forth in the past this was connected with religion. However as religious ideas have changed perhaps due to corruption things have changed. Richard Dawkins has proved, Judaism, Christianity and Islam absolutely wrong he goes into biblic stories and says they are not possible.

We have people from islamic research foundation who have proved christinaity and judaism wrong based on contradiction and fallacies in those books. We have many scholars proving Islam wrong with contradiction, inhumane teachings so forth. Someone like Einstein supported Buddhism, one thing is not alot of light is placed on Indian traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Krishna Conciousness and others connected like Zorostrainism and Sikhism. The surrounding difference is we compare what atheism calls a sky daddy to a really subatomic level, panatheistic omnipresent supreme being. We find things like quantum physics are deducible from these theologies please see:

However we can argue against this, Richard places importance in vmat2 gene (god gene) for creating spirtual experience. One would think what happens to law and order if we move away from depth of thinking. We would need to ask Richard what he thinks of Karma?

Edited November 8, 2011 by JatherdarSahib