Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Justin Hale]

[itaewonguy]

[Justin Hale]

[Rteacher]

Let's at least theoretically accept that God is the all-powerful, all-cognizant personal source of everything.

All living beings, emanations from God, are either approaching the original source (taking the high road) or going away from Him (taking the low road ...)

Persons approaching God are called "divine" or devotees, and persons going away from God are called demons.

In earlier cosmic ages, demons and devotees were on different planets, or in different bodies.

In this age, the demon and the devotee are within the same body.

So, we act either demonically or divinely according to our consciousness and association (who and what we associate with ...)

In Bhagavad-gita , Krishna (who unequivocally claims to be God) describes the demonic mentality:

BG 16.6: O son of Pṛthā, in this world there are two kinds of created beings. One is called the divine and the other demoniac. I have already explained to you at length the divine qualities. Now hear from Me of the demoniac.

BG 16.7: Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them.

BG 16.8: They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.

BG 16.9: Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.

PURPORT

The demoniac are engaged in activities that will lead the world to destruction. The Lord states here that they are less intelligent. The materialists, who have no concept of God, think that they are advancing. But according to Bhagavad-gītā, they are unintelligent and devoid of all sense. They try to enjoy this material world to the utmost limit and therefore always engage in inventing something for sense gratification. Such materialistic inventions are considered to be advancement of human civilization, but the result is that people grow more and more violent and more and more cruel, cruel to animals and cruel to other human beings. They have no idea how to behave toward one another. Animal killing is very prominent amongst demoniac people. Such people are considered the enemies of the world because ultimately they will invent or create something which will bring destruction to all. Indirectly, this verse anticipates the invention of nuclear weapons, of which the whole world is today very proud. At any moment war may take place, and these atomic weapons may create havoc. Such things are created solely for the destruction of the world, and this is indicated here. Due to godlessness, such weapons are invented in human society; they are not meant for the peace and prosperity of the world.

http://vedabase.net/bg/16/9/en

[chris_J2]

I'll repeat it again, Justin:

Fact of the matter, is that Hitchens & his younger brother ARE estranged. Precisely because of his publication, "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything". That publication also poisoned his relationship with his younger brother. Hitchen's obsession, appears to have over ruled his undoubted academic prowess. The irony was not lost on me.

[Rteacher]

Musical interlude: ("Irony")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejIoJB-ijoQ

[Justin Hale]

[chris_J2]

Justin: The answer is no. As stated in a previous response, Hitchens never provided footnotes or referencing, to back up any his forcefiul assertions. ie, suppositions without evidence. Rather damning, don't you think?

RT: thanks for the humourous interlude!

[thepeel]

[Justin Hale]

[chris_J2]

The Peel wrote

[thepeel]

Did you read the book?

[chris_J2]

No. I haven't read "The God Delusion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#Critical_reception

"Many reviewers were highly critical of Dawkins's lack of scholarship on theology and the philosophy of religion. Dawkins is explicitly dismissive of theology in the God Delusion, and in the words of John Cornwell "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography",[25] going so far as to suggest that �[Dawkins] would substitute a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear.�[26] This sentiment was echoed by many reviewers, from theologians, such as Alister McGrath,[27] to scientists otherwise sympathetic to Dawkins's position, such as H. Allen Orr."

The highlighted part above, made me laugh, though.

[JMO]

[Rteacher]

Here's a good critique of Dawkins by a lawyer:
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html

WHO IS PROFESSOR RICHARD DAWKINS?

... He is a self-confessed materialist. He says in his own words �paranormal is bunk� i.e. it does not exist. He publicly stated that he does not believe in the afterlife.

Now this R. Dawkins (hereinafter Dawkins or RD) is expressing a personal view, not a scientific view, because he can never use science to show that the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. He is into conjecture and speculation. He�s into subjectivity. He�s into debunking. He�s into demeaning, denigrating and sarcasm. He�s into personal beliefs in his argument because he never comes to empirically based conclusions.

Further, because he is a self confessed materialist and has been actively anti-paranormal, he does not and cannot perceive empirical evidence for the paranormal with empirical equanimity. He�s deeply negatively prejudiced. His objectivity is negatively encumbered. And that is a huge problem for someone who keeps on saying he is a scientist.

In fact this Dawkins believes the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. Technically, that makes him a �believer.� That makes his argument subjective- and anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental error and to complete invalidation...

But he has many devout followers on these forums ...