God is a topic most fiercely fighted about, for the sake of reasons as well as reasonlessness. If God is a problem, an Atheist wants it to be solved while a religious person wants it to be dissolved. None of them wants their ideas to be bridged to the other because each of them is pretty sure that the other is wrong.
Well, even if I have every reason to justify the stand of atheists, myself is not one of them. Ultimately, I think, an atheist is the product of so childishly religious (or pious) a society that has created a number of so-called Gods all of them being given the attributes merely of a spoilt child.
I am often called a blasphemer because my God doesn't go in line with what these people call their gods. My god is not running an Employment Exchange so that you beseech before him and he gives you a job with melted heart. My God is neither a Police Surveillance Camera which monitor each and every deed of yours and chart out punishments for your sins. He is neither a corrupt Public Servant who would get your things done tempted by your silly offering of a pot of payasam or your one month dieting!
If you, religious man, doesn't find these an insult of 'if-he-is-there-he-must-be-Great' God, really I do. You are insulting him. And it is this very insult that gave birth to an atheist.
And for you, my atheist friend, I don't have anything to disprove you. Science, even in its present enriched stage, has presented no evidence in support of this God stuff. And many say Science has almost disproved it by lack of evidence! But I would say My God -The Omnipresent, The Omnipotent, The Omniscient and The Omnibenevolent God- would never be proved by Science, EVEN IF HE DOES EXIST. God, for me is the totality, and that is what I mean by omnipresence. Science can't deal with a totality. For the method of science to be conclusive, it has to deal with details, not with the totality. A botanist study about a flower by dissecting it into its details-the petals, the stamen, the stigma..etc- and at the end, there is no flower. The more you want to learn about something, the more finer details you have to deal with and the result is, you lose the picture of totality. If scientist wants my God to be scientifically disproved (or proved), the finer details he go into the farther away he goes from the target. As you can't click a photo of yourself with a camera within yourself, you can't prove the existence of something within yourself(or something which IS yourself) with a tool within yourself.
Well, even if I have every reason to justify the stand of atheists, myself is not one of them. Ultimately, I think, an atheist is the product of so childishly religious (or pious) a society that has created a number of so-called Gods all of them being given the attributes merely of a spoilt child.
I am often called a blasphemer because my God doesn't go in line with what these people call their gods. My god is not running an Employment Exchange so that you beseech before him and he gives you a job with melted heart. My God is neither a Police Surveillance Camera which monitor each and every deed of yours and chart out punishments for your sins. He is neither a corrupt Public Servant who would get your things done tempted by your silly offering of a pot of payasam or your one month dieting!
If you, religious man, doesn't find these an insult of 'if-he-is-there-he-must-be-Great' God, really I do. You are insulting him. And it is this very insult that gave birth to an atheist.
And for you, my atheist friend, I don't have anything to disprove you. Science, even in its present enriched stage, has presented no evidence in support of this God stuff. And many say Science has almost disproved it by lack of evidence! But I would say My God -The Omnipresent, The Omnipotent, The Omniscient and The Omnibenevolent God- would never be proved by Science, EVEN IF HE DOES EXIST. God, for me is the totality, and that is what I mean by omnipresence. Science can't deal with a totality. For the method of science to be conclusive, it has to deal with details, not with the totality. A botanist study about a flower by dissecting it into its details-the petals, the stamen, the stigma..etc- and at the end, there is no flower. The more you want to learn about something, the more finer details you have to deal with and the result is, you lose the picture of totality. If scientist wants my God to be scientifically disproved (or proved), the finer details he go into the farther away he goes from the target. As you can't click a photo of yourself with a camera within yourself, you can't prove the existence of something within yourself(or something which IS yourself) with a tool within yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment