This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Dr. Hameer's Profile

Dr. Hameer's Avatar Joined about 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Dr. Hameer

More Discussions by Dr. Hameer

Latest Comments by Dr. Hameer

Go to: Interview with Richard Dawkins in Brazil - June 27

Dr. Hameer's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by Dr. Hameer

I give up... you guys are more interested in nonsensical talks rather than anything serious. Why am I wasting my time here?

You are all, to quote the Koran (even though I am not a Muslim), "deaf, dumb and blind" and are incapable of any understanding.

One thing Steve, go study Eastern religions properly if you are serious (which I doubt you are since you are already enlightened!) rather than quoting from BB-bloody-C! Otherwise you are just a mischief-maker.

Peace out!

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:03:00 UTC | #376792

Go to: Interview with Richard Dawkins in Brazil - June 27

Dr. Hameer's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by Dr. Hameer

Comment #393832 by Steve Zara

I know the message.

I know the origins of the message.

The message in the Dhammapada was from someone that you have here conceded rejected divinity. Who believed that the idea of religious authority... of argument without evidence was corrupting.

I just don't understand why you don't realise how utterly you have destroyed your own argument.

Actually, I don't think you know anything regarding Eastern Religions Steve. Let me take this opportunity to deflate your misconceptions.

The Buddha's ideas ARE NOT ORIGINAL! (Out goes the credit to Budhha's "atheism" and according to Steve Zara, the credit to atheism as a whole).

The Buddha was HEAVILY INFLUENCED by ideas from Vedanta Philosophy (whose main scriptures are the Upanishads and the Bhaghvad Gita). The Buddha (in the Dhammapada and elsewhere) used notions such as "Karma" (cause-effect), "Papa" (poor translation = "sin"), "Nirvana" (extinguishing all selfish desires), and meditation; all these and more come STRAIGHT FROM the Upanishads and the Bhaghvad Gita, which sorry to disappoint you Steve, are NOT ATHEISTIC texts (neither are they theistic, but rather they advocate "Advaita Vedanta", which is "Non-duality" of the Universe's existence, where the ground of reality is "Consciousness", also known as Monistic Idealism or what Aldous Huxley called the Perennial Philosophy!)

Sorry Steve, the Buddha's ideas come from non-atheistic sources and his ideas of self-discovery have nothing to do with atheism!

What is interesting is that during and prior to the time of the Upanishads and the Gita, people believed in mythology and superstitions, in gods and goddesses, and in rituals and animal sacrifices.

The Upanishads and the Gita are strikingly UNIQUE, in that they went on to explore the nature of reality, the mind, and how to control them and achieve "Self-realization" and "Self-perfection". They used terms like "Brahman" (Supreme Consciousness), "Atman" (the Self), "Prakriti" (Energy/Field-forces) and "Yoga" (Integration of all experience and understanding). They viewed ways of "understanding" as being not one (such as say only the scientific method) but four, namely "Jnana Yoga" (knowledge through discrimination and sorting out, like Science), "Bhakti Yoga" (Understanding life through Love), "Karma Yoga" (Understanding life through self-less service) and "Raja Yoga" (knowing through Meditation).

All this my friend, came WAY BEFORE the Buddha, who during his earlier days of seeking was heavily influenced by mystics whose knowledge came from the Upanishads and the Gita.

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:26:00 UTC | #376771

Go to: Interview with Richard Dawkins in Brazil - June 27

Dr. Hameer's Avatar Jump to comment 76 by Dr. Hameer

Comment #393804 by Jos Gibbons

1. Explain how you know which bits ARE literal. If "sophisticated theologians" are the ones who say Adam never existed, I'll go one better by saying God never did.

Thats your opinion. The theologians have theirs.

2. Explain why it wasn't written down literally. It may as well have been. Jain texts are unambiguously litral in condemning violence of all sorts. Saying things literally is easy, whereas saying things any other way introduces seriosu risks.

The message of the Gita and the Upanishads and Dhammapada (Steve I hope you are reading this!) are pretty straight forward, IF you have the intellectual honesty to read them THOROUGHLY and CONTEXTUALLY (which I doubt you do).

3. Explain why you are comfortable with the blasphemous position that you can speak better for your god than he can for himself. Incidentally, if we treat him as an ordinary being then, blasphemy charges aside, it somewhat patronises him.

I am an agnostic, so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

4. If you think something is out of context, give us a bigger quotation containing the original that puts it in context. For example, where Luke 14:26 says a disciple of Jesus must hate their families, if 14:25 said, "The fool hath said in his heart," that WOULD make 14:26 in isolation out of context. (I could quote-mine the psalms as saying "there is no god" by ignoring such a phrase.) However, 14:25 actually says that the following is Jesus talking. "Out of context" gets spouted without looking it up. Put up or shut up.

Are you losing an argument here which is why you are telling me to shut up?

5. Please stop pretending cherry picking isn't what's going on by hiding behind "scholarly interpretation", which shouldn't be necessary to understand injunctions anyway. I know exactly hat your mechanism of interpretation is: if a literal reading would make that clause wrong, insist it means the exact opposite, then look for ways to make that work.

Well, in the context of the Gita, the Upanishads and the Dhammapada, there is no cherry-picking.

For the case of say a scripture like the Bible, and Koran, if people do cherry pick for a liberal interpretation of their scripture, than that's good news for it allows their religion to evolve and adapt which is okay. For me that is far better, than a hitlerian-secular-atheist totalitarianism, which is what this atheistic movement smacks of, by trying to get rid of religion (as evident by your slogans).

Good day!

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:02:00 UTC | #376473

Go to: Interview with Richard Dawkins in Brazil - June 27

Dr. Hameer's Avatar Jump to comment 69 by Dr. Hameer


Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:32:00 UTC | #376452

Go to: Interview with Richard Dawkins in Brazil - June 27

Dr. Hameer's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by Dr. Hameer

Comment by Steve Zara

Precisely: the Buddha came up with what you describe as a wonderful description of how people should be moral without bothering with the notion of divinity.

Regardless of what the Buddha thought on divinity, (here I go again.. phew!):

There are schools of Buddhism that believe in a cosmic spirituality/divinity (ie. they are NOT atheistic). And these schools believe in the Buddha and his words, the DHAMMAPADA being one of them. From their "theistic" perspectives, they still do have scriptures of great moral instruction.

Why don't you concede that Dawkins' (and your lot's) black and white paradigm on all religions being evil, is foolish?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:18:00 UTC | #376444

More Comments by Dr. Hameer