Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Criticism

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 1:49:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 4:09:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
What is the one thing you do not like about Hinduism?

The fact that it is so " Big " in India, and so " little " elsewhere.
Durbodh
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 2:12:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?

That which the word attempts to describe is too diverse to answer such a specific question; it isn't a single defined entity. It would be akin to asking, "what's one thing that religion requires it's followers to do?", which is an impossible question due to the broad nature of the world "religion". This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, as a means of conceptual categorization.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 2:32:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

So let me get this straight. You asked what people don't like about Hinduism because Hinduism doesn't exist?

Oooo k. I think I can peg you now.
Durbodh
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 2:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 2:12:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?

That which the word attempts to describe is too diverse to answer such a specific question; it isn't a single defined entity. It would be akin to asking, "what's one thing that religion requires it's followers to do?", which is an impossible question due to the broad nature of the world "religion". This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, as a means of conceptual categorization.

Can you give a real life example : where two things have nothing in common and yet fall under one label?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 2:41:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 2:32:41 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:12:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?

That which the word attempts to describe is too diverse to answer such a specific question; it isn't a single defined entity. It would be akin to asking, "what's one thing that religion requires it's followers to do?", which is an impossible question due to the broad nature of the world "religion". This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, as a means of conceptual categorization.

Can you give a real life example : where two things have nothing in common and yet fall under one label?

That's a vague criteria that's vulnerable to goalpost-shifting (I can identify commonalities between any two things), but sure.

LaVeyan Satanism and Buhdism have nothing significant in common, yet, they're both labeled as religions.
Durbodh
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 3:28:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 2:41:01 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:32:41 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:12:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?

That which the word attempts to describe is too diverse to answer such a specific question; it isn't a single defined entity. It would be akin to asking, "what's one thing that religion requires it's followers to do?", which is an impossible question due to the broad nature of the world "religion". This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, as a means of conceptual categorization.

Can you give a real life example : where two things have nothing in common and yet fall under one label?

That's a vague criteria that's vulnerable to goalpost-shifting (I can identify commonalities between any two things), but sure.

LaVeyan Satanism and Buhdism have nothing significant in common, yet, they're both labeled as religions.

'Hinduism' refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts. It is a notion in men's minds--and a notion that cannot but be inadequate. To use this term at all is inescapably a gross oversimplification."

'Hinduism' was a name given in English language in the Nineteenth Century by the English people to the multiplicity of the beliefs and faiths of the people of the Indus land. The British writers in 1830 gave the word 'Hinduism' to be used as the common name for all the beliefs of the people of India excluding the Muslims and converted Christians."

"The English term Hinduism was coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century and became familiar as a designator of religious ideas and practices distinctive to India with the publication of books such as Hinduism (1877) by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, the notable Oxford scholar and author of an influential Sanskrit dictionary. Initially it was an outsiders" term, building on centuries-old usages of the word Hindu. Early travelers to the Indus valley, beginning with the Greeks and Persians, spoke of its inhabitants as "Hindu" (Greek: "indoi), and, in the 16th century, residents of India themselves began very slowly to employ the term to distinguish themselves from the Turks. Gradually the distinction became primarily religious rather than ethnic, geographic, or cultural."
Durbodh
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 4:15:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 1:49:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 9/1/2016 4:09:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
What is the one thing you do not like about Hinduism?

The fact that it is so " Big " in India, and so " little " elsewhere.

We never shove our beliefs down the throats of others.

The term ' Hinduism ' was coined in 19th century.

Sanatana Dharma is the original term used by ancient indians , Sanatana means eternal and Dharma is defined as ' well judged and reasoned by mind '(for humans) .

Dharma does not mean religion.

The difference is clear - Dharma is what you are meant to do. Religion is what you are told to do.

The life on this planet started in Bharat, not Africa.

That is why it has the world's oldest city and the most ancient civilization.

Every person living in Bharat practiced Sanatana Dharma till only one thousand years ago.

Egg and meat consumption was zero.

Vedic gaay was respected and worshipped - because it nurtures us with milk alongside her calves. Out of sheer gratitude.

Today, India is the largest exporter of beef.
Durbodh
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 4:17:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Sanatana Dharma is the original term used by ancient indians , Sanatana means eternal and Dharma is defined as ' well judged and reasoned by mind '(for humans) .

Dharma for a scorpion is to sting.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 4:49:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 3:28:59 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:41:01 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:32:41 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:12:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?

That which the word attempts to describe is too diverse to answer such a specific question; it isn't a single defined entity. It would be akin to asking, "what's one thing that religion requires it's followers to do?", which is an impossible question due to the broad nature of the world "religion". This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, as a means of conceptual categorization.

Can you give a real life example : where two things have nothing in common and yet fall under one label?

That's a vague criteria that's vulnerable to goalpost-shifting (I can identify commonalities between any two things), but sure.

LaVeyan Satanism and Buhdism have nothing significant in common, yet, they're both labeled as religions.

'Hinduism' refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts. It is a notion in men's minds--and a notion that cannot but be inadequate. To use this term at all is inescapably a gross oversimplification."

'Hinduism' was a name given in English language in the Nineteenth Century by the English people to the multiplicity of the beliefs and faiths of the people of the Indus land. The British writers in 1830 gave the word 'Hinduism' to be used as the common name for all the beliefs of the people of India excluding the Muslims and converted Christians."

"The English term Hinduism was coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century and became familiar as a designator of religious ideas and practices distinctive to India with the publication of books such as Hinduism (1877) by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, the notable Oxford scholar and author of an influential Sanskrit dictionary. Initially it was an outsiders" term, building on centuries-old usages of the word Hindu. Early travelers to the Indus valley, beginning with the Greeks and Persians, spoke of its inhabitants as "Hindu" (Greek: "indoi), and, in the 16th century, residents of India themselves began very slowly to employ the term to distinguish themselves from the Turks. Gradually the distinction became primarily religious rather than ethnic, geographic, or cultural."

All labels represent concepts held in mind. 'Hinduism' is indeed an existent and applicable label, but failure to recognize the broadness of the label is where the mistake lies; not in the label, itself. This label is being used to identify real aspects of the world and so exists.
Durbodh
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 5:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 4:49:54 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 3:28:59 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:41:01 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:32:41 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:12:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?

That which the word attempts to describe is too diverse to answer such a specific question; it isn't a single defined entity. It would be akin to asking, "what's one thing that religion requires it's followers to do?", which is an impossible question due to the broad nature of the world "religion". This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, as a means of conceptual categorization.

Can you give a real life example : where two things have nothing in common and yet fall under one label?

That's a vague criteria that's vulnerable to goalpost-shifting (I can identify commonalities between any two things), but sure.

LaVeyan Satanism and Buhdism have nothing significant in common, yet, they're both labeled as religions.

'Hinduism' refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts. It is a notion in men's minds--and a notion that cannot but be inadequate. To use this term at all is inescapably a gross oversimplification."

'Hinduism' was a name given in English language in the Nineteenth Century by the English people to the multiplicity of the beliefs and faiths of the people of the Indus land. The British writers in 1830 gave the word 'Hinduism' to be used as the common name for all the beliefs of the people of India excluding the Muslims and converted Christians."

"The English term Hinduism was coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century and became familiar as a designator of religious ideas and practices distinctive to India with the publication of books such as Hinduism (1877) by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, the notable Oxford scholar and author of an influential Sanskrit dictionary. Initially it was an outsiders" term, building on centuries-old usages of the word Hindu. Early travelers to the Indus valley, beginning with the Greeks and Persians, spoke of its inhabitants as "Hindu" (Greek: "indoi), and, in the 16th century, residents of India themselves began very slowly to employ the term to distinguish themselves from the Turks. Gradually the distinction became primarily religious rather than ethnic, geographic, or cultural."

All labels represent concepts held in mind. 'Hinduism' is indeed an existent and applicable label, but failure to recognize the broadness of the label is where the mistake lies; not in the label, itself. This label is being used to identify real aspects of the world and so exists.

We have rejected labels imposed by invaders.

No one in india cares for western 'hindu scholars'.

I have already pointed out that Dharma was erroneously translated to Religion.

What is greater than Dharma?

Ancient Indian Sages said - Compassion / Mercy / Kindness.

This proves beyond doubt that Dharma is not a label.

It is not defined by belief.

Dharma is defined by action.

It is not a label.
janesix
Posts: 3,438
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 5:26:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 4:17:58 PM, Durbodh wrote:
Sanatana Dharma is the original term used by ancient indians , Sanatana means eternal and Dharma is defined as ' well judged and reasoned by mind '(for humans) .

Dharma for a scorpion is to sting.
What is the dharma for a human?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 6:27:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 5:06:40 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 4:49:54 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 3:28:59 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:41:01 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:32:41 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:12:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 2:07:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 1:39:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:57:25 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 12:10:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
It's illogical.

Why do you ask?

Because it doesn't exist.

The concept of Hinduism appears to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Define Hinduism

OR

One thing Hinduism requires it's followers to do?

That which the word attempts to describe is too diverse to answer such a specific question; it isn't a single defined entity. It would be akin to asking, "what's one thing that religion requires it's followers to do?", which is an impossible question due to the broad nature of the world "religion". This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, as a means of conceptual categorization.

Can you give a real life example : where two things have nothing in common and yet fall under one label?

That's a vague criteria that's vulnerable to goalpost-shifting (I can identify commonalities between any two things), but sure.

LaVeyan Satanism and Buhdism have nothing significant in common, yet, they're both labeled as religions.

'Hinduism' refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts. It is a notion in men's minds--and a notion that cannot but be inadequate. To use this term at all is inescapably a gross oversimplification."

'Hinduism' was a name given in English language in the Nineteenth Century by the English people to the multiplicity of the beliefs and faiths of the people of the Indus land. The British writers in 1830 gave the word 'Hinduism' to be used as the common name for all the beliefs of the people of India excluding the Muslims and converted Christians."

"The English term Hinduism was coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century and became familiar as a designator of religious ideas and practices distinctive to India with the publication of books such as Hinduism (1877) by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, the notable Oxford scholar and author of an influential Sanskrit dictionary. Initially it was an outsiders" term, building on centuries-old usages of the word Hindu. Early travelers to the Indus valley, beginning with the Greeks and Persians, spoke of its inhabitants as "Hindu" (Greek: "indoi), and, in the 16th century, residents of India themselves began very slowly to employ the term to distinguish themselves from the Turks. Gradually the distinction became primarily religious rather than ethnic, geographic, or cultural."

All labels represent concepts held in mind. 'Hinduism' is indeed an existent and applicable label, but failure to recognize the broadness of the label is where the mistake lies; not in the label, itself. This label is being used to identify real aspects of the world and so exists.

We have rejected labels imposed by invaders.

OK. That doesn't invalidate the validity of the label, though. For example, I can reject the label of "human" all day long, but that doesn't mean that said label isn't still applicably valid. Just sayin'.

No one in india cares for western 'hindu scholars'.

OK.

I have already pointed out that Dharma was erroneously translated to Religion.

I suppose this in contingent on the definitions of "Dharma" and "religion".

What is greater than Dharma?

Ancient Indian Sages said - Compassion / Mercy / Kindness.

This proves beyond doubt that Dharma is not a label.

Sure it is. It's the label you give to these specific actions or way of life. That doesn't mean that which is being described has less meaning, though.

It is not defined by belief.

Dharma is defined by action.

It is not a label.

I'm not certain as to why you call something that is defined by an belief a label but something that is defined by action not a label. Both entail descriptions (labels) of specific aspects of reality (observed properties, actions, etc.).
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 6:44:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 4:09:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
What is the one thing you do not like about Hinduism?

From what little I know of it, it seems absurdly complicated. How many demigods are there? Why bother with them if there is ultimately only one "godhead", anyway? And we keep coming back as different life-forms? Why? And we can't step on a bug because it might be our great- grandpa?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 7:04:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 4:15:52 PM, Durbodh wrote:

Today, India is the largest exporter of beef.

Holy cow, Buffalo butt!!
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Durbodh
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 4:07:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/2/2016 6:44:42 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/1/2016 4:09:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
What is the one thing you do not like about Hinduism?

From what little I know of it, it seems absurdly complicated. How many demigods are there? Why bother with them if there is ultimately only one "godhead", anyway? And we keep coming back as different life-forms? Why? And we can't step on a bug because it might be our great- grandpa?

Venom has been injected in Ancient Indian Scriptures.

Moksha is the last stage of Dharma.

http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 5:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 4:07:01 PM, Durbodh wrote:
At 9/2/2016 6:44:42 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/1/2016 4:09:04 PM, Durbodh wrote:
What is the one thing you do not like about Hinduism?

From what little I know of it, it seems absurdly complicated. How many demigods are there? Why bother with them if there is ultimately only one "godhead", anyway? And we keep coming back as different life-forms? Why? And we can't step on a bug because it might be our great- grandpa?

Venom has been injected in Ancient Indian Scriptures.

Moksha is the last stage of Dharma.

Random words pop into my head.

The forum needs to be spammed.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth