RE: Arguments against hinduism

  • Thread starter Thread starter openmind77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

openmind77

Guest
Continuing the discussion from Arguments against hinduism:
I am too late to post in this topic, since it was closed just a few days back.

Being Hindu myself, I am not exactly the right person to argue against it. But I would say the main argument against Hinduism is that it is too confusing, there is a lot of superstition, a lot of misinformation and nobody is exactly sure what the fundamental beliefs are other than these two: Karma and Reincarnation.

Perhaps members of the forum would like to review the following website that purports to be a comparison between major religions and comment: http://www.hinduismexposed.org/
 
One of the most popular ‘gods’ of Hinduism is the Ganesh. You see it everywhere. So I asked my Hindu friend to tell me the story of the Ganesh. He told me the Ganesh is a baby god… his parents were in the bathtub when little Ganesh showed up out of the blue. Being startled at that moment, his father lashed out with a sword and involuntarily cut the baby’s head. The mother cried and asked him to fix it. So the father went out and got an elephant head and placed it instead of the severed baby’s head, bringing Ganesh back to life. So the statue of the Ganesh is a baby’s body with an elephant head and people pray to it.
I find the story so illogical on so many levels. Just by the look on my face, my friend said ‘I know, I know… let’s not talk about it’.
 
Dan_Defender said:
One of the most popular ‘gods’ of Hinduism is the Ganesh. You see it everywhere. So I asked my Hindu friend to tell me the story of the Ganesh. He told me the Ganesh is a baby god… his parents were in the bathtub when little Ganesh showed up out of the blue. Being startled at that moment, his father lashed out with a sword and involuntarily cut the baby’s head. The mother cried and asked him to fix it. So the father went out and got an elephant head and placed it instead of the severed baby’s head, bringing Ganesh back to life. So the statue of the Ganesh is a baby’s body with an elephant head and people pray to it.
I find the story so illogical on so many levels. Just by the look on my face, my friend said ‘I know, I know… let’s not talk about it’.
Click to expand...
Indian Gods are often metaphorical interpretations of forces that influence human and other physical existence. Here is a good website that explains the origin and meaning of most Indian Gods: http://www.thehindugods.com/

Ganesh is basically the personification of the Earth element - the basis of existence. The myth associated with the God is quite appealing (you can read it at Hindu Gods and Goddesses)
 
Hello all,

I’ll give it my best shot. I’m honestly unsure how you would even try to disprove Hinduism as so much of it relies on the personal revelation of truth by a seeker. For example, to my understanding the Vedas were “heard” by the Rishis because of their advanced spiritual practices.

I think it basically has to come down to saying to people “what you experience isn’t real. And you shouldn’t trust people who experience things that we disagree with.” You could try to show that different traditions are internally inconsistent, but frankly that sounds hopeless as that would not disprove Hinduism, but simply one school of thought. And furthermore since each has so much argumentation, good luck trying to crack in a non superficial way.

Openmind77 said the main arguments against his tradition he could think of were “it is too confusing,” which isn’t even an argument. All it is, is a statement of the psychological state of the learner.

A second argument is “there is a lot of superstition,” but there is also a lot of superstition in every religion. I’ve met a materialist who believes in psychics, so that’s not really a good argument either.

A third argument is “a lot of misinformation and nobody is exactly sure what the fundamental beliefs are other than these two: Karma and Reincarnation.” Also not an argument as each school of thought can be very specific, it’s just that they disagree. You could argue that only one school of thought is correct, but that doesn’t disprove Hinduism, it just shows that one school and not the others are correct.

Neither reincarnation or karma are illogical it seems, it’s just that they are either true or false.

So, it fundamentally seems like Hindu’s and Catholics argue on unequal ground to me. It’s simply much easier for the Hindu to win. All the Hindu has to do is say “I trust those who experience the divine,” or “I experience the divine.”

The Catholic on the other hand needs to dig through dusty tombs to show that Christ physically rose from the dead to make a convincing argument or else “our hope is in vain.” During which at each point a counter can be argued.

I think Hinduism is pretty argument proof to be honest, not because it is irrational, but because it relies so heavily on direct experience of God for validation instead of arguing from History or Thomist style refutations. Once again, how in the world do you logically argue that someone’s direct experience is invalid? Unless you assume that a strict materialist is true, this seems near impossible.

So, that’s my opinion.
Great topic!
 
In one of my church groups there was an Indian gentlemen. He belonged to one of the eastern rites. It was fascinating to listen to what he had to say. When he was home he and his other Catholics would work and struggle to explain why they were different from Hinduism to everybody around them. We talked about one part of the scripture from the Philippians that was really important to their church (as I understood it was said regularly at their masses). I really liked this scripture too.

Philippians 2:6-11
Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Click to expand...
As I understood, his church was trying to say they choose to worship something different than what was worshiped in Hinduism. What he described was that Hinduism worshiped gods who did great deeds, etc. Christianity worships God as described in Philippians above who took the form of a servant, humbled himself, and died on the cross.

In a way, perhaps it starts with a choice rather than an argument against…
 
Last edited:
I think most or all religions, including my own, are more or less confusing. People of any given religion have several different interpretations of many beliefs and practices. Therefore, I think Hinduism is no more “strange” than any other religion. I also don’t quite understand why you are asking people to criticize it, given the fact you are Hindu, or am I missing the point?
 
meltzerboy2 said:
I think most or all religions, including my own, are more or less confusing. People of any given religion have several different interpretations of many beliefs and practices. Therefore, I think Hinduism is no more “strange” than any other religion. I also don’t quite understand why you are asking people to criticize it, given the fact you are Hindu, or am I missing the point?
Click to expand...
I did not actually start this topic. It is just a continuation of a recently closed thread. I would say Hinduism is more difficult to understand than other religions because the others seem have a book (or two) which have stuff in black and white. There is no such authoritative text in Hinduism
 
.
Christians do not believe in many gods, and in now the people West instinctively react with rejection at the idea of there being many gods because of their Christian history. This is based on the sources of Christian religion, in fact. The Old Testament expressed the view that belief in many gods is false and undesirable.
Christians in the Roman Empire where Christianity first appeared were persecuted in some part because they were considered atheists. They were considered atheists because they rejected the gods of the Roman Empire. Those suspected of being Christians were taken before a judge and tested by being ordered to give an act of worship to the Roman Emperor as a god, and when they refused, were condemned to death. Christians have always refused to be involved with polytheism.
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
.
Christians do not believe in many gods, and in now the people West instinctively react with rejection at the idea of there being many gods because of their Christian history. This is based on the sources of Christian religion, in fact. The Old Testament expressed the view that belief in many gods is false and undesirable.
… Christians have always refused to be involved with polytheism.
Click to expand...
Actually Hindus also believe in one supreme being called brahman that contains everything within itself. But we also believe, as you say, in many, many different and some lesser Gods. For instance even the Sun is considered a God - this is the God that nourishes all creatures within the solar system. The Christian belief in strict monotheism may have to be adjusted a bit after the Christ returns.
 
Yea but so is christianity…
Or even my own pagan beliefes…
Which christians are the right ones?
Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant or maybe Restorationists?
For my own beliefe too, which of my gods has what exact function and how on earth should i know that after roughly two thousand years?
All religions, those which existed, still exist and will exist, make just as much sense…
It’s not knowing something but beliefing in it.
And in the end only one god or pantheon will be the right one, we’ll find out as soon as we’re dead…
 
The Unborn, The One Without a Second, Pure Being Itself, has many attrubutes.
Supreme, One, Existence Itself, Creator, Highest, Greatest, All Powerful, on and on it goes, Eternal, Infinite, Everlasting, Love, …
 
Um, now that you’re here, can you respond to the many replies on your last post?
 
Like Classical Greek philosophy, there are Monism movements in Hinduism as well. Considering how Zoroastrianism is part way to a Monistic faith itself, and is, like Hinduism, a descendant of the ancient Indo-Iranian religion, and both the Indo-Iranian and Greek religions are Proto-Indoeuropean systems, I wonder if there is a strain of Monism that runs throughout the Indo-European mythos family. Certainly India, like Persia and Greece, all were pretty highly advanced civilizations that bred a good many philosophers, I wonder if Monism was almost inevitable. The Germans, Celts and Balto-slavic peoples all came under the influence of Christianity while still essentially still pre-literate, so never experienced similar philosophical trends as their Eastern Indo-European counterparts.
 
niceatheist said:
Like Classical Greek philosophy, there are Monism movements in Hinduism as well. Considering how Zoroastrianism is part way to a Monistic faith itself, and is, like Hinduism, a descendant of the ancient Indo-Iranian religion, and both the Indo-Iranian and Greek religions are Proto-Indoeuropean systems, I wonder if there is a strain of Monism that runs throughout the Indo-European mythos family. Certainly India, like Persia and Greece, all were pretty highly advanced civilizations that bred a good many philosophers, I wonder if Monism was almost inevitable. The Germans, Celts and Balto-slavic peoples all came under the influence of Christianity while still essentially still pre-literate, so never experienced similar philosophical trends as their Eastern Indo-European counterparts.
Click to expand...
Yes, Monism (or Advaita philosophy as it called) is a very popular concept in Hinduism - it started in the later part of its history. These days what is followed by most is Qualified Monism (Vishishta Advaita) - they believe in non-dualism or monism, but also accept that there are many Gods. So all Gods as well the universe are part of a single whole - an undifferentiated, impersonal being called brahman. I am not so sure Zoroastrianism is monistic, but then I don’t know that much about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top