Kushal Mehra: Carvaka Philosophy, Astika & Nastika, Neo-Atheism and Wokeism | The Labyrinth #60

[@thisisanewusername4662]

One more thing: neither the Atheist nor the Agnostic is in principle committed to the view that Science can one day prove or disprove a god or some god or many gods.

[@itriggerall6976]

Great 👍😊

[@irenecastelino8827]

"Summa Theologica " A Philosophy Book Written by Thomas Aquinas is Very Good

[@irenecastelino8827]

Its sad to see why You all Calling Islam as Abrahamic Faith, when Abraham had nothing to do with What Muhammed started. Rituals of Islam in Mecca is Similar to Indian ritual.

[@chinmayjoshi3592]

@@irenecastelino8827 It hardly makes a difference for Indians, but basically, abrahamic religions aren't supposed to be about abraham (for us), its supposed to be about the fallibility of the 'god's' word. All the three religions, judaism, christianity and islam are clear that god exists and there god is the only god as written in their scriptures, hence for Indians (hindus) they are superficially the exact same thing.

[@AarvinMS]

@@irenecastelino8827 As Mohammad appropriated the Abe traditions and historical elements (from Babylon, Sumeria ect) thus Isam became an Abe religion.

[@thisisanewusername4662]

@@irenecastelino8827 There's nothing similar about Indian rituals and Islam. Islam is antithetical to the Indian civilization.

[@thisisanewusername4662]

Kushal is wrong and confused about the difference between an Atheist and Agnostic. Here are some crucial details: 1) Generally speaking, there are two kinds of Atheists: Soft & Hard. 2) Soft-Atheist does not believe in god, goes about their life assuming there is no god, but never positively says that there is no god. 3) Hard-Atheist does not believe in god and asserts that there is in-fact no god or very likely no god. 4) An Agnostic on the other hand is "open minded" about the possibility of a god or the absence of a god. 5) An Agnostic may occasionally enter Soft-Atheist territory, but the key difference is that the Agnostic does not live under the assumption that there is no god. 6) The Agnostic is in perpetual intellectual limbo, wishing that they could answer the god question, but too timid to do the intellectually honest thing and resign to the position that we genuinely don't know, and therefore at worst we should live our lives under the assumption that there is no god (the Soft-Atheist position). 7) Read the works of Dr. Victor J. Stenger, if you want to learn more about Hard-Atheism from a Physicist's point of view. Cheers.

[@rakeshbarman3486]

you are confused ,not him ,he has that freedom of being nastik within his culture ,why would he use your term dumbo ,and he doesn't believe in hindu gods btw ,

[@rakeshbarman3486]

lol 😂 btw did you create those term hard and soft 😂

[@thisisanewusername4662]

@@rakeshbarman3486 LOL dumb dumbs dropping emojis.. a simple wikipedia article obliterates illiterate minds and fragile egos: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

[@kartik7561]

But Nasadiya Suktam goes on to prove that Paramatma exists. I agree there are other traditions/schools which oppose Paramatma in India. But I don't think Nasadiya Suktam can be quoted in this context. In my understanding, the Nasadiya Suktam wonders whether Paramatma exists (it doesn't say Paramatma doesn't exist).

[@aditya-rt4zb]

That means you didn't read it.

[@AakashKumar6868-kyc]

Have asked his views on vaccine He had a whole podcast should vaccine be compulsory. Where he advocated why vaccine madate are justified. Will be fun to know his current opinions on boosters now

[@thelabyrinthpodcast]

Yes, I agree. I planned to ask him more questions. But I had to end the podcast at 30 mins due to a technical difficulty.

[@Metalheadharsh]

He has always beeen Against Vaccine Mandates but Pro Vaccines and about Boosters you need to ask.

[@devanshparmar3666]

He has always been pro vaccine but anti vaccine mandate, know the difference.

[@rakeshbarman3486]

nahh he never agreed to vaccine mandate but he us not anti vaccine, so he has balance views

[@AarvinMS]

He says he is not an Atheist but a "Hindu Nasthik" as though they both are very different from a philosophical stand point. These labels purely signify cultural and political stances. So in other words Kushal Mehra considers himself to be a Nasthika aka is (an A-Theist) aka (Nireshwaravaadi) just because he happened to be born in India and just because there was something called Vedas in India,. Or other wise Mehra would not be able to identify himself with those labels... Hence he is dependent on something so as to consider himself as something ... These convictions do not come from an empirical scientific realisation ! There is big difference between someone blindly CONSIDERING themselves to be something and SELF REALISATION through empirical methods and in this case modern science.

[@thisisanewusername4662]

You're confused.

[@tanmay23453]

in that case even modern science happens to exist and there are no empirical methods all methods are human methods...the world is a human world there is no world independent of man

[@kushagra892]

I can imagine anything and be like “ye Hoya to kya”. So what?

[@sukritdubey2630]

Any discussion on Hinduism that misses Caste, doesn't achieve much.

[@kushagra892]

lmao wat