In Indian logic, formulating anything by the negative is done only in the rarest cases. A negative proof (proof by contradiction) is similarly employed very rarely.
It’s philosophically irresponsible to call oneself “atheist” when a positive(constructive) definition is possible.
It’s philosophically irresponsible to call oneself “atheist” when a positive(constructive) definition is possible.
https://twitter.com/kushal_mehra/status/1319258194011541504
Here is my earlier thread on various Hindu philosophical viewpoints, each defined by a positive constructive definition, which can all be considered “atheistic” based on what we mean by “atheism”.
https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/1257016092037386250
People following Greco-Roman religions used the word “Atheist” to denote Christians.
Christians used the word “pagan” (villager, country bumpkin) to denote the ancient religions, essentially calling them “non-rationalist” (unintelligent). That’s the history of “rationality”.
Christians used the word “pagan” (villager, country bumpkin) to denote the ancient religions, essentially calling them “non-rationalist” (unintelligent). That’s the history of “rationality”.
https://twitter.com/tiinexile/status/1282016932871286784
From a Christian (or Islamic) point of view, the ultimate realization of “rationality” is the identification of the Primal Cause as God (or Allah). This argument is presented very cogently 200 years ago by James Ballantyne, while he tried to dismiss Sāmkhya as irrational.
https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/1268199210962358273
It will be fun if Dawkins probes whether the rationalism of Akthar is of the evolution kind (Sāmkhya) or the old-school Christian kind. That will be some 🐒 🦧 🦍 business.
BTW, Monier-Williams called Hindus “Darwinian before Darwin existed”. He meant that in a derogatory sense.
BTW, Monier-Williams called Hindus “Darwinian before Darwin existed”. He meant that in a derogatory sense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
