☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Ashamed To Be Sikh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 136237" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p>Tejwant singh, my concept of god has been thoroughly explained in the thread 2+2=5 (or something like that). I'm pretty sure you were around in that conversation back when I initiated it. And it took me pages on end to explain my concept of god. I'm not re-explaining everything. The thread is their, take a look. If you want i can hunt down the thread and post the link. Having said that, i stand by my definition of your god. He is indeed an entity. Any god one "prays" too is a god of personal form. Which falls under the same categories as most other gods from other religions. </p><p></p><p>Incidently, (and one can knock on my interpretation if they want) but the whole "ik ong kar" thing in my opinion has less to do with the idea of monotheism and more to do with the universality of god. I think what guru nanak was trying to get at, is not the fact that there is only 1 god (otherwise he would have been more closely aligning himself with islamic scripture and thus alienating a large hindu population). But instead, he was suggesting, no matter who you pray to—bet it allah, ram, ganesh or flying spaghetti monster—its the same god. In this way, the many gods of hinduism and the world for that matter are unified (rather symbolically) to further push the idea of brotherhood amongst men. Thats just my 2 cents. </p><p></p><p>So its not "Ik ong kar" as in "monotheism is right and polytheism is rong"</p><p>Its "Ik ong kar" as in "no matter what you believe, monotheists or polytheists, you all believe the same thing."</p><p></p><p>Seeker9</p><p></p><p>The recent messages that do nothing except condemn the original poster for having even posted his thoughts only prove my earlier point. The vast majority of sikhs are close-minded. You, yourself, have proven not to be. But most people on this site cant get past the insult of a dissenting view point. Even if he was a muslim, his point is largely sound in my opinion. There should be a forum for dissenting views in sikhism—instead we get such priceless quotes like:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A yo mama joke? Very classy imo</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thats a nice veiled threat wahkaur. The original poster didnt even comment on the gurus or the guru granth but rather the ridiculous stories. I wonder why so many sikhs consider these stories to be on the same level as the guru granth sahib in terms of validity. That they are not to be questioned at all surprises me. </p><p></p><p>Anyways, back to our discussion:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Lol, im not sure if this was a vieled insult in my direction for the bumblebee thing. Having said that, i find that a 30 second google search is alot more comprehensive then what the average religious person does to fact check their sources <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. And I agree that alot of atheists only have a superficial understanding of science. But on average they have a better understanding of science then do religious people. Atheists tend to be smarter, they commit less crimes then religious people, they are all around more moral then religious people. Countries with large atheistic populations (like sweden) fair far better then countries with large religious populations. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only way the onus goes on us to disprove god is not if you "turned it around" lol. After all, who are you? Your a nobody (no offence, im a nobody too). You cant jus say "well i turned it around so from now on, the onus is removed from us, and its on u guys—good luck with that <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />." Thats not how it works. The person making the claim has the onus. The only way we get the onus of disproving god is if you somehow prove he exists. Then we'd have to examine ur proof (its called peer review). That is the scientific method. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Its actually a valid philosophical point that was originally furthered by bertrand russel (google search: russels teapot). But right, i love talking in terms of probability, i just assumed we were always talking in terms of probability. Although I have said "god does not exist" in the past, i acknowledge that from my point of view, there is an infinitly small chance that god does exist. So I can say there is a very high probability that god does not exist <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. Just as u said about my poor teapot. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes you can say that. Although sumone would look at your claim and think your crazy because there has been no research or evidence into your claim. So its a baseless claim. And one can look at my claim, realize that biological immortality is a very real and naturally occuring phenomena and that we have already succesfully modified the lifespan of certain organisms by thousands of percent and they can see why my claim makes more sense. Im not pulling this out of thin air. Keep in mind, science and technollogy has been progressing exponentially, not linearly. It only took us what? 50-60 years to get from the first plane to the first space shuttle right? These last 100 years have seen more change then the preceeding 1900 years before it combined. Its not a stretch to assume the next 100 years will see even more change <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: black">"</span><span style="color: black">[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]<span style="font-size: 10px">If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" - Richard Fynmen (a wellrespected american physicist).</span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 10px">Religious and spiritual people have come clamoring to quantum mechanics inorder to justify their beliefs. I wish you could honestly do it but you cant. I feel like you dont really have all that well an understanding of science. Only a few hours ago you believed that the bee should not be able to fly according to the principles of aerodynamics. And now you believe that religion is in line with quantum mechanics? Please explain how or why? </span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 10px">In any way. Quantum mechanics is not inherently "self contradictory." Instead, it contradicts the theory of relativity. Physicists are trying to work out how the two connect—if it all. They are also investigating other possibilities such as string theory <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span>[/FONT]</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 136237, member: 5962"] Tejwant singh, my concept of god has been thoroughly explained in the thread 2+2=5 (or something like that). I'm pretty sure you were around in that conversation back when I initiated it. And it took me pages on end to explain my concept of god. I'm not re-explaining everything. The thread is their, take a look. If you want i can hunt down the thread and post the link. Having said that, i stand by my definition of your god. He is indeed an entity. Any god one "prays" too is a god of personal form. Which falls under the same categories as most other gods from other religions. Incidently, (and one can knock on my interpretation if they want) but the whole "ik ong kar" thing in my opinion has less to do with the idea of monotheism and more to do with the universality of god. I think what guru nanak was trying to get at, is not the fact that there is only 1 god (otherwise he would have been more closely aligning himself with islamic scripture and thus alienating a large hindu population). But instead, he was suggesting, no matter who you pray to—bet it allah, ram, ganesh or flying spaghetti monster—its the same god. In this way, the many gods of hinduism and the world for that matter are unified (rather symbolically) to further push the idea of brotherhood amongst men. Thats just my 2 cents. So its not "Ik ong kar" as in "monotheism is right and polytheism is rong" Its "Ik ong kar" as in "no matter what you believe, monotheists or polytheists, you all believe the same thing." Seeker9 The recent messages that do nothing except condemn the original poster for having even posted his thoughts only prove my earlier point. The vast majority of sikhs are close-minded. You, yourself, have proven not to be. But most people on this site cant get past the insult of a dissenting view point. Even if he was a muslim, his point is largely sound in my opinion. There should be a forum for dissenting views in sikhism—instead we get such priceless quotes like: A yo mama joke? Very classy imo Thats a nice veiled threat wahkaur. The original poster didnt even comment on the gurus or the guru granth but rather the ridiculous stories. I wonder why so many sikhs consider these stories to be on the same level as the guru granth sahib in terms of validity. That they are not to be questioned at all surprises me. Anyways, back to our discussion: Lol, im not sure if this was a vieled insult in my direction for the bumblebee thing. Having said that, i find that a 30 second google search is alot more comprehensive then what the average religious person does to fact check their sources :P. And I agree that alot of atheists only have a superficial understanding of science. But on average they have a better understanding of science then do religious people. Atheists tend to be smarter, they commit less crimes then religious people, they are all around more moral then religious people. Countries with large atheistic populations (like sweden) fair far better then countries with large religious populations. The only way the onus goes on us to disprove god is not if you "turned it around" lol. After all, who are you? Your a nobody (no offence, im a nobody too). You cant jus say "well i turned it around so from now on, the onus is removed from us, and its on u guys—good luck with that :P." Thats not how it works. The person making the claim has the onus. The only way we get the onus of disproving god is if you somehow prove he exists. Then we'd have to examine ur proof (its called peer review). That is the scientific method. Its actually a valid philosophical point that was originally furthered by bertrand russel (google search: russels teapot). But right, i love talking in terms of probability, i just assumed we were always talking in terms of probability. Although I have said "god does not exist" in the past, i acknowledge that from my point of view, there is an infinitly small chance that god does exist. So I can say there is a very high probability that god does not exist :P. Just as u said about my poor teapot. Yes you can say that. Although sumone would look at your claim and think your crazy because there has been no research or evidence into your claim. So its a baseless claim. And one can look at my claim, realize that biological immortality is a very real and naturally occuring phenomena and that we have already succesfully modified the lifespan of certain organisms by thousands of percent and they can see why my claim makes more sense. Im not pulling this out of thin air. Keep in mind, science and technollogy has been progressing exponentially, not linearly. It only took us what? 50-60 years to get from the first plane to the first space shuttle right? These last 100 years have seen more change then the preceeding 1900 years before it combined. Its not a stretch to assume the next 100 years will see even more change :) [COLOR=black]"[/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" - Richard Fynmen (a wellrespected american physicist). Religious and spiritual people have come clamoring to quantum mechanics inorder to justify their beliefs. I wish you could honestly do it but you cant. I feel like you dont really have all that well an understanding of science. Only a few hours ago you believed that the bee should not be able to fly according to the principles of aerodynamics. And now you believe that religion is in line with quantum mechanics? Please explain how or why? In any way. Quantum mechanics is not inherently "self contradictory." Instead, it contradicts the theory of relativity. Physicists are trying to work out how the two connect—if it all. They are also investigating other possibilities such as string theory :) [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Ashamed To Be Sikh
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top