Kya 22 pratigya secular hain?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @vimohlive
Support the show at / vimoh
Make a one-time donation at vimoh.stck.me/...
Please read these rules before commenting. Follow them to the best of your ability. The rules are meant to keep the comment space clean and a safe space for anyone who wishes to participate in good faith.
1. No advocating violence of any kind against anyone for any reason. People doing so will get banned from the channel.
2. No praising or abusing any religion for any reason. Proselytising is not appreciated, nor is making generalised statements about the followers of any religion. People doing so will get banned.
3. No casteism, racism, or sexism. Discriminatory language will get you banned too.
4. Trolling, spamming, use of fake accounts to deceive people about your identity, will also get you banned.
देश का प्रधानमंत्री राम मंदिर का भूमी पुजन करता है तो वो भी गलत नहीं है क्या? तब प्रधानमंत्री का इस्तेफा की मांग क्यों नहीं हूई
Ek dum Dankeki Chot Pe😮😮😮
Isse jyada to railway me jhande dikhane ka kaam majedar hai
Sir be aware of this arjun guy
I think he has a UA-cam channel named "Agnostic Arjun arya "
Where he defends hinduism
And seems like he has problem with Dalits and Buddhism
Yes it is him, he recently removed the acharya Arya, became a "liberal Hindoo"
Video thik seh sunn liya karo bhai sahab.
Nah
Neo Buddhists are literally ruining Buddha
You can create your own Buddha
But let Gautam Buddha with his dignity
@@mymemorises8610
Buddhist are more casteist that Hindus read buddhist literature
Secularism is not a sarvadharmasamabhav....
Secularism= It is a dharmanirpeksha rashtra...
He is represent wrong defination of secularism.
panth nirpeksh in the official Hindi translation.
He's talking about hard secularism and soft secularism, the latter is sarvadharmasamabhav
Rss ka messgae padh ke aate hai,, kuch sarpair nahi hai
@@thimbaiah9005hard and soft secularism...ab ye kya hai
Oh my God a civil Sanghi 😱😱😱
He was not. He was just curious
@@hefilial😂
इनसे पूछो की 19वीं प्रतिज्ञा में जो बात कही गई है वो सच है या नही?
Simple it is not true.
@@adi-qx8ls we see inequality all around India and some people take pride in being "superior" to others but when someone points it out they suddenly get offended and act like it doesn't exist
@@kaif5799 You are talking about whom ?
@@kaif5799 anecdotal evidence
@@vibhu8227 You might want to check NCRB data on caste related atrocities against SC, ST's.
And ample amounts of news articles on crimes committed against the lower castes, in recent years.
If youtube had allowed me, I'd have posted the links here.
Ye shudra h or khud ko kattar Hindu smjta h😂
Nah
Obc - shudra
@@akbossgaming7848no general can be sudra too
Arry yaar. Isko "hindu code bill" do read karne k liye, dekh lega kisne likha hai aur kisne pass kiya hai.😂
Sanatan Satya hai ❌
Sanatan sandaas hai✅
Sanatan word hi buddhisht scriptures se chori kiya hua h
Sabhi chiz churaya gya h @@prakharexplains5678
@@prakharexplains5678 matalab Buddhism sandaash hai?
@@Naman2074 Linduism gobar hai
@@prakharexplains5678tum har chiz me apna hi conspiracy theory kaise le aate ho ??
Walmiki was brahman 😂😂😂😂 who wrote ramayana
Do you even know what brahman means? Brahman is word for attribute less reality
Ramayan is not writed by walmiki this book modified version of dasrath jatak katha
Pehle valmiki jati ka history padhe,, kabse valmiki bola gya,, kisne thopa valmiki naam ka caste
Don't agree with the POV of valmiki...its wrong of celebrating valmiki jayanti
You seem good vimoh
Arre ye arjun rationalist hai?
Bhai ye zinda bhi hai?
Hey! I know this isn't related to this video, but do you remember that guy with username "mind" you were debating with a day or two ago? It was happening in the replies section under a rude comment he posted under Vimoh's very first response video to Zeeshan Ali, accusing Vimoh of ignoring "evidence" for God. Well, I'd just like to share with you how my debate went with him. This is an exposé response for all the debaters that I intended to post in the end, but couldn't because of glitch. I have listed all the claims (Assumptions, as he later admitted) he made, and my counter arguments in brackets or in the next paragraph. Also added some context and additional details. Your feedback about my counter arguments and corrections are appreciated, of course. You can check out that replies section if you like (Tip - Sort the comments by Newest First and go to the replies under that comment. You'll be able to see all the replies that UA-cam has hidden):
"If you guys are having a purely philosophical debate/discussion with him, then it's going exactly how it should and I wish you all luck. But if you're thinking he's claiming that God actually exists and providing the "evidence" for God which he had accused Vimoh of ignoring, then let me tell you - He has already admitted while talking to me that God's existence can't be proven by science (Which deals with material reality). He just has his own definition of God which doesn't match with that of other religions, and he's trying to conclude (Not prove) that he exists using philosophical arguments (Which is okay, as long as he doesn't claim he is actually real).
Here's a precise list of assumptions (Not calling them claims since he's already admitted it) he has made without providing any scientific evidence in support:
1) The Big Bang has a cause (It may or may not be, science doesn't know yet. Until we get to know, we say, "We don't know")
2) That cause is his concept of "God" which can't be proven by science and which can't have a cause himself (An assumption) because he (Not she, it or they -> One more assumption) is: a) All powerful b) Spaceless c) Intangible, therefore can't be proven by science d) Timeless (So that you annoying atheists can't ask, "How did your creator come into being?") e) Has human-like qualities like intelligence, decision-making ability, love etc. f) Isn't bound by the rules of logic (He actually said this in a reply but accused me of using the Strawman against him when I pointed it out before) -> But he'll very conveniently use philosophy, which relies on logic and common sense, to arrive at conclusions about his God (Total: 6 assumptions)
3) Philosophy is a science, and can be used to prove material reality
And he used 3 gotcha responses to support this assumption:
1) He asked me to prove I exist, which I can't. But I never claimed that I exist in the first place. It's HIS assumption/claim that I exist, but he asked ME for proof. Also, the fact that I can't prove that I exist, also doesn't automatically mean that I don't.
2) He asked me to scientifically prove that scientific evidence is required to prove reality. Asking for scientific evidence is a question, not a tangible claim about reality that I'm supposed to prove. We know what "scientific evidence" means, and I'm simply asking him for it. A question/demand is not a claim.
3) Scientists automatically assume that the mind/consciousness is a material reality because that's what they deal with.
Scientists examine the claim being made, and first try to determine whether it's about material reality or not by looking at the definition/data given by the claimer by asking the right questions. If it's not within their domain of expertise, they'll deny studying it further. A scientist doing formal scientific research will obviously not agree to deal with claims about math, philosophy or history.
Also, he said in a reply to one of you that he doesn't care about what scientists believe in, when a) The belief of scientists have evidential basis, they don't manufacture their beliefs out of thin air b) He himself uses scientific concepts and explanations which have been formulated by scientists in his arguments
He argued that since science and math uses the principles of philosophy, therefore philosophy can be a substitute method to prove reality. This is wrong. Philosophy deals with ideas and concepts, not material reality. It can arrive at conclusions, inferences, proofs etc. using common sense and logic. Math deals with calculations, and science deals with material reality. Science and math borrows the methods from philosophy, and SOME domains of science makes use of math, but they both have vastly different applications. We can't do with philosophy what we can do with science or math. The scientific method is the only method known to us using which we can prove material reality.
He doesn't have scientific evidence for any of the above assumptions (And he himself admitted this. Although I cannot for the life of me understand why he accused Vimoh of not providing "evidence" when he isn't providing any himself. There's no evidence in math or philosophy, it exists only in science. Evidence is something that is used in the scientific method and the claim it supports can be disproven/modified later. Evidence in science can be falsified, but proofs in math and philosophy are definite truths). He only has philosophical claims and arguments, which as I explained, don't count as evidence for material reality. They just attempt to describe an idea/concept (Which in this case is his God. That too, his own definition of God with assumed human-like attributes).
Also (This isn't an accusation, just a thought), it seems to me from the tone of speech he uses in his replies that he likes to mock people who disagree with him or hold views different from his own. He uses cheap language to describe participants in a debate - "Your favorite atheists GM Skeptic, Dillahunty, Dawkins, Harris etc. got schooled/slapped/destroyed by my peer-reviewed philosophers in a debate, whose arguments I can use to try and prove my God..." (This is just his anecdote, so we have to take him for his word. Obviously, there are many people in the same audience who think otherwise. Also, I'm sure there are other peer-reviewed philosophers who disagree or have very different views from the ones he thinks so highly of). There is no true winner or loser in a debate. It's just a respectful exchange of arguments between 2 participants who even agree with each other on a few things. At the end they both arrive at a common conclusion, or maybe the talk simply ends as it is. Maybe one was more right than the other, but nobody is ever 100% wrong in a debate or gets "schooled/humiliated/slapped" as he likes to say.
I just thought I'll share this with everyone because this debate has gone on for too long. Over 5 days, 200+ replies under a comment with 0 likes. This is one of those weird corners of UA-cam LOL"
This was the response I wanted to post. And now the replies section seems to be glitched. It doesn't load any more replies and doesn't seem to be accepting any more replies either, at least on my end. UA-cam ruins juicy debates LOL Anyway that was fun 😂
@@crazygamer93000 you can prove actually that you exist.
This is how I would have responded to him.
I am convinced that i exist, and I will confirm this by asking others, since I was a child and until now, everyone I have ever met thinks that i exist.
So i confirmed this by asking to others. Which is actually how science work, until someone give different conclusion with different reasons or evidence.
@@crazygamer93000 and btw thanks for sharing
@@Haraex I guess this answer can get rejected on the grounds that you're using others to prove you exist, and not yourself.
I Googled this and found that it's sort of a riddle in philosophy. Nobody has been able to give a good answer to this question yet. Only René Descartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am" which means the fact that you're able to think about your existence means you have self-consciousness, which is a defining characteristic of living beings, and that proves you exist. But again many people don't find this answer convincing enough! So many say that you can't prove your own existence LOL
And yeah no problem...BTW were you guys really having a purely philosophical debate with him? I wonder why it went on for so long...Vimoh said in the last video that the philosophical arguments for God's existence are actually very weak...
@@crazygamer93000 evidence is generally considered what is more plausible to beleive under the light of evidence, reasoning, and philosophy of science.
For example if there are two jars one with mostly red beans and few blue beans and other with mostly blue beans and few red beans.
And if light goes off and there are few beans taken out from any one jar.
And all of them are red, then it's evidence that beans came out from first jar.
And let's once again light goes off and few beans are taken out from any one jar, and still all of them are red.
It is becoming are more plausible that red beans are taken out from first jar, and hence stronger evidence.
Also it doesn't disprove that beans didn't come out of second jar, as it also contains few blue beans
Whats up plato 😇
Nahi hai 9 th incarnation gautam buddh aur hamare buddh alag hai bhai correct yourself
Jay bhim
I want share my opnion all people are equal this biggest lie i ever heard .Because every body is equal why not people who is educated or uneducated are equal Good righteous and bad sinner are not equal .instead equality people are need to judge based on laws of justice.
Mantri pad ki shapat lete hue jab bhagwan ko shakshi mana jata hai aur jai shree ram ka naara lagaya jata hai, tabhi kaha gayab ho jate hai ye
I have a contradiction with your Nupur Sharma point. Blasphemy for targeting a particular religion so as to prove an assertion that ones religion is superior or inferior is not right. But ya you are right about the anti blasphemous law.
There is nothing Blasphemous about 22 vows of babasaheb. He just said he will not believe in Hinduism and hindu gods. And Hinduism is indeed dangerous for Dalit.
@@KingGodzilla-m2t That was blasphemous. But he dropped the religion he was supposed to be in.
@@nilabhdash5461What was blasphemous in Ambedkar's 22oath??
@@unknown_atheistdon't know about 22vows but he had written a whole book(riddles in Hinduism) in which he wrote most disgusting and baseless things about Hinduism, also I saw your other comment, see buddhism is nothing special, it is just as unscientific and baseless as vedic Hinduism. Both suck the same except that vedic Hinduism sucked just little less because it didn't have as much of paradoxes as buddhism
@@Yabuki_right Bhai Dr.B.R. Ambedkar ne tere se kya jitne bhi Shankaracharya hai unse jyada Study ki hui hai Brahminism pr....
Aur Disgusting and Baseless....
Bhai tune Single Dharm Granth nhi padha Brahminism ke aur yaha Gapod rha hai....
And rhi baat Buddhism ke unscientific hone ki,
Jara batana toh kya Unscientific hai??
Kabhi Budha ke teachings aur Philosophy padhe ho??
Mahayana, Vajrayana and Tantrayana yeh Buddhism ke branches hai, lekin yeh original Buddhism nhi hai....
Original Buddhism=Teaching and Philosophy of Budha.
valmiki brahmin tha
from my knowledge he was a “Daku” … so probably tribalistic
@@beactivebehappy9894 hell nha you didn't read ramayan i guess
Problem hai bhai what if he resign from his post but uske vichar to vaise hi rahenge na aur vicharo se prabhav padta hai
😂 yaar tum to over intelligent ho, matlab Valmiki ji ko unki caste k karan pujate he na ki ramayana likhne k karan, to agar ramayan ka koi contribution nahi he unki respect me, bas caste ka he to fir caste me janme sabhi purvajo ko pooja jaata naa.
Valmiki ek fake patra hai aisa mijhe lagta hai q ki jab shurdi ko likhne padhne shloko ko sunane aur bolne ka adhikaar hi nhi tha to valmiki ne ramayan kaise likh di???
Bilkul
Nice conspiracy theory brother
@@luckypgotekar valmiki fake hai saath hi vo bra_man hai ramayan me hi likha hai ki vo Brahma ke putra pracheyta ka beta hai na ki vo shudra tha
@@Dishant_kumarAbe gaddha hai kya ? Us samay Varna karma ke hisab se Hota tha naki janm ke hisab se . Is wajah se us samay koi bhi shudra brahmin ban sakta tha , aaj ke casteism ko ancient Varna system se compare krna hi illogical hai .
@@Dishant_kumarHindu dharma mein ek jagah tu mujhe ye dikhade ki jaha likha ho Varna janm ke hisab se Hota hai naki Karma ke hisab se
Don't agree with the POV of valmiki...its wrong of celebrating valmiki jayanti