Teaching Science Badly – and Well
Pervez Hoodbhoy March 1, 2007
#244 Posted by echoboom on July 24, 2007 7:39:12 pm
Maroc Liberté, Radio Islam, Ahmed RAMI, Faisal Al Kasim, AL JAZEERA TV CHANNEL,
- radioislam.org , radioislam.net , abbc.net .
Morocco. Maghreb, Monde arabe. Palestine. Islam. Farrakhan. Judaïsme, Sionisme.
Pour: un Front Islamique de liberation du Maroc. Pour une
révolution islamique pourlaliberté au Maroc. Pour un mouvement islamique uni auMaroc.Pour plus de liberté
et moins d´interdits! Dansl´Islam: la liberté
estla régle, l´interdit est l´exception.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Isl am.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.Islam.
Les grands ne sont grands que parce que
nous sommes à genoux. - Levons-nous!
You
are what you know and what
you do with what you know
No hate. No
violence
Races? Only
one Human race
United We
Stand, Divided We Fall
Freedom of
Speech - Use it or lose it!
--Know
Your enemy!
--No
time to waste. Act now!
Tomorrow it
will be too late
What You
Don´t Know Can Kill You!
This Site is owned by a group of freedom fighters from different
countries in support of
Ahmed
Rami 's struggle
(Email)
Choose
a language:
French
Deutsch
Swedish
Russian
Spanish
Italian-
Nederlands
Indonesian
SSerb
Polish
Norsk
Arabic
Suomi
Danish
Roman
Slovakien
Czech
Hungarian
Portugues
Croat
Bulgar
Latest
additions:
English
French
Russian
German
Svenska
Nederlands
Portugues
Italian
Arabic
Spanish
Suomi
Danish
Czech
Slovakien
www
radioislam.org
Some chosen
topics
When...
Jewish children
send 'love'
messages
< b>(Jewish Photos)
US
War Without End for Israel ?
رسالة
مفتوحة الى
محمد السادس
أحمد
رامي يتحدث لجريدة الأيام
What
is
Islam?
La
tragédie marocaine
Act
now
إنها
كارثة أمة
تتآكل أمامنا ونحن لاهون أو ساكتون
!
ما الحل
وما
العمل؟< /b>
مقالات للكاتب فهمي هويدي
المعبرة عن نبض وهموم الأمة
A
plot against Radio
Islam
French
|
English
|
German
|
Swedish
|
Portug
|
Italian
Caricatures
Photos
This
Site
Quotes
Letters
Forum
Myrdal
Islam
Authors
Khamenei
Nasser
Ben
Bella
Rami
Farrakhan
Franklin
Thion
Yassine
Witness
Sindi
Intifada
Faurisson
Marx
Luther
Hitler
Shahak
Garaudy
Koestler
Remer
Ford
Yahya
Bush
Graf
Medias
Newspapers
Who?
Conspiracy
Revisionism
Victims
Books
Catechism
Protocols
US-Congress
Talmud
Israel
Judaism
Nazism
Capitol
War
Peace
Crime
Enemy
Right
Jews
Mossad
Khazar
Drugs
ADL
History
When
Zion
Islamism
Links
USA
Russia
Germany
England
France
Turkey
Maroc
Morocco
Tragédie
Lebanon
Sweden
Sverige
Suisse
Time
Massacres
Iran
Domination
Democracy
False
Money
Resistance
Nätverk
Ahmed
Rami on Al Jazeera:
What is
going on in Morocco?
L´ensemble
du Monde Arabe occupé par les
juifs!?
Abdeslam
Yassine:
Sorti de la petite à la grande
prison: sa lettre
au nouveau
gardien de la prison
|
French
|
English
|
Deutsch
|
Spanish
|
Arabic
|
|
U.S.Interest
|
Media
|
"Peace"|< b>
Zionism
|
Intifada |
Quotes |Sanctions
|
|
Crime |
Lebanon
|
|
Resources
|
Books
|
Domination |
External Links
|
USA´s Rulers:
All Are
Jews!
Palestinians won't get their independence
until Americans get
theirs!
Jewish
Power in
Russia
Farrakhan on
Jewish
Racism
The
Ideology behind
Massacres
Heros
Farrakhan
|
Franklin
Freedom
fighters
|
Yassine
|
Rami
|
Marx
on Jews
|
french
| English
|
Svenska
|
Garaudy:
The Resistance
|
English
|
French |
Deutsch
|
Svenska
|
Christianity:
The Resistance
|
English
|
French
|
Deutsch
|
Svenska
|
Portug
|
Islam:
The Resistance
|
English
|
French
|
Deutsch
|
Svenska
|
Portug
|
Portug
|
Russian
|
Did
Six Million Really Die?
|
English
|
French
|
Deutsch
|
Svenska
|
Danske
|
Russian
|Portug.|
Judaism, Nazism, Islam
Read, compare and judge
yourself
Judaism
The
Protocols of Zion
|English
|
French
|
Deutsch
|
Svenska
|
Portug
|
Russian
|
Spanish
|
Italian |
Danish
|
Arabic
|
Hungarian
|
Serb
|
Polish
|
Croat
|
Racism,Domination,Occupation
|
English |
French |
Deutsch
|
Svenska |
Portug |
Russian |
Spanish
|
Nazism
The
testament of Adolf
Hitler
|
French |
English |
German |
Italian |
Spanish |
Norsk
|
Mein Kampf
|
French |
English |
German |
Svenska
|
Nederlands
|
Hungarian
Bulgarian
Portugues
Czech Spanish
Russia
Finnish
pdf-files
English
German
Italian
Nederland's
Polish
Slovak
Bulgarian
Islam
What
is
Islam?
Rami
and
Rushdie.
Islam
et liberté
The
moral and political
Legitimacy
of Criticizing
Jewry
The
Jewish war against
Islam
and
the Islamic Resistance
It
is time to see the REAL enemy
!
We
should step up strugle against
Zionism
It
is not just enough to know that we are
right
The Jewish
"Peace Talks"
Jewish
Grip
on
American Film and
Television Promotes
Bias
Against
Muslims
By
Abdullah
Mohammad Sindi
Jewish
medias
The
Jewish Lies: Jewish Propaganda
Islam and the West
By
Dr.
Abdullah Mohammad Sindi
Shahak about: Judaism
FrenchLes
Juifs sans
masque
SwedishShahak
om judar
GermanJüdische
Religion
The
Jewish
Laundry
of
drug
Money
TheIdeology Behind
Massacres
JewishHistory, Jewish
Religion
AboutShahak´s "Jewish
History..."
Jewishhatred towards
Christianity
From Hebrew-LanguageNewspapers
WhoRun USA
?
IsraelVersus Iran chapter
IsraeliPolicies Toward Iran and
Syria
Israel'sStrategic Aims and Nuclear
Weapons
SyrianCities and Relations with
Irak
IsraeliForeign Policy after the
Oslo
IsraeliForeign Policies, August
1994
Israeland the Organized American
Jews
JewishLobby in the US and the Iran
Affair
Our
weakness
We must know that
our weakness is Israel's strength.
The regimes that are in
power in our countries are like dead bodies, our "leaders"
are politically finished. Instead of stepping down in honor,
they cling bitterly to power and try to drag their peoples
along into the precipice.
In the first
place, we must conquer tyranny, decadence and corruption in
our own hearts and in our countries! Instead of giving up,
we must work seriously to create the economic, political,
military and social conditions for the future victory of the
Justice.
The future belongs
to the forces of Islam. The Hezbullah, Hamas and the Jihad
are the Islamic response to the Zionist challenge. The Islam
began in the 6th century as a cultural, and spiritual
movement against the superpowers of that
time.
The military
strength of the Islam grew as a consequence of its spiritual
strength. Today, capitulating before the jewish arrogance is
not a solution; it is betraying the future
generations.
If we can not
create victory today, we muste not create defeat ourselves.
The least We can do is to capitulate without resisting.
Any
"solution" violently extorted, any unjust "peace"
(capitulation) will be rejected by the future generations.
The only real solution of the Palestinian question lies in
the return of the Palestinian people to their
fatherland.
Ahmed
Rami
Nos
voleurs!
Il y a des
problèmes extrêmes où nous nous
debattons et que nous avons trop tardé à
regarder en face. A la différence des pays
occidentaux, nos "pays musulmans" ne connaissent que peu de
hold-up de banques.
C'est que les
voleurs d'envergure savent qu'aujourd'hui, dans nos pays, la
source d'enrichissement la plus sûre, la plus rapide,
la seule à vrai dire, est le pouvoir.
À titre
d´exemple : le systeme féodal (makhzen) - qui
n´a rien à voir avec l´Islam - que Hassan
II a pérpétué anachroniquement au Maroc
en plein XXe siècle - fait de la corruption
généralisée un systhème de
gouvernement. Le régime de Hassan II constitue, pour
notre pays, pour notre peuple et pour notre avenir un danger
mortel réel.
Face à ce
danger et à son défi, il n y a, devant nous,
qu´une seule alternative et une seule réponse:
une révolution islamique radicale,
éclairée, intelligente, tolérante et
liberatrce! En Islam, la liberté est
la
régle.
L´interdit est l´exception.
Il s´impose,
AUJOURD´HUI,
urgence et nécessité vitale de créer un
FRONT
ISLAMIQUE UNI POUR
LA LIBERATION
DU MAROC.
Les
grands ne sont grands que parce que nous sommes
à genoux. Levons-nous!
Ahmed
Rami
"
War is
ugly, but to be dominated is still uglier
"
Imam
Khomeini
"The
Old and New Testaments had collided. The rabbi's dad had
taught him about an eye for an eye - or 20 homes for a
stone, in this case - whereas my dad had taught me about
turning the other cheek. Judaism and Christianity had
collided. So was it any surprise that Judaism and Islam were
colliding"
R.
Fisk, The Independent, 29 août
2001
"Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of
frontiers."
Article
19. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December
10, 1948,
Pay
attention!
This web Domain is on a freedomserver, which works against
censorship.
The contents of this Site are
the responsibility of its creators, not of the Server Provider.
©
NO
COPYRIGHT.-
All
texts
published or put
online
in this Site may be freely republished, reproduced or
translated
as long as
Radio Islam where they are located is
mentioned.
This
Site is owned by a group of freedom fighters from
different countries in supportof
Ahmed
Rami
's
struggle.
(Email)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#243 Posted by khuram on March 20, 2007 10:36:58 am
[...] ... ``II. Second, good teachers must emphasize learning rather than teaching. The two are different. Learning is a process that progresses from the concrete to the abstract as cognitive abilities slowly improve. But students first need to get acquainted with the things around them such as devices, organisms, materials, shapes, and numbers. They must observe them, collect them, handle them, describe them, become puzzled by them, ask questions about them, argue about them, and then to try to find answers to their questions. Abstractions develop after these experiences, not before.`` ... [...]
Sir, in my assessment, science study is really boring because above mentioned things are really missing in our science education.
Perhaps the reason for it lies in an internal contradiction of science itself. Which is following:
[...] ... There cannot be airy-fairy discussions of things. Science refuses to offer an opinion on things that are unobservable, or whose existence is impossible to verify even in principle. What you cannot see may still actually be there, but science is going to be mum about it. It’s as simple as that. ... [...]
My opinion is that Galileo was able to perform experiments on projectile motion and falling objects of different weights mainly because the first phase of this process i.e. ``airy-fairy`` discussions about characteristics of falling objects already had taken place in ancient Greece. Galileo`s achievement was only that he tried to test those ``airy-fairy`` ideas using experimental techniques. My own ``airy-fairy`` idea is that in order to do any experiment whatsoever, at first we need an ``idea`` that may need confirmation, clarification, comprehension or better to say, ``experimental verification``. You have discussed ``hypothesis`` as one of the roots of scientific method. How this ``hypothesis`` is different from an ``airy-fairy`` idea? I think the only difference is that ``hypothesis`` is such ``airy-fairy`` idea which is intended to be experimentally verified. Science is really boring because it is unduly narrowing down its own field/scope. It is denying the importance of subjective ideas. Attitude of science towards subjective ideas is like as if subjective ideas do not exist at all. On the other hand, science claims to be the knowledge of those entities that exist. Science says what cannot be measured, cannot be studied. What cannot be studied, should be ignored and only those entities should be studied that will be left after having ignored many existing entities. Science avoids seeing things in their totality. It emphasizes on ``measurements`` which means that science deals only with ``parts`` of things. Science makes some ``amazing`` attempts to ``measure`` some non-measurable entities as well. Science claims to measure let`s say, ``intelligence``. According to science, this person has this particular number of IQ, and that person has that particular number of IQ. Why? Because those two persons performed differently in a similar nature test...!!! Science says those two persons should have been given similar nature test because they were having same age. In all this process, science ignores many other processes simply because science doesn`t want to study them, may be by calling those processes ``non-measurable``. Science has no explanation that how a lower IQ person can have some edge over higher IQ person in any particular field. Science does not even want to study these matters. Why study of science be not boring...???
Regards!
Sir, in my assessment, science study is really boring because above mentioned things are really missing in our science education.
Perhaps the reason for it lies in an internal contradiction of science itself. Which is following:
[...] ... There cannot be airy-fairy discussions of things. Science refuses to offer an opinion on things that are unobservable, or whose existence is impossible to verify even in principle. What you cannot see may still actually be there, but science is going to be mum about it. It’s as simple as that. ... [...]
My opinion is that Galileo was able to perform experiments on projectile motion and falling objects of different weights mainly because the first phase of this process i.e. ``airy-fairy`` discussions about characteristics of falling objects already had taken place in ancient Greece. Galileo`s achievement was only that he tried to test those ``airy-fairy`` ideas using experimental techniques. My own ``airy-fairy`` idea is that in order to do any experiment whatsoever, at first we need an ``idea`` that may need confirmation, clarification, comprehension or better to say, ``experimental verification``. You have discussed ``hypothesis`` as one of the roots of scientific method. How this ``hypothesis`` is different from an ``airy-fairy`` idea? I think the only difference is that ``hypothesis`` is such ``airy-fairy`` idea which is intended to be experimentally verified. Science is really boring because it is unduly narrowing down its own field/scope. It is denying the importance of subjective ideas. Attitude of science towards subjective ideas is like as if subjective ideas do not exist at all. On the other hand, science claims to be the knowledge of those entities that exist. Science says what cannot be measured, cannot be studied. What cannot be studied, should be ignored and only those entities should be studied that will be left after having ignored many existing entities. Science avoids seeing things in their totality. It emphasizes on ``measurements`` which means that science deals only with ``parts`` of things. Science makes some ``amazing`` attempts to ``measure`` some non-measurable entities as well. Science claims to measure let`s say, ``intelligence``. According to science, this person has this particular number of IQ, and that person has that particular number of IQ. Why? Because those two persons performed differently in a similar nature test...!!! Science says those two persons should have been given similar nature test because they were having same age. In all this process, science ignores many other processes simply because science doesn`t want to study them, may be by calling those processes ``non-measurable``. Science has no explanation that how a lower IQ person can have some edge over higher IQ person in any particular field. Science does not even want to study these matters. Why study of science be not boring...???
Regards!
#242 Posted by Afreina on March 8, 2007 12:56:02 am
It`s mostly because the teachers who teach science at school lack the passion themselves. I remember having a Physics teacher from PINSTECH and she loved her subject. We called her a nutty professor but at the end of the day it was her passion and zeal for her subject which intrigued us and we started to see Physics with the same fascination as she did.
Such teachers are rare, and we were extremely lucky.
However I personally do NOT think there is anything wrong with the Pakistani curriculum, the fault lies in the examination criterion and style.
Such teachers are rare, and we were extremely lucky.
However I personally do NOT think there is anything wrong with the Pakistani curriculum, the fault lies in the examination criterion and style.
#241 Posted by krishna_abcd on March 7, 2007 11:49:01 pm
#240 by SR
[Man`s capacity to delude himself and his willingness to be deluded is limited only by his imagination.
You should know this by now, your pseudonym has the answer embeded in it. i.e., ``abcd``
These are the four kinds of people (based on their belief structure).
a) atheists and agnostics ... those who don`t buy into any of it. ....]
One small correction:
Agnostics are defined as follows:
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning ``without`` and gnosis, ``knowledge``, translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.
The second category of Agnostics are the most honest - they profess not to know.
[Man`s capacity to delude himself and his willingness to be deluded is limited only by his imagination.
You should know this by now, your pseudonym has the answer embeded in it. i.e., ``abcd``
These are the four kinds of people (based on their belief structure).
a) atheists and agnostics ... those who don`t buy into any of it. ....]
One small correction:
Agnostics are defined as follows:
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning ``without`` and gnosis, ``knowledge``, translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.
The second category of Agnostics are the most honest - they profess not to know.
#240 Posted by SR on March 7, 2007 5:42:58 pm
Re: # 190 krishna-abcd {``...To each his own, eh? No right and wrong, no fact and fiction? Believe what you want? ... how, ... you can still believe what you want to believe. How do you do it? ...`` }
Man`s capacity to delude himself and his willingness to be deluded is limited only by his imagination.
You should know this by now, your pseudonym has the answer embeded in it. i.e., ``abcd``
These are the four kinds of people (based on their belief structure).
a) atheists and agnostics ... those who don`t buy into any of it.
b) borderline ... those who think they don`t believe, but relapse when in crisis or those who think they do believe but when the chips are down and it comes time to take action they opt for the rational.
c) conservatives ... those who fully believe and have faith.
d) die-hards ... those who fit the media generated poster-boy steriotype for the ``jihadis``
And now if you`ll excuse me, my alien visitors are waiting, their flying saucers on the ready, they want me to go witness their making of Crop Circles in the wheatfields.
...SR
Man`s capacity to delude himself and his willingness to be deluded is limited only by his imagination.
You should know this by now, your pseudonym has the answer embeded in it. i.e., ``abcd``
These are the four kinds of people (based on their belief structure).
a) atheists and agnostics ... those who don`t buy into any of it.
b) borderline ... those who think they don`t believe, but relapse when in crisis or those who think they do believe but when the chips are down and it comes time to take action they opt for the rational.
c) conservatives ... those who fully believe and have faith.
d) die-hards ... those who fit the media generated poster-boy steriotype for the ``jihadis``
And now if you`ll excuse me, my alien visitors are waiting, their flying saucers on the ready, they want me to go witness their making of Crop Circles in the wheatfields.
...SR
#239 Posted by SR on March 7, 2007 5:28:24 pm
Re: # 219 ranjit {``...most ... realize that there is a ... 99% chance that there is nothing after death. Your neurons stop firing and thats that!! Yet that 1% possibility ... is what keeps us plodding along with religion...``}
It was perfect sunny weather the other day (ah, that rare British delight) so I went walking along this minor rural road in Straffordshire. Shortly before noon I stopped at the Nag`s Head for a chicken tikka sandwich when I noticed three passably good looking women at the table behind me. They were eagerly scratching numbers off some kind of lottery tickets they`d bought. No fan of lottery tickets myself, it made me curious, so I approached their table, excused myself and pulled up a chair.
I was intrigued by their zeal and excitement. Why were they so enthusiastic about something that had only the most remote chance and was virtually impossible for all practical purposes? At the end of a fifteen minute question and answer session I realised that it was yet another face of ``religion`` in a way. All logic suggested otherwise, but the power of wishful thinking kept them going on. So is it with all sorts of faith based systems. They defy reason, yet their hold on the human imagination is like a vice-grip. It is far stronger than any rationally derived conclusion could ever hope for.
...SR
It was perfect sunny weather the other day (ah, that rare British delight) so I went walking along this minor rural road in Straffordshire. Shortly before noon I stopped at the Nag`s Head for a chicken tikka sandwich when I noticed three passably good looking women at the table behind me. They were eagerly scratching numbers off some kind of lottery tickets they`d bought. No fan of lottery tickets myself, it made me curious, so I approached their table, excused myself and pulled up a chair.
I was intrigued by their zeal and excitement. Why were they so enthusiastic about something that had only the most remote chance and was virtually impossible for all practical purposes? At the end of a fifteen minute question and answer session I realised that it was yet another face of ``religion`` in a way. All logic suggested otherwise, but the power of wishful thinking kept them going on. So is it with all sorts of faith based systems. They defy reason, yet their hold on the human imagination is like a vice-grip. It is far stronger than any rationally derived conclusion could ever hope for.
...SR
#238 Posted by PewResearch on March 7, 2007 12:09:00 pm
Re: # 237 Tahmed32
``...keeps demanding an India-Pakistan mudslinging match,...``
Not at all. I just want you to come clean and explain your position. Why don`t you address the specific issues rather than hiding and parrying on unrelated nonsense?
``...keeps demanding an India-Pakistan mudslinging match,...``
Not at all. I just want you to come clean and explain your position. Why don`t you address the specific issues rather than hiding and parrying on unrelated nonsense?
#237 Posted by tahmed32 on March 7, 2007 10:32:52 am
#234 zeemax: pewresearch keeps demanding an India-Pakistan mudslinging match, excuse me, a ``discussion``. And I keep telling him ``bhai jan, jao maaf karo. kisi aur ka sar kkhao.`` :-)
As for the disease, that is what I am trying to figure out, with help from Dr. BJKumar. See #231 below.
As for the disease, that is what I am trying to figure out, with help from Dr. BJKumar. See #231 below.
#236 Posted by tahmed32 on March 7, 2007 10:29:41 am
arjun #232/233: I already noted as much in #231, you idiot.
#235 Posted by arjun2 on March 7, 2007 9:48:59 am
#234 by zeemax on March 7, 2007 8:32am PT
welfare queen: time to go collect your welfare check from her majesty`s government...shoo...
welfare queen: time to go collect your welfare check from her majesty`s government...shoo...
#234 Posted by zeemax on March 7, 2007 8:32:53 am
tahmed32,
What did you do to light up pukeResearch`s tail like an agarbatti?
And here .. the head_macaca aka dhotilal_googlemal states he googles day and night for dirty diapers and displays the findings meticulously on each of Chowk`s forums without fail every single day .....
.... what`s this disease called?
What did you do to light up pukeResearch`s tail like an agarbatti?
And here .. the head_macaca aka dhotilal_googlemal states he googles day and night for dirty diapers and displays the findings meticulously on each of Chowk`s forums without fail every single day .....
.... what`s this disease called?
#233 Posted by arjun2 on March 7, 2007 8:23:50 am
#221 by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 8:05pm PT
i don`t hate pakis any more than I ``hate`` dirty diapers...disgust is not the same as hate...it`s the whole support for islamic terrorism I hate...without that, for most Indians, pakis would just be west bangladesh...
i don`t hate pakis any more than I ``hate`` dirty diapers...disgust is not the same as hate...it`s the whole support for islamic terrorism I hate...without that, for most Indians, pakis would just be west bangladesh...
#232 Posted by arjun2 on March 7, 2007 8:19:53 am
#231 by tahmed32 on March 7, 2007 6:55am PT
It`s the jihad, stupid(pbuhsrr)...
You mean when arjun writes that all Pakistanis are terrorists or liars
I said there are two kinds of pakis: pakis who say they support terrorism and pakis who say they don`t support terrorism(i.e. liars)
It`s the jihad, stupid(pbuhsrr)...
You mean when arjun writes that all Pakistanis are terrorists or liars
I said there are two kinds of pakis: pakis who say they support terrorism and pakis who say they don`t support terrorism(i.e. liars)
#231 Posted by tahmed32 on March 7, 2007 6:55:31 am
bjkumar #227: Thank you sir for an illuminating response. Your 4-point diagnosis (ignoring the 5th one, per your instructions), and some thoughts/questions they raise therefore is as follows:
You say these indivduals:
(1) do not REALLY hate Pakistanis,
Maybe so. But if they dont hate Pakistanis, they are either 2. indifferent; or 3. love and admire pakistanis but dont want to show it. 2. cannot be true, since of all the billions of web pages on the internet, they spend their precious time on chowk, and of the millions of topics, they spend their precious time discussing Pakistanis and muslims. That leaves 1. and 3. (that is, love-hate). hmmmmmmm....this is obviously a complicated malady.
(2) do not believe that - despite all the rhetoric - that all Pakistanis are terrorists and hypocrites
You mean when arjun writes that all Pakistanis are terrorists or liars, he doesnt really mean what he says!! In other words....he is...he is...er...a gas balloon!! I get it!! :-)
(3) do still retain hope that not ALL reason is gone AWOL,
Given 1. and 2. above, I am not sure if Hope and Reason will find safe haven with these individuals. :-)
(4) do believe that ``discussions`` - even animated ones - are better than doing NOTHING
I beg to differ sir. Discussions with quotes around them are not discussions, animated or otherwise. They are merely exchanging insults and putdowns, and therefore not better than nothing.
You say these indivduals:
(1) do not REALLY hate Pakistanis,
Maybe so. But if they dont hate Pakistanis, they are either 2. indifferent; or 3. love and admire pakistanis but dont want to show it. 2. cannot be true, since of all the billions of web pages on the internet, they spend their precious time on chowk, and of the millions of topics, they spend their precious time discussing Pakistanis and muslims. That leaves 1. and 3. (that is, love-hate). hmmmmmmm....this is obviously a complicated malady.
(2) do not believe that - despite all the rhetoric - that all Pakistanis are terrorists and hypocrites
You mean when arjun writes that all Pakistanis are terrorists or liars, he doesnt really mean what he says!! In other words....he is...he is...er...a gas balloon!! I get it!! :-)
(3) do still retain hope that not ALL reason is gone AWOL,
Given 1. and 2. above, I am not sure if Hope and Reason will find safe haven with these individuals. :-)
(4) do believe that ``discussions`` - even animated ones - are better than doing NOTHING
I beg to differ sir. Discussions with quotes around them are not discussions, animated or otherwise. They are merely exchanging insults and putdowns, and therefore not better than nothing.
#230 Posted by PewResearch on March 7, 2007 5:32:01 am
Re: # 224 bjkumar
Subject #223 Tahmed32
Again, this is less about what `Pakistani terrorists are doing in India` or any other grandiose designs that Pakistan may have over India. It also has less to do with your `classification` of Pakistanis. It has everything to do with exposing the self-righteous (and now shown to be hypocritical) Tahmed32 for all to see. There is also another element: a lack of a call to arms when General Musharraf sends murderous gangs into Afghanistan or India speaks volumes of where Tahmed32`s true sympathies lie (your and my words notwithstanding). Note: he is quick to resort to such calls when these neighbors offer to pay back in the same coin. That is a MATERIAL difference. So, be fooled at your own risk - you saw his reaction to your post in #224.
Also, notice: he is equating this material public exposure of his positions with `hate (for) pakistanis and consider them to be terrorists and hypocrites and so forth`. Where is the connection? Also, if there is a connection at all, ask who is doing the infiltration? and who THEN is likely afflicted by `hate`? All this, the self-righteous Tahmed glosses over.
He could easily have distanced himself from these well-known jihadi efforts by Musharraf with equal vigor, but rather he chose to use racial epithets. What does that tell you about the man?
Krishna_abcd; Arjun: Although reasoning directly with the man may not help him, exposing him for the self-righteous positions that he takes will help clarify for others on Chowk what his ilk stand for.
Subject #223 Tahmed32
Again, this is less about what `Pakistani terrorists are doing in India` or any other grandiose designs that Pakistan may have over India. It also has less to do with your `classification` of Pakistanis. It has everything to do with exposing the self-righteous (and now shown to be hypocritical) Tahmed32 for all to see. There is also another element: a lack of a call to arms when General Musharraf sends murderous gangs into Afghanistan or India speaks volumes of where Tahmed32`s true sympathies lie (your and my words notwithstanding). Note: he is quick to resort to such calls when these neighbors offer to pay back in the same coin. That is a MATERIAL difference. So, be fooled at your own risk - you saw his reaction to your post in #224.
Also, notice: he is equating this material public exposure of his positions with `hate (for) pakistanis and consider them to be terrorists and hypocrites and so forth`. Where is the connection? Also, if there is a connection at all, ask who is doing the infiltration? and who THEN is likely afflicted by `hate`? All this, the self-righteous Tahmed glosses over.
He could easily have distanced himself from these well-known jihadi efforts by Musharraf with equal vigor, but rather he chose to use racial epithets. What does that tell you about the man?
Krishna_abcd; Arjun: Although reasoning directly with the man may not help him, exposing him for the self-righteous positions that he takes will help clarify for others on Chowk what his ilk stand for.
#229 Posted by PewResearch on March 7, 2007 5:12:24 am
Re: # 223 Tahmed32
``...no discussion wiscussion with macacas...``
So you are not above using racial epithets used by discredited American politicians? So much for your self-righteous `respect for even servants` nonsense and `first and foremost developing a good character` (#151). Hypocrite!
``...no discussion wiscussion with macacas...``
So you are not above using racial epithets used by discredited American politicians? So much for your self-righteous `respect for even servants` nonsense and `first and foremost developing a good character` (#151). Hypocrite!
#228 Posted by krishna_abcd on March 7, 2007 1:48:35 am
#221 by tahmed32
[#217 arjun: So what you are saying is you dont hate terrorists and liars (which is what you said a few posts below all pakis are). ]
Your basic premise is full of holes.
For one, liars can be pitied and looked down upon with contempt - not necessarily hated.
There is a difference.
Get back to your drawing board and try again.
[#217 arjun: So what you are saying is you dont hate terrorists and liars (which is what you said a few posts below all pakis are). ]
Your basic premise is full of holes.
For one, liars can be pitied and looked down upon with contempt - not necessarily hated.
There is a difference.
Get back to your drawing board and try again.
#227 Posted by bjkumar on March 6, 2007 9:45:35 pm
#226 Tauheed sahib,
I am astounded! Here I am trying to snatch ``those`` chestnuts out of fire for you and here you are trying to light up those sparks into my very own bark?!! :)
Oh well!
Okhal mein sir diya to moosal se kya darna!!
Here goes.
[why your countrymen who profess to hate pakistanis and consider them to be terrorists and hypocrites and so forth fall over one another to have engage in ``discussions`` with them?]
Perhaps Tauheed sahib, my ``countrymen``
(1) do not REALLY hate Pakistanis,
(2) do not believe that - despite all the rhetoric - that all Pakistanis are terrorists and hypocrites
(3) do still retain hope that not ALL reason is gone AWOL,
(4) do believe that ``discussions`` - even animated ones - are better than doing NOTHING
and
(this is only for Tauheed sahib, so everybody else go away!)
(5) perhaps your God-given charm and all the hard work you have been doing here for so long is finally beginning to pay off!! :)
(Okay, everybody else can now come back!)
#226 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 9:26:17 pm
bjkumar: Could you explain why your countrymen who profess to hate pakistanis and consider them to be terrorists and hypocrites and so forth fall over one another to have engage in ``discussions`` with them? This is a very puzzling phenomenon indeed.
#225 Posted by Singularity on March 6, 2007 9:15:37 pm
PewResearch,Krishna:
I have interacted with Mullah in hiding Tahmed32. There are three kind of muslims. The first is the shameless and proud mullahs like Romair,Urstruly and the wanna be thug(but coward) Zeemax. The second is the enlightened muslims(Dr.Sohail, Pervez Hoodbhoy etc) who have some left over memes from their Hindu root. The third is the mullah in hiding like Tahmed32. We know the first variety and know how to handle them in real world. The second are taking a complete break from the Arab Imperialism called Islam. The third are the ones we should be watchful of.
No matter what the mullahs think, ISLAM is on its last leg and is waning. It has no economic, military or political power to sustain its Barbaric Founder Mullah MohaMAD`s zeal to kill, rape and plunder. So learn to ignore these LOSERS and focus on spending your time productively for your family, country and the progressive, enlightened humanity.
I have interacted with Mullah in hiding Tahmed32. There are three kind of muslims. The first is the shameless and proud mullahs like Romair,Urstruly and the wanna be thug(but coward) Zeemax. The second is the enlightened muslims(Dr.Sohail, Pervez Hoodbhoy etc) who have some left over memes from their Hindu root. The third is the mullah in hiding like Tahmed32. We know the first variety and know how to handle them in real world. The second are taking a complete break from the Arab Imperialism called Islam. The third are the ones we should be watchful of.
No matter what the mullahs think, ISLAM is on its last leg and is waning. It has no economic, military or political power to sustain its Barbaric Founder Mullah MohaMAD`s zeal to kill, rape and plunder. So learn to ignore these LOSERS and focus on spending your time productively for your family, country and the progressive, enlightened humanity.
#224 Posted by bjkumar on March 6, 2007 9:07:42 pm
#222 Pew
Ama yaar, beating up on Tauheed sahib will not work. Here is why:
(1) Individuals like Tauheed sahib do not (as far as I know) endorse what the terrorists in Kashmir or in other parts of India (whether native or sent-in) are doing.
(2) The Pakistani khakis (or at least their “rogue” elements) who fund, train and send in the jihadis into Kashmir do not seek the approval of the likes of Tauheed sahib, or perhaps ANY segments of the Pakistani population – such elements are self-justified in their own minds and are not really the most democratic bunch around who would even feel any need for such justification – and they have never tried to obtain it – if they had done so, it would have never deteriorated to this stage.
(3) In all likelihood, there are plenty of Pakistanis who feel in their hearts that their government has been doing a LOT of wrong things regarding India, but will not say so openly because (a) they do not really feel they have the clout to make a difference, (b) they feel that saying things openly will expose such lack of clout, (c) in some cases, they might even feel that if they refuse to face up to it, perhaps the rest of the world won’t notice.
(4) The fully two generation long deliberate, state controlled indoctrination has done its damage to the hearts and minds of individuals who – until the other day, were our kins by ties of blood and often still display – when they give way to being unguarded – whatever remains of the kinship that at one time was a given and a part of our joint heritage.
(5) On top of everything else, there is the VERY desi tendency to dig into heels and become more entrenched when attacked – a tendency which makes people do and say things which they would not do or say if they were more comfortable.
The above are strictly my personal opinions. I have no special expertise on such issues and I certainly can not divine what exists in the hearts of individuals or groups of people.
#223 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 8:45:50 pm
#222 *yawn*
the answer is still: ``jao baba maaf karo. no discussion wiscussion with macacas.``
the answer is still: ``jao baba maaf karo. no discussion wiscussion with macacas.``
#222 Posted by PewResearch on March 6, 2007 8:39:41 pm
Re: # 205 Tahmed
``....need to engage in india-pakistan mudslinging...``
This has nothing to do with India-Pakistan `mudslinging`, and everything to do with your character and claims of a virtuous upbringing stressing `honesty` and the like; your attempts to weazel away from a discussion on the facts notwithstanding. If you are indeed `honest` as you claim to be, can you explain how you can defend General-President Musharraf with a call to arms when your country`s neighbors threaten to pay back in kind when he sends murderous agents to their civilian centers, but express no such calls to action when he engages in such provocative acts in the first place` that I raised in #177.
This has been my question that you are not willing to address, while trying every means to deflect the discussion on other spurious matters (e.g. india-pakistan mudslinging even though the instance that I cited was of Afghan concerns about Taliban infiltration).
You are exposed on Chowk for all to see! You can run, but can`t hide! Hypocrite!!
``....need to engage in india-pakistan mudslinging...``
This has nothing to do with India-Pakistan `mudslinging`, and everything to do with your character and claims of a virtuous upbringing stressing `honesty` and the like; your attempts to weazel away from a discussion on the facts notwithstanding. If you are indeed `honest` as you claim to be, can you explain how you can defend General-President Musharraf with a call to arms when your country`s neighbors threaten to pay back in kind when he sends murderous agents to their civilian centers, but express no such calls to action when he engages in such provocative acts in the first place` that I raised in #177.
This has been my question that you are not willing to address, while trying every means to deflect the discussion on other spurious matters (e.g. india-pakistan mudslinging even though the instance that I cited was of Afghan concerns about Taliban infiltration).
You are exposed on Chowk for all to see! You can run, but can`t hide! Hypocrite!!
#221 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 8:05:53 pm
#217 arjun: So what you are saying is you dont hate terrorists and liars (which is what you said a few posts below all pakis are). Like I said, it is not for normal human beings to understand the mind of a macaca......
#220 Posted by krishna_abcd on March 6, 2007 7:51:46 pm
#213 by Urstruly
[Bhai, try to ask a question sometime, without usual hissing, spitting and name-calling, if you really want to know or understand something. ]
I have. It never works with tahmed. When he gets inconvenient questions he has no answer for, he calls me a hater of Islam and Muslims and clams up.
At least you and zeemax are no hypocrites. You guys have actually bothered to read the koran, and know what it actually says, without putting a thousand contradictory spins on a thousand different things to feel good about things.
Zeemax likes the simple kill-or-be-killed philosophy of the animal kingdom. You like it too, except with the veneer that Allah wants it so and therefore it`s okay. But Tahmed wants to mould and interpret things his way. If there is something that he just cannot put a spin on, like ``chop your non-Muslim neighbor into mincemeat and feed him to the dogs`` or something to that effect, he declares that it must be a corruption of the original message. Normally this would be a good sign, because good people like to believe good things about their religion (just like an axe murderer`s children want to believe that their father was framed), except for the fact that tahmed has been seen making copious donations into the jehad boxes.
In any case...
[Bhai, try to ask a question sometime, without usual hissing, spitting and name-calling, if you really want to know or understand something. ]
I have. It never works with tahmed. When he gets inconvenient questions he has no answer for, he calls me a hater of Islam and Muslims and clams up.
At least you and zeemax are no hypocrites. You guys have actually bothered to read the koran, and know what it actually says, without putting a thousand contradictory spins on a thousand different things to feel good about things.
Zeemax likes the simple kill-or-be-killed philosophy of the animal kingdom. You like it too, except with the veneer that Allah wants it so and therefore it`s okay. But Tahmed wants to mould and interpret things his way. If there is something that he just cannot put a spin on, like ``chop your non-Muslim neighbor into mincemeat and feed him to the dogs`` or something to that effect, he declares that it must be a corruption of the original message. Normally this would be a good sign, because good people like to believe good things about their religion (just like an axe murderer`s children want to believe that their father was framed), except for the fact that tahmed has been seen making copious donations into the jehad boxes.
In any case...
#219 Posted by Ranjit on March 6, 2007 5:38:53 pm
Re:hamidm2
[..According to some adaptationists, this is part of religion’s role, to help humans deal with the grim certainty of death. Believing in God and the afterlife, they say, is how we make sense of the brevity of our time on earth, how we give meaning to this brutish and short existence. Religion can offer solace to the bereaved and comfort to the frightened....]
Actually most of us are smart enough to realize that there is a huge chance, probably 99% chance that there is nothing after death. Your neurons stop firing and thats that!! Yet that 1% possibility that you will not be maggot feed but get on a luxury cruise after death with wine women and song, is what keeps us plodding along with religion, especially for the islamists who think they have a first class ticket to heaven.
Where this evolutionary vehicle goes kaput is when religious belief actually becomes a negative force against survival. If the afterlife is so good and so certain, why even bother to survive? Just die and go for the afterlife. A lot of religions go through this phase where people are so sure of the afterlife that the current life loses all meaning except as a brief time to book the best seat for the afterlife. Christianity has gone through this phase and Islam is going through this phase, as we hear how muslims love death more than they love life. What can be more anti-evolutionary than that?
Except for Islam, most other religions have managed to overcome this certainty of afterlife phenomenon. Christians, especially in the west, dont give a $hit about heaven and hell anymore. Neither do hindus. Religion becomes a series of fun social events - shopping sprees like Christmas or fooling around with women on Holi. The world is waiting for muslims to graduate to that phase where they enjoy the Ids and Muharrams with full vigor and then get down to practical life instead of blowing people up.
[..According to some adaptationists, this is part of religion’s role, to help humans deal with the grim certainty of death. Believing in God and the afterlife, they say, is how we make sense of the brevity of our time on earth, how we give meaning to this brutish and short existence. Religion can offer solace to the bereaved and comfort to the frightened....]
Actually most of us are smart enough to realize that there is a huge chance, probably 99% chance that there is nothing after death. Your neurons stop firing and thats that!! Yet that 1% possibility that you will not be maggot feed but get on a luxury cruise after death with wine women and song, is what keeps us plodding along with religion, especially for the islamists who think they have a first class ticket to heaven.
Where this evolutionary vehicle goes kaput is when religious belief actually becomes a negative force against survival. If the afterlife is so good and so certain, why even bother to survive? Just die and go for the afterlife. A lot of religions go through this phase where people are so sure of the afterlife that the current life loses all meaning except as a brief time to book the best seat for the afterlife. Christianity has gone through this phase and Islam is going through this phase, as we hear how muslims love death more than they love life. What can be more anti-evolutionary than that?
Except for Islam, most other religions have managed to overcome this certainty of afterlife phenomenon. Christians, especially in the west, dont give a $hit about heaven and hell anymore. Neither do hindus. Religion becomes a series of fun social events - shopping sprees like Christmas or fooling around with women on Holi. The world is waiting for muslims to graduate to that phase where they enjoy the Ids and Muharrams with full vigor and then get down to practical life instead of blowing people up.
#218 Posted by Raw_Dust on March 6, 2007 3:36:18 pm
TehsinAbbasi:
Yea, sorry about the tone. It did come out as angry and offensive. I just wanted to say that it helps - well, kind of - to be a little ironic when making self-serving claims.
Yea, sorry about the tone. It did come out as angry and offensive. I just wanted to say that it helps - well, kind of - to be a little ironic when making self-serving claims.
#217 Posted by arjun2 on March 6, 2007 2:34:03 pm
#215 by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 2:00pm PT
You claim to hate pakis/muslims etc
No prophet tahmed(pbuysrr): that`s your claim....
You claim to hate pakis/muslims etc
No prophet tahmed(pbuysrr): that`s your claim....
#216 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 2:01:36 pm
Urstruly #213 That is a good question you have. I have long given up trying to understand the mind of the macaca.
#215 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 2:00:38 pm
krishna #214/arjun #212 You claim to hate pakis/muslims etc. and at the same time are falling over one another seeking to engage in ``discussion`` with the same pakis/muslims you claim to hate. While this strange behavior is beyond the understanding of a normal person, I am not interested in what your problem is, much less in engaging in ``discussion`` with you. Have a nice day.
#214 Posted by arjun2 on March 6, 2007 11:49:03 am
#210 by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 9:00am PT
true faith i think calls for questioning
really..let`s see you question pbuh-dude`s divinity...we`ll see how long you last....
true faith i think calls for questioning
really..let`s see you question pbuh-dude`s divinity...we`ll see how long you last....
#213 Posted by Urstruly on March 6, 2007 10:52:26 am
Re: # 211
``(Try to answer this one without the usual hissing, spitting and name-calling).``
Bhai, try to ask a question sometime, without usual hissing, spitting and name-calling, if you really want to know or understand something. What makes you so angry all the time?
``(Try to answer this one without the usual hissing, spitting and name-calling).``
Bhai, try to ask a question sometime, without usual hissing, spitting and name-calling, if you really want to know or understand something. What makes you so angry all the time?
#212 Posted by krishna_abcd on March 6, 2007 10:06:14 am
#210 by tahmed32
[whiile you are right in saying that faith means no questioning - that is true only for faith practiced in traditional religion (never mind the brand name, islam, hinduism whatever)
true faith i think calls for questioning and increasing human knowledge of things (that, per the quran e.g., is the reason God created mankind - i.e. to study creation and learn more about it). ]
Interesting how faith, which is defined by the absence of reasoning, is now categorized into ``false`` and ``true`` faiths.
It`s even more interesting how ``true`` faith just happens to be associated with the quran. :)
[whiile you are right in saying that faith means no questioning - that is true only for faith practiced in traditional religion (never mind the brand name, islam, hinduism whatever)
true faith i think calls for questioning and increasing human knowledge of things (that, per the quran e.g., is the reason God created mankind - i.e. to study creation and learn more about it). ]
Interesting how faith, which is defined by the absence of reasoning, is now categorized into ``false`` and ``true`` faiths.
It`s even more interesting how ``true`` faith just happens to be associated with the quran. :)
#211 Posted by krishna_abcd on March 6, 2007 9:56:21 am
#210 by tahmed32
[i will grant you that traditional religion has been pervasive in the past. but that does not mean that your or i are obliged to follow it rather than to use our common sense.]
So, does your common sense say that a man who beheaded 700 UNARMED CIVILIANS and sold their INNOCENT AND HELPLESS women and children into slavery, is a monster?
(Try to answer this one without the usual hissing, spitting and name-calling).
[i will grant you that traditional religion has been pervasive in the past. but that does not mean that your or i are obliged to follow it rather than to use our common sense.]
So, does your common sense say that a man who beheaded 700 UNARMED CIVILIANS and sold their INNOCENT AND HELPLESS women and children into slavery, is a monster?
(Try to answer this one without the usual hissing, spitting and name-calling).
#210 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 9:00:17 am
#206 bjkumar: whiile you are right in saying that faith means no questioning - that is true only for faith practiced in traditional religion (never mind the brand name, islam, hinduism whatever)
true faith i think calls for questioning and increasing human knowledge of things (that, per the quran e.g., is the reason God created mankind - i.e. to study creation and learn more about it).
i will grant you that traditional religion has been pervasive in the past. but that does not mean that your or i are obliged to follow it rather than to use our common sense.
true faith i think calls for questioning and increasing human knowledge of things (that, per the quran e.g., is the reason God created mankind - i.e. to study creation and learn more about it).
i will grant you that traditional religion has been pervasive in the past. but that does not mean that your or i are obliged to follow it rather than to use our common sense.
#209 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 8:55:49 am
#207 yes pewresearch: listen to what monkey man says. he speaks from bitter experience - the only thing pakis feed him is peanuts.
#208 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 8:52:42 am
#202 hamidm: wow!! i didnt know there was such a thing as ``spandrelists``, and couldnt even find it in the dictionary. then i googled, and sure enough - i just increased my knowledge to realize that there is a name attached to the thinking you describe. And you provide an eloquent statement on why the role of religion in reducing the stress that accompanies the knowledge of our mortality provides no evolutionary benefit.
While what you say is true, you need to take into account that the role of religion is not limited to reducing stress, i.e.
1. religion provides ``dutch courage`` against external enemies: for millions of years, our ancestors have lived as tribes and fought over limited resources, and thus there is a premium attached to the ``warrior`` behavior in human society. religion provides a form of ``dutch courage`` (the brits claimed the dutch got their courage by going drunk to battle) . this has been an evolutionary plus in past ages - today, when resources are no longer limited thanks to scientific advance, this evolutionary advantage has become a major political problem for human society (in the form for religious terrrorism).
2. religion promotes internal social order by promoting ``moral conduct`` - not coveting the neighbor`s goods, cattle or woman for example. again, this is true for societies where men need the Eternal Carrot and Stick to be goaded into good behavior.
So to summarize - historically religion has in fact served an evolutionary purpose for mankind, contrary to what the spandrelists say.
The real question is: Is religion relevant in the emerging Global Society where competition for scarce resources is being replaced by cooperation for unlimited resources, and where ``moral conduct`` is promoted through emphasis on good values in schools and by an effective law and justice system? And, looking further into the future, will religion still have any value when (as will quite likely happen in the next century or so) humans are able to live indefinitely?
This post is already too long - but the quick answer to these questions in my view is yes.
While what you say is true, you need to take into account that the role of religion is not limited to reducing stress, i.e.
1. religion provides ``dutch courage`` against external enemies: for millions of years, our ancestors have lived as tribes and fought over limited resources, and thus there is a premium attached to the ``warrior`` behavior in human society. religion provides a form of ``dutch courage`` (the brits claimed the dutch got their courage by going drunk to battle) . this has been an evolutionary plus in past ages - today, when resources are no longer limited thanks to scientific advance, this evolutionary advantage has become a major political problem for human society (in the form for religious terrrorism).
2. religion promotes internal social order by promoting ``moral conduct`` - not coveting the neighbor`s goods, cattle or woman for example. again, this is true for societies where men need the Eternal Carrot and Stick to be goaded into good behavior.
So to summarize - historically religion has in fact served an evolutionary purpose for mankind, contrary to what the spandrelists say.
The real question is: Is religion relevant in the emerging Global Society where competition for scarce resources is being replaced by cooperation for unlimited resources, and where ``moral conduct`` is promoted through emphasis on good values in schools and by an effective law and justice system? And, looking further into the future, will religion still have any value when (as will quite likely happen in the next century or so) humans are able to live indefinitely?
This post is already too long - but the quick answer to these questions in my view is yes.
#207 Posted by arjun2 on March 6, 2007 8:44:20 am
#203 by PewResearch on March 6, 2007 5:38am PT
you`re wasting your time with prophet tahmed(pbuhsrr)..there are only two kinds of pakis..those who say they support islamic terrorism and liars..
you`re wasting your time with prophet tahmed(pbuhsrr)..there are only two kinds of pakis..those who say they support islamic terrorism and liars..
#206 Posted by bjkumar on March 6, 2007 8:30:46 am
Implicit in every act of faith is the requirement for us to suspend disbelief and to forego questioning.
Human lives and whatever involves even parts of human lives are full of contradictions. Faith does not worry about such contradictions – it only worries about what it represents to itself. Science does not tolerate contradictions well. A scientific mind will attempt to get to the root of such contradictions wherever it notices them – and it will use the tools it has acquired along the way. If the current tools fail, it will attempt to examine those tools, too, improvising newer and better tools for the current “task”. The hope is that as time passes, the tools in its arsenal will be better shaped and can handle not only all the tasks encountered earlier but also the newer ones. Civilizations progress through acquiring such arsenals.
Faith – like stone, stays on its own. It does not change, nor does it desire to. It does not care about the complexity of the next “task” – it has already figured out the one, the only solution for EVERY task, it can bust the task! Simplistic, perhaps so – but it works for many.
The stronger the faith, the more resistant it will be to “resolve” contradictions – except at its own terms in its own “simplistic” ways.
#205 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2007 8:27:38 am
#203 while i am greatly flattered at your great need to engage in india-pakistan mudslinging, as we say in pakistan to the beggar who refuses to take no for an answer, ``baba, jao maaf karo.`` or as dr. phil would say ``if you are a twit, there will caansequences whereby people will refuse to waste time with you even if they have plenty of time to waste.``