Religion In A Clubby Hole

Re: # 145

i think issues on metaphysics, ontologies and realism have all been discussed at length on various topics of Gill....................we should be discussing about political Islam of OBL variety.............................which is another mutant of the good old TNT that is the hall mark of a `good` Paksitani ................

parthab #145 any comments on hindu religious extremism (I notice all your examples are from other religions)?

Re: # 141

Interesting stiff. But its nothing new. As someone pointed out, Hitler used religion to kill. So did Milosevic. And many many others in history. And even today. OBL too, of course.

Religious fantasy thinking has been trying to clog - at times forcefully - rational thinking, for centuries. Watch the crap written by some religious nutters on not only this, but other threads throught chowk.

Religious extremism is one of the reasons why religion has to be questioned. The other being the question of rationality of course.

Re: # 138

Partha the issues are not regarding the existence or non-existence of the almighty..................even the matters of faith are not issues for intellectual discussion even if they involve belief in the existence of metaphysical entities and things after the life...............the issue that concerns the world community is the USE of religion and faith to fulfil some political agenda.................we know that much of it pertains to a neo-fascist interpretation of the Al-Qaeda variety of political Islam (very much wahabi sunni literalist crap)......................and the solution is pretty much straight forward........isolate these crap mongers..................and we will find these diseased ideologies dissipating from the world in no time..........................................This pretty much means that the moderates should not sympathesize with these diseased minds even if they try to play up their ususal drama of ``Islam Khatare Mein Hai`` ( I feel Osama Bin Laden cuts a sorry figure before the moderate muslims on the TV screen with his recurrent exhortions on this Islam in danger theme).

read on:

Refrain From Excuses for the Bombers

by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
November 23, 2005

Just hours after last July`s suicide attacks in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair`s advisers were working the phones to arrange an urgent meeting with what they term ``Muslim community leaders``. At the same time, however, the prime minister himself was telling the media that what had happened in London had nothing to do with Islam which was a religion of peace and harmony.
Soon, however, the ``Muslim community leaders`` were sitting across the table from Blair at Downing Street expressing ``Muslim grievances`` that had supposedly led to the suicide attacks. The meeting, followed by other sessions with Blair`s advisers, ended with an invitation by the prime minister to the ``Muslim community leaders`` to prepare a report on ``the deeper causes`` of the London tragedy.

Last week the ``Muslim community leaders`` produced their report. In it they cited two reasons for the tragedy: poverty among British Muslims, and Muslim anger over British foreign policy.

All this is interesting for several reasons.

First, if the London attacks had nothing to do with Islam, as Blair asserted, why invite ``Muslim community leaders`` to discuss it? When Britain was involved in bombing Serbia, to save the Muslims in Kosovo from genocide, Blair did not invite leaders of the Serbian Orthodox community in Britain to discuss matters at Downing Street.

While all the suicide bombers in London were of Muslim extraction their victims also included many Muslims. In fact 15 of the 57 killed in the three attacks were Muslims. In other words the attacks were designed to kill indiscriminately.

But if, contrary to Blair`s assertion, the London attacks did have something to do with Islam then the least that he should do is to say what that is.

By accepting to write the report, the ``Muslim community leaders`` have tacitly agreed that the July bombings did have something to do with Islam. And that, seen from any angle, is a disservice both to Islam and to Britain.

Caught in a cobweb of deceit woven by their own hypocrisy, the British ``Muslim community leaders`` have implicitly agreed that anyone has the right to use Islam as a label for any murderous ideology. At the same time by suggesting that poverty and disagreement on foreign policy were the causes of the suicide attacks, they are putting the British authorities on the wrong track.

The poverty argument as a justification for terrorism is too discredited to merit detailed refutation. Throughout history, terrorists have come from middle class and well-to-do backgrounds. The man who assassinated Caliph Omar was a wealthy Persian pearl merchant. Caliph Osman was assassinated by a group of Qureish aristocrats. Caliph Ali`s murderer was the well-heeled leader of a political faction. Julius Caesar was murdered by a group of Rome`s highest aristocrats. The Narodnik terrorists in Russia, the Anarchists in Central and Western Europe and, more recently, the Red Brigades and the Bader Meinhof terror gangs, all belonged to the upper middle classes.

We see a similar pattern in the recent history of Islamist terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Fedayeen Islam in Iran recruited their assassins from middle class families and were financed by wealthy merchants. The Al Qaida`s central leadership, now disrupted, included at least four millionaires.

The second cause cited by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is even more problematic. To begin with the ``leaders`` cite absolutely no evidence that British Muslims disagree with any aspect of British foreign policy. The reason for this is obvious. British Muslims are as divided on issues of foreign policy as are their non-Muslim fellow citizens.

In any case Britain is a democracy with several political parties representing a rich diversity of views and policies. Any British Muslim opposed to this or that aspect of British foreign policy could join any of the opposition parties or, even, join one of the several anti-Blair wings of the governing Labour Party.

The report produced by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is dangerous because it implies that as long some British Muslims are poor and some British Muslims angry about foreign policy, terrorist attacks would be understandable if not justifiable.

The report creates an ``us and them`` dialectics in which British Muslims see their non-Muslim fellow citizens as ``others``. And from that to treating non-Muslim Britons as the kuffar (infidel), is but a short step.

The only useful contribution that ``Muslim community leaders`` can do is to refrain from furnishing excuses for the terrorists and to hold special sessions to condemn their ideology and put as much blue water between them and other Muslims as possible.

Sadly, the men invited by Blair to help have done the exact opposite.

Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

Re: # 141

Why should I be bluffing to you? What for? Come on man.. either be serious or simply forget. Bye

Bush now wants religious freedom in China.

Guess which religion? (Hint : Mr Bush says the spirit of the Lord is strong inside the church.)

If Bush has his way, is it dead-end for atheism as we know it?

Re: # 140

Its not a personal fight. I dont take you seriously enough to make it one.

Most people learn religion early in childhood from their parents. If,as you claim, you did nt, then you must have had a strong source from within the family. Other than that, you could have joined a religious political party or even be bluffing! I tend to believe the latter.

Lets get back to the original question if that makes you feel a little better : Why do you think god exists?

Re: # 138

Partha--when you have turned personal, I will speak personal.

Though we are a Hindu family but My dad and mom are both atheists!!!!!!!My dad is no more but my mom is still alive and refuses to believe in God even today. I was also an atheist in my early days. But now i am a firm believer in God. No accident, no illness nothing. God willing my life has been quite comfortable right from the begining.

But, my own self-enquiry or you can say own self-exploration through various religions which I read, various places I went--both religous and otherwise ,made me believe in one thing.. That is, atleast My dad and mom are wrong. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING LIKE GOD OTHERWISE WHAT WE ALL SEE CANNOT BE THERE.

May I add here that religous explanation of God with which I agree most is the one given in the Bhagwadgita.

Ref:#120

Q1. How was something created from nothing?
Q2. How did life originate from inorganic materials?

Q1 answers the most important question of all times. The ``creation`` or ``created`` we see all around us. There is no denying about that. Also, there should not be any denying that ``something`` must have pre-existed the creation. Now what is that something??
No prizes for the guess.

Q2 is rather ambigous. What do you mean by inorganic materials? Chemically, inorganic materials are those which do not contain carbon? The earliest material which separated dead matter and living matter is supposed to be Chlorophyll which is an organic material. Chlorophyll started multiplying and lead to the growth of algae in water. And from algae, the further life forms are said to have evolved. Chlorophyll can be made in laboratries. But so far what is not known is what made chlorophyll multipying?? The basic materials required for origination of life are Sand, Water and Sunlight. I dont know whether you have observed it or not but when we construct a brick wall(say during construction of the house), then algae develops automatically on that portion of the wall which remains in sunlight. The portion of the wall which always remains in shade does not develop algae. But what makes the algae grow is not known.

But I think a biologist can throw more light on this organic/inorganic business.

Re: # 136

Thanks for reading my message. I could, if I were paid to, answer to it, taking one sentence of yours at a time. But, most of the arguments there are just old repeated ones. It does not address the fundamental question : Why (other than the fact that your ma, and probably your grandma too, told you so), do you think god exists?

Dear Mr. Samosay the elder brother of pakoray,

Let me crearify this thing about science and religion. Science is what we know and just that. Religion is people pretending to know what they don`t or can`t.

Science has no problem because it admits what it doesn`t know. Otherwise, if it ever needed to compete religion, it can go crazy and make up stories which would be much much better in quality than the religeous fables.

The problem with religion is that it only proclaims, but never convinces. It is a voluntary club.

It would have been much better if you had given your background in your profile. Anyway, I try to talk in a generalised way.

Post No.98-- An athiest is someone.............................beyond reasonable speculation.

If atheists are contended without the existence of God ,well its fine with the Theists. Everyone has its own beliefs and they need to be respected. It is not that atheists are a product of modern science, but many societies had turned towards atheism in the past also. But (an important But here ) it is generally seen that atheism generally moves towards moral degradation because it works on the principle of ``its my life afterall``. It is not always but it does. A god-fearing person is less likely to fall into materialistic virtues. So when the believers see moral decay around them, they blame atheists for it. Of course, they are partly right and partly wrong.

The extra-terrestrial life is beyond the scope of religion. As far as I understand, world religions are silent on it. The ETL is to be explored by science and not by religions. No religion puts taboo in the exploration of ETL.

Post No. 99--While religious fervor ........................... betterment of mankind.

For religions as well as science ,it is important that who is speaking or to whom we are listening to.

A person sitting with four armed bodyguards and talking about religion is as ridiculous as a Pundit, Mullah, Priest or a Granthi speaking about Quantum Mechanics.

Only that person can speak about true religion who is beyond the perception or emotion or whatever so call it, of Life and Death. A truly religious person sees life and death as the part and parcel of the same phenomenon whom is calls God. A person loving his own life and talking about death to others is at best to be ignored, atleast from religion point of view.

Post No.100-The theists .............. cannot be disproved.

If someone is satisfied with the notion of God , let hm remain contended with it. Or prove him wrong. Similarly , a theist has to prove the existence of God to an atheist. There should not be any spark between the two. But, generally it is seen that the atheists redicule the religion. ``Opium of masses``. The atheists do not put their point forward that how the world can be better if religion is not there. Generally, it is said that religion is the cause of major wars. It is not true. The causes of all wars have been purely economic. Though religion has been used as a tool to mobilise the masses for the wars. In earlier times, the wars were fought to increase the land holdings. More land would mean more agriculture, more food, more wood, more animals etc. Later, it turned into natural resources, ores, minerals. Even today, the conflict is purely economic i.e. Oil though religion is being used as a tool.

You have said that you dont believe in Greek Gods, egyptian gods etc and if their existence cannot be disproved, then you have to believe in and worship them. Not at all. The thing is that you can believe in God and still dont believe in any religion. God is a destination and religions are a path to that destination. If one does not agree with the paths, it does not mean that he should disagree with the destination.

Religions through their rites, rituals and practices solidify one’s faith in God. But the rites, rituals etc. are not an end in themselves.

This debate can go on and on. It cannot end in a single sitting. My advise to you is that you have to make their own self-enquiry about the existence or non-existence of God. And be contended with what you have found or realized.

samosa: if it was simply science vs religion, there would be no issue. it is science vs superstition. superstition has already defeated religion, since fear of the unknown (the basis for superstition) has proved a stronger motivating force than love and awe at creation (the basis for religion).

but science (or more accurately, the scientific method) has proved a far more potent force than religion, and for the past 4-5 centuries has been giving superstition a run for its money. we are now approaching a cross-roads - either reason will prevail and mankind will progress to levels undreamed of today; or superstition and irrationality will prevail, and we will see a catastrophic end to human life. the endgame is being played out now. watch out for the photo-finish results!!

at least that is imho. :-)

Ref:-#98,99,100 parthaab

Ref your posts. Please give me some time to respond. Thanks.

Re: # 132

The smugness of believers is amazing.

What is LIFEFORCE?

Re: # 129
Thats true. But its so hard for science to even start explaining about LIFE or LIFEFORCE. While religion does a wonderful job of that. People need to quit blaming religion because it also goes through evolution. Maybe Christianity & Islam goes to through less evolution than compared Hinduism or Buddhism. But still one would not have imagine Islam to be so different in Middle East, Kashmir & Rajasthan & South East Asia. Similarly for Christianity.