Religion In A Clubby Hole

khurram #70: ``There are 2 perfectly reasonable answers that need to considered,

1. Nothing
2. Nothing``

hmm.........i suppose this keeps things simple.......and one does not need to think furthur.........it answers the, ``why`` of life, i.e. everything is a mere coincidence. I suppose one can follow this approach. Though, to me, in such an approach, life is a very unfair place, for those who are physically or mentally handicapped etc. To me, ``life`` cannot be a roll of dice. But that is a non-scientific debate...........

Let`s get to the scientific side. You did not answer the other questions I asked, about the, ``how.``

- How did the first, ``thing`` get created, if everything has to be created from and by something else, as science tells us? How did the whole mass of everything get created, energy, atoms etc. The initial building blocks.....Science, itself, demands that the answer to this cannot be a simple, ``Nothing.``

- And how did these unorganic building blocks combine to form organic life? Is science, itself, moving towards a solution for this, or is it suggesting that it is impossible.......

Now if you have answers to both of these questions, I`ll convert to whatever you are pushing..............

Dost-mittar #79: ``Upnashidic philosophies and Romair, if born a Sikh, would claim that he likes Sikhism not because he was born in it but because he is genuinely impressed by it after he studied it. The fact is that the brainwashing by parents and the society we grew up in has removed any objectivity we could have in making any such decision, all we are capable at this point is rationalising,``

Speak for yourself. Kindly do not speak for me..........You seem to be making some huge assumptions about people. Do keep in mind that everyone does not think like you. Do also consider the possibility also that, perhaps, people are far more inquisitive than you and some may have even evolved beyond you. A tough concept to internalize, but you should keep it in mind..........

The main point is can one debate any issue and provide answers. People turn toward thought processes that provide answers. Not towards though processes that shut them away from answers................At least that is how I think. I am a technical and scieintific person by education, and have thought through these issues ad-nauseum. So far I have found nothing, including science, that answers everything............

(If you know of something, do let me know. And I promise I will switch to it...........)

That is how one should reach one`s conclusions............One can only do that if one opens up one`s mind a bit and gets out of rigid schools of thought - scientific and religious - and tries to logically work through things and accept any dead ends..............Far too many people, including perhaps you, are stuck in a strait-jacketed type of thinking, which assume that everyone who does not think like them, must be brainwashed.........

chaltahai #66: ``Re: # 66: Who created God?``

I don`t know. That`s my whole point! How exactly does one answer this question about creators? One cannot answer it. Everything, according to science, should have a creator. Yet science, itself, cannot tell us how the initial creation took place. That is the anomoly, the paradox and the Catch-22.

If science is the end-all, at all levels, then it should provide the answer. Or a path to an answer. However, despite how many times I provide this logic to certain people, they never debate it. They just wirte it off..........

One has to be able to realize the limitations of everything - be it religion, science or the human mind as a whole.........Who created God is a question that no amount of logic or science can answer. Infact, science, itself, states that it cannot answer such questions........

This is why people turn to religion. It fills this gap............and if people want them to turn away from religion, they need to answer this question or creation. Instead of yapping away 24 x 7, as if they have all the answers..............

soysauce/Raw_Dust #69: ``Science hasn`t found a way to disprove what isn`t there without offering an alternative. ``

My point wasn`t that science cannot prove what isn`t there. My point was that science demands that something should be there, but cannot provide a reason for why it isn`t there. Science, itself, demands that there be a creator for everything. You can assume creator to be a force or an alien, or a bunch of atoms, if you want, if the concept of God turns you off.

This is the limitation of science and logic............It is, thus, not an all-answering approach. You need to think a bit deeper, and at least accept that science, itself, has limitations. If it doesn`t then do answer the questions I asked. Human mind has limitations also. Not from a religious point of view, but from a scientific point of view. Think about these things. Don`t just limit your thinking to a unchallangeable and rigid system...Forget about God. It is not a question of religion. It is a question of inquisiviteness. If you believe science is the end all of everything, then it should have the answers.

- How did the atoms of which everything is formed come into existence. What does science say?
- Can organic life be created from inorganic life. What does science say?

khurram#70:

I had the same answers in mind that you have - ``nothing, nothing``.

But I have a more serious problem, and that is one of indoctrination and brainwashing of children by their parents into their religion. If these questions naturally arose in people`s minds as they grow into adults, they could then go and seek answers from various ideologies/philosophies and accept whatever appeals to them, including atheism or agnosticism. This is obviously not the case: if born in a Muslim family, dost-mittar would probably be singing praises of the Prophet instead of trying to analyse the credibility factor, Urstruly, if born a Hindu would probably singing praises of the Upnashidic philosophies and Romair, if born a Sikh, would claim that he likes Sikhism not because he was born in it but because he is genuinely impressed by it after he studied it. The fact is that the brainwashing by parents and the society we grew up in has removed any objectivity we could have in making any such decision, all we are capable at this point is rationalising, such as whether circumcision is a medical boon or a hindrance, depending upon whether or not we are circumcised.

Re: # 77
``pretty lousy attempt at equating atheism vs. dogma.``
Ok

#76:
pretty lousy attempt at equating atheism vs. dogma.
you know why all that ludicrous stuff wont happen? cos atheists dont believe in eternally condemning naysayers (believers, in this case) and are not insecure when it comes to asking ``bigger`` questions(whatever they might be) and saying these magic words:
``I Dont Know. ``

Religion is inherently not a bad thing until it assumes a totalitarian ,intolerant and dogmatic structure. Same as Hitler.
Atheism would be as potentially dangerous if for an atheist insisting on the existence of God would amount to blasphemy and atheism spins some yarn that if people believe in God they will go to some atheist hell or they would get atheist houris if they die in the cause of atheism .
And then atheism would be more popular too.

Nice and powerful.

Mr. Longname, you speak for us. Keep it comming....

It is hard for man to swallow the facts that he is insignificant little life like zillion others who will vanish one day into thin air without a mention of them ever again. So man came up with ways to make himself and his life important...started believing and showing he is good...next leaving 60 kids behind to remember us for another half century or so...his appetite for self importance kept increasing and started having delusions about this good stuff(sex, wine, and jalebis etc) keep going and going forever and he getting younger and studier forever in some other place built exclusively for good men like him whom God loves so much.

It is good that lot of people believe in this kind of stuff...otherwise I would look stupid doing so alone.

#69
It`s the standard trick of TV programmers and religion peddlers - you are drawing a blank? Then I`ll make up something and explain that to you.
What`s keeping organized religions going is the elaborate theology they have built up - to the point where the cost of not believing their story could conceivably be higher than believing it. Would you rather not believe and not end up in hell?

Science learns from its mistakes?

When was the last time physicists self-flagellated themselves for nuclear weapons? Or any other weapons for that matter?

Shall we point out that what made Hitler`s campaign so effected was his use of ...ahem...science and technology? Shall we point out that there are armies of scientists working around the clock working on even better ways to destroy all of mankind?

Shall we mention that for the better part of last century, and a trend that is continuing to this century is for science to be an instrument of global capitalism (i.e. it`s about the green, not so much the gray matter) more than anything else?

What Science is not is a code of ethics or a system of morality. It`s a tool. Suggesting anything else is romantic rubbish.

I would say Hitler`s Germany is a case of ideology run amok.

Re # 58

``- What happens after death
- What is the meaning of life ``

There are 2 perfectly reasonable answers that need to considered,

1. Nothing
2. Nothing

soysauce:
you are giving Romair too much credit, see how his God is stuck on the first basic test posed in #66. atleast, Urstruly will talk about the mythical breakup of causal chain when it comes to God..

some Christian nut asked me about how i should be worrying about my soul as i couldnot disprove Jesus, i told her i believe in a justice team of 4 Jesi combined and since she couldnt prove that they didnott exist - she better be... not for anything than by sheer numerical advantage my gods had on hers...

Parthab, Romair is on to something. Believers are all like an indignant Cheney demanding that iraqis prove that they have no WMD.
Science hasn`t found a way to disprove what isn`t there without offering an alternative.