Religion In A Clubby Hole

Re: # 66: Who created God?

parthaab #60: ``The point is, if God really does exist, it would be easy to prove, as there would be tangible evidence. What we have instead is standard mass delusion.``

It is not that simple. If it was that simple, everyone would be an athiest, today..........Or a maulvi of some sorts..............

The concept of a Creator is something that is logically, impossible to deny. Logic demands that everything be created by something else. Science demands the same. Things cannot come into existense from nothing. I am not a physicist, but matter has to be created from some other kind of matter. It can be released into energy, etc. But how did the first atom get created? Not to mention, all the atoms, which are converting from one form to another? Or how did the first energy unit get created? Not the Big Bang, but even before the Big Bang........

One can call that Creator God, or Allah or alien from planet X, but the concept has to exist; science and logic demand it.

The second point is that how did nature create organic life from inorganic materials? How did the mitochondria, and nucleas etc. of a single-cell ameoba, join and come into existence? Is it even possible for inorganic materials to form organic materials, in nature? Do we see anything like that happening in our daily lives? If not, then how did it happen, for the first time? All the science I have read seems to be stating, more and more that this just isn`t, ``scientifically`` possible. The old methane gas and electricity experiment is being discredited.............

So if everything, according to science, needs a creator, and nature, according to science, cannot create even a basic single-cell organic unit of life, from inorganic units, then how in the world did all of us come into existence? Science can, itself, only peel this onion back, so far. After which science reaches its limitations, defined by its own rules..............

The above is just the, ``how`` part of existence. If you talk about the, ``why`` part of existence, then science becomes even more useless. Hence, while you are correct that it is, ``scientifically`` imossible to prove the existence of a Creator. It is also a, ``scientific`` fact that science itself demands that there must be a Creator. And that science, itself, is stating that it can never figure out who that Creator is.........

So, there must be a Creator, whose existense we can never prove...........this is why people believe in religion. It fills the gap that exists between the limitations of science and the demands of an inquisitive mind, which wants answers............

to put it simply:

koi tou hai jo, nizam-e-hasti, chala raha hai
wohi khuda hai, wohi khuda hai

Agnostic : One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Atheist : One who disbelieves the existence of God or gods.

At least we ll know what language we are talking in. :)

I really don`t understand what you are getting at. Are you saying religion is irrelevant because it`s subjective? I disagree because religions play a very positive role all over the world. A lot of churches in the US have reformed and rehabilitated people who had no hope, people like drug addicts and compulsive shoplifters etc. Islamic madrassas historically have been used as homeless shelters and adoption homes.

I really don`t see any coherence in your arguments. All you seem to be saying is: Religion = bad, science = good.

soysauce:
``An indifferentist one who doesn`t care if there`s a god (what a silly hypothesis!) which is what I am. ``

that imo, is atheist of the highest order, you even negate the question about existence of God as meaningless :-)
i actually follow the same line of thinking....


you are right about Nusrat, just like historically there are countlessly many artists and maestros who were nurtured by the Church or temples...

Raw-dust, what would Nusrat have done without his belief in allah?

#56 parthab
Thanks for the diagnosis.
I wasn`t talking about me but the people around me.
An indifferentist one who doesn`t care if there`s a god (what a silly hypothesis!) which is what I am.

Joke: What does a dyslexic, insomniac, agnostic do? Stay up at night wondering if there really is a dog..

Re: # 58

The point is, if God really does exist, it would be easy to prove, as there would be tangible evidence. What we have instead is standard mass delusion.

Religion exists solely because people don`t understand stuff and look for meaning, even though all that does is move the problem elsewhere. (I.e. where did God come from)

The actual religions and the sources they`re based on are totally irrational, not least because each one claims to be right. That shows just how hard it is to understand `God`s will`.

Once you alight on the reasonable assertion that religion is *just* organised mass delusion, everything fits neatly into place.

God won`t save the poor from devastation because there is no God.

Rama, Mohamed and Jesus didn`t save the human race, because there`s no saving to be done. Hell and Heaven don`t exist.

We`re just the same as we`ve always been; a load of atoms flying around. Each year, we learn more and more, and there are fewer places for the religious and their ignorance to hide.

Re: # 52

.................. whoa ! .......... where is dr shankar when you really need him .......

Relgions, and the concept of God, are around, and will remain around, until the following two questions can be answered:

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

These two questions are Catch-22 anomolies, i.e. to find out what happens, after death, one has to die. But once one is dead, one cannot report what is happening. Similarly, to find out the meaning of life, and why we were created, one has to exist in a pre-creation state. However, in such a state, where one has not been created yet, one cannot report the results either...........

From a scientific point of view, religion will be around until science can answer the following question:

- How can (and was) organic life be created from inorganic life

This is also turning into a paradox. The more science is advancing, the more it is starting to prove that organic life cannot be created, scientifically, from inorganic life. In this sense, science, is itself, through scientific research, marking the boundaries of its own limitations..........

If people want to get rid of organized (or even disorganized) religion, they would be better off, spending their energies, answering the above questions. If they can find scientific answers to them, religion will disappear on its own. If they cannot, then they are asking human beings to move from one state, where all the answers are not available, to another state where all the answers are not available.............

soysauce:
ok that was a little too fast for my mouse to get to the post button. i got your point about historically how religions have played their part in arts and crafts...

Re: # 53

`` So long as we have the itch .... religion will have to do.... Though an atheist (or an indifferentist?)........... ``

Neither. You are not an atheist, but an agnostic.

soysauce:
man, an atheist cant be an artist? what do you call shostakovich or tchaikovsky or marquez .. and so on...

Re: # 52

Oh boy..this is really something. I should be on Salim_Chauhan Sahib’s good side before finding out things about my mother.

#25
Alephnull, religion is something we need because we terribly need to make sense of the world around us and religion provides a short-cut ``answer``. So long as we have the itch to know while being uncurious at the same time, religion will have to do.
I think a blanket attack on religion is unwarranted. Much of the music I listen to (this morning it was Veena Sahasrabuddhe`s Meera Bhajan) to relieve the tedium of my long bicycle commute would not be there if a Veena or a Nusrat or benedictine monks were not moved by religious emotion. Though an atheist (or an indifferentist?) I`m grateful for what religion has done for music and the arts.

Re: # 42
netizen, kalihawa, hamidm and others...

... this is a classic example of a psychopath... dr.Cleckley`s original list of symptoms covers most of his behaviour...but the symptom # 10 seems to be written with him as the perfect model...which is...``

10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

...and here is some more of his wit and profound behaviour culled from Unplugged...;))

#6 by Salim_Chauhan on November 22, 2005 7:18am PT

khamkhwa
anyone seen your mother bitch? your mother bitch is lost??
I think your mother the biggest bitch is licking canadians shit. You are motherphuddichud. You are harrammi kii aulad who eats canadians shit daily basis and then shit on the chowk.

khamkhwa(bharvay, hijraiy)
You are son of the biggest bharva. You are zaleel creature, who licks
canadians shit and then shit on chowk. I wish I could smash your bharva face and then flush your infected stinky body in the toilet. You are the biggest bitch , who licks and eat human shit..............harammi kii aulad.....

khamkhwa(harrammi kii aulad)
Your father is bharva, that is the main reason you are bharva. You lick canadian shit daily and then shit on chowk. Your mother bitch is lost????
Where is she??? I know, she must be licking , too...............kutaiy kii aulad , you are gandoo bitch........

khamkhwa(harramii ki aulad)
Your father`s official name is khwajasera................
Your official name is gandoo. Your licking canadians shit daily, then you shit on chowk. your father is kutaa. your father is also maha gandoo, who gave you gandoo genes, that is why you`re gandoo on chowk, eating shit.

#7 by Salim_Chauhan on November 22, 2005 7:19am PT

That fixed the goddamnedmotherfuckingcocksuckingassholesonofabitch.



#17 by Salim_Chauhan on November 22, 2005 7:28am PT

Khamkhwa,
Ulley ke paThay, haraami ki aulad,

I am upset because Queenie had to leave after John Ghattiya obtained insider information.
As for you, I will be glad to come up to Toronto next week and give you a big lund from your filthy mouth into your belly, you motha fucka.



#21 by Salim_Chauhan on November 22, 2005 7:32am PT

You bastards, Khamkhwa, John Ghattiya, and the bitches with the big cunts ganged up on Queenie.




#24 by Salim_Chauhan on November 22, 2005 7:43am PT

Khamkwha,
I am going to stick your head up so far into Scout`s anus that you will taste the nihari she had last year.

user posts | profile




#23 by Salim_Chauhan on November 22, 2005 7:42am PT

Khammy,
Teri maan ki gaanD meN kaale ka lund. Saaley,
Abhi banaata hun tujhe ek impotent person on Chowk. Suwar ki aulaad.

---

... hope you saw through the ``finer`` qualities of the ``gentleman``and learned to avoid him like a plague ...BTW you need to know to push the right button to get an impromptu performance from the maestro...;)