Religion In A Clubby Hole

anil #173: ``Science hasn`t proven any such thing. The reason you have forwarded has been put forward by theologians for centuries, to pull down scintific thoughts and many scientists have given their lives on burning stakes. ``

Please study the first law and second law of thermodynamics. Also Einstein`s equations.........These are proven laws, on which scientific discovery is based...........

No one is trying to pull down anything. I think your analysis is incorrect, because, you (like DM) are perhaps letting your political and social views overtake logical analysis. I have had these discussions with multiple people. And invariably, they consider any such discussion to be an attack or a defense. For example, you seem to have automatically considered this an attack on science. If I were to have this discussion with someone pushing religion, they would consider it an attack on religion..........

I would like to encourage you to get out of that line of reasoning, which is based on a like or dislike or religion, and use reason and logic to discucss this. I am neither pushing religion, nor pushing science. i am pushing reason. I think you are pushing science, like DM, to the point of being ideological...........Much like people push religion. I never stated that Islam is the end-all of everything. Yet you assumed, for some reason, that I did. I am just stating science isn`t either (science itself says so).......

Science is not some random magical phenemenon that appears and disappears. Scientific discoveries are, invariably, built on rules and laws discovered before. Rules and laws are varified through experiments. One stands on the shoulders of one theory to prove the next one, thereby pushing the envelope.

The current rules of science, themselves, state that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. These are proven scientific facts. All future discoveries will be based on these facts. If these facts are proven false, the whole field of science will come crashing down. One will then need a completely new kind of, ``science`` . Not a new branch of science. But a new kind, altogether.

So science, as we know it today, and as the human mind analyses it, has these limitations. I would like to challenge you to disprove this statement, or point me to someone who has laid out a path for disproving this statement................I am looking at it purely from a scientific point of view; not a religious point of view........

You could, of course, add yourself to the group that states someday science will turn this on its head, without acknowledging the facts that science, itself, has proven it cannot. That to me, is the same kind of naivete that many people have about religion..........It is not based on reasoning. It is based on ideology................

Dost-mittar #166: ``It means, dear Romair, that I am not as smart as you are. While you seem to know for sure what the scientists are going to discover in the next 100 or 1000 years, I do not claim any such knowledge.``

I don`t know if you are less or more intelligent than me. I do think you are quite a bit more confident in your views than I am. You seem to have settled on some conclusions.. Much like Urstruly has. Nothing wrong with that. As long as one can back them up with reason.

I am not sure what scientists will discover in the next 1000 years. What I do know is what they will not discover. The reason I know this is because scientists have themselves stated it. These are now the laws of science, on which science itself is based. They are the foundations of science. Amongst them is the law that energy and matter cannot be created from nothing.

This is also the limitation of the human mind. The human mind cannot go across the chasm of figuring out how something can come into existence without a creator. This is why even if God was to show up Himself, the human mind would not be able to answer the question on, who created God........

Hence I recognize the limitations of science and the human mind. Limitations that are proven. While you think, ``maybe`` some miracle will occur, and these limitations will disapper...........

``But you have not addressed the question that I have posed several times. Why give the parents the right to indoctrinate their children so that they lose their faculties to objectively reflect on these issues when they become adults?``

I did not know you had addressed this question to me. It is hard for me to answer it, because my parents never did this to me. I don`t think anyone should indoctrinate anyone on anything. Having said that, to refuse to look at the limitations of science and the human mind itself, and assume that someday, ``maybe`` science will answer certain questions is an indoctrination also...........

``Whe did I say that?``

You said this multiple times. You stated, ``No one is arguing that science provides answers to these questions, at least not yet.`` What does at least not yet mean. It means that you think someday science may prove that energy and matter can be created out of nothing. When, in fact, science (unless someone can correct me) has already proven this is not possible............Hence the hope of, ``not yet`` is a false hope...........

Never been clear why belief in religious dogma of ANY kind, including the thing commonly known as God, is not unadulterated superstition.

---

su·per·sti·tion (sū`pər-stĭsh`ən) pronunciation
n.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
3. Idolatry.

[Middle English supersticion, from Old French superstition, from Latin superstitiō, superstitiōn-, from superstes, superstit-, standing over.]

---

Lest God punishes me for this impudence, I`d better start praying.

bolta,

``Superstitions do not arise out of belief in God``

uh ????.......... but isn`t `belief` itself a superstition ?......... after all it is not based on any kind of logical observation and empirical evidence ..... is it ? ............ it is the ``big`` superstition on which all the little superstitions are based ....... people who don`t believe in god seldom believe in hobgoblins, tooth fairies, rat riding elephants and babies born of virgin mothers ................. now do they ?

Question is, is brain a computer?
In what way it is different from a computer? If it is a computer, then life can be duplicated. In other words an act of God can be accomplished by humans.

The only difference I see in a computer and brain is:
A) Mind is aware
B) Mind is instinctive ( if there is a thing like that)

Re: # 189

``The thing is we should remain caged birds in our own mindset. We should be able to look at the world from different angles also. ``


The devil quoting the scriptures

Re: # 186

Superstitions do not arise out of belief in God. Superstitions arise because of ignorance of the true meaning of God. When people are in distress or they are in trouble and they do not find any way to get out of their misery then they turn to God for help. Many people around the world say that prayers do help. How much the prayers help is questionable-- some would say always, some would say sometimes and some would definitely say never. And when people are in trouble, many others come to offer their help in many ways--Satya Sai Baba and others included. Whether these persons are frauds is not be determined by those who never or seldom visit them. There is no harm if people go them when they have no other place to go? What if a person is diagnosed of an incurable disease? Should he wait silently to die? What is the harm if he goes to such persons and gets some consolation?

I would agree that it is a superistition if a person instead of going to a hospital for treatment goes to others on his belief of God. But tahs not the case.

The thing is we should remain caged birds in our own mindset. We should be able to look at the world from different angles also.

Re: # 186

What kind of logic is this? If murderers, thiefs, thugs , fraudesters and others escape the punishment from Law, then it would mean that the entire Law Machinery should be discarded and dismantled?? Because, good men will not commit evil deeds and evil persons will not be punished by Law so the mechanism of Law is false.

Strange one.

Re: # 184

So far I have not visited any mental asylum. I cant comment. You seem to have better experience here, I suppose.

Superstition does not permit realistic solution of problems. Men starve amidst the plenty of technological production, since, instead of investigating into the maldistribution of wealth, they pray to god for food. In spite of ethical sermons, men go to war and kill one another, because they are blinded by the superstitious belief in caste, creed, race and nation. The structure of these superstitions is built by the bricks of small superstitions like belief in the supernatural powers of Balayogi and Satya Sai Baba.

Ordinarily oddities and rarities attract attention. And certain monstrocities and abnormalities do occur in the things and events around us. Instead of looking upon them with fear and wonder or taking them as miracles, we should investigate into the causes and circumstances of their happening if at all we care to know any of them. Fear and wonder are primitive methods and do not become civilised persons. Savages wonder at thunder, lightning, eclipse, hysterics and lunatics and worship the phenomena with ritual and sacrifice. We betray the same primitive ignorance if, in the days of journey to the moon, we look with wonder on Balayogi or Satya Sai Baba.

Where superstition prevails, cheats exploit the gullibility of common people by presenting sleight-of-hand tricks, secret manipulations, chemical reactions and optical illusions as miracles. Charms and amulets constitute the black magic which defrauds people.

Re: # 181

What has been given in Post 181 is a diversion, a misnomer about Indian(let us say Hindu) civilisation.

Ancient Hindu civilisation(ie prior to advent of Islam in the subcontinent) was based on so-called Hindu Philosphy. Hindu Philosphy is not a God revealed philosphy as Islam. No message was received by anyone directly or through any angel in Hinduism. Hinduism is based on self-enquiry through meditation, spritualism by various sage and saints. These sages and saints, through their internal exploration of their ``self`` came out with some definitions of the Almighty which nearly matched with those in other religions. Thatswhy, Hinduism, though not God revealed as Abrahmic Religions, is considered as one of the religions in the world today.

However, from time to time, many other thoughts and thinking have come inside Hinduism--some have survived like Buddhism, Jainism, Silhism ,while many others have not. The most famous atheist philosphy was proposed by a saint called Charak. It did live for a few centuries then died down.

The most accepted philosphy of Hinduism accepted by one and all is Ramayana(i.e. Good over evil) and Bhagwadgita(the message of Karma by Lord Krishna) and of course the Muslim`s nightmare i.e. the mythological Puranas(330 million Gods & Goddesses of various shapes and sizes). We Hindus of today donot standby any other philosphy.

Re: # 183


I do not believe in the Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the roman gods etc. I presume because you insist that their existence cannot be disproved then you must believe in (and worship!) them.

In fact you suggest that any proposition put forward, no matter how outrageous, must be believed in if it cannot be disproved.

( And since I do not believe in god, it follows I do not believe their `messengers` Speaking of whom, they are more often found these days in the mental asylum.)

Re: # 178

Further to above, you may discrad God because of crimes committed by some people in His name..........but how can you discard those who have given the message of peace, love and brotherhood ,again in His name.

Sorry gentleman, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. You see want you want to see. Simple.

Re: # 178

Though the theisists go at any length to explain their belief in God, unfortunately, atheists seldom tell the world their reasons for their disbelief in God. They generally hide between objective science, senses, perceptions etc. Many many things like invisible spectrum, x-rays, radioways etc. could not be sensed or were not discovered by science a hundred years ago. Today they a reality.

Re: # 179


The disbelief and atheism of ancient India is summed up in the following lines from the Savradarshana Samgraha.

``There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world,

Nor do the actions of the four castes, etc., produce any real effect.

The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic`s three staves, and smearing one`s self with ashes,

Were made by Nature as the livelihood or those destitute of knowledge and manliness.``

Ballu,
You need to read this to cleanse yourself of all untrue beliefs.

Re: # 179

Hamid mia you would love that satire............