Religion In A Clubby Hole

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: # 184

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

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.

We are living in the information age which is supposed to be a scientific-technological miracle. The world is overflowing with information of all sorts. There is hardly anything which exists in the Laboratries, the results of which are not known to the outside world. Except for those experiments/reasearches which are still going on.

Exploration of God cannot be the only objective of mankind as on date. Mankind faces much more hurdles , diseases, poverty etc. Majority of the people have to work in those areas i.e. in the service of mankind rather than the service of God. No doubt.

But that does not mean that mankind should abandon God or refuse to believe in it. It is not going to serve any purpose. It is everyone`s personal prerogative and nobody should have any objection to one`s personal beliefs.

I dont know why atheists are so afraid of God(which according to them doesnt exist) that even His name by someone causes them to sit up and look around.

Most of the supporters of god, are obsessed with the `quantum mechanics `, `big bang`, `the property of matter and energy` and strangely enough,..er...e=mc squared (and nothing deeper than that). Stunning the rest of us who did not know that it applied to the world of gods (and by definition, ghosts - and goblins too!)

Half baked scientists, we are told, are useless to themselves and to others.

Hence, I would humbly (like all other atheists normally are) suggest, that since those on this board are hardly scientists of standing to debate these questions authoratatively, (or would nt like to, with people who hardly scratch the surface), they would do themselves (and us) a favour, by debating such heady stuff with employed geologists or physicists who will not only teach them the proper equations, but probably teach them a thing or two about atheism as well.

With whatever knowledge of science we have today, if the idea of God doesnt seem to be plausible then the idea that this creation has come out of nothing is also implausible. The most vocal critic of God like the Late-Carl Sagan also reach a dead end when they are unable to answer from where this creation has come out from??

One of the forum-member has pointed that if the property of Universe is such that the matter or energy or space can come out of void or vaccum, then the whole science will collapse. All physical and thermodynamical laws will go become redundant and the world will go haywire because then anything can come out of anything. Humans can then come out of tress, money can flow from your mouth and water can come out of desert sand. This seems impossible. The universe ,the matter, the energry et-al behave in a particular fashion universally. Hydrogen atom will not change whether it is in the glass of water or burning in a distant star.

The unique property of matter and energy universally indicate(without exception) that they have come out of a single source. The Hydrogen atom in water on earth and in a distant star has a single source. If one goes deeper and deeper then with whatever angle you look at it, it comes to the conclusion that something must have pre-existed the creation and all creation has come out with that something. Otherwise it is not possible.

Now the only question is where is that something now ?? Whether that something has dissolved in the creation or it has gone in the sleeping state after the creation or it exists parallely with the creation though in a plane which we humans cannot percieve with our senses or with the knowledge which we have as on date?

teshay, too to bara mazhabi hay yaar.....

Romair bhaiya:

aap khuda ke liye science ke peeche lath le ker mat dorhain. koi faida nahin hay.

Science is not an idealogy. It is an activity. And it is a very promising activity. At least much more than religion which also can do wonders but those wonders are usually accompnied by millions murdered and raped.

In your liberal religious rhetoric, when you speculate that laws of physics will break, you are probably trying to sketch the so called Qayamat. Why do you bring such a silly thing to the discussion. How on earth does it matter to you if these laws break some day in future. All I can inform you is that they have never broken in the past and in our life (the most important thing to us) and arn`t likely to break in our lifetime. Why???? How the hell does it concern us in any way?

And then, what good are you trying to achieve by convincing people that science is useless? Is it all that useless? Why are we communicating? Why are we here? (I mean in front of our computers)

My sincere advice is that you contemplate some more.

hamidm mian #160/161: ``are you sure that there is a god ?``

No, I am not sure there is a God. I will never be sure, since I do not know of any way to prove it. However, I do know that science has its limitations. There are certain questions, which it will not, ``someday`` answer. This has already been proven by science itself.......I am discussing the later point, not the former..........

``... and by the way, when did you become an expert on god ?....... since you asked dost mittar for his credentials, let`s see yours ................``

Hmmm.....I will take this as a compliment. For some reason, you think I am an expert on everything. I am, by no means, an expert on God. I, thus, have no credentials. I am only an expert on military training, computer science, bulleh shah, karahi ghosht, punjabi movies, bathroom singing and the seductive art of aromatherapy massage..........

However, I admit my lack of expertise. All I am trying to highlight is the misguided wishful thinking of certain individuals who have conveniently concluded that, one day, science will, itself, turn its own rules on its head. They don`t know how. They just know it will happen, through a miracle...........

`` like i said before what is wrong with simply stating ``we don`t know yet, but we are working on it ``

There is nothing wrong with this. This is what I try to do. However, others aren`t so flexible. They are still stuck on notions that science will establish the concept of magic, someday. To accept what we are working on, we have to first know what can and cannot be done. Science cannot fill the gap I described. It, itself, states that. So hoping, needlessly, that science will someday fill it, is a road to nowhere. What will fill that gap:

I don`t know yet, but I am working on it..............

Re: # 169

Romair:

``There are certain questions, which it will not, ``someday`` answer. This has already been proven by science itself.......I am discussing the later point, not the former.......... ``

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. Theologians have wrongly believed that people can live their entire life through believing in their religious belief, and therefore, do not need the probity and healthy cynicism that science permits. They have wrongly seen such freedom in human thoughts to be a threat to their existence.

Healthy probity and cynicism in science are allowed. These tools when applied by scientist have always pushed the limiy of knowledge, and have discovered new questions to be answered. Thus the set of unanswered questions shall never be empty, as science says the knowledge is limitless. Therefore, there will always be unanswered questions.

The developments in scientific thoughts are neither logical nor orderly. Lot has depended on how the society commits its resources to find answers for which questions, because while knowledge is recognized as limitless, the human resources are not unlimited. Scientists at best have 40 years of productive life, and that is generation and half. Thus a kind of continuity has indeed been maintained.

Unlike science, religion does put a limit beyond which believers cannot question. This is called belief system, according to me. For example, muslims believe in the finality of prophet and his message, and believers cannot care about implications of such a belief, because they are not allowed to question.

Another way to describe would be that each human has a thought space. One end of the thought space is the belief system, while the other end is determined by ability probe and question. Within these limits, each person tries to live life. A simple villager in Pakistan may be very happy with the without questioning and praying five times every day, just as he would not question his need to work and bring food home. However, when he walks from home to the field and observes little girls going to school, he may probe why not work harder and send his daughters to school. He may then decides work harder to push his limit on the other end.

Therefore, some may have very narrow thought space between these limits and be very happy also. While others may have pushed the belief system way far on the belief end, and through probity, observation, analysis and aciton may have pushed the limit way farther on the other end. This model of thought space fits human beings quite well.

However, problem comes when a group of persons with overlapping thought space, institutionalize their thoughts and go out to enforce on the other. This is easily observable in religions, but has also happened in science. Einstein`s refusal of accept quantum mechanics and rejection of Heisenberg`s principle of uncertainty, and then coining the term ``God does not play dice``, is an example that many scientists now believe, had slowed down the scientific development. An example on the religious end is clear from interactions at Chowk. Where you see many hindus having endless questions which degenerate into snide and insulting remarks about something many muslims on Chowk have concluded and accepted to be unquestionable truth and foundation of their belief system. The good thing is that in this thought space, the science, philosophy and religion blend, and produce new knowledge. This process is assured to happen for ever, as long as humans exist in the Universe.

More important question that comes to my mind is ``In knowledge society where access to knowledge and communication is becoming easier by the day, how long hinduism can survive with caste system, and Isalm can force its follower to believe in the finality of the messenger and message, and hence in the finality of 1,400 yer old human thought and knowledge, how long?

Anil

tahmed,

``To the nob-believers, all religions are based on superstitions or hearsay`` ...... and maulana, pray, what are religions based on if not just that .?....... do you mean to say that it is a scientific ``fact`` that a winged creature flitted into a cave to deliver his message to mo of mecca ......... or is a scientific fact that jesus walked on water and an elephant rode a rat (or was it vice versa ?) ..............

..... here is a scientific fact for you : if i don`t get off my keester and baste the turkey soon it will dry out and my life will be miserable, god or no god ............

...........happy thanksgiving ! .........

Romair:

`` and DM works on his theories that someday, it may proven that energy and matter can be created out of nothing``

Whe did I say that?

Romair:

``What exactly does, ``at least`` not yet mean?``

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.

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? At the very least, this will open the subject to much greater reflection and thought and we would have many more metaphysical theories and open debates than we have now, free from any fear of committing any blasphemy or burning in hell while doing so?

135 by tahmed32
``if it was simply science vs religion, there would be no issue. it is science vs superstition.``

To the non-believers, all religions are based on superstitions or hearsay, at best, so there is really no distinction between the two.

Religious people would have been on stronger grounds if they agreed among themselves, but they do not. Muslims think that Hindu beliefs and customs are superstitions and that Christ being son of God is a superstition; Jews believe that Christ was a false prophet and Mohammad merely stole their religion; Christians go to hinterlansds of India and ``expose`` false Hindu superstitions to their practitioners. Heck, Sattar and you cannot even agree if the Final Message was indeed delivered by the Final Messenger.

Why dont all you religious people come up with one common position and give us unbelievers a clear choice? As it is, you hate each other more than you hate us.

135 by tahmed32
``if it was simply science vs religion, there would be no issue. it is science vs superstition.``

To the nob-believers, all religions are based on superstitions or hearsay, at best, so there is really no distinction between the two.

Religious people would have been on stronger grounds if they agreed among themselves, but they do not. Muslims think that Hindu beliefs and customs are superstitions and that Christ being son of God is a superstition; Jews believe that Christ was a false prophet and Mohammad merely stole their religion; Christians go to hinterlansds of India and ``expose`` false Hindu superstitions to their practitioners. Heck, Sattar and you cannot even agree if the Final Message was indeed delivered by the Final Messenger.

Why dont all you religious people come up with one common position and give us unbelievers a clear choice?

While Khurram details out his theories on how, someday, it will proven that energy and matter can be created from nothing, and DM works on his theories that someday, it may proven that energy and matter can be created out of nothing. The following is what the rest of the scientific community has agreed upon:

First Law of Thermodynamics:

Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state

E = mc2:

This equation proves that energy and mass are interchangeable. Held together by a gigantic constant, c2 - the speed of light (squared). This implies that a small amount of mass can release a huge amount of energy. This also states that energy can be turned into mass. A gigantic amount of energy could (I suppose) turn into mass. This is one way of creation of mass of the world, after the Big Bang...........

However, this equation, itself, proves that while mass and energy are interconvertible, one has to exist, for the other to be created, i.e. if energy is = 0, then mass cannot be created out of, ``nothing.`` And if mass = 0, then energy cannot be released out of, ``nothing.``

It doesn`t matter how much data one feeds into these equations, they are not going to provide different results. So while some of our contributors eagerly await these equations to be proven false, ``someday`` through a science which itself is based on them, I would like to find out if there are any pure scientists, here, who could discuss the subject in more detail. There is only so much one can discuss with retired economists and MBA consultants on this subject.......