Religion In A Clubby Hole

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. :)

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

Re: # 66: Who created God?

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.

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...

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

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

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.

#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?

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.

Nice and powerful.

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

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.

#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. ``

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

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.

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?