Religion In A Clubby Hole

I say we should tar and feather every religious person..that will learn`em some tolerance.

How about ``the science of religion,`` or the ``religion of science?``

Or the ``objectivity of sujectivity,`` and ``subjectivity of objecitivity?``

Or proof by declaration?

Or tradition-is-truth? Or ``i-am-the-only-person-who-truly-knows-my-religion.``

Religion wallas have been at this game for thousands of years. You will not convince anyone who is not already convinced.

partha....
Religion is fact of life, which leads to belief, belief of beings, which follows path towards a superpower, called GOD. Now, GOD is depicted in various forms in various religions, but, ultimately every form goes to one GOD. Again, you have all the right to believe or not to believe in GOD. Don`t mix religions with GOD. Religions are monopoly of a specific groups of clans with same rituals, very limited with little insight leading to recessed minds to follow same things over and over again. However, GOD is unlimited superpower, which is the centre of Universe, whole universe revolving around that one magnetic force, called GOD. GOD is neither man, nor woman, or any being.....GOD is a supreme power, which has been balancing the whole universe by being the centre of it, keeping it in it`s place.................

Now, do we need so, many religions?? If, we see idealisticaly,absolutely NO. Ideally, all humans should have one religions with same rituals to be followed over and over again.
That way, we won`t have so, many differences.

But, if we see with realistic approach, all humans are free to make their own set of rituals to follow, called religions. To have so, many religions give them choice of freedom with out any monopoly....

Now, these religions are being used for the dectruction of humans. Sad thing is, religions were created to make this world , problem free...........and ironicaly, religions are now the basis of all troubles.......convoluted by some lunatics and fanatics......jihadis are #1 in their fanaticism.....convoluting Islam for the destruction of the humans with sucide bombings....

Not much new here, though I am in general agreement with the viewpoint presented.

``If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.``

Isn`t this exactly what the faithful say, of any religion. Don`t Christians believe Bible to be the message of Jesus and Muslims The Quran to be the word of God?


```an eye for an eye` as defunct compared to flavour of the decade, the `turn the other cheek` ideology, but both are equally admissiblable and merely ideologies, yet the latter appears to be more acceptable, though the former was more acceptable in earler centuries.``

You are mixing up two different traditions. ``an eye for an eye`` is a Jewish concept which has been accepted by Islam. On the other hand, `turn the other cheek` is a christian concept. In practice, I do not see Bush, a believing christian, turning the other cheek.

This is a very good piece, articulate and thought-provoking. It was previously posted – slightly abbreviated - as a response on Sunil Poolani’s recent article. Because of its length and coherence, I wanted to ask if it was original or a cut-and-paste – some passages are vaguely reminiscent of George Carlin, as transmitted by hamidm. Be that as it may, it certainly deserves a read.

The biggest flaw of this article, to my mind, is that it may be too wide in scope. A good answer – not the usual platitudes – to the more specific question of why religion – and specific religions - have persisted down the millennia, would merit a more focused piece.

Re: # 3

zeena:

``However, GOD is unlimited superpower, which is the centre of Universe, whole universe revolving around that one magnetic force, called GOD. GOD is neither man, nor woman, or any being.....GOD is a supreme power, which has been balancing the whole universe by being the centre of it, keeping it in it`s place................. ``

I assume this is your belief.

``Sad thing is, religions were created to make this world , problem free...........``

i think people thinking that their way is the right way is the problem. but thats how religions also spread. don`t you think people from one faith would really like to convert people to chtheir faith rather than think about world peace and tranquility?


``That way, we won`t have so, many differences. ``

the only thing that remains constant is change. even monotheist religions have schisms. thats human nature.

religion can make people do silly things. in chandigarh it is compulsory to wear helmets. however some sikhs objected to this, saying that their religion does not allow wearing of topi etc. sikh men who wear turbans are exempt. many girls have died while riding a scooter/motorcycle because they were not wearing helmets. now very few girls in chd wear helmets. the older women have no problems with it. girls dont wear helmets bec it spoils their hairstyles.

Your remark:
“The differences are glaring to the open minded”.

What happened to tolerance man? You think you are open-minded and someone who is following a religion has a closed mind. I can bet you that: if a religion follower tells you that you have a closed mind you will label him as “religious fanatic.” This is in fashion lately.

Your remark:
“Science can be tested.”

Let me complete the sentence. Science can be tested based on five senses and reasoning from the brain. It tends to change, as more knowledge is acquired, again, based on five senses and reasoning from the brain. You cannot lead life based on something that changes.


Let me open can of worms:
Science cannot provide answers like why are we here in this world? What is the propose of us humans on this planet? Are we humans different from other animals? And in what sense?

Morality comes from Religion and Religion only. This is a fact that you cannot deny. You say that “It (Religion) has taken custody of ``good.” It is simply because it is the good. Laws made by man keeps on changing based on what kings thought in the past and what democracy dictates lately.

Answer this to me: What can stop a secular democratic country to pass a law to allow brothers to marry their own sisters if majority of the voters vote for it?

The example above is an extreme one and put a lot of people who support true secular democracy at unease. The argument I have heard is that this has not happened yet and probably will not happen.

Here is a live example:

Legal age to have sex is different in various countries of the world. Lets look at some countries.

Argentina
Male Female Sex age 13/16
Male Male Sex age 13/16
Female Female Sex age 13/16

Canada
Male Female Sex age 12/14/18
Male Male Sex age 12/14/18
Female Female Sex age 12/14/18

Various ages are supported in various provinces.

Denmark
Male Female Sex age 15
Male Male Sex age 15
Female Female Sex age 15

Pakistan
Male Female Sex age None (I wonder)
Male Male Sex age ?
Female Female Sex age ?

India
Male Female Sex age 16
Male Male Sex age Illegal
Female Female Sex age Illegal

Korea
Male Female Sex age 13
Male Male Sex age 13
Female Female Sex age 13

Spain
Male Female Sex age 13
Male Male Sex age 13
Female Female Sex age 13

California
Male Female Sex age 18
Male Male Sex age 18
Female Female Sex age 18

Maine
Male Female Sex age 16
Male Male Sex age 16
Female Female Sex age 16

Male Female Sex age 14F/17M
Male Male Sex age Illegal
Female Female Sex age Illegal

The point I am trying to make is this: Legal ages (and type of sex) vary in different countries based on what the people of the country have decided either based on religion or secular democracy.

SO how you want to live depends on you; just do not call others fanatics because they do not adhere to your thinking. Worst of all is to force others to adhere to ones thinking. This applies to religion as well as seculars.

Asfand Siddiqui

From the article:

{{Seeing the direct and indirect religious conflicts around the world, why should not there be a minimum age, say 16, after which children can be exposed to this `opium` of the masses?}}

References to religion as the “opiate of the masses”, i.e. as a drug, have become common coinage in ‘educated’ discourse ever since Marx. This metaphor, though seductive, is superficial, outdated, and frankly unsatisfactory. Religions are not drugs; they are viruses of the mind. They engage in a rough mental analogue of the infection-replication-release cycle that is characteristic of viruses.

Drugs typically function because they ‘fit well’ (in the sense of stereochemistry) into cubbyholes in natural biological molecules. In some cases drugs are identical to substances produced by the body in a controlled fashion for specific purposes; in other cases, they are similar enough to such natural molecules to fit like ‘keys’ into the same molecular ‘locks’. It is their mimicking of some of the low-level biochemical machinery of life that enables their devastating effects.

Religions do not appear to be the mental equivalents of such precisely shaped artifacts as drugs. For one thing, a particular individual’s religion is typically a large, sprawling mental structure – drug molecules by contrast are usually quite small – so there is a substantial mismatch in information content. More significantly, there is no obvious analogy in mindspace to the ‘key and lock’ mechanism for chemical opiates. The mindspace-viability of a religion (i.e., its ability to infect individual minds and perpetuate itself) tends to be robust under most (though not all) small changes in specific doctrine. The viability of a religion appears to be a consequence of the whole rather than of any one specific precisely fashioned part.

There is a further extremely significant difference with drug function. An opiate does ‘fool’ biological machinery into behaving in a particular way (not necessarily to the benefit of the organism). However, it typically lacks the capability to subvert biological machinery into churning out copies of the drug molecule. As a consequence, a drug molecule tends to be metabolized, excreted, or otherwise eliminated from the system. Thus the direct effects of the drug tend to decay with time unless further quantities are ingested or injected – though withdrawal symptoms and some permanent changes to body chemistry might persist.

Religions, by contrast (or at least the successful and long-lasting ones) have more drastic capabilities. Firstly, they tend to permanently incorporate themselves into the structures of individual minds – they cannot be ‘metabolized’ away in routine fashion and typically cannot be eliminated without extended and heroic efforts. Thus their direct effects – in fundamentally modifying human behaviour – are persistent and long lasting. They should be seen as large pieces of mental ‘code’ that get spliced into the individual’s mental ‘program’, or the equivalent of foreign fragments of nucleic acid incorporated into a cell’s genetic material.

Secondly, long-lasting religions subvert the mental machinery of an infected individual so as to make him a True Believer eager to spread the True Faith, thus transmitting themselves into the minds of other individuals, and spreading the mental infection through human populations; they drastically modify the behaviour of infected individuals to facilitate this spread. This is analogous to what naturally occuring viruses, and their computer analogues, do in replicating themselves and modifying host behaviour to ensure their spread and persistence in a population.

The core ideas above were originated by a well-known contemporary scientist and celebrated (or notorious) atheist; I’m merely engaging in (imperfect) replication and retransmission. They should not be regarded as a mind-virus, however; they may help in inoculating and perhaps immunizing strong minds against the worst kinds of mind-virus infection.

Are non-religious people tolerant towards religious people or they enjoy calling religious people loonies and misguided?

Partha

The problem is the word `religion` is not definitive. It is contradictory in terms. A religion like Budhism may be a non-believer in god, prophet, etc., and extremely Aahimsic, non-dogmatic and another one, like Islam, believing the reverse of it. This inherent contradiction among various religions gives rise to the political religion. It is the negative and positive (Nafi Isbat) of the relgion which gives rise to political religion like electric power.These are dialectics of religion which are its very raison detre. Ghalib, the great, had epitomized it in a single couplet in Urdu:

``Lataafat be qasaafat jalwah peida kar nahiin sakti
Chaman zangaar he aaeinae baade bahaari ka``

It means in short that the very existence of any thing depends on dialectics.

According to Quran, the prophet once desired Allah to put an end t all `Kufr` (anti-Islamic beliefs) but He did not agree and rebuffed him saying ``You don`t know what I know) or something like that. In fact if this plea had been granted it would have prooved an end of religion as such.

Samosa

That depends on the specific religious people one is dealing with. Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance, but cowardice.

But those religious leaders who are respectful and mindful of others universally are/should be respected.

We place all `religious` people under one category only out of indefensible political correctness. People like the Dalai Lama, Bin Laden, and some predatory Pundit living in India share very little.

#6 by Netizen
Netizen

1:-Yes, I have firm belief in one superpower, called GOD.
It has got nothing to do with religion as I have already said in my post #3.

2:-My experience is totally different. I never wished anyone to be converted in to another religion, unless, someone wishes to be converted by his/her open choice.
I think, who ever tries to brainwash others to be converted in to their sect of religion is ridiculous. Everyone should have freedom to follow , what ever suits him/her based on his/her choice.

3:-I am tolerant for believers and non believers. I believe, in freedom of choice.

4:-I believe in one religion,called humanity................
5:- We don`t need religions, if, we have humanity. But, majority of humans lack humanity and they are bound to abide by a certain sect of rituals, which they call religion.
6:-Yes, change is the one , which leads us to our destiny. Everything changes, except, GOD. GOD is the one, who invites all of humans to explore this universe. Only way to explore is ,nothing but CHANGE.

Religion as a personal belief, one that informs one`s world view, is apparently what most people need. Organized religion, which goes beyond the personal and deals with the social, is just another ideology that must be challenged and contested.
In a world where the god was a cruel hegemon, a loving god was a revolutionary concept. And so was Jesus in his time. The church, however, is just another organization interested first and foremost in self preservation, and like any other organization does whatever it takes to achieve that end.
One needs to delineate these things to better appreciate what one is dealing with.
Religions are here to stay. They give people comfort and easy answers and if there were no religions then, as the old story goes, we`d still be divided along something like stawberry ice cream versus chocolate ice cream people.

Alephnull, don`t mean to put down your fine effort but don`t you think Marx may have meant opiate as in drugged, feeling-good state of mind?

AlephNull:
that i believe was Richard Dawkins, you were referring to. ? :)

#14 soysauce
Yes, religion is for comfort and easy answers. I totally agree with this point.

But, what is the most important point of every religion?

For humanity. If, a religion makes humanbeings miserable and they start fighting and killing eachother based on religion leading towards destruction of humanity.........which is very commonly practiced .....then it means, there is something wrong with that sect of religion........

Religion is supposed to be human friendly. If, religion becomes human enemy, then it fails it`s sole purpose..........

Then again I will say, if, you practice you humanity on daily basis, you don`t need to practice certian rituals to be affiliated with a certain religion.........b/c you`re already serving the purpose of being good human, which religion asks for.........

Is it only the Abrahamic religion that is worth discussing? After all there are more than half the world`s population that do not follow the Abrahamic religion. What are their thoughts on the subject matter? Are they even worth considering?

Maybe not. Since most of the interactors on this Chowk come from one specific geography and that is all they know, and that is all they can discuss.....Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Why?

The writer of this article is Parthasarathy B, who is probably not from the Abrahamic religion. Why can we not learn something from other`s religion? Will that increase our knowledge and hence understanding about others?

Respectfully submitted,

``We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. ``

typical hindu on chowk: throw pearls of wisdom on others religion, ignores his own (unless the Church of the Yellow Rabbit refers to the Church of the Elephant Man).

behram: i think this guy needs a gana.

Agreed with the above.

One should not confuse God with Religion. God is a destination, Religion is a path to that destination. God was, God is and God will be irrespective of whether the religions existed in the past or shall remain in the future.

Many people when look at the problems or frictions between various religions tend to negate the existence of God Himself. As if God is responsible for all these problems. No we human are.

In the modern world of today , religions (which are a set of rituals, practices ,customs and traditions) are losing relevance.Agreed. But one should tend to make God irrelevant.

The post No. 19 below should be read as the reply to Post No.3 by Zeena ...Sorry.

The post No. 19 below should be read as the reply to Post No.3 by Zeena ...Sorry.

The article represents one sided view.

Let us forget religions, God, science etc. as told to us by others and let us explore the whole thing ourselves.

Nobody will have any doubts that we live in two worlds. One is the outside world which we see and feel. And a much bigger world resides inside us which we also ``see`` and ``feel``. Thats is the world of our thoughts. No doubt the world inside is much more beautiful than the world outside us. We have full control over the inside world and no control over the outside world.

According to science, we can ``see`` and ``feel`` both the worlds because of ``conciousness``. The level of conciousness is the highest in humans and the zero in dead substance like stone, soil, sand etc. If we move further apply science to this thinking, then we have the concept of ``Planes``. The outside world is the ``Physical Plane`` and the inside world is the ``Mental Plane``. The physical plane is common for all of us i.e. everyone sees it in the same way whereas the mental plane is different for different persons.

Many persons particularly saints,sages etc. say that another third plane exists with in us. This plane is not very conspicious but it does exist when one tries to find it. Thats one part. The second part is all human feel the same when on this plane third plane. This plane of conciousness is called the ``Spritual Plane``. The learned men claim that you cannot sense or feel God in the first two planes i.e. physical and mental plane because God is beyond all human senses. But God can be felt at the spritual plane.

Now how do we find our Spritual Plane?? Two Religions of the world i.e. Hinduism and Christianity talk about this spritual plane but for rest of the religions, I am not very sure.

According to Hindusim, the Spritual Plane can be found if you renounce this material world i.e. you have to leave the physical plane at the first instance. This is done by leaving the world, going to mountains and wilderness etc. The second step is to renounce the Mental Plane. This is done after one has achieved the first step of renouncing the world. To renounce the mental plane, you have to control your thoughts through continous meditation , alone in a far off tranquil palce where nothing disturbes you. Once you have left the mental plane, they say you enter into the Spritual Plane, where you can feel the presence of God. Many people who have undertaken this journey through ages have informed of the same experiences which has lead common people into the belief of God.

Christianity works on the other principle. It says to find the spritual plane you dont have to renounce the world but you should leave your comfortable life and start living and working for the poor, the sick, the diseased and the needy. If you devote your life for these people( like Mother Teresa) you will reach the spritual plane where you can feel the presence of God(it is said).

The moral is either we should believe others who have ``felt`` God, like most of the people do. If we have any doubts than instead of debating the matter we should take steps to find it ourselves by discovering the so-called ``Spritual Plane``.

bolta_aaina

Of course, that kind of spirituality is not unique to Christianity and Hinduism.

Even so, science does not come in conflict with man`s spiritual experience. It runs up against dogma. And most religion is more dogma than spiritualism.

RawDust #16:

{{that i believe was Richard Dawkins}}

You are right. Have you located the mother lode? I was being intentionally coy because I wanted to see how many other people had read him. In a way, I’m disappointed that you were the one to come up with his name. Most likely it’s because you’re the only person who reads my diatribes through to the bitter end :-).

soysauce #13

{{fine effort}}

Thanks for being diplomatic :-).

{{don`t you think Marx may have meant opiate as in drugged, feeling-good state of mind?}}

It’s very likely that Marx used opiate in just the sense of tranquilizer, anodyne, palliative, etc., and I considered this while composing my screed. However, Marx wrote at a time when Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had not yet been published, or at any rate its potential scope had not yet been understood; and even the germ theory of disease was still controversial. We know much better one-and-a-half centuries after the age of Marx and Darwin, and ought not to give up the additional insights that we can gain with relatively little effort. My reproach is directed not at Marx but rather at people today who unthinkingly recycle ‘opiate of the masses’ when ‘viruses of the mind’ is just as evocative and far more accurate.

soysauce #14

{{Religions are here to stay.}}

Religions are clearly long-lasting phenomena in human civilization. My best guess is that this is so because they have co-evolved down the ages with the human species and human cultures. They function as meme complexes that parasitise individual human minds and thereby colonise the mindspace of human civilizations. The most successful of today’s religions, in terms of mindshare, are grizzled entrenched survivors, superbly adapted to their hosts, adept at maintaining an environment hospitable to their propagation and continued success.

It is quite possible that at least some of the dictums of religion, or of a specific religion, are ‘true’ in some sense. They might even be ‘beneficial’ in certain contexts. They might provide individuals with a route to serenity and with guidance towards ‘right’ or prudent action. Religious experience is likely an epiphenomenon of the human mind, which in turn is firmly rooted in the human body. It is therefore quite likely that different human individuals, even from widely separated civilizations, might have similar religious or quasi-religious experiences – epiphanal visions, ‘revelations’, out-of-body experiences, hallucinations, etc. A scientific, i.e. systematic, approach to these things ought to be feasible, and used carefully and sensitively it might well enrich human lives. In this respect religious experience may be quite similar to sex, which, again, is inextricably intertwined with human civilization.

However neither ‘truthfulness’, nor working in the ‘interests’ of the host organism, are requirements for the success of a particular brand of religion., at least not in the short or medium run. Religious beliefs spread, thrive, persist, and outcompete others, through a brutal game of numbers – fitness to survive, in the particular context of gaining and preserving mindshare, is the only thing that matters for ‘success’.

This vulnerability to parasitising of the human species by mind-viruses is an unavoidable side-effect of something essential to the survival of the human species, namely the programmability, educability, susceptibility to indoctrination or brainwashing, of human minds, particularly the minds of children. It is exactly analogous to cellular life’s susceptibility to viral infection, as an unavoidable consequence of the use of nucleic acid, and associated cellular machinery, to encode, replicate, and execute the programs necessary for life.

If there is a way to partially control mind-virus infection, so that religious ideas remain slaves rather than masters of human beings, it probably lies in the same direction as that of childhood immunization against infectious diseases; with the immune mechanism for mind-viruses lying in the human mind’s capacity for self-awareness. This is likely to be as unsatisfactory and incomplete a defence against mind viruses as current immunization schemes are against nucleic acid based viruses.

{{One needs to delineate these things to better appreciate what one is dealing with.}}

Amen to that.

AlephNull

Your comment to Raw_Dust led me to read your `diatribe` in # 25 :)

Do you know if anyone has analyzed/published the range of co-evolutionary strategies adopted by different `religious` meme complexes. That study could lead to some fascinating insights about the past and predictions about the future.

The writer opines ``Religion is dangerous. Too often it finds itself on the front page - directly or indirectly linked to violence, crimes, drugs, rape and wars. Too many wars have been fought about religion ``

Indeed ``religion is dangerous``. But so is gun. Depending on how you use it, it can kill your enemy, your friend, or yourself.

But since author has been very simplistic in his analysis in coming to the conclusion that ``too many wars have been fought about religion``, let me offer him that too many wars have been fought on material wealth too. Why not get rid of materialism so that americans will no longer feel the need to attack an oil rich country just to steal its oil? WW I & II were also fought mostly on economics than on religion. Civil War of 1860 was not scripture based either - but rather on the economics of keeping slaves and state rights etc

Since author is making religion the main culprit of wars in the hopes that religious people leave religions and join ``science``, I was wondering if the author would leave his material wealth if I were to show him that most of the wars in the last 500 years have been fought on economics than on religion. And even if religion was used in some wars in the last 500 years, it was mostly as a propaganda tool to whip up the masses - much like the current invasion of Iraq which according to evangelist lense is paving the way for the second coming of Christ (rather than easy access to oil).

So my challenge to author: Put up or shut up. We have had enough of pseudo-intellectualism. Tell us: would you leave your material wealth if I prove to you that materialism played a bigger role in wars than religion??

Re: # 23

I dont know why science and religion should be comprared or juxtaposed. They should run independently. We need both. We need science and we need religion. So far science has been able to answer the questions like ``what`` and ``how`` but it has not been able to answer ``why`` or ``what for``. Religions tend to answer these questions through the medium of God. Now the question ``Why are we here`` is answered as ``Because God is there``. The answer `Because God is there`` is much much better than ``We dont know`` or ``We are trying to find out`` or something.

Yes I agree that there are certain aspects of religions which are questionable. They have been questioned in the past and they will be questioned in the future. But we should keep in mind that religions get reformed also. Let us say that Islam is going through a particular phase. Did it always like this? No. And it will also not remain the same. It will change rather it will change its course. The things which are not practical or feasible for a particular time are shunned by the religions and those portions which are relevant are pursued.

So do not get confused between science and religion. Also do not mix the both. See them as different paths and let there be no conflict betnween them.

By the way( for my knowledge) can you give any reference of something in any of the religions you know which has been proved wrong by science. Because, no such thing comes in my mind atleast.

You are generalizing to all religion without substantial proof. Science and religion are not opposites. The methods of science are very effective and can be used to pick out truth from falsehood, in all areas of knowledge including religion, see http://www.rationalreality.com

Religions are the toys God has given Man, so as he does not disturbs him, unneccerrily.

Man are needed to run this Universe, they must be prepared accordingly, with proper
training .... so to God it does not really matters , which religion One follows, If the Man has achieved the required Level or preparededness , he is worthy for Him, Otherwise he could just end up as a fuel , for the consumption .

Religion provided a broad guide lines , for the Man to prepare, each group following a particular religion then has made innovations according to thier Understanding, even the suppossedly Abrahimic Religion with BOOKS or Manuals for preparation.

God in the mean time was fed up with all the squabling , so he irritatingly told Man, that after Mohammed , he is on his own,.... and won`t get any further official guidance from him
the Last book is the Last manual, for this preparations....... so take it of leave it.....
and is not really bothered..... its only when the quality of product he gets ... gets below standard ... he subtly intervenes... like fine tuning ..... and then leaves them as they are..

In the Mean while , whenever he need More Fuel to run his Universe, he just puts his spoon down and fishes up ..... some millions from the earth.... ... and for Us ordinary mortals ..... his spoon appears in forms of tsunami...... Earth Quake.....etc..etc.....
where along with the Prepared one and the Unprepared one all end up .... at his end...
indiscriminatley........
And Man then here on earth raises question ..... why the Innocent..... why the children...
why the good one.... ..what wrong had they done.....???......to die such a death....


My two cent worth of crude Understanding...

#18

What support is there for a movement to outlaw indoctrination of minors? Anyone caught taking a child to a mosq should be fined for brainwashing (for a first offence, subsequently have their children taken into care). And why does a society so keen on child protection allow a religious community to physically mutilate children below the age of consent?

No baptism, no poonal, no circumcision for under 18`s?

Any takers? I bet it would be just as popular as a smoking ban! ... and in the end lead to a populace better able to think for itself.

Apparently my PREVIOUS attempt was not able to stir up much emotion in most chowkies.

Therefore.. here is the appeal again..

I know of this young man Hafeez. He is a bonafide victim whose family is out on the road. Please send him the little you can ...

I have already checked the following (Considering chowkie sensibilities):

1- He has NO political affiliation

2- He has NO Jehadi/Islamist affiliation

3- He is a hardworking law-abiding citizen of the AJK who is working in Lahore as a guard/chowkidar + office boy for lowly pay.

4- He lost some of his family and ALL of his worldly belonging.


PLEASE - please -please help.

You know where to contact me.

Bravo, Mr. Parthasarathy. I applaud your courage and frankness in saying what many people probably feel but are too timorous to say out aloud. Humanity as a whole seems to have lapsed considerably into tribalism instead of bringing barriers down crashing and seeing the strong common threads that hold us all together. What boring gods we have created! Little better than the angry old men of the tribe, gods who are petty and vengeful, gods who have created a violent, unjust world.
The word `religion` stinks, but let us admit that man and his need for transcendance have created great art, great literature, great music. Think of the wonders of temple architecture, great Islamic mosques and the cathedrals of Europe that soar towards the sky! Such a pity that they do not house gods worthy of them.
reva315

Hi Revathy,

There should be proportionately more atheists on debating boards, because they gravitate towards debating. If you have blind faith in something, there`s nothing to debate!

partha,

............. clear, concise and very well written ........... cuts through all that bs we have been fed by charlatans and hucksters posing as prophets through the ages ...........

.......why can`t we cure this disease ??????

Re: # 2

That is the great maya thought there wheel of time.

Dvaita and advaita are utlimately the same. Doesnot Sankara ultimately you donot need the prop of religion - he infact dismissed social tradition of his time and went and performed the last rites of his mother - this after he took sanyasa.

Essentially religion/god is in the mind of the beholder.

God is a man made creature to reassure us on the dark days that we are not alone and that there is this big entity looking after us - if only......

This ``if only.....`` leads to the terrible strictures of religion and the horrible staright jacket it puts us all in.

Re: # 9

ah! a chella of dworkins. But dear cantor_set at the time Marx said it - viral infections were not known. Hence the opiate thing. Perhaps this should be given a face lift. How about doing the honours - atleast on chowk.

Follow the rational set, and set out your stall !

Re: # 15

so you were first...well you cannot win them all

Re: # 17

are you not making a big assumption based on the monicker?
He could be an animist - a christian a muslim a jew or anybody really

Re: # 18
Tahmed32 are you not jumping to conclusions here - I know of many christians of indian oorigin in place of work who have Indian names but are devote christians?

Re: # 35

.......why can`t we cure this disease ??????

It appears to be the case that many humans appear to have a need for a God like figure in their life. And their beliefs have varied from worshiping the sun, the local volcano, many Gods or a single God. Even human sacrifices were down to the `will of God`. When it comes down to religious beliefs, it seems that many humans will just accept whatever the current learnt belief is.

Reality is belief.

Imagination is the beginning of creation. Honestly, some people!

Dear Farzana, Chowk Staff, and Chowkie friends, this is a serious alert for an insidious assault on Chowkies` privacy. I believe that the previous administration, including member(s) of Chowk Staff have helped John Galt (aka JG or JagdeeshGodbole) in obtaining confidential information, such as e-mail and IP addresses, about certain Chowkies. This information has been shared with Saminasha and Scout and involves Temporal and a few other insiders. Not very long ago, a post was intercepted and it was clear that the intended victim was Dalit. Recently other victims have been myself, Queenie, and a couple of others seen as ``enemies`` by this gang of insiders. This information is discussed and exchanged in media outside of Chowk, such as e-mails and other websites and chatrooms.

While this is a breach of confidentiality and certainly against all norms of ethical conduct and possibly US laws, it is very difficult to prove in a court of law. You have to prove that the act was intentional, malicious, and resulted in tangible harm to the victims. Emotional distress is no longer a guarantee for conviction.

I have been using Anonymous IP software for a very long time to preclude my IP address from being divulged. Not that I care, but it is fun to have them think that I am in UK one minute, and then in Poland the next, while appearing in US, Canada, and even Germany during the day. Almost all my life is an open book and I really don`t care about people knowing more about me than they already do. But, I do not appreciate covert actions, behind my back, to use insider information and break a trust that was ostensibly established between Chowk and Chowkies. The identities and locations of Chowk Management are well known as are the ones for some of the criminal perptetrators. I hope they realize this.

If, however, any actual harm comes to me or my family as a result of John Galt, Temporal, Scout, or Saminasha`s despicable and immoral behavior, I will come looking for them. We can always start with Ms. McDonald and go from there.

So, here is my sincere request:
1. Chowk Management need to investigate and correct this obvious breach of confidentiality.
2. The pernicious activity by JohnGalt (JagdeeshGodbole), Temporal, Scout, and Saminasha needs to stop RIGHT NOW.
3. A simple apology from the perpertrators will suffice once this silly game is stopped.

Thanks,

Religion is a shit pool. Most religious men tend to be londay baz (child molesters). The best they can do is to recite a fuking 800 year old sermon on some assbackward issue. Wouldn’t it be so much better if all the Mullahs, Pundits, Rabbis and Priests are all Robots (made in Japan) who can do their little fukmyass dance on the podium once a week and get a life?

# 42
Chauhan Sahib… what happened Sir? May be it was Scooter Libby who did that.

Re: # 42

You are paranoid.

#44. and you are a sheep.

But the real question is ``Where is the Good Shepherd?``

Re: # 45

I didn`t read Da Vinci Code because I am not good at deciphering. What is the relation?

Re: # 42

Chauhan:

again........


every 2-3 months, all of a sudden you disappear from FP. Then I see you coming out of UP screaming and kicking Temporal/JohnGlat/Saminasha/Scout.

kya mazara hai yeh???

Re: # 42


..........calling dr. shankar !

Re: # 3

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.

Bush now wants religious freedom in China.

Guess which religion?
(Hint : Mr Bush says the spirit of the Lord is strong inside the church.)

If Bush has his way, is it dead-end for atheism as we know it?

hamidm mian #35: ``.......why can`t we cure this disease ??????``

Because people keep voting and supporting individuals like George Bush and various religious evangelicals (in various countries), when he (they) offer them the right deals. People are only anti-religion up to a point. They can, easily, be bought off if the price is right. Ask any Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islami maulvi, if he wants a visa to the USA, he will say yes. And ask any anti-religious person in USA, if he wants a tax cut, or an invasion, or something else attractive, and he will say yes also.........

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...;)

#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: # 52

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

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

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:
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...

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.............

Re: # 52

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

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.

#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..

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

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...

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.

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?

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..............

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.........

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..............

Sam (the famous world`s ugliest dog, that died today according to cnn) sends this message:

``I met up with God today.``, reports Sam. ``He has been following this discussion on chowk with amusement. Says that rumors of His absence are greatly exaggerated. Although He doesnt really mind people not believing that He exists.

``I dont have a big ego.`` God said, reports Sam the ugly dog. God continues: ``I really dont give a damn one way or another that some two-legged insect on earth doesnt believe I exist. I just dont like it when people think they know everything - how the hell can an atheist be sure I dont exist? only an idiot thinks he knows it all, when in fact he couldnt figure his way out of an open garage. All I ask is you be nice to one another, to other creatures, and especially to your dog (ugly as sin though he may be).``

Sam`s message stops briefly at this point (feeding time in dog heaven), and then continues: ``God said he has every mind to pull up Romair when he gets the chance - this guy drives me up the wall!! He thinks he knows everything. Hamidm hates my guts - laughs at jokes made at my expense by that sob George Carlin. Wait till he shows up! I`ll have hamidm sit down and write 1 quadzillion times ``I will....not....laugh at...God``, complete with those dots. Now Dost Mittar is an OK guy. I`ll reincarnate him as chowk editor, or give him the company of thet panjabi speaking women in heaven - whatever he likes.``

Sam`s message ends here.

The religion is to make a person displined in every field of life .And motive can be achieved ,to begin with at the tender age .sweet 16 is not going to help.
Joining religion club is not a bad idea , however if feelings comes from inside.
Creative of this world wants us to keep harmony and love and explore this world , nothing more.

Tahmed32, #84,
that is hilarious.

Re: # 84

Tahmed,

That was funny. Though I think it`s tough to beat hamidm in this category ;-)

Thanks,
Avkrishna