Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "But, perhaps, he's coming at things from a different perspective. "
You do have a point generally Shannon, he does seem to be coming from a different perspective, but that does not..."
Hey, there ....
I was pretty confused at first. I couldn't remember having made the second and third comments you attributed to me ... they also didn't sound like my writing style. Then, I remembered. They were quotes from a book I'd read that I shared.
You do have a point generally Shannon, he does seem to be coming from a different perspective, but that does not..."
Hey, there ....
I was pretty confused at first. I couldn't remember having made the second and third comments you attributed to me ... they also didn't sound like my writing style. Then, I remembered. They were quotes from a book I'd read that I shared.
this appeared on facebook, I thought I'd share, so we can all have a bit of a laugh (and to be absolutely clear, no I don't believe any of these things are routes to satan... or that satan even exists)[image error]
Vishal wrote: "You are not understanding me because you were trying to see me from outer aspect but my whole mind has grown in east which is rejecting outer and this is why they are in pain."Again Vishal, I understand you (as well as language allows) I just don't agree with you. It is arrogant to assume that I would agree with you if I understood you.
You place value on both outer and inner, so why do you always place the inner as paramount? I am asking you to look at things outside yourself as well, but you are constantly turning inwards. This isn't an eastern thing, concious rejection of the outside in favour of inner belief has been an article of faith for thousands of years in the west.
Vishal wrote: "Then Buddha's words, Jesus's words, Krishna's words became the words of my own inner world. These people, Jesus, Mosses, Buddha, Krishna, Mahavira, all have gone deep down in the human mind, deep down in inner core and their words are much valuable and worthy enough to preserve."
Some are and some are not. Yet good words do not make someone divine. Many people have said good words but were still people like us. To assume that they are more blessed or divine is to put their example forever out of our reach.
Vishal wrote: "Scientists are really close to the dark matter, I have got what they call 'god particle'. This would write a new chapter in Human existence that how human is capable to solve mysteries."
Sigh. The 'god particle' has nothing to do with god or holiness. It's just a somewhat silly name it was labelled with by someone.
Dark matter is something else again.
Vishal wrote: "This existence does not recognize us as superior beings."
Yet religion keeps trying to claim we are superior to other beings, and that the ultimate being is a lot like us.
Vishal wrote: "Inside a cell, there are non-living materials and from these a living being is created."
That's the same as saying that a bicycle is made of non-cycling materials yet it cycles.
No one has yet been able to even define the real difference between life and non-life.
Vishal wrote: "This is beauty of nature. A perfect balance. The seed of creating a new being is hidden. It needs two poles and then balance is done. Yin and Yang. Balanced like a Samurai's Sword."
Actually that is completely wrong. Nature requires an imbalance to work. A seed need to change the balance of material around it from disorganised to organised to grow and it does this by causing more disorganisation. Nothing would grow without the warmth of stars, but stars only form from small imbalances in the distribution of gas that then grow under gravity.
Their are certainly equilibriums but by the second law of thermodynamics they are all imbalanced and therefore all temporary. From the environment around us to the stars themselves.
Blou4432 wrote: "Religion and science go hand in hand. You truly could not have one without the other."This keeps being claimed but nobody has managed to make a good argument why.
Blou4432 wrote: "Some people must have someone/something to control their lives to keep their morality in check."
Surely that is justice not religion. Though evangelists would like to believe otherwise, western justice and law are generally based on the pagan Roman Republic, not the ten commandments.
Religion does not guide morality, it subverts it to its own end. Look at the first and second commandments and then equate that with the US first amendment.
Blou4432 wrote: "Others need freedom to discover what that morality means. "
So from your argument you are claiming that some people need religion and other people don't? Doesn't that mean that there is probably something much better for both, like the teaching of ethics and conscience over mythology.
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "You are not understanding me because you were trying to see me from outer aspect but my whole mind has grown in east which is rejecting outer and this is why they are in pain."
Again Vishal, I understand you (as well as language allows) I just don't agree with you. It is arrogant to assume that I would agree with you if I understood you."
Does understanding equate with agreement?
I understand a lot of things and a lot of people; that doesn't mean I agree with those things or those people.
Personally, I don't find the statement you flagged, made by Vishal, to be arrogant.
Again Vishal, I understand you (as well as language allows) I just don't agree with you. It is arrogant to assume that I would agree with you if I understood you."
Does understanding equate with agreement?
I understand a lot of things and a lot of people; that doesn't mean I agree with those things or those people.
Personally, I don't find the statement you flagged, made by Vishal, to be arrogant.
Shannon wrote: "Does understanding equate with agreement?I understand a lot of things and a lot of people; that doesn't mean I agree with those things or those people."
Exactly my point. He has repeatedly responded to my replies with claims that I do not understand. I do understand him, I just don't agree, and I can clearly articulate why.
Shannon wrote: "Personally, I don't find the statement you flagged, made by Vishal, to be arrogant."
I did, almost insultingly so.
If I claimed that you didn't agree with me simply because you were just incapable of comprehending me, wouldn't you find that somewhat insulting?
I don't like either/or dichotomies; however, if I had to give up one, it would be religion i.e. mythology. Joseph Campbell asserted that we need mythologies whether they be "Star War" or Mormonism. All religions involve mythology; or maybe we should say a mythology is just a religion that people no longer practice. Surprisingly, there are many people who live without a religion and do just fine e.g. humanists, atheists, and agnostics.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Does understanding equate with agreement?
I understand a lot of things and a lot of people; that doesn't mean I agree with those things or those people."
Exactly my point. He has..."
No, that isn't exactly your point.
He didn't say,
"Gary, you don't agree with me."
He said you, if that post was directed to you, didn't understand him.
For some reason, you link understanding with agreement.
To understand means to comprehend ... and only to comprehend.
It does not have anything at all to do with agreement.
Now ....
"Insultingly so" ...? Really and truly?
If saying ....
You don't understand me ...
is insulting ...
it might be wise for people to very carefully consider their words from this point forth.
Of course, many an atheist here has argued that believers shouldn't be offended when atheists call them ignorant.
So ... perhaps you shouldn't be insulted by Vishal saying you didn't understand something.
Or, perhaps you and others should reconsider calling people ignorant. And, arrogant. And, any other name that comes to mind ....
I understand a lot of things and a lot of people; that doesn't mean I agree with those things or those people."
Exactly my point. He has..."
No, that isn't exactly your point.
He didn't say,
"Gary, you don't agree with me."
He said you, if that post was directed to you, didn't understand him.
For some reason, you link understanding with agreement.
To understand means to comprehend ... and only to comprehend.
It does not have anything at all to do with agreement.
Now ....
"Insultingly so" ...? Really and truly?
If saying ....
You don't understand me ...
is insulting ...
it might be wise for people to very carefully consider their words from this point forth.
Of course, many an atheist here has argued that believers shouldn't be offended when atheists call them ignorant.
So ... perhaps you shouldn't be insulted by Vishal saying you didn't understand something.
Or, perhaps you and others should reconsider calling people ignorant. And, arrogant. And, any other name that comes to mind ....
Hazel wrote: "this appeared on facebook, I thought I'd share, so we can all have a bit of a laugh (and to be absolutely clear, no I don't believe any of these things are routes to satan... or that satan even exi..."Well in that case I am definitely on the 'stairway to hell', a Hindu, who worships the Earth as mother, vegetarian, plays around with tarot, late Grandpa - an astrologer, loves rock music even heavy metal on occasion, has tried her hand at meditation, open to the idea of rebirth and loves HP and all things fantasy...yes, I am on first name basis with Satan and his soul collectors and loving it :P
Hazel wrote: "this appeared on facebook, I thought I'd share, so we can all have a bit of a laugh (and to be absolutely clear, no I don't believe any of these things are routes to satan... or that satan even exi..."Comic books lead to demonic possession?
Though, selling your soul to the devil would explain how a bad writer like Mark Millar got so much work from marvel...
and Harry Potter? I can see it leading to wicked thoughts about Emma Watson, but demonic possession...?
I think I have to question the 'research' that lead to that list.
Shannon wrote: "No, that isn't exactly your point."He made a claim, I disagreed with it, he dismissed that disagreement with the claim that I didn't understand him. A claim that he has used previously.
My point is I didn't disagree with him because I didn't understand him.
Shannon wrote: "If saying .... 'You don't understand me' is insulting ..."
No it isn't. What is insulting is claiming a lack of comprehension for the reason you disagree.
Shannon wrote: "Of course, many an atheist here has argued that believers shouldn't be offended when atheists call them ignorant."
Ignorant of what in particular? When a religious person claims that their is lots of holes in the theory of evolution, or that Professor Hawking or Einstein was a Christian, then they are ignorant of facts that they can be enlightened of. I agree that calling them ignorant in general isn't right.
Shannon wrote: "So ... perhaps you shouldn't be insulted by Vishal saying you didn't understand something."
Only if it wasn't the entire counterpoint he used to try to dismiss my opinion.
Shannon wrote: "Or, perhaps you and others should reconsider calling people ignorant. And, arrogant. And, any other name that comes to mind .... "
I should instead wrap the term up in weasel words and false modesty so the implication is clear but the defence "oh but I didn't actually use the word 'x'" can be used?
Oh and I said in my opinion the act was arrogant, just as I will typify the lack of knowledge through lack of interest or openmindedness as ignorance. You are the one who is turning a relative label for an attitude into a pejorative absolute term for a person.
If Vishal did not mean to dismiss my points by claiming I didn't understand him then I was mistaken and he would not have acted in an arrogant way. If he did dismiss my point with that reason then he did.
Hazel wrote: "this appeared on facebook, I thought I'd share, so we can all have a bit of a laugh (and to be absolutely clear, no I don't believe any of these things are routes to satan... or that satan even exi..."Who's facebook page? This is too hilarious!
It appeared on mine, via my other halfs, who'd shared it from someone else...
I would have blasted them for this but that's just me.
I just checked, the other half copied it from "I fucking love heavy metals" facebook page, which is why the metal bits are highlighted. Where they go it from, I don't know
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Or, perhaps you and others should reconsider calling people ignorant. And, arrogant. And, any other name that comes to mind .... "
I should instead wrap the term up in weasel words and false modesty so the implication is clear but the defence "oh but I didn't actually use the word 'x'" can be used?
Oh and I said in my opinion the act was arrogant, just as I will typify the lack of knowledge through lack of interest or openmindedness as ignorance. You are the one who is turning a relative label for an attitude into a pejorative absolute term for a person.
If Vishal did not mean to dismiss my points by claiming I didn't understand him then I was mistaken and he would not have acted in an arrogant way. If he did dismiss my point with that reason then he did. "
At this point, Gary, I have one thing to say and only one thing to say, here and elsewhere ... and I mean it truthfully.
That one thing is ... peace.
I have nothing else to say on this matter. Why? I'm here for understanding ... not argument. This is turning into argument.
So ... I'm going to say ... peace ....
I should instead wrap the term up in weasel words and false modesty so the implication is clear but the defence "oh but I didn't actually use the word 'x'" can be used?
Oh and I said in my opinion the act was arrogant, just as I will typify the lack of knowledge through lack of interest or openmindedness as ignorance. You are the one who is turning a relative label for an attitude into a pejorative absolute term for a person.
If Vishal did not mean to dismiss my points by claiming I didn't understand him then I was mistaken and he would not have acted in an arrogant way. If he did dismiss my point with that reason then he did. "
At this point, Gary, I have one thing to say and only one thing to say, here and elsewhere ... and I mean it truthfully.
That one thing is ... peace.
I have nothing else to say on this matter. Why? I'm here for understanding ... not argument. This is turning into argument.
So ... I'm going to say ... peace ....
Rekha wrote: "Hazel wrote: "this appeared on facebook, I thought I'd share, so we can all have a bit of a laugh (and to be absolutely clear, no I don't believe any of these things are routes to satan... or that ..."LOL...I guess i am sure gonna go to hell as i love most of it ... mostly vegetarian, love heavy metal because of my brother ....very much into yoga mediation ....very much a staunch hindu in my belief systems ...
Anjali wrote: "Rekha wrote: "Hazel wrote: "this appeared on facebook, I thought I'd share, so we can all have a bit of a laugh (and to be absolutely clear, no I don't believe any of these things are routes to sat..."Amen... :)
We had a world with out science. It's now referred to as The Dark Ages.Didn't go so well.
"A world of only science would be a cold world and probably wouldn't last long before some scientist experimented too far and ended up destorying the world."A world of only science is the opposite of this. Its a world where you understand the magnificence of the world around you. One where you don't need inventive myth to make you feel the world has meaning.
In short, its the religious world, with out all the lies and, ya know, murderous rampages and bigotry.
Ian wrote: ""A world of only science would be a cold world and probably wouldn't last long before some scientist experimented too far and ended up destorying the world."A world of only science is the opposit..."
I'm always amazed by people who make that claim that a world of all science is cold, unimaginative etc...do those people never look at a window?
A world of all science is the world and it's a pretty impressive place.
The only radical change would be that to buy a bible you'd have to go to the fiction section of Barnes and Noble and everybody could sleep in on sunday.
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Or, perhaps you and others should reconsider calling people ignorant. And, arrogant. And, any other name that comes to mind .... "I should instead wrap the term up in..."
Peace tolerance such beautiful thoughts reminded me of a mantra quoted by my guru ...
Om Sahana vavatu sahano bhunaktu Shaviryam karava vahai
Tejaswina vadhita mastu ma vid visha vahai
Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.
This is the universal mantra for peace, dedicated to the relationship between the Guru (the teacher, the master, the guide) and the disciple (student, aspirant).
Together they pray to almighty - Oh Lord! Bless us so that together we may grow, protect us, bless our lives with nectar and bliss, redirect our lives toward knowledge and let this sword of knowledge be a tool to nullify the bad karmas and ignorance. We may be pure in actions, words and deeds. Together we may nourish and act as a catalyst to each other’s uplifting.(moral, mental & spiritual growth). Let there never be a quarrel or discord among us.
Let peace be! Let peace be! Let peace be!
Shanti Mantras often ends with three times chanting of “Shanti”. The word “Shanti” here refers to three kinds of peace to the universe which come form three kind of disturbances:
Adidaivkam The disturbances cased by natural forces, beyond our control like floods, earthquakes, famine, tornadoes etc.
Adibhautikam The disturbances caused by surroundings or worldly in nature, can be controlled by working upon them like the sounds pollution, water pollution, family arguments etc.
Adhyatmikam The disturbances caused by self like indiscipline, negative thoughts or actions, egoism, attitude of revenge etc and are completely in our control by controlling the mind of ego and negative thoughts.
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "You are not understanding me because you were trying to see me from outer aspect but my whole mind has grown in east which is rejecting outer and this is why they are in pain."
Agai..."
First I apologize to you Gary if I ever done something which has displeased you.
Now, you put up everything that make my mind to live in a confused state.
Your example of a Bicycle, actually I didn't get. Please be patient to me. I am writing a story. Let me try:-
One day a king invited a monk in his palace and sent a horse-cart for that monk. Monk came and first time when king met to him. Monk said, 'why have you sent a horse-cart for me. If you say only, I'd come to you by foot. This cart is nothing to me. What does it mean, whether you go through a cart or through walking. Just going is important but if you have a time problem then cart is okay, but your highness you know me. I have plenty of time." Now king became disturbed. After all he was an emperor and he'd sent a royal cart. Now royal cart is not like 'nothing'. He thought, this monk, who does not know what royal cart means, saying it 'nothing'. So he said, "how can you say this is nothing? This is royal cart and you are rejecting its valuation?" Monk said that he can prove and when king said him to prove. Monk first of all removed the horse and asked what is it? All said, a cart. Now monk removed the wheels and asked what is there and all said, a cart without wheels. Now one by one monk removed everything from the cart and when there was nothing. He asked to king, "O, great king, now tell me where is your cart?" King immediately understood. This is just the appearance we are pursuing but this is a combination that making us alive.
Now I will try to give you another beautiful story which is so popular in Buddhism.
One day a dog came by chance under a horse cart and he began running with the cart. Now a thought struck him that this cart is moving because I am moving. As fast as cart run, he run with that pace. But then the rider had seen him under the cart and he thought may be that dog will be killed anytime under wheels so he snapped his horsewhip and after getting a hit dog immediately came out from cart. Now standing far behind dog thought, oh, actually that cart was not moving because of me. Whether I would be here or not, this cart would be moving by its own. "
Now you have asked me if I am in favor of inward and outward, both together then why I was continuously speaking about inward. First you go through your comments and see if you have given me any chance to speak about outward.
Let me tell you what this outward is.
One man has fallen in love with a woman and then married. But within one year, he has seen another woman and then fallen in love with that woman. So now he has given divorce to one and married to another. But then again he has fallen in love with another woman and same he has done. Now he does not need this changing woman phenomenon. What he is in need is just sit silently and go through what is happening in him. Once he will understand then there is no need of changing woman. Just his wife can give him that pleasure what he is searching for. Now woman thinks man is wrong, man thinks woman is wrong but both never see, actually both are wrong and if they will go inward, then this problem can be sorted out.
In east, if people go deep inward then they began leaving the outward. Now there is a problem. They miss the life. Now missing the life is not the answer. They found nothing inside, just a vacancy. Anger is there, hate is there. No trace of love. Now what kind of inwardness it is. Leaving children, leaving wife, leaving television, leaving computer. But for what? they have attained nothing, no inward no outward. Now they are in misery. Actually they don't understand, their inner is asking for outer and outer is asking for inner. What they actually in need is just go to movie, listen songs, use computer, go for vacation. Just simple and they will feel they are getting contented, from inside, from outside.
Another thing, you have said people are just denoting the particle as god particle. But it is just the name. Why it is making you tense. This is nothing just the word they are taking as to denote it. If this particle is not making you anything then just a word can do you what harm.
I respect you whether you agree or not. And if you have taken something wrong by my saying 'you don't understand' then for this I am extremely extremely extremely sorry.
Agai..."
First I apologize to you Gary if I ever done something which has displeased you.
Now, you put up everything that make my mind to live in a confused state.
Your example of a Bicycle, actually I didn't get. Please be patient to me. I am writing a story. Let me try:-
One day a king invited a monk in his palace and sent a horse-cart for that monk. Monk came and first time when king met to him. Monk said, 'why have you sent a horse-cart for me. If you say only, I'd come to you by foot. This cart is nothing to me. What does it mean, whether you go through a cart or through walking. Just going is important but if you have a time problem then cart is okay, but your highness you know me. I have plenty of time." Now king became disturbed. After all he was an emperor and he'd sent a royal cart. Now royal cart is not like 'nothing'. He thought, this monk, who does not know what royal cart means, saying it 'nothing'. So he said, "how can you say this is nothing? This is royal cart and you are rejecting its valuation?" Monk said that he can prove and when king said him to prove. Monk first of all removed the horse and asked what is it? All said, a cart. Now monk removed the wheels and asked what is there and all said, a cart without wheels. Now one by one monk removed everything from the cart and when there was nothing. He asked to king, "O, great king, now tell me where is your cart?" King immediately understood. This is just the appearance we are pursuing but this is a combination that making us alive.
Now I will try to give you another beautiful story which is so popular in Buddhism.
One day a dog came by chance under a horse cart and he began running with the cart. Now a thought struck him that this cart is moving because I am moving. As fast as cart run, he run with that pace. But then the rider had seen him under the cart and he thought may be that dog will be killed anytime under wheels so he snapped his horsewhip and after getting a hit dog immediately came out from cart. Now standing far behind dog thought, oh, actually that cart was not moving because of me. Whether I would be here or not, this cart would be moving by its own. "
Now you have asked me if I am in favor of inward and outward, both together then why I was continuously speaking about inward. First you go through your comments and see if you have given me any chance to speak about outward.
Let me tell you what this outward is.
One man has fallen in love with a woman and then married. But within one year, he has seen another woman and then fallen in love with that woman. So now he has given divorce to one and married to another. But then again he has fallen in love with another woman and same he has done. Now he does not need this changing woman phenomenon. What he is in need is just sit silently and go through what is happening in him. Once he will understand then there is no need of changing woman. Just his wife can give him that pleasure what he is searching for. Now woman thinks man is wrong, man thinks woman is wrong but both never see, actually both are wrong and if they will go inward, then this problem can be sorted out.
In east, if people go deep inward then they began leaving the outward. Now there is a problem. They miss the life. Now missing the life is not the answer. They found nothing inside, just a vacancy. Anger is there, hate is there. No trace of love. Now what kind of inwardness it is. Leaving children, leaving wife, leaving television, leaving computer. But for what? they have attained nothing, no inward no outward. Now they are in misery. Actually they don't understand, their inner is asking for outer and outer is asking for inner. What they actually in need is just go to movie, listen songs, use computer, go for vacation. Just simple and they will feel they are getting contented, from inside, from outside.
Another thing, you have said people are just denoting the particle as god particle. But it is just the name. Why it is making you tense. This is nothing just the word they are taking as to denote it. If this particle is not making you anything then just a word can do you what harm.
I respect you whether you agree or not. And if you have taken something wrong by my saying 'you don't understand' then for this I am extremely extremely extremely sorry.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "No, that isn't exactly your point."
He made a claim, I disagreed with it, he dismissed that disagreement with the claim that I didn't understand him. A claim that he has used prev..."
Dear Gary, only I can tell you a story. May be it will solve something. Please read it and just feel it...
Two monks were returning to the monastery in the evening. It had rained and there were puddles of water on the road sides. At one place a beautiful young woman was standing unable to walk accross because of a puddle of water. The elder of the two monks went up to a her lifted her and left her on the other side of the road, and continued his way to the monastery.
In the evening the younger monk came to the elder monk and said, “Sir, as monks, we cannot touch a woman ?”
The elder monk answered “yes, brother”.
Then the younger monk asks again, “but then Sir, how is that you lifted that woman on the roadside ?”
The elder monk smiled at him and told him ” I left her on the other side of the road, but you are still carrying her.”
He made a claim, I disagreed with it, he dismissed that disagreement with the claim that I didn't understand him. A claim that he has used prev..."
Dear Gary, only I can tell you a story. May be it will solve something. Please read it and just feel it...
Two monks were returning to the monastery in the evening. It had rained and there were puddles of water on the road sides. At one place a beautiful young woman was standing unable to walk accross because of a puddle of water. The elder of the two monks went up to a her lifted her and left her on the other side of the road, and continued his way to the monastery.
In the evening the younger monk came to the elder monk and said, “Sir, as monks, we cannot touch a woman ?”
The elder monk answered “yes, brother”.
Then the younger monk asks again, “but then Sir, how is that you lifted that woman on the roadside ?”
The elder monk smiled at him and told him ” I left her on the other side of the road, but you are still carrying her.”
I think with due respect that this is becoming a topic focusing only on religion so I have to back off and bid adieu...nice meeting you...carry on guys and gals.
I would live in a world without. I don't mean that religion is not important or anything, but the purpose of religion (to the best of my understanding) is to give people a sense of belonging and give people something to believe in. If i lived in a world without science then i would ensure that everyone is included (solution to problem 1). And for problem 2, well, people will learn to believe in them self. I can see why some people would choose religion, because when you think about it religion has an answer to so many questions that science does not have and religion is faster in finding of new answers(which may or may not be true). The main problem with science (that i can think of) is that it still has a lot of blank spaces and unanswered questions. To some of us this will give us a chance to think and discover though some don't like to think too much.
Also if you were living in a world without science and only religion, then would you think of an alternative or just go along with what you were taught? I only ask this because people only really started questioning when they had more information that proved their religion had some gaps. What i mean is that only because of science were we able to question religion. Kind of like the theme of utopia and dystopia in some books.
Oh! It also depends on which religion we are talking about.
Alexis wrote: "Oh! It also depends on which religion we are talking about."Which religion?
Gary wrote: "He made a claim, I disagreed with it, he dismissed that disagreement with the claim that I didn't understand him. A claim that he has used previously.My point is I didn't disagree with him because I didn't understand him."
It's a common misconception to think that the only reason people don't agree with you is because they don't understand your position correctly, and if they did they would agree with you. At the same time people overestimate how well they understand the other person's position, and that it is just wrong.
It's dealt with brilliantly in this article, The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight; and thanks to the new Google Scholar search stuff I've found another article, which I haven't read yet, but looks interesting.
Rekha wrote: "I think with due respect that this is becoming a topic focusing only on religion so I have to back off and bid adieu...nice meeting you...carry on guys and gals."Sorry Rekha, only on religion? Not enough science or did you expect something else?
Anjali wrote: "Rekha wrote: "Hazel wrote: "this appeared on facebook, I thought I'd share, so we can all have a bit of a laugh (and to be absolutely clear, no I don't believe any of these things are routes to sat..."Yes it would seem that I to are going straight to hell, the really sad thing about is this is that My Parents and Brother could have written this they are all ministers of religion that teach kindness and exceptance of all.....ohh unless you dabble in those things listed in that list of course...
Gary wrote: "Rekha wrote: "I think.... Sorry Rekha, only on religion? Not enough science or did you expect something else?
"
Why would I expect something else when we are discussing our world preferences - scientific or religious? I had stated my opinion in a rather long post earlier on, on the topic but find most of the reply threads focusing on extolling or denouncing one religious practice over the other. My reaction is based on that.
I was raised a Hindu, went to a Catholic school...I have read the translated versions of the Bhagvad Gita, Upanishads, Bible, Quran and I often found the "stories" more of the fantasy kind as I grew up. I like the philosophical thought and study of human nature they contain. (Don't intend to offend anyone. My secular country allows me the right to hold any view as long as I am not being hateful or vitriolic.)
My policy has always been "live and let live" as long as the good and humane rules are followed. I have been an agnostic for quite a while now...the hope that still exists in me, of good triumphing over evil (that again is a grey area...one's evil can be another's good) prevents me from turning atheist...
I don't put stock in Gods/Goddesses who choose one group of humans over the others, as stated by the books but more on Karma or reverse Karma (every action has a similar positive or negative reaction) but I neither impose my views on others nor do I let them issue me diktats...my parents, relatives and a lot of friends are religious (pious would be a better word)...if it makes them happy who am I to say anything...it applies to relatives and friends who are atheist, too.
I am happy to stay away for now... :)
Vishal wrote: "I respect you whether you agree or not. And if you have taken something wrong by my saying 'you don't understand' then for this I am extremely extremely extremely sorry."Thank you for the florid apology, I also apologise if I misjudged what you said. To be clear I do not mind people thinking I haven't understood something as long as they do not use that assumption to dismiss my own points.
Anjali wrote: "The word “Shanti” here refers to three kinds of peace to the universe which come form three kind of disturbances:
Adidaivkam The disturbances cased by natural forces, beyond our control like floods, earthquakes, famine, tornadoes etc."
Interesting. I always find that these religious concepts are always more narrow and less interesting than what we discover from science. For example these natural forces are not actually beyond our control, we can certainly influence some of them. Also wishing for peace from them could be counter productive. Floods for example help replenish soil nutrition, a fact that the peoples of the Nile have took advantage of for over ten thousand years. Floods have generally turned into disasters were people have tried to control them instead of accepting their possibility and adapting. Earthquakes are the consequence of the Earth's cycle of bringing up vital heavy elements from the interior and in a recent study has been suggested as part of the reason that life first developed on Earth. Famine, by it's nature, is largely man-made and often it is as much caused by human greed or stupidity. Famine struck the old USSR because they rejected science in place of ideology. Other human factors from economic crash to religious conflict have influenced famines over the years. Famine is not beyond our control, in fact one scientist is widely regarded as potentially having saved 1,000,000,000+ lives from famine.
These disruptions are not evil and not all are even necessarily only destructive.
Vishal wrote: "Your example of a Bicycle, actually I didn't get. Please be patient to me."
Fair enough. The point I was making was that even though we may name a process, it does not mean that process "exists" as an independent entity. When you cook food you apply energy to the ingredients and you change them. You may even cook according to a recipe, but the process of "cooking" doesn't need a magical field to access. You don't need a mystical concept of riding to get on a bicycle and ride it. When you take up a brush and paint you do not need a ghostly painter to access, and when you finish painting you have what you have created and you are still there but there is no mystical field that continues to paint on.
Riding a bicycle is a process of energy and matter, life is a process of energy and matter, the mind is a process of energy and matter. We have no need to invoke some kind of ephemeral entity to embody the process.
Let me respond to your stories.
Vishal wrote: "One day a king invited a monk in his palace and sent a horse-cart for that monk."
Yes. That is what I meant.
Take a "soul". Our understanding of peoples souls is based on "persona", but we only know personality through interaction with others. Take away the ability to interact with other people and what remains? Take away the chemistry that influences our wants, needs and decisions be they passionate or peaceful and what remains? Take away the knowledge and learning of years of experience and what remains?
Just like the cart is more than the sum of its parts because it has purpose and value, but also that purpose and value is relative to need and facility. Similarly the soul is more than the sum of its parts, take it apart and it no longer has a purpose and all you are left with is disconnected parts and no ghostly remainder.
Vishal wrote: "One day a dog came by chance under a horse cart and he began running with the cart."
This story is what I sum up with the phrase "correlation does not necessarily mean causation". This is one of the things that we tend to forget. Our species developed an incredible ability to understand the purpose and motivations of other people that is unparalleled in any other known species. Using this ability we can understand why a hungry baby cries because we can imagine being in their position. The problem with this is that we tend to project this idea onto things were it doesn't apply. Like when a person blames their computer for going wrong "on purpose", or a man curses a hole in the road for "deliberately" tripping him up. This is the genesis of much religion. We ask "why did the rock fall", "why did the lightning strike" we project our own idea of purpose onto the world around us unless we carefully try to remove that bias.
Vishal wrote: "One man has fallen in love with a woman and then married. .... Now woman thinks man is wrong, man thinks woman is wrong but both never see, actually both are wrong and if they will go inward, then this problem can be sorted out."
Actually I would say the opposite. Since you said little about the motivation of the women I cannot speak to whether they are wrong, but in my opinion the man was always looking inward. He looked at his own wants and needs and fell in love with what he thought he wanted. What he needed to do was to actually look at the woman he was with instead of his internal idealised version and actually to stop looking selfishly inward and instead see the person he was with, and the relationship they had from outside.
Of course "looking inward" and "looking outward" are highly subjective terminology. You may call lust for someone looking outward in desire, while I would call it selfish want looking inward as it does not see the person for who they are. It may simply be cultural difference. This is one reason I prefer science for the big questions as it deliberately tries to minimise or account for cultural bias.
Vishal wrote: "Another thing, you have said people are just denoting the particle as god particle. But it is just the name. Why it is making you tense. This is nothing just the word they are taking as to denote it. If this particle is not making you anything then just a word can do you what harm."
A word, a phrase, a sentence can end the lives of millions or billions of people. That I call harm. Words are powerful because people believe them and then act on them. How many people died because someone wrote the Hebrew for "he shalt surely die" in the bible.
In this case it's more annoying and conflict causing than anything. Some people are claiming that the "God" particle is somehow the proof they have been thirsting for, for something spiritual. Others have tried to blame "science" for trying to define, defile or replace their god. It's not the name that makes me tense, its the conclusions people a drawing.
Why did you mention the "god particle" yourself, may I ask?
Vishal wrote: "Two monks were returning to the monastery in the evening.
......
The elder monk smiled at him and told him ” I left her on the other side of the road, but you are still carrying her."
Thank you. That story is a great example of how religion can make "moral" laws that lead to cruel or unjust actions, and how many good religious people will prefer to act on their conscience and then find a way to justify themselves afterwards.
I realise that was probably not the message you wanted to convey, but that's the trouble with parables, people often see what they want to see.
Gary wrote: "Anjali wrote: "I respect you whether you agree or not. And if you have taken something wrong by my saying 'you don't understand' then for this I am extremely extremely extremely sorry."
Thank you for the florid apology, I also apologise if I misjudged what you said. To be clear I do not mind people thinking I haven't understood something as long as they do not use that assumption to dismiss my own points."
Are you talking to Vishal or Anjali when you thank the person for his/her "florid" apology? (Actually, all of the points you credit to Anjali were written by Vishal.)
Thank you for the florid apology, I also apologise if I misjudged what you said. To be clear I do not mind people thinking I haven't understood something as long as they do not use that assumption to dismiss my own points."
Are you talking to Vishal or Anjali when you thank the person for his/her "florid" apology? (Actually, all of the points you credit to Anjali were written by Vishal.)
Aye, sorry Vishal, damn cut and paste has a mind of its own :-)
Travis wrote: "Ian wrote: ""A world of only science would be a cold world and probably wouldn't last long before some scientist experimented too far and ended up destorying the world."A world of only science is..."
http://i.imgur.com/PIRcY.jpg
Since i know more about Hinduism which is also sanatana dharma i will try and explain what religion gives me ....Sanatana Dharma prayer does not mean mere chanting of the hymns ,it is not mere supplication, petitioning, or trade with God (you give me 1 crore profit and I am putting 1 lakh in your Hundi ) it has a bigger and deeper meaning. Prayer should not be something you do out of fear alone, it should come out whole heartedly, it should come out of love, it should imbibe humility in us, it should help us reflect and learn about ourselves .It should help us reach the maturity where we do our part and submit the rest to the will of Him, that maturity that helps us see positive out of the worst of the worst disasters and leave us with a hope that He is there to take care of us and help us do our duty. In a way your prayer should help you get the divinity within you to the fore. Read any of the Hindu epics and will you see people coming out of the worst o the worst tragedies, by the sheer help of their virtues, trust in God and the power of their prayers. Rather than shunning epics as mere stories or trying to find the negative shades in the heroes of the epics we should try to take the virtues the heroes of the epics had and try to understand how they understood and brought out the divinity in them .
Last, but not the least our Rituals. Rituals awaken us; they make us remember the importance of Dharma in life. These rituals help us inculcate good habits in our lives. A simple ritual like giving aarti with camphor to God, tells us indirectly that our life is short and we should be quick in our spiritual pursuits. We do not have the luxury to move from solid to liquid and liquid to gas, as life is short we should be astute on the path of dharma and pray the Almighty that he gives us “sadbuddhi” and like the way camphor evaporates into thin air , we too want to become one with Him in this janma/life itself.
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I respect you whether you agree or not. And if you have taken something wrong by my saying 'you don't understand' then for this I am extremely extremely extremely sorry."
Thank you ..."
Very right assumptions you have drawn from the first and the second story. In the next para, your picking is opposite and I am sure whether the inward or outward you have got exactly what I wanted to say. The reason is I just given an example that shows both is needed.
About the name 'god particle', I used because I am more attracted to this than the denotation 'boson particle'. Your claim of word that can take many lives can be understood from the last sentence of yours 'we see what we want to see'. This is understandable enough to say that people are tend to see what they want to see. So make them understand something is a matter of discussion not the word which has been put up in scriptures. If one has to pull the meaning then dependency would be totally on the mind's capability. No more moral policing is needed but just the clear cut, more lucid definition can work accurately.
Your tension is somewhat right but the conclusion the people drawing is in the context of their belief and science is going to fulfill their thirst. Nothing you can do or anyone can do. The meaning of science has been used first by so called scientific people in the context of development. Human is developing because human has used tremendous power of brain but this development has no limitation. We have not drawn any line and the fear can be seen in the eyes of people who are still so far behind this development. In many parts of world people are losing hope to find drinkable water to survive and these people are far more behind the scientific development. Will you bring your theory to increase the natural water level high rather than to just teach people save the water? Have you gone through these people's lives and seen how less water they use? To demolish people's belief to worship trees and rivers and earth as divine, science teaching them how to mine, how to use rivers as for electricity and how to use woods and really their is no limitation because once people learn surviving is a matter anyhow, they use excessively these gifts. The jungle dwellers have more sense rather than these so called scientific civilized people. They know how they can live in harmony of nature. Development should to happen and changing is the rule. It has been happening for centuries. But don't you think to accept scientific theory as for development we should to care also for others (if you can care for people who are getting killed by just the sentence)? What we are providing them? The rain forest Amazon has lost 20 percent and where that benefit of this resource is going? To us in the form of so called scientific development. I am not against the development but I am against the form of false development. As because of a sentence, people have been killed but have you gone through the nature of scientific development by which how many have been killed? Advanced war system, new chemical weapons, new form of diseases, so much air pollution, shrinking capabilities of soil, lessening rivers, melting glaciers, reducing sea level. We are only generating comfortably but we are also somewhat destroying the natural balance.
You have used this sentence once 'nature works in imbalance' and I seem impressed because to make this imbalance balanced nature try to balance itself. But what I didn't get was that were you talking about the imbalance causing by human? Were you saying that excess mining of natural resources is needed for the nature because then it works? Or you theory of imbalance was something other? Please define.
Thank you ..."
Very right assumptions you have drawn from the first and the second story. In the next para, your picking is opposite and I am sure whether the inward or outward you have got exactly what I wanted to say. The reason is I just given an example that shows both is needed.
About the name 'god particle', I used because I am more attracted to this than the denotation 'boson particle'. Your claim of word that can take many lives can be understood from the last sentence of yours 'we see what we want to see'. This is understandable enough to say that people are tend to see what they want to see. So make them understand something is a matter of discussion not the word which has been put up in scriptures. If one has to pull the meaning then dependency would be totally on the mind's capability. No more moral policing is needed but just the clear cut, more lucid definition can work accurately.
Your tension is somewhat right but the conclusion the people drawing is in the context of their belief and science is going to fulfill their thirst. Nothing you can do or anyone can do. The meaning of science has been used first by so called scientific people in the context of development. Human is developing because human has used tremendous power of brain but this development has no limitation. We have not drawn any line and the fear can be seen in the eyes of people who are still so far behind this development. In many parts of world people are losing hope to find drinkable water to survive and these people are far more behind the scientific development. Will you bring your theory to increase the natural water level high rather than to just teach people save the water? Have you gone through these people's lives and seen how less water they use? To demolish people's belief to worship trees and rivers and earth as divine, science teaching them how to mine, how to use rivers as for electricity and how to use woods and really their is no limitation because once people learn surviving is a matter anyhow, they use excessively these gifts. The jungle dwellers have more sense rather than these so called scientific civilized people. They know how they can live in harmony of nature. Development should to happen and changing is the rule. It has been happening for centuries. But don't you think to accept scientific theory as for development we should to care also for others (if you can care for people who are getting killed by just the sentence)? What we are providing them? The rain forest Amazon has lost 20 percent and where that benefit of this resource is going? To us in the form of so called scientific development. I am not against the development but I am against the form of false development. As because of a sentence, people have been killed but have you gone through the nature of scientific development by which how many have been killed? Advanced war system, new chemical weapons, new form of diseases, so much air pollution, shrinking capabilities of soil, lessening rivers, melting glaciers, reducing sea level. We are only generating comfortably but we are also somewhat destroying the natural balance.
You have used this sentence once 'nature works in imbalance' and I seem impressed because to make this imbalance balanced nature try to balance itself. But what I didn't get was that were you talking about the imbalance causing by human? Were you saying that excess mining of natural resources is needed for the nature because then it works? Or you theory of imbalance was something other? Please define.
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I respect you whether you agree or not. And if you have taken something wrong by my saying 'you don't understand' then for this I am extremely extremely extremely sorry."
Thank you ..."
Only one sentence which said, 'you will not understand me' has made you to get this belief that person who is writing to you is trying to dismiss your point. Your saying that 'you don't mind people if their view is not to dismiss your point by saying 'you don't understand', it means what I have understood is if they don't then you will 'mind'. Now ask yourself what is this? This is the complexities of mind. Mind works in this form. And is not it sticking with the views you possess? Where is that theory of being liberal? Even if people are dismissing your point by their own intention, why this is making you tense? Why this is making you to ask several questions? Isn't is just the process of mind where mind is asking for defend of your views? If love in your term has been defined accurately, why not this little form of anger? Anger that you mind if people say 'no, you are wrong'. Reality is that even if someone read hundredth times the reality of love, one is unable to apply on oneself. Why? Because this is the form which works in the whole body of human and controlling them is not easy until one will ponder in inner side.
Your love for physics is understandable but this love is a matter of changing because it can be that in life you find another subject and then your love will be gone on that subject. It is like a child who likes stones in his childhood but in adulthood that stone attracts less to that child. This is simply not love. Whether it is infatuation or attraction. And what can be attractive, can be also unattractive. If someone loves father and in life he feels their is no love for father then what kind of love it is.
If you love physics and someone comes to you and say, it is so boring and dull that I will not even touch the book, you will start asking questions. Now what is boring is boring and what is interesting is interesting and both are coming through the different persons. So to turn boring into interesting you will have to open that persons whole body and it can't be easily done(if it can be done). Whether in some age of life may be the boring can be turned interesting or interesting can be turned boring. If you find religious scriptures narrow and less interesting than it is your personal liking and many would be against to you. It means something which is likable for you can be not likable for other and something which is not likable for other can be likable for another. It is like someone like football and another don't like. Here football is doing nothing but just the presumption and views of others are doing all the liking and disliking.
Respect is the another word what makes us more humane. why? If suppose people who have been suffered from flood and living in the refugee camp and if they are praying to God. What will you do? Will you go to them and stop them praying to say their God is nowhere? Their God is nothing just their imagination? Only science has saved them and they should to believe only in science? If somehow a strong wind starts blowing and they are going to die, can you save them to believe on science? Once people except the God, hope gets reduced and if there is no hope, how can a man be alive again? To remove one hope you will have to establish another hope whether the hope on science or on nature. But this hope is only making people to come over any hurdles and even from fatal diseases. To accept this flood and earth quake as to say it is important also for nature is understandable but are you saying people should to die with these calamities? what about people who die by hunger?
Understanding is a matter of being liberal and more open. Suppose a man of science goes among forest dwellers and want to give them the benefit of science. Is it important then for that man to ask those people to stop worshiping or stop believing in divine? The development can also be happened with keeping their belief system alive because this is what has made them what they are and there is beauty in their belief, in their dance, in their celebration, in their marriage system, in their art and without being entangled with this system the man of science can implement beneficial things of science if only he is liberal and open minded.
I have defined already how one's view works. You have taken all negative sides of religion and put up with your view point to say religion is killing but this is the men who have taken the religion in wrong terminology and definition. Religion has also created a beautiful expression of beauty of nature. Different art forms, music, dance, painting, sculpting, writing. These all have done tremendously with a religious mind. Now in gray side of science, it has also so much negativity and it is not hidden, we can see but science has done tremendous job for the progress of human lives. It is saving lives, it has turned sun light into a power source for our lives, it has made the human to go from one place to another very easily. Both has positivity if one is positive but both has negativity if one has negativity.
Nothing is wrong with the word, with the parable, with the stories, they are just like the stone. As for a child that stone is matter of playing, for poet it is a poetry, for killer it is a tool for killing. Different people different assumption. But this can be seen just to be respective towards people who are showing their views.
To understand someone it is a necessity that one makes some space in his notebook because if notebook is full and not even an inch is vacant then where others' views will go. Discussions happen but it happen on one topic. Suppose one is saying bread is needed but another is saying 'no, milk is needed' then would it be a discussion? It would be a debate and in debate we are ready to show one side is better than the another side.
The last story which went in your mind with the connection of wrong way of religious mind, I was just saying a very simple thing (that I think I have already written before the story that just feel it but you have written to see this story in the connection with religious mind) that how something stays in the mind for a longer time and if one is not ready to get rid of that thing at once, it will fructify. A monk has to do everything in life, like cultivation, house making, working in factories etc but a monk has not to attach with the subject anyhow because as monks believe, attachment ultimately becomes a form of pain when it turns in detachment. The image of woman was gone immediately from one monk but it was still in the mind of another monk. Now he was asking question to show another that you were wrong, if it has been proven then second's ego will be satisfied. But the image of woman will be lived vibrant and attractive in the mind of the second monk for a long time against the monkhood.
I like stories and because stories have great power to give many complex meaning in a very easy form, I feel them right for me.
Here is an another story which can tell when people can understand something. May be you have heard about it.
When a scholar came in Zen monastery to learn how they live, he talked with everyone but in last he said, they are all wrong and they are not doing anything that can be said learning. So one great master of Zen 'Nan-in' invited him on tea. When he began pouring tea, he continued, without stopping and then the cup began overflowing. The scholar had seen this and said to Nan-in, 'why are you pouring too much? This cup is full and it can't contain anymore.' Nan-in smiled and said to that scholar, 'yes you are right. This is full and like of this cup you are also full. So make some space and you will get on what is this zen.'
Thank you ..."
Only one sentence which said, 'you will not understand me' has made you to get this belief that person who is writing to you is trying to dismiss your point. Your saying that 'you don't mind people if their view is not to dismiss your point by saying 'you don't understand', it means what I have understood is if they don't then you will 'mind'. Now ask yourself what is this? This is the complexities of mind. Mind works in this form. And is not it sticking with the views you possess? Where is that theory of being liberal? Even if people are dismissing your point by their own intention, why this is making you tense? Why this is making you to ask several questions? Isn't is just the process of mind where mind is asking for defend of your views? If love in your term has been defined accurately, why not this little form of anger? Anger that you mind if people say 'no, you are wrong'. Reality is that even if someone read hundredth times the reality of love, one is unable to apply on oneself. Why? Because this is the form which works in the whole body of human and controlling them is not easy until one will ponder in inner side.
Your love for physics is understandable but this love is a matter of changing because it can be that in life you find another subject and then your love will be gone on that subject. It is like a child who likes stones in his childhood but in adulthood that stone attracts less to that child. This is simply not love. Whether it is infatuation or attraction. And what can be attractive, can be also unattractive. If someone loves father and in life he feels their is no love for father then what kind of love it is.
If you love physics and someone comes to you and say, it is so boring and dull that I will not even touch the book, you will start asking questions. Now what is boring is boring and what is interesting is interesting and both are coming through the different persons. So to turn boring into interesting you will have to open that persons whole body and it can't be easily done(if it can be done). Whether in some age of life may be the boring can be turned interesting or interesting can be turned boring. If you find religious scriptures narrow and less interesting than it is your personal liking and many would be against to you. It means something which is likable for you can be not likable for other and something which is not likable for other can be likable for another. It is like someone like football and another don't like. Here football is doing nothing but just the presumption and views of others are doing all the liking and disliking.
Respect is the another word what makes us more humane. why? If suppose people who have been suffered from flood and living in the refugee camp and if they are praying to God. What will you do? Will you go to them and stop them praying to say their God is nowhere? Their God is nothing just their imagination? Only science has saved them and they should to believe only in science? If somehow a strong wind starts blowing and they are going to die, can you save them to believe on science? Once people except the God, hope gets reduced and if there is no hope, how can a man be alive again? To remove one hope you will have to establish another hope whether the hope on science or on nature. But this hope is only making people to come over any hurdles and even from fatal diseases. To accept this flood and earth quake as to say it is important also for nature is understandable but are you saying people should to die with these calamities? what about people who die by hunger?
Understanding is a matter of being liberal and more open. Suppose a man of science goes among forest dwellers and want to give them the benefit of science. Is it important then for that man to ask those people to stop worshiping or stop believing in divine? The development can also be happened with keeping their belief system alive because this is what has made them what they are and there is beauty in their belief, in their dance, in their celebration, in their marriage system, in their art and without being entangled with this system the man of science can implement beneficial things of science if only he is liberal and open minded.
I have defined already how one's view works. You have taken all negative sides of religion and put up with your view point to say religion is killing but this is the men who have taken the religion in wrong terminology and definition. Religion has also created a beautiful expression of beauty of nature. Different art forms, music, dance, painting, sculpting, writing. These all have done tremendously with a religious mind. Now in gray side of science, it has also so much negativity and it is not hidden, we can see but science has done tremendous job for the progress of human lives. It is saving lives, it has turned sun light into a power source for our lives, it has made the human to go from one place to another very easily. Both has positivity if one is positive but both has negativity if one has negativity.
Nothing is wrong with the word, with the parable, with the stories, they are just like the stone. As for a child that stone is matter of playing, for poet it is a poetry, for killer it is a tool for killing. Different people different assumption. But this can be seen just to be respective towards people who are showing their views.
To understand someone it is a necessity that one makes some space in his notebook because if notebook is full and not even an inch is vacant then where others' views will go. Discussions happen but it happen on one topic. Suppose one is saying bread is needed but another is saying 'no, milk is needed' then would it be a discussion? It would be a debate and in debate we are ready to show one side is better than the another side.
The last story which went in your mind with the connection of wrong way of religious mind, I was just saying a very simple thing (that I think I have already written before the story that just feel it but you have written to see this story in the connection with religious mind) that how something stays in the mind for a longer time and if one is not ready to get rid of that thing at once, it will fructify. A monk has to do everything in life, like cultivation, house making, working in factories etc but a monk has not to attach with the subject anyhow because as monks believe, attachment ultimately becomes a form of pain when it turns in detachment. The image of woman was gone immediately from one monk but it was still in the mind of another monk. Now he was asking question to show another that you were wrong, if it has been proven then second's ego will be satisfied. But the image of woman will be lived vibrant and attractive in the mind of the second monk for a long time against the monkhood.
I like stories and because stories have great power to give many complex meaning in a very easy form, I feel them right for me.
Here is an another story which can tell when people can understand something. May be you have heard about it.
When a scholar came in Zen monastery to learn how they live, he talked with everyone but in last he said, they are all wrong and they are not doing anything that can be said learning. So one great master of Zen 'Nan-in' invited him on tea. When he began pouring tea, he continued, without stopping and then the cup began overflowing. The scholar had seen this and said to Nan-in, 'why are you pouring too much? This cup is full and it can't contain anymore.' Nan-in smiled and said to that scholar, 'yes you are right. This is full and like of this cup you are also full. So make some space and you will get on what is this zen.'
Anjali wrote: "Since i know more about Hinduism which is also sanatana dharma i will try and explain what religion gives me ...."I do not doubt for a minute that religious people find religion fulfilling, affirming and pleasing. I remember feeling the same about it once myself. Yet there are many ideologies that are fulfilling, affirming and pleasing that are utterly fallacious and extremely harmful and hurtful for other people.
Just because religion "feels right" to you or gives you comfort does not give you any right to promote that belief as truth to other people, or to make decisions that effect other people based on those beliefs.
I am fairly sure that the KKK and other racist organisations find it very comforting that their ideology confirms them as superior to others, that does not make them right or even particularly moral just because they have faith in this belief.
Gary now Im maybe 100% Democrat. I wouldnt have a abortion myself but I dont have a right to force my morality on another woman...I never had a abortion but have no right to force it upon another.
Gary wrote: "Anjali wrote: "Since i know more about Hinduism which is also sanatana dharma i will try and explain what religion gives me ...."I do not doubt for a minute that religious people find religion fu..."
Don't know if I'd compare religion to the KKK more to a kids blanket or imaginary friend.
It's great when they are young and helps them deal with stuff, but if your kid is college age and still believes in Mr. Winky the talking rabbit or whatever, then there's some call to be concerned.
Vishal wrote: "I am sure whether the inward or outward you have got exactly what I wanted to say. The reason is I just given an example that shows both is needed."To me "inside" and "outside" are fairly arbitrary definitions, what you have is a complicit whole. Our thoughts are defined by our language and therefore our culture and our interaction with other people which then influences our thoughts. Claiming that issues are caused by an imbalance between the two is simplistic and ultimately bereft of really helpful information.
Vishal wrote: "About the name 'god particle', I used because I am more attracted to this than the denotation 'boson particle'."
Yet "boson" is a meaningful word in this context, it tells us that the particle has an integer quantum spin and behaves according to Bose-Einstein statistical models. The word "god" in this context is meaningless, it tells us nothing about the nature of the object being named and millions of people have found it outright misleading.
Vishal wrote: "Your tension is somewhat right but the conclusion the people drawing is in the context of their belief and science is going to fulfill their thirst. Nothing you can do or anyone can do."
Actually there is plenty we can do. We can encourage reason over belief and humble observation over arrogant presumption. In the west this movement was called "the Enlightenment" and it has, and continues to, improve and enlighten peoples lives. What we can do is resist the forces of religion that try to undermine this success, regain control and send us back into the Dark Ages.
Vishal wrote: "In many parts of world people are losing hope to find drinkable water to survive and these people are far more behind the scientific development. Will you bring your theory to increase the natural water level high rather than to just teach people save the water?"
There is plenty that science can be used for to help these people, from improved desalination to providing safer and more efficient irrigation and sewage systems.
What can religion do? Nothing but hope for a miracle. Yet a miracle is not needed, science is.
Vishal wrote: "To demolish people's belief to worship trees and rivers and earth as divine, science teaching them how to mine, how to use rivers as for electricity"
Yet the largest religions consider the idea of worshipping the trees and earth as idolatry. They believe that the Earth was made by god for humans to use. This is one of the stated reasons why US conservative christians believe that its right to drill and mine as they need and that Climate Change is not affected by man, against what science tells them.
Vishal wrote: The jungle dwellers have more sense rather than these so called scientific civilized people. They know how they can live in harmony of nature."
Well if we all followed that "sense" then the world would not be able to support a tenth of the people it does now. Would you volunteer to be one of the 90%+ who starve to death to let a 'privileged' few live in 'harmony' with nature? Would you want to be one of the privileged few with no internet, no medical and at the mercy of the animals, diseases and elements?
Vishal wrote: But don't you think to accept scientific theory as for development we should to care also for others?"
Why do you think the two are seperate. Do you think it's unreasonable to help others. Science is based on reason. I think it is eminently logical to help others as I would like them to help me. It is scientifically provable that a compassionate, mutually supportive and co-operative society fares better than others so why do you need mysticism, magic or gods instead of reason?
Vishal wrote: What we are providing them? The rain forest Amazon has lost 20 percent and where that benefit of this resource is going? To us in the form of so called scientific development."
Wrong. Most of it goes to ancient practices like cattle farming, logging, settlement and other activities. This is not scientific development.
Vishal wrote: Advanced war system, new chemical weapons, new form of diseases, so much air pollution, shrinking capabilities of soil, lessening rivers, melting glaciers, reducing sea level. We are only generating comfortably but we are also somewhat destroying the natural balance."
You seem to have ignored a lot of what I said previously... again. Yes science can make weapons, but science is also the only reason that there can be so many people alive on Earth, who live so long.
You can go back to the 'natural balance' but that would mean going back to a population size that would also be 'natural'. I thought you had compassion for people, not wanting most of them dead so we could be in balance with the natural world.
Vishal wrote: You have used this sentence once 'nature works in imbalance' and I seem impressed because to make this imbalance balanced nature try to balance itself. But what I didn't get was that were you talking about the imbalance causing by human? Were you saying that excess mining of natural resources is needed for the nature because then it works? Or you theory of imbalance was something other? Please define."
You were talking about imbalance, as if that the natural systems of the Earth were set up in careful balance to each other. That isn't true. Equilibriums exist, but equilibriums can be transient and shift to new equilibriums based on the dynamics of the system.
If we apply pressure to a system it will become imbalanced but eventually it will shift to a new equilibrium, but not necessarily one we will be happy about.
You mention climate change, soil erosion, mining etc. as if they are the penalties of continued scientific progress, but climate change dates back to the industrial revolution, soil erosion and mining date back to the iron age. In fact scientific progress has a chance to actually undo a lot of this harm. London and LA have less air pollution today than they had fifty years ago. Climate change can be addressed by new energy generation and transmission forms. Mining can be reduced by increased recycling. Soil erosion can be combated with scientifically tested techniques and even by the engineering of soil biogenics or GM crops that bind soil instead of traditional crops that disrupt it.
Again science has saved more lives than it has killed, and when it has killed it has usually been politics, ideology, greed or religion that has motivated the killing.
Victoria wrote: "Gary now Im maybe 100% Democrat. I wouldnt have a abortion myself but I dont have a right to force my morality on another woman...I never had a abortion but have no right to force it upon another."
Absolutely. It should be a personal choice of the woman, based on sound medical advice.
I can completely understand why you would never choose to have one yourself, but if a woman knows that the pregnancy is likely to result in her death and that of the child, or if the child is the offspring of her rapist, I can understand why that woman would.
Travis wrote: "Don't know if I'd compare religion to the KKK more to a kids blanket or imaginary friend.It's great when they are young and helps them deal with stuff, but if your kid is college age and still believes in Mr. Winky the talking rabbit or whatever, then there's some call to be concerned. "
An ideology of the intellectual moral superiority of your own group over others seems to be at the core of the religious experience, along with the pitying, denigration, or outright demonisation of those outside the group. There is little difference between the belief that having white skin makes one superior, compared to believing that faith in religion makes you redeemed (and therefore superior to the unredeemed).
Gary wrote: "Vishal wrote: "I am sure whether the inward or outward you have got exactly what I wanted to say. The reason is I just given an example that shows both is needed."
To me "inside" and "outside" are..."
Thanks Gary. That was really helpful.
To me "inside" and "outside" are..."
Thanks Gary. That was really helpful.
The KKK, in all its incarnations and in its entirety, is an extremist group. All KKK chapters are extremist. All KKK members are extremists.
Not all religions are extremist; not all believers are extremists.
Therein lies the difference.
Not all religions are extremist; not all believers are extremists.
Therein lies the difference.
Shannon wrote: "The KKK, in all its incarnations and in its entirety, is an extremist group. All KKK chapters are extremist. All KKK members are extremists.Not all religions are extremist; not all believers ar..."
Two things:
I knew Gary using the KKK would derail the conversation from his original point about belief.
and point B: oh good, we've now added extremism to the conversation.
I'm betting we go off the rails like a train crash in a 40's cliffhanger serial.
Travis wrote: "Two things:
I knew Gary using the KKK would derail the conversation from his original point about belief.
and point B: oh good, we've now added extremism to the conversation.
I'm betting we go off the rails like a train crash in a 40's cliffhanger serial. "
Was I incorrect when I said all KKK groups are extremist and all KKK members are extremists?
Was I incorrect when I said not all religions are extremist and not all believers are extremists?
Were my statements inaccurate? Were they exaggerations?
Or, were they statements of fact that are actually quite accurate?
I knew Gary using the KKK would derail the conversation from his original point about belief.
and point B: oh good, we've now added extremism to the conversation.
I'm betting we go off the rails like a train crash in a 40's cliffhanger serial. "
Was I incorrect when I said all KKK groups are extremist and all KKK members are extremists?
Was I incorrect when I said not all religions are extremist and not all believers are extremists?
Were my statements inaccurate? Were they exaggerations?
Or, were they statements of fact that are actually quite accurate?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Two things: I knew Gary using the KKK would derail the conversation from his original point about belief.
and point B: oh good, we've now added extremism to the conversation.
I'm ..."
The KKK is second only to nazis for their ability to cause a conversational digression.
I had no intention of defending the KKK, but am rather commenting on how they are a touchstone for derailing a conversation, which is where my original comment to Gary came from.
and I'm an atheist, so yeah, all believers seem pretty extreme to me.
a large group of people making important real world decisions and life and death choices based on what they've been told by imaginary beings and creatures.
These people vote, have children and will even decide who should live and die based on their imaginary friends.
That qualifies as extreme.
Plus, not a huge fan of broad generalizations. They tend to be inaccurate exaggerations and do nothing but bury interesting ideas and sidetracking a conversation.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
And the star wars quote that comes to mind for me is:
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. "