dial_100 Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 After all not everyone can fly airplanes...And I have no desire to learn how to.
The Outsider Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 Then lets remove these Laws from Physics books' date=' our modern day lives are not governed by 'Classical Physics' either.[/quote'] Who says our modern lives are not governed by Classical Physics? Most things we encounter in our lives are well within the realms of Classical Physics. You don't see your car transforming into a wave do you?
The Outsider Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 After all not everyone can fly airplanes...And I have no desire to learn how to. That doesn't mean you have to believe airplanes are flown by God, does it?
pan_walla Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 God exists! How else could you explain the humungous log I laid in the toilet this morning? It was a miracle :haha::--D
dial_100 Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 That doesn't mean you have to believe airplanes are flown by God' date=' does it?[/quote'] No..and btw why would I think that God needs to fly planes..
maggot_brain Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 No..and btw why would I think that God needs to fly planes.. Subtle references to Star Trek V are unwelcome!
The Outsider Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 No..and btw why would I think that God needs to fly planes.. I think I might have misinterpreted your earlier comment.
Ram Posted June 19, 2009 Author Posted June 19, 2009 One of the biggest points that Dawkins keeps harboring in his interviews (and I am sure in his book too) is how religion has grown to be an aspect of life that is above questioning. Somehow, it is perfectly acceptable in our society for someone to harshly critique my economic or social ideology, but religion generally gets treated with kid gloves. Another thing Dawkins alluded to was how religion gets imposed upon people at a young age. When a kid is 4 or 5, no one looks at him/her and says ‘That’s a liberal child’ or ‘That’s a conservative child’ etc. But why does religion alone get attached to a child by default? Personally, I believe in the presence of a super-natural power (until proven otherwise), but I think its incredibly dumb to give that power names/forms/religious texts etc. As Domaink put it, I think the world needs a dose of spirituality, but less of organized religion. I was brought up in a very traditional, religious setting and I feel that upbringing shackled my thinking and restricted my world view till very recently. I felt as though my life was being controlled by a super-natural being (say in this Lord Rama or Shiva etc..) and I felt at the mercy of his actions. Now that I no longer subscribe to those names and forms, I feel liberated and at ease with myself. Many people say you need religion as some sort of crutch that supports you through moments of hopelessness. My experience has been the exact opposite. I can now accept reality much better, much easier, without getting too philosophical about it. I don’t brood over failure or disappointments like before and just get on with it. I do not know when or how this transition happened, but it’s a change I certainly welcome.
pan_walla Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 One of the biggest points that Dawkins keeps harboring in his interviews (and I am sure in his book too) is how religion has grown to be an aspect of life that is above questioning. Somehow, it is perfectly acceptable in our society for someone to harshly critique my economic or social ideology, but religion generally gets treated with kid gloves. Another thing Dawkins alluded to was how religion gets imposed upon people at a young age. When a kid is 4 or 5, no one looks at him/her and says ‘That’s a liberal child’ or ‘That’s a conservative child’ etc. But why does religion alone get attached to a child by default? He is completely right. Wise man Dawkins.
triam Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 One of the biggest points that Dawkins keeps harboring in his interviews (and I am sure in his book too) is how religion has grown to be an aspect of life that is above questioning. Somehow, it is perfectly acceptable in our society for someone to harshly critique my economic or social ideology, but religion generally gets treated with kid gloves. Another thing Dawkins alluded to was how religion gets imposed upon people at a young age. When a kid is 4 or 5, no one looks at him/her and says ‘That’s a liberal child’ or ‘That’s a conservative child’ etc. But why does religion alone get attached to a child by default? Personally, I believe in the presence of a super-natural power (until proven otherwise), but I think its incredibly dumb to give that power names/forms/religious texts etc. As Domaink put it, I think the world needs a dose of spirituality, but less of organized religion. I was brought up in a very traditional, religious setting and I feel that upbringing shackled my thinking and restricted my world view till very recently. I felt as though my life was being controlled by a super-natural being (say in this Lord Rama or Shiva etc..) and I felt at the mercy of his actions. Now that I no longer subscribe to those names and forms, I feel liberated and at ease with myself. Many people say you need religion as some sort of crutch that supports you through moments of hopelessness. My experience has been the exact opposite. I can now accept reality much better, much easier, without getting too philosophical about it. I don’t brood over failure or disappointments like before and just get on with it. I do not know when or how this transition happened, but it’s a change I certainly welcome. Most of the humanity follow a religion because they are born into it and brought up to believe in that stuff, I have a tangential question. What about nationalism?? It is very similar to religion, you are nationalistic to a country because you are born and brought up there, as much as I hate religious jingoism, I hate nationalistic jingoism, so how many people agree with that and if you dont why?
nikred Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 Most of the humanity follow a religion because they are born into it and brought up to believe in that stuff' date=' I have a tangential question. What about nationalism?? It is very similar to religion, you are nationalistic to a country because you are born and brought up there, as much as I hate religious jingoism, I hate nationalistic jingoism, so how many people agree with that and if you dont why?[/quote'] Doesn't nationalistic and jingoistic mean the same? Any kind of extreme is not good whether its religionism or patriotism.
Ram Posted June 19, 2009 Author Posted June 19, 2009 Most of the humanity follow a religion because they are born into it and brought up to believe in that stuff. I agree. I think that, our brain is wired up in certain ways to seek solace from the constant stream of hopelessness, fear and insecurity that floods our mind all the time . And if religion is vehicle for you to overcome those fears – even if it means by sheer force of overwhelming your mind with flawed religious ideology and teachings – that works perfectly fine for humans. I have a tangential question. What about nationalism?? It is very similar to religion, you are nationalistic to a country because you are born and brought up there, as much as I hate religious jingoism, I hate nationalistic jingoism, so how many people agree with that and if you dont why? That’s perfectly accurate analogy. Just like how you’re given the option of switching your social/economic/political/religious ideologies, you should also be free to switch your national identity. Not to say that it does not happen currently (many people switch nationalities all the time), but in general, the society finds it easier to digest a left-wing liberal transforming into a right-wing conservative, than it does, seeing an Indian national become a Pakistani national. I think that is dumb. You don’t become a patriotic Indian just because you were born there, just like how you don’t have to be a committed Christian because you were born into that religion. Of course, most of these jingoistic tendencies are promoted for selfish political and economic reasons, mainly by politicians and media. In general, I feel that if people are left to their own devices, without all that propaganda of the media and political parties, we would be a much more inclusive society than we’re today because I think, fundamentally, all of us understand the respect and value of a human life, irrespective of whether that human is Jewish, Muslim, tall, short, dark, brown, male, female, transexual, gay, homosexual etc..
pan_walla Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 I agree nationalism just like religion is waste of time.
Ram Posted June 19, 2009 Author Posted June 19, 2009 But there’s also no doubt that religion/belief in God can a moderating influence, a common cause that can be used to rally groups of people together. But that still does not mean God has to be true. On the flip-side, religion/God can also be a very polarizing/divisive force that can tear people apart and unfortunately, that is what I think is happening right now.
Brainfade Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 I agree. I think that, our brain is wired up in certain ways to seek solace from the constant stream of hopelessness, fear and insecurity that floods our mind all the time . And if religion is vehicle for you to overcome those fears – even if it means by sheer force of overwhelming your mind with flawed religious ideology and teachings – that works perfectly fine for humans. Check this out: Neuroscientists may have discovered a "God-spot" http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain&page=4 The article is 6-pages long - too long to copy/paste, but here is an excerpt. Fascinating stuff: Spiritual neuroscience studies also face the profound challenge of language. No two mystics describe their experiences in the same way, and it is difficult to distinguish among the various types of mystical experiences, be they spiritual or traditionally religious. To add to the ambiguity, such feelings could also encompass awe of the universe or of nature. “If you are an atheist and you live a certain kind of experience, you will relate it to the magnificence of the universe. If you are a Christian, you will associate it with God. Who knows? Perhaps they are the same,†Beauregard muses.
cowboysfan Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 you can watch a lot of dawkins documentaries on youtube-fascinating stuff.
Macj Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 As all regions below are replenished with living creatures, (not only the Earth with Beasts, and Sea with Fishes and the air with Fowls and Insects, but also standing waters, vineger, the bodies and blood of Animals and other juices with innumerable living creatures too small to be seen without the help of magnifying glasses) so may the heavens above be replenished with beings whose nature we do not understand. He that shall well consider the strange and wonderful nature of life and the frame of Animals, will think nothing beyond the possibility of nature, nothing too hard for the omnipotent power of God. And as the Planets remain in their orbs, so may any other bodies subsist at any distance from the earth, and much more may beings, who have a sufficient power of self motion, move whether they will, place themselves where they will, and continue in any regions of the heavens whatever, there to enjoy the society of one another, and by their messengers or Angels to rule the earth and convers with the remotest regions. Thus may the whole heavens or any part thereof whatever be the habitation of the Blessed, and at the same time the earth be subject to their dominion. And to have thus the liberty and dominion of the whole heavens and the choice of the happiest places for abode seems a greater happiness then to be confined to any one place whatever. -- Isaac Newton
triam Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 As all regions below are replenished with living creatures, (not only the Earth with Beasts, and Sea with Fishes and the air with Fowls and Insects, but also standing waters, vineger, the bodies and blood of Animals and other juices with innumerable living creatures too small to be seen without the help of magnifying glasses) so may the heavens above be replenished with beings whose nature we do not understand. He that shall well consider the strange and wonderful nature of life and the frame of Animals, will think nothing beyond the possibility of nature, nothing too hard for the omnipotent power of God. And as the Planets remain in their orbs, so may any other bodies subsist at any distance from the earth, and much more may beings, who have a sufficient power of self motion, move whether they will, place themselves where they will, and continue in any regions of the heavens whatever, there to enjoy the society of one another, and by their messengers or Angels to rule the earth and convers with the remotest regions. Thus may the whole heavens or any part thereof whatever be the habitation of the Blessed, and at the same time the earth be subject to their dominion. And to have thus the liberty and dominion of the whole heavens and the choice of the happiest places for abode seems a greater happiness then to be confined to any one place whatever. -- Isaac Newton And that proves what?
pan_walla Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 And that proves what? It proves that Macj knows how to cut and paste. It also proves that he has no idea that there are countless anti-God quotes which make more sense than the quote he posted :giggle:
Macj Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 And that proves what? Isaac Newton believed in God. Albert Einstein believed in God. Both men were infinitely smarter than you, come out with your quote of reason and see if anyone gives a damn.
Recommended Posts