Guest Gunner Posted June 20, 2009 Posted June 20, 2009 Irrelevant. The Bolsheviks persecuted Muslims and Christians alike with almost a maniacal fervor, they DID impose their writ on the population suppressing religion and upholding atheism as a state policy with enormous success. I am yet to come across an atheist group which goes around killing people, trying to impose their will on others, and destroying other people's sacrosanct places. You have now. The Chinese have managed that too since the cultural revolution.
The Outsider Posted June 20, 2009 Posted June 20, 2009 Irrelevant. The Bolsheviks persecuted Muslims and Christians alike with almost a maniacal fervor, they DID impose their writ on the population suppressing religion and upholding atheism as a state policy with enormous success. I am yet to come across an atheist group which goes around killing people, trying to impose their will on others, and destroying other people's sacrosanct places. You have now. Your understanding of theology and sociology is turning out to be as shallow as Newton's third law and the origin of the universe. Keep counsel.
Macj Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Your understanding of theology and sociology is turning out to be as shallow as Newton's third law and the origin of the universe. Keep counsel. Communists ARE an atheist group that went around killing people trying to impose .................. What are you finding hard to understand? You made the claim, I just showed you the example.
THX_1138 Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 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. True Frack no... absolutely FALSE
THX_1138 Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 The Chinese have managed that too since the cultural revolution. and their motivation has been to control the population, not to impose their personal view of theism on their victims.
THX_1138 Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Communists ARE an atheist group that went around killing people trying to impose .................. What are you finding hard to understand? You made the claim, I just showed you the example. and incorrect example mate. move along now.
THX_1138 Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Your understanding of theology and sociology is turning out to be as shallow as Newton's third law and the origin of the universe. Keep counsel. tossing and tumbling with a tosser wont be very productive. you are enlightened, he well, is deluded. save your breath, enjoy a cold one (you know he wont!).
The Outsider Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Communists ARE an atheist group that went around killing people trying to impose .................. What are you finding hard to understand? You made the claim, I just showed you the example. Naxalite demographic is predominantly Hindu- do they kill and terrorize with religion as their basis? Would you call it Hindu terrorism?
nikred Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Naxalite demographic is predominantly Hindu- do they kill and terrorize with religion as their basis? Would you call it Hindu terrorism? I knew there was something seriously flawed with his logic. :haha:
Guest Gunner Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 and their motivation has been to control the population' date=' not to impose their personal view of theism on their victims.[/quote'] Fair enough, agreed.
Macj Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Naxalite demographic is predominantly Hindu- do they kill and terrorize with religion as their basis? Would you call it Hindu terrorism? Of course religion was used to suppress and terrorize people, I am not the who made the claim that atheist groups didnt. The Naxalites though being Hindu, unlike the Bolsheviks (who were born Christian) or the Red Chinese (who were born Buddhist) who killed anyone for just worshiping did not thrust Hinduism down everyone's throat. You are confusing these groups' ideologies. In India Naxalites are drawn from some very educated classes who are sick of corruption and want social reform and justice, religion is a back burner to them.
Macj Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Furthermore , even religious groups that did suppress people did so under the auspices of a political or social organization. e.g. the oft used Crusader example, they were sanctioned by the Pope but under the auspices of various Christian governments. No one expects an atheist to act on his own but as a group representing various political entities they have suppressed people. You cant say religious people have tortured and suppressed people without saying they did so under the blessings of a government or political group same goes with atheist groups.
triam Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 But the truth of the matter is some people's word is worth more than others. No it does not, and even Newton or Einstien will not agree with that statement. Einstien wasnt even a theist he claims himself to be an agnostic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics , and Newton was espousing something which was not his field of expertise and echoing popular sentiment of that time. So if Sunil Gavaskar says something smart and witty about economic policies, you probably would consider that as gospel. Of course religion was used to suppress and terrorize people, I am not the who made the claim that atheist groups didnt. The Naxalites though being Hindu, unlike the Bolsheviks (who were born Christian) or the Red Chinese (who were born Buddhist) who killed anyone for just worshiping did not thrust Hinduism down everyone's throat. You are confusing these groups' ideologies. In India Naxalites are drawn from some very educated classes who are sick of corruption and want social reform and justice, religion is a back burner to them. after repeated attempts by number of people you still have trouble comprehending what others say. The goal of religious terrorists over the course of history was to SPREAD religion and eliminate OPPOSING religions. The goals of Bolsheviks or the Red Chinese or the Naxals was not to SPREAD atheism.
Macj Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 No it does not' date=' and even Newton or Einstien will not agree with that statement. Einstien wasnt even a theist he claims himself to be an agnostic [url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics , and Newton was espousing something which was not his field of expertise and echoing popular sentiment of that time. So if Sunil Gavaskar says something smart and witty about economic policies, you probably would consider that as gospel. If Gavaskar says something about cricket ill listen. Likewise Newton and Einstein were scientists who believed in God , so id pay heed to their reasoning.
triam Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 If Gavaskar says something about cricket ill listen. Likewise Newton and Einstein were scientists who believed in God , so id pay heed to their reasoning. Einstien did not believe in God, he claimed himself as an agnostic. And either ways, their field of study was not whether God existed or not, it was classic physics and particle physics respectively.
The Outsider Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Of course religion was used to suppress and terrorize people, I am not the who made the claim that atheist groups didnt. The Naxalites though being Hindu, unlike the Bolsheviks (who were born Christian) or the Red Chinese (who were born Buddhist) who killed anyone for just worshiping did not thrust Hinduism down everyone's throat. You are confusing these groups' ideologies. In India Naxalites are drawn from some very educated classes who are sick of corruption and want social reform and justice, religion is a back burner to them. Read triam's post and explanation above. Looks like you are the only one in the thread not being able to distinguish between theology and sociology. The aim of communists was and has not been to spread atheism but communism. Einstein and Newton's expertise was not in the existence of God. Even if it were they became great scientists not because of the "They said so" reason. They became great scientists because they were able to convey their thoughts and science in a logical and scientific manner which was tested out experimentally and found to be true. Neither Newton nor Einstein offered any experiments or testable predictions to prove the existence of God in a logical and scientific way. As a slight aside, Newton most likely proferred to be a believer because if he had not it was unlikely that the church would have allowed him to publish as freely as he did.
graphic23 Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 For me, Spirituality and Science can be mutually exclusive things. I don't need religion/god/my faith, etc. to explain the physical world around me. Physics (or Science in general) does a damn good job of it. Similarly, I don't need Science to induce spirituality in me. My faith/belief in God/etc. does a good job of it. If either can explain the other, thats well and good. But I don't really care. Very often, people bring up the justification of their religion through science (and less often, vice-versa) - which, afaiac, is wrong, and is unnecessary. I won't say I am at peace with it as I still have a lot of questions, but the people under whose guidance I follow my religion welcome these questions, and I'm happy for that. And as Domaink said earlier, spirituality and religion are not the same, and I couldn't care less for religion.
THX_1138 Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 If Gavaskar says something about cricket ill listen. Likewise Newton and Einstein were scientists who believed in God , so id pay heed to their reasoning. Actually this demonstrates exactly why you are completely in the dark about some blatantly obvious facts. In the scientific community, there are no sacred cows. there is no particularly revered individual who is believed or touted to be correct on all occasions. Newton was fervently religious for a multitude of reasons, and one of them was his inability to explain/solve the multi-body problem that had presented itself in the form of planets revolving around the sun. he solved the two body problem, invented calculus in the process, solved the three body problem, but thereafter he crumbled. faced with a problem that required signficant computational power, the greatest genius ever surrendered. but that does not remove from him one single feather in his cap. Sir Isaac Newton was probably the greatest mind the world has ever seen, right up there amongst the ranks of Hilbert, Fermat, Tesla etc etc. however, does that mean everything he said is set in stone? quite unlikely. his theory of mechanics has been found to be inaccurate, or rather i must say, incomplete. nonetheless, it explains the movement of bodies at low speeds and is able to predict with remarkable accuracy, similar movements. thus, the theory is acceptable and taught to all high school kids. however, a physics freshman would tell you that without incorporating relativity, newton's theories are incomplete. thus, newton was indeed inaccurate, but you wont find a legion of physicists enraged at the ignominy heaped upon their lord and savior: newton, demanding that the heretic, einstein, retract his statements about relativity! similarly, Einstein, who was demonstrably a raging atheist (and you have yet to demonstrate one shred of evidence to the contrary), was grotesquely incorrect in his rejection of heisenberg's quantum theory: that particles are indeed described by wave functions that determined their probability distributions. einstein famously quipped, "god does not play dice!"... did he intend to suggest that he believed in god? not as much as hawkins, another noted atheist, invoked divinity when he concluded his best seller: a brief history of time with the line "... and then truely we would understand the face of god". in summary, while newton was an ardent christian, einstein was a militant atheist. and yet, the individual theisms of either individuals do not lend any credibility to question of "whether there exists a god" the answer to that querry is answered from rational observation and deduction: is there a witness of god's existence? failing that, is there evidence of god's existence? failing that, is there a credible reason to hypothesize that god might exist? and finally failing that, you may, safely albeit temporarily (till new evidence arrives to suggest to the contrary) conclude that there is no god, never was, and you may now put down that silly little book that is nothing but good literature and go enjoy a cold one.
Macj Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 the answer to that querry is answered from rational observation and deduction: is there a witness of god's existence? failing that, is there evidence of god's existence? failing that, is there a credible reason to hypothesize that god might exist? and finally failing that, you may, safely albeit temporarily (till new evidence arrives to suggest to the contrary) conclude that there is no god, never was, and you may now put down that silly little book that is nothing but good literature and go enjoy a cold one. Yes you, the world we live in, the Universe , the stars and Galaxy all of which just didnt come to be , something or someone created them and started Time. Can you tell me briefly how you would explain how Time started, what was before it, in other words the starting point?
Recommended Posts