akshayxyz Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Also, for those interested, here is some random reading stuff. a) Short stories - "The Last Answer", "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov b) Concept of "Technological Singularity" c) Read about concept of "The World Organism" and then think about applying the analogy to arrive at the possibility of every single cell that constitutes our bodies, might be "conscious" - but there seems to be no connection between consciousness of body and consciousness of the cell ( none of them is aware of existence of other).
akshayxyz Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 well for me to stop believing in sachin tendulkar, he would have to retire jokes aside, i would need to see some solid evidence for some of the hilarious bullshit that is written in books like quarran, the bible and other religious texts. why not? there are ppl on this forum that very confidently claim that real 'scientific' evidence exists for the mahabharat, in the form of elevated radiation levels, carbon dated nuclear weapons, etc. i am sure these ppl could point u in the right direction at least for the qurran, from whatever I read - it was just an ensemble of "guidelines/ideology" and some rudimentary biology / science known to the man at that time... and that "science" element is what quran supporters take as solid evidence of "word of god" told before science actually discovered it. Bible - well, again from what I read from other's reviews with re-re-re..verified citations - if one still believes in biblical god after reading the book - then he deserves no better god/world than this.
Sooda Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 ^^ but it was given to you' date=' like all of us. As a kid, we are told what to believe but as you grew up did you follow the same line or ever asked yourself more questons[/quote'] I did ask myself more questions, I think everyone does naturally. I remain convinced
Sooda Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Communism, Marxism - all are ideologies. Egoic entities. When we identify and label ourselves as anything, it is the ego in us that is speaking. So, what would it take? Simple. Death. Death of an idea. This is why it is so very difficult for people to accept they are wrong. It is Death. Death of the rigid beliefs that one held. The essence of ideology itself is this. A vociferous loyalty to an idea. Closed to any other alternative interpretations of reality. However, i sense there is a deeper question behind the OP's original question. Which is what my earlier post here was trying to get at. In the end, an Open Mind and an Open Heart will give us the answers that we seek. Indeed.
Sachinism Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Yes, nothing can happen to change my belief. This is because if there is no God, you can't prove something that is not there, so I will never have that proof so to speak. I can only go by what I feel within and I don't feel death is the end. A lot of my mates are physicists and physicians and some of them still believe in God. The more I dwell on space and how life began on Earth in this unique atmosphere, I am convinced there is a higher power.
akshayxyz Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 Man... I came here to post this.. you lurking on reddit too :)
Sachinism Posted December 30, 2011 Posted December 30, 2011 There are two worlds - One lives in faith and one lives in fighting it. The first one is happier. That's your perception. I say it protects against fear and builds confidence. Oh irony :)
urbestfriend Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Communism, Marxism - all are ideologies. Egoic entities. When we identify and label ourselves as anything, it is the ego in us that is speaking. So, what would it take? Simple. Death. Death of an idea. This is why it is so very difficult for people to accept they are wrong. It is Death. Death of the rigid beliefs that one held. The essence of ideology itself is this. A vociferous loyalty to an idea. Closed to any other alternative interpretations of reality. However, i sense there is a deeper question behind the OP's original question. Which is what my earlier post here was trying to get at. In the end, an Open Mind and an Open Heart will give us the answers that we seek. Top post :hatsoff:
Jersey #10 Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 You mean story telling Not exactly what I meant. There is no doubt in my mind about the occurrence of the Ramayana and Mahabharata. The discription of the events are exaggerated by the poets or writers of that era. Later these events were literally translated in many languages. To make things worse, the idiots who made the TV shows on these scripts literally showed Hanuman picking up a mountain. I will give you an example. The other day my mom asked me to buy vegetable oil on my way home from work. I didn't know how much to get and my phone had died. I got a 20 liters jug of oil (my mom usually gets these when on deal from Sam's Club). She laughed when I got home. - True story When they say, Hanuman picked up a mountain, he literally didn't pick up a whole mountain but just got more of the herbs than needed. It also conveys the physical strength of Hanuman. You know what I mean' date=' Laxman Rekha. 14 years in the jungle[/quote'] ^ what makes you think that these notions can not happen in real life?
flamy Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Quick query for "consciousness/atma" theorists: Starting from a single cell zygote, exactly at what point does Atma/Spirit/Consciousness enters the "physical" body... IMO - either one should be able to point at what point it enters - backed up by evidence ( some sort of test for whether a biological entity is conscious or not) - OR - should accept the fact that consciousness is something which grows/evolves with the biological development, and dies with biological death. You are asking for physical evidence of a non-physical entity. So, until you have the evidence you are looking for, you are right and I am wrong :)
triam Posted December 31, 2011 Author Posted December 31, 2011 For some reason I have always thought God is related in a big way to concept of death. If we were all individuals only the concept of God would not be as important. However we are a social creature. Parents, lovers, spouses, kids, friends. The thought that we all have an expiry date and when we lose our loved ones they are simply gone forever is a pretty damn scary thought. This is where religion provides comfort to a Dad who has lost his young child, or a wife who has lost her husband..or just some punch drunk lover. They (we) find comfort in the thought that some day it would be okay. Now if there is no afterlife, and once somebody dies they simply vanish in a black hole forever, that would make me a complete athiest...and perhaps most people. What good is a religion, any religion, if there is no afterlife? Yes, Lurker one of the main reasons for god is death, and I do agree that religion gives solace to people who lose their loved ones. But if I may ask why do you believe there is something after death? The reason is believe me if I can believe in god and/or religion would make life much easier during tough times. There are two worlds - One lives in faith and one lives in fighting it. The first one is happier. that is your opinion, my opinion one lives in reality and one in fantasy. rett - I have read gita, i have read most religious holy books (it was not easy for me to become an atheist, I come from an extremely conservative and religious background). Of all the religions I read about buddhism is one I can follow if I feel I need a religion. Flamy needs a separate reply :) One observation that I can make is that most non believers or atheists state their exit criteria, that if something happens they will believe, where as all believers have stated they will not, that is there is no exit criteria. Why is that so?
triam Posted December 31, 2011 Author Posted December 31, 2011 Flamy your first post, I understand the majority of it, but just a few clarifications, what you are saying is very similar to humanitarism, is that right if not can you explain the differences btw humanitarism and what you stated? I have no truck with humanitarism.
triam Posted December 31, 2011 Author Posted December 31, 2011 Akshay and others who are interested read about the clergy project and about Dan Dennett
chaiwala Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Communism, Marxism - all are ideologies. Egoic entities. When we identify and label ourselves as anything, it is the ego in us that is speaking. So, what would it take? Simple. Death. Death of an idea. This is why it is so very difficult for people to accept they are wrong. It is Death. Death of the rigid beliefs that one held. The essence of ideology itself is this. A vociferous loyalty to an idea. Closed to any other alternative interpretations of reality. However, i sense there is a deeper question behind the OP's original question. Which is what my earlier post here was trying to get at. In the end, an Open Mind and an Open Heart will give us the answers that we seek. I know this was not the point you were attempting to make, but can you explain how atheism is an ideology?
flamy Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 I know this was not the point you were attempting to make' date=' but can you explain how atheism is an ideology?[/quote'] Check the OP. Atheism is presented as an ideology. The idea/belief that there is no God. And this is what my idea of Atheism has been.
chaiwala Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Check the OP. Atheism is presented as an ideology. The idea/belief that there is no God. And this is what my idea of Atheism has been. Fair enough. Although, I doubt many atheists would positively claim that there is no God. Rather, they may simply lack a belief in Him. It is a subtle, but important difference.
flamy Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Fair enough. Although' date=' I doubt many atheists would not positively claim that there is no God. Rather, they may simply lack a belief in Him. It is a subtle, but important difference.[/quote'] Thanks. That may have been the original denotation, but you can obviously see how it has mutated into the connotations that we see now.
akshayxyz Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Check the OP. Atheism is presented as an ideology. The idea/belief that there is no God. And this is what my idea of Atheism has been. That is wrong - the correct definition of Atheism is - not going by any belief based system at all, and going by observation, scientific evidence.
flamy Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 That is wrong - the correct definition of Atheism is - not going by any belief based system at all' date=' and going by observation, scientific evidence.[/quote'] I sit corrected.
Recommended Posts