Detonator Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 religion may mean different things to different folks but what religion boils down to, is this: To be religious, of any religion, you *must* accept that certain stories pertaining to the said religion must be 100% true and there can be no ambiguity or error in its recording or interpretation. Ie, religion and religious mentality essentially boils down to choosing belief over facts, choosing rote memory over critical thinking. If there is a God- and that is a big If- he/she/it/they gave us a brain to use. I am sorry but there isnt a single religion on this planet that stands up to any critical thinking. Christianity is BS, Islam is BS, Hinduism is BS, Judaism is BS, 99% of religious thinking is BS. Logic and critical thinking dictates this. And this is no big revelation, there are philosophers from over two thousand years ago who've come to the same conclusion: that religion is dishonest & BS. A critical thinker will not post like this..... u have all rights to not to believe in religion but u ve no rights to say religion is BS.. may be the people who promote it and using it for minting money r BS..
Desi Cartman Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 A critical thinker will not post like this..... u have all rights to not to believe in religion but u ve no rights to say religion is BS.. may be the people who promote it and using it for minting money r BS.. With all due to respect no one has actually proven that religion is true. Considering there are many religions, even if one of them is true, chances are that majority of religious people are also screwed anyway because they picked the wrong religion
beetle Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 With all due to respect no one has actually proven that religion is true. Considering there are many religions' date=' even if one of them is true, chances are that majority of religious people are also screwed anyway because they picked the wrong religion[/quote'] +1
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 A critical thinker will not post like this..... Err why not ? A critical thinker looks at what is common to every religion : a special book and a special guy or two which are inviolable. The idea of inviolability does not rest on absolute empirical position or unexplainable but observable phenomena that can be attributed to a God or miracle. The authority of religion is circular logic, aka logic fail: the book is accurate because it says so. And since the book is accurate and it says that God's will to mankind is XYZ , therefore God's will must also be true. Therefore, its claim of authority, is simple 'tooting one's own horn' and not established. u have all rights to not to believe in religion but u ve no rights to say religion is BS.. may be the people who promote it and using it for minting money r BS.. The idea that a God exists but his proof of existance is contained in a manmade book that does not meet definition of perfection, therefore cannot vouch for a perfect source, is by its very definition, BS. What I can say though, is that the idea of God may not be BS. But certainly- everything that is peddled as a religion on this planet that we have recorded knowledge of, fails the test of empiricism and therefore, is BS.
Detonator Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 With all due to respect no one has actually proven that religion is true. Considering there are many religions' date=' even if one of them is true, chances are that majority of religious people are also screwed anyway because they picked the wrong religion[/quote'] I don't believe in any religion either. :giggle: what I respect is our mythologies and the characters in them.. the ppl who wrote them wanted us to move on but unfortunately we didn't .. its way more complex..
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 You got exactly what I meant to say :hatsoff: Bhai, i am a dimwit. That is why i chose to live in -50 underground caves for four months a year as my career. I still have 25+ years to go. The line of mine that you quoted, is not my brainchild, it is Neitzche that posited this as a way to demonstrate the logic fail and foolishness in the idea of an infinitely powerful God. I am just his chela repeating his wisdom.
Desi Cartman Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 I don't believe in any religion either. :giggle: what I respect is our mythologies and the characters in them.. the ppl who wrote them wanted us to move on but unfortunately we didn't .. its way more complex.. Move on from what ? Banvas, sari haran, disowning wife etc ?
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 I don't believe in any religion either. :giggle: what I respect is our mythologies and the characters in them.. the ppl who wrote them wanted us to move on but unfortunately we didn't .. its way more complex.. I like our mythologies too. But my character likes & dislikes are atypical to conventional Indian thinking. Take Ramayana for example. Best/most likeable guy : Vali. Rama ? Pretends to be good but not averse to screwing over the good guy to further his agenda : example of screwing over Vali, screwing over Sita with the angi-test. Mahabharata ? favourite guys: Karna, Ashwatthama, Nakula,Krishna, Sahadeva, Ghatotkacha. Ashwatthama is particularly likeable: totally normal guy with powerful daddy, who was 'made better' by daddy's tapasya (his jewels i suppose) and all he wanted was daddy's love, which went to Arjun instead. pretty understandable. Then when daddy died due to 'cheating', he decieded to ***** the rules and cheat to kill the Pandavas. again, pretty understandable. Totally not likeable: Bhisma, Yudhistira, Arjuna, Drona, Draupadi. A-class a-holes, all of them. Just my opinion.
Detonator Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Err why not ? A critical thinker looks at what is common to every religion : a special book and a special guy or two which are inviolable. The idea of inviolability does not rest on absolute empirical position or unexplainable but observable phenomena that can be attributed to a God or miracle. The authority of religion is circular logic, aka logic fail: the book is accurate because it says so. And since the book is accurate and it says that God's will to mankind is XYZ , therefore God's will must also be true. Therefore, its claim of authority, is simple 'tooting one's own horn' and not established. The idea that a God exists but his proof of existance is contained in a manmade book that does not meet definition of perfection, therefore cannot vouch for a perfect source, is by its very definition, BS. What I can say though, is that the idea of God may not be BS. But certainly- everything that is peddled as a religion on this planet that we have recorded knowledge of, fails the test of empiricism and therefore, is BS. Agree with you for most of the post.. the books are very old novels nd there is a lot of good things with them, so they deserve respect.. those idea of religion is not perfect but its wrongly interpretated.. its like, I don't go to a temple to pray, instead I like the magnificent architecture nd their sheer hard work forbuilding them i still doubt ur critical thinking as ur post suspiciously similar to a documentary.. internet reading will not enhance ur thinking.. u r just following another unproven source..
urbestfriend Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 I think we need to differentiate between ritualistic aspects of religion and philosophical aspects. Ritual aspects such as going to temples, reciting mantras or doing namaz are ways for spiritual path , they themselves don't answer you god or religion. These rituals have been misused to dupe weaker minds time and again by using fear, this cannot be blamed for religion, rather lack of critical thinking of individuals as well as collective wisdom of the society to speak against mindless rituals . Spiritual aspects involve trying to understand the relation between self and whole and understanding the responsibility of self towards whole to live in tune with the nature.
Detonator Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 I like our mythologies too. But my character likes & dislikes are atypical to conventional Indian thinking. Take Ramayana for example. Best/most likeable guy : Vali. Rama ? Pretends to be good but not averse to screwing over the good guy to further his agenda : example of screwing over Vali, screwing over Sita with the angi-test. Mahabharata ? favourite guys: Karna, Ashwatthama, Nakula,Krishna, Sahadeva, Ghatotkacha. Ashwatthama is particularly likeable: totally normal guy with powerful daddy, who was 'made better' by daddy's tapasya (his jewels i suppose) and all he wanted was daddy's love, which went to Arjun instead. pretty understandable. Then when daddy died due to 'cheating', he decieded to ***** the rules and cheat to kill the Pandavas. again, pretty understandable. Totally not likeable: Bhisma, Yudhistira, Arjuna, Drona, Draupadi. A-class a-holes, all of them. Just my opinion. I m not talking abt fav characters.. in fact my fav is the guy who wrote it. :giggle: there is lot beyond characters...
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Agree with you for most of the post.. the books are very old novels nd there is a lot of good things with them, so they deserve respect.. those idea of religion is not perfect but its wrongly interpretated.. its like, I don't go to a temple to pray, instead I like the magnificent architecture nd their sheer hard work forbuilding them i still doubt ur critical thinking as ur post suspiciously similar to a documentary.. internet reading will not enhance ur thinking.. u r just following another unproven source.. i base most of my thinking of religion and non religion on reading the relevant religious texts and philosophers who are proponents of religion (Aquinas for example) as well as non-religious (Voltaire, Neitzche,etc). I havnt read a lot but i have read enough primary material to not be guilty of the 'messageboard based learning' mode. The idea of religion is not wrongly interpreted, it is entirely a fabrication: to claim incredible origin and purpose without providing incredible proof. That is not mislabelling, its false advertisement.
KeyboardWarrior Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 i base most of my thinking of religion and non religion on reading the relevant religious texts and philosophers who are proponents of religion (Aquinas for example) as well as non-religious (Voltaire, Neitzche,etc). I havnt read a lot but i have read enough primary material to not be guilty of the 'messageboard based learning' mode. The idea of religion is not wrongly interpreted, it is entirely a fabrication: to claim incredible origin and purpose without providing incredible proof. That is not mislabelling, its false advertisement. and how much do u read about Islam ? i mean how many Islamic books u read ? just want to know.
Detonator Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 i base most of my thinking of religion and non religion on reading the relevant religious texts and philosophers who are proponents of religion (Aquinas for example) as well as non-religious (Voltaire, Neitzche,etc). I havnt read a lot but i have read enough primary material to not be guilty of the 'messageboard based learning' mode. The idea of religion is not wrongly interpreted, it is entirely a fabrication: to claim incredible origin and purpose without providing incredible proof. That is not mislabelling, its false advertisement. that sounds good.. I hope u r telling truth abt ur reading. :sherlock:
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 and how much do u read about Islam ? i mean how many Islamic books u read ? just want to know. I've read the Koran and the primary hadith source (Sahih Al bukhari). I have also read one pro-Islamic philosopher (Ibn Rushd) and one anti Islamic philosopher (Hume). Sad to say but Hume is mostly right about his vitriol towards Islam.
Detonator Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Move on from what ? Banvas' date=' sari haran, disowning wife etc ?[/quote'] include polygamy, human sacrifice, honor killing etc., I wouldn't be surprised if lord of rings becoms a mythology, and a religion out of it with galdalf as god. :haha:
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 include polygamy, human sacrifice, honor killing etc., I wouldn't be surprised if lord of rings becoms a mythology, and a religion out of it with galdalf as god. :haha: Gandalf is Jesus. he dies, then comes back even more powerful and wins.
Sachinism Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 OP comment is out of frustration of religious folk crediting god for all kinds of BS. The moment something tragic happens, its put as 'destiny' - it was meant to be. Its rubbish logic which results in God always winning.
Detonator Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Gandalf is Jesus. he dies' date=' then comes back even more powerful and wins.[/quote'] not just jesus.. almost every religion has a similar basic premise..
jalebi_bhai Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 religion may mean different things to different folks but what religion boils down to, is this: To be religious, of any religion, you *must* accept that certain stories pertaining to the said religion must be 100% true and there can be no ambiguity or error in its recording or interpretation. Ie, religion and religious mentality essentially boils down to choosing belief over facts, choosing rote memory over critical thinking. If there is a God- and that is a big If- he/she/it/they gave us a brain to use. I am sorry but there isnt a single religion on this planet that stands up to any critical thinking. Christianity is BS, Islam is BS, Hinduism is BS, Judaism is BS, 99% of religious thinking is BS. Logic and critical thinking dictates this. And this is no big revelation, there are philosophers from over two thousand years ago who've come to the same conclusion: that religion is dishonest & BS. The Abrahamic religions in particular are very self-contradictory. The Bible says everyone is made in God's image but if a person is a homo-sexual, all of a sudden, they are outcasts and sinners and what not. Polygamy, a concept that blatantly degrades women, is permitted by Islam. The story of Noah's ark just paints God as being a murderous egomaniac. Lots of other details and teachings in the Holy books that simply contradict each other. The fact that religion is a cause of violence among people even today, and the fact that religious clerics are amongst biggest hypocrites/frauds in the world is what initially turned me against the concept of religion and still does. Personally, I don't have a problem with people practicing religion. If it gives them a sense of fulfillment, then by all means, go ahead. As I've said, to each his own. What I absolutely hate is when some douchebag comes and tells me that I will go to hell because I don't believe in so-and-so things and God will do so-and-so to me for being a non-believer. Umm....ok....whatever....thanks but no thanks....now kindly :finger:.....
Recommended Posts