Atheism - the best 'religion'

[chunky_lafanga]

Anyone who marries a 7 year old ( if it can be proven ) for the sake of his own pleasure/physical etc...in today's context is certainly a pedophile if he had coerced the child into sex. On the same note' date=' even till last century/early this century, girls were routinely married off by the age of 14/15 etc..and became mothers by the time they were 16 or even earlier. I would not call these instances pedophilia due to a belief system existing , social structure etc in these times. But if a so called spiritual guru like Sai Baba asks 6th grade or 8th grade boys in his school to indulge in sex with him, and says it is for "spiritual reasons"...I do have a problem with it. That is deliberately cheating the boys just for his personal physical perversities, and this is a clearcut case of pedophilia ( like the catholic church for example..when such cases were exposed)

I would agree with the red part IF the said person was an average Joe and not so called "messenger of god" :hysterical: God's universal rules change from century to century? :giggle: As far as Sai Baba is concerned...he is a charlatan just like chacha Mo was. There are no messengers of god. You can't be messenger of something that does not exist. To Maggot head > Being Atheist is not a frigging religion! :finger: Faith is the belief in something DESPITE the absence of evidence. Atheists like me argue that since there is no evidence of God so there is nothing to believe in, nor even contemplate. Religion is an emotional belief system that does not require any evidence. Atheism is an intellectual exercise that requires proof. Religion and Atheism are NOT some kind of bloody yin & yang. This idea of atheists having "faith" about the lack of God is an argument that comes from a religious POV, and is entirely inaccurate. :mama:

coffee_rules wrote- There are too many coincidences which enabled life to begin on earth. The apt amout of distance from sun, the magnetic fields protecting earth from all bad elements of sun, etc.

Wah wah mere yaar jeete rahao. So all this is too good to be coincidence but an even great improbability of someone existing who created all this is probable? :hysterical::hysterical: Oh and just for arguments sake if everything science stood for somehow was disproved then how exactly would that automatically prove existence of your god? god with a small g can suck my....:hysterical: Better still he can come and be my beyatch. Show me the money you religious people! Where is thy god?

[kumble_rocks]

What happened to the Muslim bashing thread ?

It got moved to PP !:D

[Guest dada_rocks]

Particularly rule of that that God and prophet combo who claim that their version is for eternity sud be immune to any changes; hence if isomething is paedophila now sud be paedophilia then..

[THX_1138]

BJP is not about hinduism public perception aside' date=' I have been to RSS sakhas for quite some time 90% of the time they keep talking about nation building....[/quote'] one of the few times i will be agreeing with you. my late grandfather was very active in the RSS and his usual involvement included exercise in sando baniyan and brown khaki shorts followed by discussions about volunteer programs that the RSS was running in south delhi. pittifully, its name has been soiled by the likes of Modi etc.

[THX_1138]

Atheism is nothing but a philosophy of thought that does not accept the existence of God . This is a very subtle point. In the first place if atheists say " there is no god", we have to assume that they know what is God and say such a thing does not exist. This is not possible as all religions eventually describe God according to their own perceptions and philosophies, and no one really "knows" what is God. At best the atheists arguments will be there is no god "as described" by the common religions, according to the atheists own standards of proof, which is correct. Religion is a way of life and believing in a certain manner of thought and consequent action for well understood reasons. So, in a sense atheism too is a religion . Atheists are also very many and differ in their beliefs , ranging from humanism to those who foster scientific temper and say all creation is an accident of nature ( something I had refuted with scientific reasoning on several boards). The Hindu way of thought is probably the only one in known and recorded history that accepts atheism as a valid philosophy . This is based on the simple principle " I can only believe what my intelligence accepts and my experience confirms"... meaning such a basic point of view is the very fundamental platform for understanding nature and the universe we live in. I always tell atheists that God exists and the proof is simple. 1. No advanced science has ever been able to come up with a definition of Time ( including Einstein), in the context of cosmology. All that exists must have evolved at some point, including time, and that origin can be called God for purposes of convenience. 2. Irrespective of belief in a God or not, all human beings are endowed with a sense of right and wrong ( even if they all differ, we know that). The very fact the human mind thinks there is something called right and its opposite is wrong is indicative of cognitive intelligence ( an extension of Rene Descartes, I might add) 3. A natural need to feel happy, and to confer happiness. No one wants to deliberately feel unhappy, all want to feel happy, 4.and everyone wants to be seen as "good", whatever they define it as To me these are the strongest indicators that indicate an existence of a Cosmic Intelligence

Atheism is a disbelief in everything and anything supernatural. That a better definition for you mate? The concept of time is rather well defined. It is measured as the propagational delay in the relay of energy/information over distance. The propagational delay is dependent upon the medium but it is uniform throughout and it is a theory that can be replicated and similar if not exact results can be attained. none the less who said that "God" was the default explanation for everything? why not the flying spagetti monster? or the hakamari? The origin of morality have little to do with religion. the judgement between right and wrong is inherent to our mind and does not have its origin in religion. infact, moral behavior or atleast certain complex emotions such as compassion and sacrifice have been found in primates, and last i checked, they do not have any organized religion. your third and fourth points are very vague and quite unrelated to this discussion. maybe you want to explain more about what is it you are driving at.

[Guest HariSampath]

The concept of time is rather well defined. It is measured as the propagational delay in the relay of energy/information over distance. The propagational delay is dependent upon the medium but it is uniform throughout and it is a theory that can be replicated and similar if not exact results can be attained.

I think you need to understand what I am saying about time. In an Einsteinian model ( which includes energy, frame of reference or medium etc ) time is defined. What you are referring to is just that ; propagational delay in energy etc are all "events", and time's definition is dependent on that. I asked what about time BEFORE any event. That is inclusive of the first scientifically proven event, which is the Big Bang. Can science say with proof " There was X time before Big bang" ? NO. And also you haven't elaborated on where energy came from in the first place ( or for that matter your equally vague "information" ). What information, about what ? Tell me with scientific authority how energy was created as the laws of physics clearly state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed...so how does it exist ? And then define how long ( time terms) did energy exist, and WHY the Big Bang happened ? Perhaps the tooth fairy created energy and said "now it will become big bang" ??

[THX_1138]

I think you need to understand what I am saying about time. In an Einsteinian model ( which includes energy' date=' frame of reference or medium etc ) time is defined. What you are referring to is just that ; propagational delay in energy etc are all "events", and time's definition is dependent on that. [b']I asked what about time BEFORE any event. That is inclusive of the first scientifically proven event, which is the Big Bang. Can science say with proof " There was X time before Big bang" ? NO. And also you haven't elaborated on where energy came from in the first place ( or for that matter your equally vague "information" ). What information, about what ? Tell me with scientific authority how energy was created as the laws of physics clearly state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed...so how does it exist ? And then define how long ( time terms) did energy exist, and WHY the Big Bang happened ? Perhaps the tooth fairy created energy and said "now it will become big bang" ??

true... there is only the inflation model that has so far fit all observed data about this current universe. and beyond the big bang is something that cannot be seen from cosmic radiation which is at the moment the evidence for the big bang. yet i dont quite see how the supernatural is by default the explanation for this. the thing is, religion occupies the gaps in science. yesterday fire was supernatural and religion occupied the gap between a log of wood and a burning log of wood. then some time earlier this morning religion occupied the gap between fossils of extinct animals and human beings. today, science and skeptisism has pushed miserable little pathetic religion into the realms of science that date back to over 13.4 billion years ago. trust me, another decade or so, and we will have it stuffed down another hole. religion is dead or it is dying. and hurrah for that!

[THX_1138]

I think you need to understand what I am saying about time. In an Einsteinian model ( which includes energy, frame of reference or medium etc ) time is defined. What you are referring to is just that ; propagational delay in energy etc are all "events", and time's definition is dependent on that. I asked what about time BEFORE any event. That is inclusive of the first scientifically proven event, which is the Big Bang. Can science say with proof " There was X time before Big bang" ? NO. And also you haven't elaborated on where energy came from in the first place ( or for that matter your equally vague "information" ). What information, about what ? Tell me with scientific authority how energy was created as the laws of physics clearly state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed...so how does it exist ? And then define how long ( time terms) did energy exist, and WHY the Big Bang happened ? Perhaps the tooth fairy created energy and said "now it will become big bang" ??

shut your pie hole fool... energy is not created, it is an end product. energy and mass are interchangable. there are two types of subatomic particles: bozons and fermions. ones are characterised by matter which is one form of radiation and are thus obedient to the hesinburn uncertainity principle; while the other are characterised by energy which is another form of radiation. their mutual interaction results in everything you see around yourself. as for why did the big bang happen... simple: it was unstable. it was incredibly unstable! and thus, it expanded. at the start of this universe, the fundamental particle was composed primarily of inflatons. these are particles with extremely high energy and thus were extremely unstable. as a result, they expanded and as they expanded, they cooled and formed the particles that would eventually (in about several fractions of a yatosecond) form W-bosons which would then form protons and electrons... thus forming hydrogen, the very first and probably at one time, the only element in the universe. hydrogen then seeded the universe with everything else (all the higher elements formed in the bellies of stars due to nuclear fusion or formed during stellar explosions called supernovae).

[gopsy]

not an atheist myself, but sure 'd love to direct you to a link Bhagath singh one of the Indian revolutionary i really admire . He is a known atheist . here he talks about why he chose it , and clarifies some issues concerning his personal life as an atheist. What is especially interesting is his state of mind as an Atheist when he 's facing death. A Truly honest , truly sincere, Indian whether you are an atheist , or not the things that matters in life are all the same, Courage, endurance, sincerity, may be the divine is in all these things, who knows..... the link is- http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/bhagatSinghATHIEST.html

[Guest HariSampath]

shut your pie hole fool... energy is not created, it is an end product. energy and mass are interchangable. there are two types of subatomic particles: bozons and fermions. ones are characterised by matter which is one form of radiation and are thus obedient to the hesinburn uncertainity principle; while the other are characterised by energy which is another form of radiation. their mutual interaction results in everything you see around yourself.

Please refer to the highlighted words. 1. Doesn't merit a response as you don't seem to know either science nor logic, or for that matter courtesy of debate in an apparently educated discussion here. 2. 2nd ref: I suppose you are referring to Werner Heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty...LOL... you don't even seem to know what it is . In short, it simply says " it is impossible to determine simultaneously, the angular momentum and position of an electron, beyond a degree of h/4pie where pie equals 22/7 and h= Planck's constant".....too profound a priciple for me to elucidate here and it all refers to subatomic near zero mass particles in motion at the speed of light. But still you haven't answered my fundamental question of "what form is primal energy existent and into what form is it converted, and why and when"....but take a rest... no point discussing cosmic theory or Einstein or Neihls Bohr or anything with you....you need to read a lot and understand a bit at least.

[THX_1138]

Please refer to the highlighted words. 1. Doesn't merit a response as you don't seem to know either science nor logic, or for that matter courtesy of debate in an apparently educated discussion here. 2. 2nd ref: I suppose you are referring to Werner Heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty...LOL... you don't even seem to know what it is . In short, it simply says " it is impossible to determine simultaneously, the angular momentum and position of an electron, beyond a degree of h/4pie where pie equals 22/7 and h= Planck's constant".....too profound a priciple for me to elucidate here and it all refers to subatomic near zero mass particles in motion at the speed of light. But still you haven't answered my fundamental question of "what form is primal energy existent and into what form is it converted, and why and when"....but take a rest... no point discussing cosmic theory or Einstein or Neihls Bohr or anything with you....you need to read a lot and understand a bit at least.

actually i do know exactly what the hesinberg's uncertainity principle says you moron: delta z * delta p >= (planc's constant)/2 bozons are particles with matter... thus have momentum when moving, and thus obey the above. what do you mean by primal energy? atleast state the question lucidly so it can be answered. why is energy converted? it is not converted you oversized bafoon... energy and mass are interchangable. energy is the result of mass defect in a reaction, and it is a form of radiation just as mass is. the net amount of radiation (mass and energy) included remains constant but can switch between one and the other. i have finals right now, but give me three days and i will rip you a brand new one. till then go read your propaganda books and post more bullsh*t like the "oscillation model of the universe" which has been comprehensively dismissed as grotesquely inaccurate sine 1996 when dark matter was discovered, and then with the discovery of dark energy, a final nail in its coffin was hammered not too long ago.

[Guest HariSampath]

actually i do know exactly what the hesinberg's uncertainity principle says you moron: delta z * delta p >= (planc's constant)/2 bozons are particles with matter... thus have momentum when moving, and thus obey the above. what do you mean by primal energy? atleast state the question lucidly so it can be answered. why is energy converted? it is not converted you oversized bafoon... energy and mass are interchangable. energy is the result of mass defect in a reaction, and it is a form of radiation just as mass is. the net amount of radiation (mass and energy) included remains constant but can switch between one and the other. i have finals right now, but give me three days and i will rip you a brand new one. till then go read your propaganda books and post more bullsh*t like the "oscillation model of the universe" which has been comprehensively dismissed as grotesquely inaccurate sine 1996 when dark matter was discovered, and then with the discovery of dark energy, a final nail in its coffin was hammered not too long ago.

Good luck for your finals.... and if its Physics or English ( or spelling, because you sound like 4 years old ) you better start believing in God :D

[maggot_brain]

Good luck for your finals.... and if its Physics or English ( or spelling' date='[b'] because you sound like 4 years old ) you better start believing in God :D

Because you sound like a four year old. If you're going to criticise other people's English, then you should use correct grammar yourself.

[maggot_brain]

I would agree with the red part IF the said person was an average Joe and not so called "messenger of god" :hysterical: God's universal rules change from century to century? :giggle: As far as Sai Baba is concerned...he is a charlatan just like chacha Mo was. There are no messengers of god. You can't be messenger of something that does not exist. To Maggot head > Being Atheist is not a frigging religion! :finger: Faith is the belief in something DESPITE the absence of evidence. Atheists like me argue that since there is no evidence of God so there is nothing to believe in, nor even contemplate. Religion is an emotional belief system that does not require any evidence. Atheism is an intellectual exercise that requires proof. Religion and Atheism are NOT some kind of bloody yin & yang. This idea of atheists having "faith" about the lack of God is an argument that comes from a religious POV, and is entirely inaccurate. :mama: Wah wah mere yaar jeete rahao. So all this is too good to be coincidence but an even great improbability of someone existing who created all this is probable? :hysterical::hysterical: Oh and just for arguments sake if everything science stood for somehow was disproved then how exactly would that automatically prove existence of your god? god with a small g can suck my....:hysterical: Better still he can come and be my beyatch. Show me the money you religious people! Where is thy god?

Well you've totally misunderstood me. I totally agree with you on all counts. As for Atheism being a religion, I refer you to my second post in this thread.

[THX_1138]

Because you sound like a four year old. If you're going to criticise other people's English' date= then you should use correct grammar yourself.

it could have been worse... he could have insisted that i gain a better grasp on "grammer".