a) Sunily, you really should finish Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance
b)Chachi. My point is that you ought to scream your lungs out at me when I criticize whatever Edifice you have constructed in your mind. When I criticize Cobain, for you, I am criticizing your cobain. You have every right to use the customary expletives, instead of reading some wanker's book and concluding that Your defence is based on irrational premises (like poor uneducated people who defend their religions with their lives), and in order to transcend to a higher state of spiritual existence, you ought to abandon your god.
There is no higher state of existence. This, is as good or bad as it gets. Take it or leave it. So stop trying to get to it. Scream with impunity
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Stuff
What do you do when you get bored of having to do stuff yourself? You do the stuff with other people. And, ahem, supposedly, it takes the stuff to another level. Yeah, we're talking about that stuff. What else could we be talking about? You're welcome to do it with us too.
(that's what nonlinear wisdom's supposed to mean, read the first post).
(that's what nonlinear wisdom's supposed to mean, read the first post).
Contributors
Add your blog here
Hits
34 comments:
uh...why should he scream at you for belittling his edifice or whatever.
(there will be no further mention of dawkins here, its led to enough confusion, not to mention 3-4 unwarranted posts with no net conclusion)
I feel along the lines of Porny. To, probably, add to it, I'd put a very corny statement that it'd not be correct to burden religion with the atrocities committed in its name (obvious analogy with science). I see the usefulness of this concept. And like every other concept, I'd apply it within limitations and when I see that it makes sense to me and ignore it when it doesn't. (We don't hate Newton for his good old laws, do we?) So, I don't see a need to condemn God or religion as concepts. It'd be a very optimistic view that'd suggest people would have behaved better in the absence of these concepts. It takes lack of decision-making power or that of a will (a lower level abstraction) and not a notion of God or religion (a much higher level of abstraction) to commit acts which are generally attributed to religion. Damned be Chachi if I killed someone and wrote Booga on his dead-body.
The only thing common between a Hindu and a Muslim fighting (in a street) and a theist and an atheist fighting (over the internet) is that of lack of understanding. It just happens to be that practitioners of atheism and agnosticism are mostly educated ones and that a huge number of theists are not educated enough and have difficulties handling the concept.
Of course all this remains pointless if all you were against was the so called 'religious' lot.
p.s. I am worrying about sleeping as I have to go to my office in the morning.
first of all, screw porny.
second, Now we have evidence of intentions of murder on your part (is it that poor little girl? you sick bastard.)
Third, Yes, mostly we are against the atrocities of religion. But when you weigh the usefulness of religion with its ugly side, the usefulness tends to nought.
Anyway, if we do unbundle religion's atrocities, you're saying that it's a useful concept to have (because it allows people to be moral, lends them power/support ?). It is possible to be moral without being religious, like, say, I am, or Dawkins is, or a lot of people in this world are.
Religion stripped of all its ugliness would be like Buddhism, and Dawkins in his book regards it as a philosophy of life rather than a religion. My aim was to motivate people to read that book, cuz he has very thoroughly discussed all these issues.
Anyway, I guess we all have our imaginary friends. I have Jim, you have God. Let's see who's more powerful. How about a "clash of the Titans?"? :P
"The only thing common between a Hindu and a Muslim fighting (in a street) and a theist and an atheist fighting (over the internet) is that of lack of understanding."
I don't think you are correct here. Belief and rationality are very perpendicular terms. Belief1 vs Belief2 == no understanding, both sides dubbing each other crap, none of them is right. Belief1 vs rationality1 == one side dubbing the other crap without understanding, the other side dubbing the former crap, fully understanding, and only one of them is right.
"It just happens to be that practitioners of atheism and agnosticism are mostly educated ones and that a huge number of theists are not educated enough and have difficulties handling the concept."
cmon, most of the world is theist. I believe ;) they'd have enough educated people on their side to pull off a nice debate?
Pointers style (I so fucking need to sleep) -
Wait for a hydrogen bomb to explode. The usefulness of the science would appear to tend to naught a little more.
What's the problem in being religious as well as moral?
It is possible to be religious in a scientific manner, without many of the redundant practises that come to be associated with it, just the way you are an atheist in a scientific way. You perhaps think about everything that's not scientific when you think of religion and I think you should try to see that you are getting a little biased because I have also repeatedly talked about religion as a concept, as a way of life and not just as a set of practises.
I thought we agreed to screw Dawkins and not Porny since some of us haven't read him. I may still agree with Dawkins.
Regarding beliefs and understanding, perhaps tomorrow. I need to think a little about it.
We may probably call this a debate. Though I don't know if I am religious or agnostic. It doesn't need to be named perhaps. And the whole debate has probably roots in differences in naming the abstractions.
ok, I'm getting confused here...what is your idea of being religious?
The basic problem here, is, belief. Belief is good when it's supported by rationality. And not good when it's not supported by rationality. That is my (and most atheist/agnostics') problem with being religious.
And yes, religion lends power, support, hope to millions and yes, they need a name for it like you name it Jim. Everyone isn't strong enough to realise it without attaching a name to it.
If I imagine myself to be an uneducated destitute I guess I'd like to believe in God and give him a name and feel hopeful. Are you trying to see how difficult it could be for an uneducated ignorant destitute to live in peace unless he has this abstraction objectified at least to some extent. We are lucky enough not to need any such objectification and can rely solely on our decision-making power. In other words, we can afford not to believe in Ram and yet live a moral life and with peace. Anything that is a support and is a source of hope for that uneducated ignorant destitute, I'd think twice before challenging that concept.
and can you imagine how religion has for ages passed on these concepts and made people depend on it? we are taught about religion right from our childhood, it's ingrained in our head. It's called brainwashing. It's a forced dependence, which would not be needed in the face of sufficient education and awareness.
In Vietnam, I hear from my good friend Son, there's no God. Has never been. And look what people have survived there.
Power cut. Laters.
In Bangalore? you should move to Dhanbad, we only have 5-min power cuts here :)
And wait for the religious feud which started the war in the first place.
If instead of hope, I give the uneducated destitute food and education, imagine how much that would help him.
Remember tribals converting to Christianity for food? It's not religion we need.
But I suppose I should finish reading the book first, to bounce ideas off Dawkins...I'd be standing on firmer ground then.
Anyway, the point of all this is, better things are possible without religion. You assume that people are cripple and need a support. I suspect their legs have been broken to sell out shiny new wheelchairs. Why not give it a shot, a world without religion. Is it better? Yes, it definitely is.
Fuck you chachi, because you are moody, temparamental, and are absolutely incapable of a rational discussion when it comes down to that. Heck, you shouldve been a girl.
Have you read To kill a mockingbird chachi?
I suggest you read it. Before commenting on how the lot of us have been brainwashed by religion, I suggest, as Atticus Finch would say, you put yourself in the shoes of the millions who need a God (which is what most people's concept of Religion revolves around, and non an arbitrary set of practices and rites). I suggest you watch a little less of Discovery Channel and use a little more of that brain of yours, and think about what you are saying instead of just participating in aspeed typing race.
And as far as rationality is concerned, that thing that all fashionable liberal wannabe academics like you uphold , What is logic?
I think I mentioned somewhere that any logical system is operated by axioms. You have axiom A and you have axiom B and you assume these. Questioning them is stupid, because
a) you are not hellbound to take these. If you dont like my axioms, assume some other axioms and make your own system of logic
b) It is stupid because I am never saying that these axioms necessarily hold in your world. However if in some world these axioms hold then these would be its consequences.
So chachi, if you really want to be a rationalist, I suggest you start using your brain. The crap you spout isnt worth taking, because you arent an attractive chick .And as far as removing me is concerned. Why, you are most welcome to do that, although, this blog was my idea, so its a bit strange that I dont have admin powers. Butanyway, I have other places to write in
god is excellent as a a formeless abstraction, useful to some extent as an embodiment of hope and light and such stuff, but its when he gets up close and personal and plays dirty that we're talking about.like when they say the other guy is an arse cos he uses a different set of symbols and rituals so kill him, or evolution is wrong because the holy book says so. and DO NOT tell me this stuff is not right or wrong and just is or whatever. you dont force stuff down someone's throat, not even the purest of truths .
ooga la pakoonga meshin pooga
ooga booga ooga booga
kal patoonga dom shooga
ooga booga ooga booga
abe saalon bataya tha ki dawkins chodo. all you(we) have been doing so long is stating some argument we've heard somewhere. then the other guy extrapolates it to some domain where its not applicable and claims that as crystal clear disproof, then the first guy gets all hotheaded and then its all personal. and while all this happens, a third guy steps in and says something completely irrelevant..
this is just like politics :D like the stuff in the newspapers after the budget day or something
As sunily rightly pointed out, nihilism is pointless. And I got to tedious lengths to nullify your earlier argument.
What is your point of explaining logical system here? Everyone here knows and fully understands that stuff. Sure, it's possible that there is God.
I'm not free to take or not take your axioms. I'm bound to verify the probabilities of your axiom against mine, against a possible million others, and take the one which is most probable. That's physics. It's not maths.
And you know this very well, yet you overlook it just to make some crappy point.
Anyway, I'm reading Chapter 5 now (the roots of religion), which gives a Darwinian explanation of religion.
@sunily
abe lallan ko padha diya hai kya ye? abe Booga song ke liye chords likhte hain :D
nahi lallan ne nahi pada, muhje halka sa yaad tha, aur ek line khud se banaya. haan be chords aur solo bhi banate hain poore palm mute aur power chords aur vibrato ke saath, aur ye death metal song hoga.
kisi ko ye padhke ng waale 'discussions' nahi yaad aa rahe hain jisme pehle 3-4 post ke baad arbt subdiscussions chalu ho jaate the, log ek doosre ki maarne lagte aur pata chalta ki fest ke paise se poori wing ne bike khareeda hai.
OMG !!! what if the entire purpose of existence of the universe is to 'gaslight' all sentient beings that live within it.
"Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse. It involves an increasing frequency of systematically withholding factual information from, and/or providing false information to the subject, having the gradual effect of making the victim anxious, confused, and less able to trust his or her own memory and perception. A variation of gaslighting, used as a form of harassment, is to subtly alter aspects of a victim's environment, thereby upsetting his or her peace of mind, sense of security, etc."
"And wait for the religious feud which started the war in the first place."
You are repeatedly not getting the point. I think land, resources, loots are much more attractive things to fight for.
I'd call a guy running after another guy with a blade in his hand an asshole and not religious.
"we are taught about religion right from our childhood, it's ingrained in our head. It's called brainwashing. It's a forced dependence, which would not be needed in the face of sufficient education and awareness."
Tell me what part of your childhood education you think leads people to immorality. In fact, now that you say this, I feel people would have fared better if they had followed whatever they were taught. Take a simple concept you would have wanted to teach kids. If you be good to Mr. A, there would be a Mr. B who would be good to you. Now, this is not a very easy concept for everyone to understand. One obvious reasoning behind the concept is that if you be good to people, goodwill will spread around and people would be good to you. Now if one abstracted this it'd probably be a notion similar to that of God. "Be good. God will take care of the rest." In adverse situations, some refuse to believe the former reasoning. They tend to blame people around them. The latter however has better effects in many cases.
You choose to call Buddhism a way of life and not a religion. I say it is a religion whose people have understood it well. If you really want to compare, Buddhists do have a notion of God (with a form or without a form).
Sure, all this might not be needed in the face of education. But that will take some time. We are talking about a world which still needs such an abstraction. Not everybody is powerful enough to exercise his full mental faculties alone to behave ethically. Some of them need a support.
Anyone who's forcing his practises on others is simply wretched and if he had his ways he'd not force just his religious practises.
"Anyway, the point of all this is, better things are possible without religion."
Sure. I never said otherwise. But there's more to the point.
"If instead of hope, I give the uneducated destitute food and education, imagine how much that would help him."
What do you think we are discussing? I'd say, take away hope from him and he'd be left with nothing. The concept of God reaches out to people before education. All the educated can give up God after they realise that they ought to do good because they just ought to. Let others do it because they believe in God.
And oh, politics gets the same kind of biased treatment that religion gets from the educated ones. We just can't see ourselves associated with these things. The meaning of word 'politics' has marred more because of the treatment it gets from the educated ones than because of the uneducated ones. Already, politics comes to mean only pretentiousness and hypocrisy. And the educated people have only helped to establish it in a way, that it is almost impossible for politics to be a pursuable profession for the lot of us.
Hell, all I want to say is that one does not need to mar the concept of God. The problem is a lower level one, and at an individual level. And it is just not so simple as religion.
I am sending the book to you. Read chapters 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10. He's done much more thinking than I have, and also is vastly more experienced.
At the face of it, the concept of God has its benefits, as well as its demerits. This we both agree. I feel that you are ignoring the demerits, and separating it from religion, making it a non-issue, which it is not. You feel that I am ignoring the benefits, and harping on the demerits, which are separate issues. Why not be more informed (i.e. read the book) and then judge it?
But while we're at it, let me see if I can answer your questions.
oops, gtg. more later.
Now that you appreciate the two sides of this thing, just compare it with the internet. Why do you need to blast internet when you know that essentially there is nothing wrong with the internet, just how people see it as a source/mode/cause of several bad effects. Why do you need to blast religion?
I do not consider myself religious. Yet I have respect for the concept, like I have for politics and internet. And this feeling of respect for the useful concepts, is all I've been really supporting.
"Why do you need to blast internet when you know that essentially there is nothing wrong with the internet"
Usefulness of a concept does not imply that it is not wrong. the basis of god, religion, etc is belief, and belief without rationality is dangerous. I guess you have missed this point. And if there's an equally useful alternative available, it makes the first option redundant.
btw, one of the basic tenets of christianity is that those who don't believe in it would go to hell. And children are taught that.
Please don't suppose that I am being righteous here being educated (both you and porny). I am not against religion because it's cool to be against, and uncool to be not.
Enough crap chachi
lets cut to the chase
What is this great alterantive of yours. Dont you think its time you shed a little more light on this great alternative of yours isntead of hyping it up?
Heck, maybe this ought to be your next post, how religion , which came up quite recently in our evolutionary history, is an example of how the natural evolutionary machinery is far from perfect, and how had nature follwed the chachi protocol of evolution, we'd all have been a happier species
Ok, I'd suggest you to go through the table of contents of the book once, see which of the issues have not been discussed, and then discuss them here.
I do not have a great plan in my mind, because I haven't thought it through. Whatever I, you, Dawkins or The Pope does would all be a part of nature (except, I vaguely remember, the concept that Asimov had put through in Foundation, whose name I don't remember - sunily batao). Whatever we do, it'd be Nature. It may not be evolution, i.e. it may not follow Darwinian rules. So please dont say that because evolution has favoured religion, it's good and that's it and bwhahahaha. Religion may not even have evolutionary benefits, it might as well be a by-product.
I suppose you thought Jesus's great plan was good enough for you. What's wrong with Dawkin's great plan?
You are saying that I am blasting religion. I am not blasting religion. I am only saying what we all know.
1) religion is based on belief, based on nothing.
2) read the book, he has explained everything and in a much better fashion.
@satti
"It takes lack of decision-making power or that of a will (a lower level abstraction) and not a notion of God or religion (a much higher level of abstraction) to commit acts which are generally attributed to religion."
Just re-read this. I think a great amount of will and decisiveness would go into willingly killing someone. It could be gathered from patriotism, religion. Blind faith into something you believe is right.
@satti
so, you do believe that when everyone's enlightened, then we can do away with religion. I mean, you do believe that being rational is a better state of mind than being ignorant? I mean, that is the state that we as human beings should aim to achieve? If that is correct, then I don't think we disagree
Damn, what do you mean when you say things like basis of god and religion? Pray tell me what belief I have which is not rational and on which I'm basing my whole discussion. (Read the next line in caps)It is a concept, like Newton's first law, which I think is useful. Once you understand its usefulness how can you keep questioning its basis.
"btw, one of the basic tenets of christianity is that those who don't believe in it would go to hell. And children are taught that."
You really mean to discuss Bible? It's a scripture changed innumerable times by all kinds of people who got a shot at it.
"And if there's an equally useful alternative available, it makes the first option redundant."
You don't get it. For some, there is no readily available alternative.
"I think a great amount of will and decisiveness would go into willingly killing someone."
When I say will, it means a will to better things. When I say decision-making power, it means the power to make the right decision. You are so not correct. What you need to kill is foolhardiness.
"I mean, you do believe that being rational is a better state of mind than being ignorant?"
Did I look like preaching ignorance? I really want this to be my last comment. I held God as an abstraction, which finds its use. You sure don't have to use this abstraction. As long as you behave, I don't care what goes on inside your head, whether or not there is a word called God in your dictionary.
Oh and for a change, psychologically speaking, I think, if at all one wanted to put some sense into a fanatic's head, one would probably want to take away the grounds on which he bases his arguments. For that, one could first agree with him on existence of a concept of God and then nullify his further arguments, as how the concept of religion or God is against everything he does. However, if you were to reject the concept, it'd only give him a virtual ground to base his arguments.
"btw, one of the basic tenets of christianity is that those who don't believe in it would go to hell. And children are taught that."
You really mean to discuss Bible? It's a scripture changed innumerable times by all kinds of people who got a shot at it.
eh, that was a reply to "Tell me what part of your childhood education you think leads people to immorality." I was giving an example of that.
"You don't get it. For some, there is no readily available alternative."
And for many, there is. That is the point of that book. It's for them.
"I think a great amount of will and decisiveness would go into willingly killing someone."
"When I say will, it means a will to better things. When I say decision-making power, it means the power to make the right decision. You are so not correct. What you need to kill is foolhardiness."
And who is responsible for the poor decision-making power? The courage to kill can only come from a strong faith that what you're doing is right. FAITH.
Ok. I am defining the god that I am targeting, and you decide for yourself if that is the one you have. I am speaking against the god that millions of people actually believe he exists, for whom they go to temples or mosques, for whom they are ready to kill or die when summoned. Please understand this before you take it personally against your concept of god. I am not sure how many people use god as a useful concept rather than believing in it.
"As long as you behave, I don't care what goes on inside your head, whether or not there is a word called God in your dictionary."
Then we do disagree. I am an idealist. You are a let-it-beist
"Oh and for a change, psychologically speaking, I think, if at all one wanted to put some sense into a fanatic's head, one would probably want to take away the grounds on which they base their arguments. For that, one could first agree with him on existence of a concept of God and then nullify his further arguments, as how the concept of religion or God is against everything he does. However, if you were to reject the concept, it'd only give him a virtual ground to base his arguments. "
You are totally correct. But the thing is, that book is not for fanatics. It's for half-believers and half-atheists.
Post a Comment