*** Science Or God? ***

[mediator]

Scrutinize my posts and u will find that each and every single question of yours has been CLEARLY and absolutely CLEARLY answered. There's no use of repeating just because another person answered the same set of questions. I didn't discuss evolution and big-bang with amitash u know, coz they already been discussed! For example your 4th point has been clearly stated by me as ....

One may also develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his upbringing, his parents also

Although this was clarified in post #973 itself, but I put it in bolds for better and careful observation for amitash in post#977 (repeated twice for him) alone, i.e a mere 3 posts behind this post of urs. So please read it all. I'm not gonna entertain any further repetitions.

 

[karnivore]

For example your 4th point has been clearly stated by me as ....

One may also develop conscience as he grows in experience and wisdom. It might be his upbringing, his parents also

So I guess, that means a YES. That leads to some more questions. If morality can be independent of religion, why would we need religion at all ? What else does religion give us ?

What about 1,2,3 and 5 ?

You did not discuss Big Bang etc. with amitash, because, discussion didn't go there. Because, other than that, you have repeated pretty much everything.

Ah, well never mind.

 

[mediator]

Circumstances might lead to repetitions more than fresh talks from some else.

Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?

What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently.

You may or may not believe in what your parents say. Similarly, one may or may not believe in what religions say. Religions aren't asking you to kill, hate, abuse etc anyone who doesn't adheres to this religion. Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not. He may follow illogic instead and supernatural phenomena even after being a science student. It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad". Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??

but is hidden behind a façade of philosophy, in East Asian religions, most of which wouldn’t even be considered as religion in the first place (e.g. Confusiasm, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.)

You may have your viewpoint. Some call hinduism as a way of life and some call it a religion. But I feel, when "hatred" is innate in a religion, i.e specified by the holy books themselves, which specifically gives itself a name (for religion) and asks its followers to glorify and embrace itself etc, then the meaning isn't short of an "organization".

Being religious in Hindi basically means "dharma". "Dharma" means ur duty also. I call my self religious coz basically Hinduism is percieved as a religion. You may call it as a way of life and substitute the defintition. But in Hindi, it only means one word and that is "dharmic", i.e "dharmic" towards your work, your life etc. And Gita is a whole subject on that "duty" of what, how and where one should act diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently etc. You may agree with its verses and you may not. But science is not telling such verses where to act "diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently" and give us a "detailed thought" to ponder on.

Moral science means, how science and scientists are going. I told myself that just like religion, like a few I stated above, aren't asking to kill people of other religions or other faiths, similarly science is not asking to do global warming. Science is not leading to atomic warfare, but again the "human mind" coz of materialism i.e region, greed etc. But, if science and scientists are not goin to find a solution for plastics, global warming, nuclear wastes etc, then who will? If a poison is developed, then "morally" a cure should be developed as well before giving out to the market. People have accustomed to luxuries. Even if we reduce our electricity consumption, will it lead to reduction in global warming given the increasing use of computers, poor nations urbanising and getting educated, large scale deforestation etc?

Moral science simple means the ways of science and scientists rather than the way of human being in dealing with his "entire" life like I already stated before.

And please, it really exhausts when I'm made to repeat.

Check yourself and realise that I repeated the explanation for you again.

 

[amitash]

Like I asked, is it religion's fault that people have become "intolerant"? Three teachers A,B,C preach wisdom. Their guidance and teachings are compiled as Aism,Bism,Cism. Now is it A,B,C's fault that when follower of A abuses B/Bism, quarrels happens?

My point was that there wouldnt be escalating quarels if they JUST thought morality, how to lead a sensible life....God creates a difference.

Don't you think you are becoming "intolerant"? May be everyone is not as intelligent as you are?

I said i dislike only that part of them...That doesnt mean i will hate them for everything else.

[/quote]
Corporate greed, abusing science etc whatever you want to call it, is it any different than abusing and exploiting religion? If a few people fight in the name of God, then many corporates "abuse" science. Aren't these drug companies trying to "control" the pharma. sector? On one hand you have different religions and on other you have different corporates. Science is not used by just one corporate you know.
[/quote]

My point was not how they abuse science....like people abuse religion too, but its the peoples fault, not religion like you said....I said they dont fight for science or in the name of science, they fight for money... whereas some do in the name of their religion/god (not all religions).

[/quote]
And I'm not talking bt you this time, but in general where people in this "science vs god thread" itself are abusing and generalising on theists. Read carefully and reply.
[/quote]

I was hasty in reading, i get your point.

2. Gut instinct is not science.

Agreed

3. Did you think you were being 'moral", by judging on theists earlier. Yes I know you admitted that you were wrong. But now you are judging on religions just because they have "God". I only see hatred in your posts, just because they have "God" despite the fact that religions are not saying anything to be intolerant or promoting hatred.

Yes religions arent telling people to be violent or anything, but the ones with god or a supreme thing in them are saying so without proof, that i do dislike and i do judge that part of religion as bad.

4. The links you posted show about morality of science and not "morality in life" by science. Do you understand the difference? Your links clearly tell about the discussion where science is used in a dangerous fashion. That dangerous fashion was something that I discussed before. I discussed it in the form of "plastics, nuclear wastes, global warming, pollution, CFCs etc" with you. It simply means how science is going without conscience and hence leading to global warming, nuclear wastes etc.

I dont think science is going "without a conscience"...I think the negative effects are just caused because those effects arent foreseen.... However when they are finally realised, attempts are being made to fix it.

5. So what scientific explanation would you give for.... respect towards elders, a child waving her parents everytime she sees them while swinging around a merry go round, trust between friends, unconditional love, standing up when a lady or an elder comes before you in a dinner table, work that needs to be done unemotionally etc? AFAIK, neuroscience is "the scientific study of the nervous system " where does it teach morality? Psychology involves the study of human mental functions and behavior. It simply explores and tries to explain why,what etc is happening in human physche. It does not tell what experience is, how experience is gained. It does not give you wisdom. It does not "tells" you to give unconditional love.

I cant give a scientific explanation because it hasnt been found yet...didnt i say science didnt know everything?

Who gave you the certificate to judge who cares better bt the world and who does not?

omg, didnt i just tell you i was wrong to judge...this is the 4th time i think.

Treating their work as theories means you are not readily accepting it. And waiting for sufficient proof means you are not rejecting the earlier either. You are simply in a condition of doubt. Does this premise make you any less than being an agnostic yourself?

AFAIK agnostics are people who think there may/may not be a god, not all theories...fence sitters as someone said, but anyway i deny the existance of god entirely so no it doesnt make an agnostic....

Now if you are composed of lifeless chemicals which forms "living cells", which die and develop without your own active awareness, and which makes your whole body and a person to be recognised as a living entity, then don't you think universe which comprises of "living objects" like us and non living objects etc can be having "life" itself? Don't you think universe is living? Do you think an ant can understand quantum physics? May be we who consider ourselves as supreme intellectual beings are not able to undertsand something more intense?

I did not get your point here.

But, all things said and done, how is science connected to capitalism. If drug companies are trying to form a monopolistic cartel to “control the pharma. sector”, then it is an economic, read marketing, strategy, to maximize profit. Except for producing their product, how is science even remotely influencing the decision on how to market that product.

Unless, you are implying that science is behind capitalism, this argument doesn’t make any sense. But if are indeed implying that science is behind capitalism, then please elaborate on how it is so.

My point exactly

I do not understand. Please elaborate on the “difference” between “morality of science” and “morality in life by science”, whatever that may mean. Morality, as far as I understand it, is a faculty of human mind. Science, being an endeavour to gather knowledge, and the knowledge itself, can’t be either moral or amoral. It is moral neutral.

I think the difference mediator means is that:
science/scientists may be moral (morality in science)
science/scientists do not teach morality(morality in life by science)

I think science is also a cause for morality as science values gatherng knowledge a lot and as we gather more and more knowledge and use logic on them (logic is also a part of science) we can also develop morality, we dont need different religion to teach us morality, and that too insensible morality in some cases and create differences between us...although i agree some religions teach us good morality, but i feel this morality is pretty much common in all religions....things like "respect your elders", "Dont lie", "help the less fortunate"...i dont think any religion denies that, but in some religions, there are some parts that dont agree with all others and hence creates a difference which some extremists can take too seriously....and then again theres the whole point of different gods....now wouldnt it be better if you just let go of that? If it were never taught and there would be no difference?

 

[mediator]

My point was that there wouldnt be escalating quarels if they JUST thought morality, how to lead a sensible life....God creates a difference.

You simply are not replying to my one "basic" question. Is that God telling to hurt other people who have "diferent viewpoint", "different understanding", "different faith"? I guess the question i not that hard! Yes or No?

I said i dislike only that part of them...That doesnt mean i will hate them for everything else.

"Disliking" is lower than "not caring". May be upper than hating.

Here's the question I would like to ask you ....

Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?

What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently.

You may or may not believe in what your parents say. Similarly, one may or may not believe in what religions say. Religions aren't asking you to kill, hate, abuse etc anyone who doesn't adheres to this religion. Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not. He may follow illogic instead and supernatural phenomena even after being a science student. It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad". Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??

Please reply to above statements.

My point was not how they abuse science....like people abuse religion too, but its the peoples fault, not religion like you said....I said they dont fight for science or in the name of science, they fight for money... whereas some do in the name of their religion/god (not all religions).

And I already said that science and religion are not the same so as to even make a statement like "in the name of science". If for God we have various religions, then for science we have various corporates, but again not in the same context. If differences might arise because of the followers, then huge problems might arise out of corporates and the competition between them that "exploit science".

I was hasty in reading, i get your point.

You got my point and yet you say "because of God" differences are rising, when in this thread alone the differences are actually based on the "viewpoint"? Athiests are abusing and generalising on theists. Those who don't believe in God are attacking those who believe in God. So how can you say God is creating difference? In your logic may be its the "viewpoint" that the humanity should get rid off!!? What do u say?

I dont think science is going "without a conscience"...I think the negative effects are just caused because those effects arent foreseen.... However when they are finally realised, attempts are being made to fix it.

Like you yourself said, its not the science that is leading to corporate greed. Science would simply explore a way to convert one form of energy to another. Nuclear energy is a form of energy . Are scientists telling to make nuclear bombs? In future they might even perfect "controlled" nuclear "fusion" reaction. Scientists are simply exploring, while military is employing them and exploring the tools that could be made. The work of the science and scientist is too "explore" and "Explain" the science. If the employed scientist "questions the military" about the ills, which is related to "conscience" rather than science, then military will employ someone else. So the conscience and morality factor aren't really a part of science, but the human society. So who is responsible for the global warming? "Who explored" the tools and "who exploited" the tools?

So again, science is simply "exploring and explaining" the ways, the tools etc. The tools might be "used" for the good and for the bad. That "good or bad" which is related to morality, is related to the human society which is "using it", and not science. If the society stops using heaters and ACs etc, then do u think the global warming would increase at the same rate?

Further, if you are willing to accept the "good things" that science has done, then why are you refusing to accept the "bad things" science has done? On one hand you say that its the humans who have "exploited" science and not the science which is telling to do that and on other, you celebrate science for doing good things and providing you luxuries? Do you understand the point? So science is not concerned whether the thing explored is bad or good for people.

And hence moral science simply means to "foresee/predict" the possible consequences from each and every angle possible. Like I asked before, would it be possible to reduce global warming with increasing population, increasing use of computers which have become an evergreen part of human existence, urbanization of the world with a huge scope for plenty of poor nations to urbanize and large scale deforestation already in the process?

Remember trees give us oxygen. No trees = less oxygen and lowering of water tables. I hope you know that trees keep the water table and soil quality in check. More population = more CO2 (carbon dioxide). More C02 = more "green house effect"!
More population and less trees means "huge increase" in Co2. Add huge heat generation to it from computers and various electrical appliances. Add a huge number of vehicles to it and commercialization of the world...etc etc

Back to basics. With rapid urbanization, can trees exist in proportion to the population and all the above factors? We have already predicted that polar icecaps would be gone by 2050. What would science do to bring back the polar icecaps, i.e the natural habitat of polar bears and many penguins? Science might to do it and might not. But who forced the world to think upon it? Don't you think its the very survival of the humans that forced them to think about it? Remember conscience is not something that tells you to act when you are at the brink of extinction. It is not something that comes up when you slap your girlfriend and ruining a relationship already and then grieving bt it, but "before" you slap. It is more related to "prediction of future and thinking bt present, prediction of right and wrong before doing an action" and "learning from the past" for a better tomorrow. Do you really think science and scientists have learnt from the past? It is simply "not their job" in the first place to "judge" let alone learning from the past, but to keep "exploring and explaining". And hence, Moral science simply means to induce "morality in the definition and the work of science".

I cant give a scientific explanation because it hasnt been found yet...didnt i say science didnt know everything?

Do you really think that science is involved in the first place? Don't you think it more about philosophy? Do you really think science has something to do with "why one should stand when an elder or female comes on a dinner table, unconditional love etc" and other examples I stated?

AFAIK agnostics are people who think there may/may not be a god, not all theories...fence sitters as someone said, but anyway i deny the existance of god entirely so no it doesnt make an agnostic....

Fair enough! So its basically god that separates from atheists and agnostics, where athiests have given up on God and agnostics are simply doubtful on everything.

BTW, you didn't reply to Buddhism part. Can you start to "love Buddhism"?

I did not get your point here.

My point is simply that we are made up of "lifeless" chemical elements like carbon, oxygen, phosporous, calcium and compounds of these. The cells in our body die and generate "wihout" our knowledge. We do not know "how many" cells are dying every second. WE cannot feel them. These cells make up for the higher organs like lungs ,heart etc that function on their own and unconsciously. WE cannot "stop" their functioning. Even in a sleeping state they continue to function and nails continue to grow. So we are composed of lifeless chemicals and cells are having life.

Similarly universe is composed of lifeless stuff and all life forms like animals, humans etc. So do you think universe is living? Do you think it is having life? Give it a thought for its just a question.

 

[amitash]

You simply are not replying to my one "basic" question. Is that God telling to hurt other people who have "diferent viewpoint", "different understanding", "different faith"? I guess the question i not that hard! Yes or No?

Presuming that god is true, no its not telling them, but it creates a difference between the people none the less.

Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?

You may or may not believe in what your parents say. Similarly, one may or may not believe in what religions say. Religions aren't asking you to kill, hate, abuse etc anyone who doesn't adheres to this religion. Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not. He may follow illogic instead and supernatural phenomena even after being a science student. It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad". Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??

If someone abuses my parents, of course i will be angry and i will rebuke them, even if my parents havent asked me too...And i think 99% of the people will say that...But the same thing goes for religion and on a much larger scale...since you have compared religion to parents...you can say that each child has 1 religion (parents point of view)....If abusing occurs then only that one person will be affected...On the other hand millions of people follow a handfull of religions...one abuse will likely affect many many others...and anyway you need your parents mainly for your needs as your defenseless when your young...Because they give you all your needs and protect you, you listen to them and in most cases obey....Religion doesnt give you any of your basic needs...It just tells you its point of view...think of it like you following someone elses parents as closely as yours and you getting offended because they insulted that "someone elses parent".

And yes people have abused theists here and judged them, that was wrong...and did i say I hate people who follow religions? no just said i hate "that part of them"...and

What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently.

I wouldnt abuse him (atleast not from now anyway)...Its his point of view, i wouldnt care, i would try to correct him if he says something extremely wrong but thats about it.

You got my point and yet you say "because of God" differences are rising, when in this thread alone the differences are actually based on the "viewpoint"? Athiests are abusing and generalising on theists. Those who don't believe in God are attacking those who believe in God. So how can you say God is creating difference? In your logic may be its the "viewpoint" that the humanity should get rid off!!? What do u say?

The way i see it, in this thread differences are arising because of God...some people believe and abuse the others, some dont and abuse the believers...Its still another differences created by god but i also agree that it has escalated too much as to lead to judging other people.

Like you yourself said, its not the science that is leading to corporate greed. Science would simply explore a way to convert one form of energy to another. Nuclear energy is a form of energy . Are scientists telling to make nuclear bombs? In future they might even perfect "controlled" nuclear "fusion" reaction. Scientists are simply exploring, while military is employing them and exploring the tools that could be made. The work of the science and scientist is too "explore" and "Explain" the science. If the employed scientist "questions the military" about the ills, which is related to "conscience" rather than science, then military will employ someone else. So the conscience and morality factor aren't really a part of science, but the human society. So who is responsible for the global warming? "Who explored" the tools and "who exploited" the tools?

You misunderstood, scientists of course "explore the tools" as you said and as you said its the "use of tools" that matters...But the tools may be exploited, yes but not for scientific reasons so science is not at fault...I already agreed that its the people who exploit it who are at fault...the science of making the tool or exploring the tool itslef is not at fault, same way the people are exploiting the religion and in most cases not the religions fault, but there is God A, God B, God C and even if the gods dont tell anyone to fight, it still creates a difference...on the other hand there is just science, a single thing that doesnt cause differences....But even if you do take that the people learn to live with these different Gods in peace, I still wouldnt like it because there is no proof for this "god" even if it teaches only good things, there is still no proof or evidence, and it is just offered to the people...and that i think, is a form of brainwashing the people and stopping free thought....now do you think that this god is the right way to go? to teach?

Further, if you are willing to accept the "good things" that science has done, then why are you refusing to accept the "bad things" science has done? On one hand you say that its the humans who have "exploited" science and not the science which is telling to do that and on other, you celebrate science for doing good things and providing you luxuries? Do you understand the point? So science is not concerned whether the thing explored is bad or good for people.

I never refused that there are bad things in science, but i do refuse to mark that against science as a negative...because science IS concerned if its doing good or bad...Science tries to solve the questions and problems of the people so it is looking for the good of the people...even when its trying to solve these problems, it tries to eliminate all the problems that might occur because of the solution it gives...do you think you can see everything bad that may occur? some other problem may arise out of the solution which you term as "bad" and that also science is trying to answer...whether it will find an answer or not is secondary but atleast it tries with all the knowleedge present, to fix it...in religion, that is not the case...Its fixed and never changing...the religious scriptures never change, never amend themselves...what if there is something that is wrong or "bad" in the case of a religions philosophy? Will it ever be fixed...will anyone alter or amend the writings? will they accept their mistakes? change is an essential part of life and if there is no change, its either a bad thing or its perfect....do you think all the teachings in all the religions are perfect?

And hence moral science simply means to "foresee/predict" the possible consequences from each and every angle possible. Like I asked before, would it be possible to reduce global warming with increasing population, increasing use of computers which have become an evergreen part of human existence, urbanization of the world with a huge scope for plenty of poor nations to urbanize and large scale deforestation already in the process?

So you think that in all cases science should think of all the consequences? If science had to think of all the consequences, science had to know everything, but it doesnt so how do you expect it to see everything? BUT even if it does lead to unforeseen consequences, science tries to amend it, to fix it, its even a part of science to fix it...I dont see the consequences that have arisen from religion being fixed or amended do you?

Back to basics. With rapid urbanization, can trees exist in proportion to the population and all the above factors? We have already predicted that polar icecaps would be gone by 2050. What would science do to bring back the polar icecaps, i.e the natural habitat of polar bears and many penguins? Science might to do it and might not. But who forced the world to think upon it? Don't you think its the very survival of the humans that forced them to think about it? Remember conscience is not something that tells you to act when you are at the brink of extinction. It is not something that comes up when you slap your girlfriend and ruining a relationship already and then grieving bt it, but "before" you slap. It is more related to "prediction of future and thinking bt present, prediction of right and wrong before doing an action" and "learning from the past" for a better tomorrow. Do you really think science and scientists have learnt from the past? It is simply "not their job" in the first place to "judge" let alone learning from the past, but to keep "exploring and explaining". And hence, Moral science simply means to induce "morality in the definition and the work of science".

No i dont think its the survival of the humans that makes them think about it, its our natural curiosity to learn things, to explain things, to solve things....do you think, that we would have stopped questioning and thinking if our survival was guaranteed?...Imagine you were the last living thing on earth, you had plenty of food, shelter, luxuries that we see today etc and that you had no chance of being killed....in that situation, will you stop questioning and trying to find the answers?
And i do think scientists have learned from the past and tried not to repeat their mistakes....they learnt for eg: that the car causes a lot of pollution so they made hydrogen powered cars which only give out water...now can you see a problem arising in those cars? To the best of their knowledge scientists have built this car and think there are no negative effects of it...now what if something bad does happen? is that the scientists fault? Isnt morality there too?

Do you really think that science is involved in the first place? Don't you think it more about philosophy? Do you really think science has something to do with "why one should stand when an elder or female comes on a dinner table, unconditional love etc" and other examples I stated?

Now dont you think you are being close minded? what if science IS involved? what if there is an explanation but not found yet? One theory the scientists have given is that: "Evolution and natural selection modified some X,Y,Z things in our brain so that we pay respect to elders etc etc" now it may/may not be true, but isnt ruling that possibility out makes your statement more of a theistic one? where you are sure, you "believe" that science has nothing to do with it and its all phillosophy?

BTW, you didn't reply to Buddhism part. Can you start to "love Buddhism"?

I may start to "love buddhism" or follow it if i learn everything it has to say and reason it as being correct...

My point is simply that we are made up of "lifeless" chemical elements like carbon, oxygen, phosporous, calcium and compounds of these. The cells in our body die and generate "wihout" our knowledge. We do not know "how many" cells are dying every second. WE cannot feel them. These cells make up for the higher organs like lungs ,heart etc that function on their own and unconsciously. WE cannot "stop" their functioning. Even in a sleeping state they continue to function and nails continue to grow. So we are composed of lifeless chemicals and cells are having life.

Similarly universe is composed of lifeless stuff and all life forms like animals, humans etc. So do you think universe is living? Do you think it is having life? Give it a thought for its just a question.

Im still confused...so the universe is composed of lifeless stuff...we are made of lifeless things, we cannot feel them dying etc, but so what?

And I already said that science and religion are not the same so as to even make a statement like "in the name of science". If for God we have various religions, then for science we have various corporates, but again not in the same context. If differences might arise because of the followers, then huge problems might arise out of corporates and the competition between them that "exploit science".

for god we dont have various religions...for various religions we have various gods

And we dont have different corporates for science...we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science..I have always said that people who exploit science are at fault, but the science itself....

Like you yourself said, its not the science that is leading to corporate greed.

then for science we have various corporates

contradiction?

 

[karnivore]

I am not sure, to which question you have answered but I agree, that you have repeated yourself. When I asked those questions, I was hoping that I will be able to give a different direction to the debate. But, unfortunately, it is not to be.

But science is not telling such verses where to act "diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently" and give us a "detailed thought" to ponder on.

-snipped-

Moral science means, how science and scientists are going.

-snipped-

But if science and scientists are not goin to find a solution for plastics, global warming, nuclear wastes etc, then who will? If a poison is developed, then "morally" a cure should be developed as well before giving out to the market. People have accustomed to luxuries. Even if we reduce our electricity consumption, will it lead to reduction in global warming given the increasing use of computers, poor nations urbanising and getting educated, large scale deforestation etc?

Moral science simple means the ways of science and scientists rather than the way of human being in dealing with his "entire" life like I already stated before.

Essentially what you seem to mean by “moral science” is the morality of science and that of scientists, in application of scientific knowledge. (Off the top of my head, two of the notorious applications of science by the scientists, was eugenics, practiced by Nazi Germany and weaponizing germs by genetically modifying them). Indeed, expecting scientists to be moral and ethical, in application of their scientific knowledge, is not at all unreasonable. Being human beings, they can’t deny their responsibilities to the society at large. However, they are expected to be guided by the same scruples, that any other, non-scientists, are guided by. In that sense, there isn’t any specific set of “morality” for the scientists to follow.

The reason why I asked you to define science, is because you are expecting science to be something, which is impossible for it to be. Science, as I understand it, is knowledge about the rules of nature, and the procedure of obtaining that knowledge. It is not possible for knowledge, or any procedure for that matter, to be moral, in the sense that it applies to a human, or as you are expecting, to tell “where to act "diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently" and give us a "detailed thought" to ponder on”. Science is moral-neutral. For example, we all know, from our individual experiences, that a body falls down to earth and doesn’t float away. Science will tell you, it is because of something called gravity. Science won’t tell you what to do with this knowledge i.e. the gravity. Science is simply indifferent to the use, that this knowledge is likely to be put in. Therefore, it is neutral in terms of morality, ethics, gender, culture, ethnicity, region and even religion. But the same can’t be said about a religion which, for example, teaches a person, that one who doesn’t believe in my holy texts is either a “pagan” or a “kaffir” or a “nastik”, or any other term that any other religion may use to mean the same thing.

Science is not philosophy. You want to learn “HOW” this universe works, read science. You want to learn “WHY” this universe works, read philosophy.

Neways, who provides you morality? Aren't parents the major factors that sow that seed and ask to be wise and show light at every path of your life? Is it any different than religion saying the same things. Now what if someone abuses your parents and says they talk rubbish? Does that mean you don't need your parents? is the abusing child's parents asking him to act like that?

What you are essentially saying is that a person is responsible for his own actions, and blaming religion, for his individual actions, is disingenuous. This, appears to be a fair assessment, but only on the surface.

A person is indeed responsible for his/her actions, make no mistake about it, but the bigger question is, would s/he have acted the same way, if s/he was not prejudiced by his/her religion. In other words, are his/her actions directly or indirectly fuelled by his/her religious belief ? Even bigger question is, are personal actions, however heinous, justified, by his/her religious belief ? If answer to any or both the questions is “yes”, then in addition to the person, his/her religion gets the blame as well. In the same way, if actions can be traced back to bad parenting, his/her parents get the blame as well.

Criticizing religion is nowhere close to being same as criticizing one’s parents for what a person is (unless bad parenting is involved here.). A child needs parents, to be precise, a mother, for its survival. Requirement of religion in a person’s life is for entirely different reasons and can’t be equated with the requirement of a parent in a child’s life. Simply put, a child will not survive to be a man or a woman, without parental care, but a man or woman can spend his/her life without religion.

Hinduism is not calling anyone to adhere to something called "hinduism" in scriptures. Same is the case with Jainism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc. Some are "following" arya samaj. One might follow science and one may not.

One may follow up on the scientific discoveries, but one can’t “follow” science, in the same way as one follows religion. If by “follow science” you mean believing in scientific discoveries, then it is same as being on the side of rationality and logic. Not to “follow science”, is to reject rationality and accept illogic. It is hardly a choice.

Every religion ensures adherence to it, by some rules, rituals and symbols. No matter how flimsy these rules may seem, if one doesn’t follow those, one ceases to be the proponent of that religion. For example, if you are a hindu and eat beef, to many schools of thought you cease to be a hindu or there is only a certain way that you can perform yajna. If you are a sikh and you do not maintain the 5 Ks – Karha, Kirpan, Kangha, Keski and Kacha – you cease to be a Sikh. These are all means of keeping the flock together.

What if you develop conscience yourself and develop a philosophy of life and then someone questions you and says you are stupid. AGain, there is a "difference" in the viewpoint. Will you call him stupid in reply, abuse, slap or explain? Remember diff. people might act differently.

-snipped-

It is quite common actually where science student says "eating eggs on tuesday is bad". Should he be hated then? Look at what science followers and self proclaimed atheists are doing in this thread. You will find plenty of them abusing the theists. Isn't that "intolerance" of someone's viewpoint? Even after being atheists and not associating themselves with any religion they are abusing, generalising etc on theists. So how can one say religion is leading to intolerance when its just a "viewpoint" in reality and the "intolerance" residing in the human mind rather than the source like religion??

Having an opinion different from you, and be vocal about it is not “intolerance”. Criticizing something, in a manner which is not to your liking, is also not “intolerance”. Ridiculing something is rudeness, but not “intolerance”. For example, the idea that “earth is flat”, doesn’t need to be respected, or even entertained, just because it will hurt someone’s feelings and criticizing or ridiculing the idea will certainly, not be “intolerance”. Similarly, the notion that “eating eggs on tuesday is bad”, needs to be mocked and ridiculed, if all reasoning with the person, holding this notion, fails, but the person, himself, shouldn’t be “hated”. “Hate” is a pretty strong word.

At the core of theism, is belief of a supreme being, being the facilitator of this universe. That is how theism is defined. However, definition of this supreme being, or the concept and philosophy of how it facilitates this universe, or how a devotee shall go about with his/her life may vary from one theistic religion to another. Atheists, find this, belief in supreme being and everything associated with it, irrational and it is disingenuous to expect an atheist to respect something which he finds irrational, and has already rejected. Also, criticism against theism is criticism against this belief of supreme being and not against any particular religion, or religion in general. Your accusation of “generalizing” theists, is therefore, unfounded, although I would agree that criticism against theism, sometimes overlaps with criticism against theistic religion.

“Intolerance”, would be, if someone is forcibly suppressed to exercise his personal rights, for example, that of practicing his/her religion or expressing his/her opinion against such religion. I don’t see any member on this board, or for that matter any atheist anywhere, doing such, in the name of atheism. Nobody is under any obligation to anyone to entertain any opinion, that one doesn’t like. Just as you have a right to have an opinion and express it in your own way, I have the right to be critical of your opinion and express it.

Religion is not just a “viewpoint”, neither does it stop at expressing this “viewpoint”. It uses this “viewpoint” to define society, to define people, to define every aspect of our life. Anything, not falling in line with these narrow parameters, is unacceptable. This leads to religious intolerance. A few days back, Pope claimed that condom doesn’t prevent HIV virus to spread, in spite of researches, experiments and data, showing the opposite. This is also a “viewpoint”. But imagine the effect, the “viewpoint” may have. But in Pope’s religion, using condom is “sin”. Cut back to India. Here you have a bunch of people clamouring for a ban on cow slaughter, because their religion considers cows to be sacred. Therefore, cow slaughter, for them is “sin”. It is the “viewpoint” of one religion. But what about the “viewpoint” of another religion that requires cow sacrifice, in some of their rituals. Why not root for ban of animal slaughter, as a whole, in any religious or cultural ritual. But no. Because the one’s asking for a ban on cow slaughter, requires to slaughter some other animal for their rituals. Now what is this “viewpoint” doing other than creating fissure within a secular society. That my friend, is religious intolerance. When a painter is forced to live outside his country, for daring to paint some goddesses in a manner that a bunch of intellectually handicapped person found unacceptable, it is religious intolerance. When a writer has to live underground for the better part of his life, for writing something, that some fanatic thought, was derogatory to his religion, it is intolerance. When scientific data, tested and proven, is dismissed simply because, it doesn’t bode well with someone’s holy book, it is intolerance.

Calling someone “stupid” for his ideas, is rudeness, but not intolerance. So, if my self developed conscience and philosophy of life, leads me to believe, green witches hanging upside down from a lamp post, then it is to be questioned, ridiculed and be called “stupid”.

Being religious in Hindi basically means "dharma". "Dharma" means ur duty also. I call my self religious coz basically Hinduism is percieved as a religion. You may call it as a way of life and substitute the defintition. But in Hindi, it only means one word and that is "dharmic", i.e "dharmic" towards your work, your life etc. And Gita is a whole subject on that "duty" of what, how and where one should act diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently etc. You may agree with its verses and you may not.

Actually, of whatever little knowledge of Sanskrit, I have, the word “dharma” doesn’t have an equivalent word in English. Although we generally translate it as religion, it is far from it. (Curiously, again, the word “religion” doesn’t have an equivalent in Sanskrit). “Dharma” roughly means attribute, something inherent to something or someone. For example, it is water’s “dharma” to be wet. It is fire’s “dharma” to burn. You can’t exactly translate this word as “duty” either.

Regarding Gita, I do believe, that it is a pre-medieval self-help book, something in the lines of, “You can win”, only a few orders of magnitude superior in its intellectual discourse. But then, thats just me speaking.

But I feel, when "hatred" is innate in a religion, i.e specified by the holy books themselves, which specifically gives itself a name (for religion) and asks its followers to glorify and embrace itself etc, then the meaning isn't short of an "organization".

-snipped-

I told myself that just like religion, like a few I stated above, aren't asking to kill people of other religions or other faiths, similarly science is not asking to do global warming. Science is not leading to atomic warfare, but again the "human mind" coz of materialism i.e region, greed etc.

No religion asks its adherents to kill, at least not implicitly, neither is “hatred” innate in any religion. They simply provide justification for “hatred”. Meaning, religion doesn’t ask its followers to hate. But if a follower wants to hate, s/he will find enough justification in his/her religion, if s/he looks for it. What if I say, entire Gita is justification for war, sugar coated as good against evil, dharma against adharma. (In fact if you read Gita critically, you will find, Krishna hasn’t exactly been able to answer Arjuna’s question) As long as one is of the view, that his/her cause has merit and is on the side of the good, nothing stops him/her to engage in his/her private “dharmayudh”. This is where religion fails. It defines “good” and “evil” in its own terms.

This is also where, science differs from religion. Science is moral-neutral, as I have explained before. It neither judges nor does it provide justification for anything as religion does. It simply can’t. So a person ordering to drop a nuclear warhead is not science’s fault, but a person ransacking an art display, supposedly because it has insulted his religion, is indeed the religion’s fault, because it has provided this person with the intellectual base to do so. In his mind, he has defended his religion, done his own “dharmayudh”.

I would agree however, that Eastern/South-Eastern religions, are not as bellicose as the abrahamic religions are, partly because, these are more, philosophies of life, than religion and partly because, these came into being, long before society became multireligious, in the sense that it is today, and partly because, most don’t have a central authority like Christianity or Islam, e.g. Hinduism. Many are not even theistic in nature e.g. Buddhism and Jainism. However, criticisms against all theistic religions, applies unabated, to these as well.

Also, you have used a wrong term here. “Materialism” is a distinct term in philosophy, which defines the universe in terms of matter alone, or it is the conviction that all processes, can be explained in terms of matter. Pursuing material comfort is not the same as the philosophical concept of “materialism”. Inadvertent mistake, I guess.

 

[karnivore]

Is that God telling to hurt other people who have "diferent viewpoint", "different understanding", "different faith"? I guess the question i not that hard! Yes or No?

It is NO and YES, both. NO, because, something which probably doesn’t exist, probably doesn’t have any influence on anything. YES, because, hurting other people is justified in the name of that god and the religion associated with it.

If for God we have various religions, then for science we have various corporates, but again not in the same context. If differences might arise because of the followers, then huge problems might arise out of corporates and the competition between them that "exploit science".

What are you saying. Doesn’t even make sense. In what context does science become to corporate, what god is to religion. And how ?

The work of the science and scientist is too "explore" and "Explain" the science.

The work of the scientist is to “explore” and “explain” the nature. The act of “exploring” and the “explanation” itself, is science.

Like I asked before, would it be possible to reduce global warming…

Maybe. Kyoto protocol has kick started the effort. It’s a long way from here, but not impossible.

 

[rhitwick]

I'm pissed off reading these baseless comments on "Global Warming". B4 commenting get ur facts clear.
We (theists and atheists) r blindly following what is being told to us. For theists its an acceptable behavior because they are like that, for the followers of science I would expect more. What happend to ur basic queries what, when, how, who told, proof, how true r those, verification and reproducing of them again and again.

I would first recommend a science fiction novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Yes its a "science fiction" and I know what I'm writing. If any one of u is laughing becuse of my referral being a science fiction, I would like to request him/her to verify the sources of info mentioned in the bibliography of the book.

Some excerpts from the book; author's message:-

We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.

We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the “Little Ice Age.”

Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.

Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.

Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing, really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else’s. (We can’t “assess” the future, nor can we “predict” it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)

I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.

Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.

I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.

There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.

I conclude that most environmental “principles” (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, “We got ours and we don’t want you to get yours, because you’ll cause too much pollution.”

The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.

I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.

I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don’t.

In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970s.

We haven’t the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term “wilderness,” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational, and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.

We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.

We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily—usually by preventing something—with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.

Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fishermen, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics.

We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research—whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization—always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization “studies” are every bit as biased and suspect as industry “studies.” Government “studies” are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass.

and if u want the bibliography too, here are some,

World temperature data has been taken from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, New York (GISS); the Jones, et al. data set from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (CRU); and the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) maintained by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC) of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

The GISS station page is not easy to find from their home page, but it is found at *www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station data/.

The Jones data set reference is P. D. Jones, D. E. Parker, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, 1999. Global and hemispheric temperature anomolies—land and marine instrument records. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

and

What follows is a list of books and journal articles I found most useful in preparing this novel. I found the texts by Beckerman, Chase, Huber, Lomborg, and Wildavsky to be particularly revealing.
Environmental science is a contentious and intensely politicized field. No reader should assume that any author listed below agrees with the views I express in this book. Quite the contrary: many of them disagree strongly. I am presenting these references to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions.

Aber, John D., and Jerry M. Melillo. Terrestrial Ecosystems. San Francisco: Harcourt Academic Press, 2001. A standard textbook.

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (Report of the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002. The text concludes that abrupt climate change might occur sometime in the future, triggered by mechanisms not yet understood, and that in the meantime more research is needed. Surely no one could object.

Adam, Barbara, Ulrich Beck, and Jost Van Loon. The Risk Society and Beyond. London: Sage Publications, 2000.

Altheide, David L. Creating Fear, News and the Construction of Crisis. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2002. A book about fear and its expanding place in public life. Overlong and repetitive, but addressing a highly significant subject. Some of the statistical analyses are quite amazing.

Anderson, J. B. and J. T. Andrews. “Radiocarbon Constraints on Ice Sheet Advance and Retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica.” Geology 27 (1999): 179–82.

Anderson, Terry L., and Donald R. Leal. Free Market Environmentalism. New York: Palgrave (St. Martin’s Press), 2001. The authors argue government management of environmental resources has a poor track record in the former Soviet Union, and in the Western democracies as well. They make the case for the superiority of private and market-based management of environmental resources. Their case histories are particularly interesting.

A few sites, I've found interesting.

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

*planetgore.nationalreview.com/

*info-pollution.com/warming.htm

* Sea levels: In a March 13 article, "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype," New York Times science writer William J. Broad set up a false comparison, suggesting that the IPCC report, which "estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches," contradicted Gore's claim, "citing no particular time frame," that seas could rise "up to 20 feet." In the book An Inconvenient Truth (Rodale Books, May 2006), Gore wrote that if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet." He added that "the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually identical in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea."

But the IPCC projection to which Broad was referring involved rising sea levels as they are affected by "[c]ontinued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates" -- not the melting or breakup of the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome. A chart projecting the rise of sea levels in six different scenarios showed that the "the best estimate for the high scenario," which defined the "likely range" of temperature increases over the next century to be from "2.4°C to 6.4°C," resulting in an increase in sea levels between 0.26 meters and 0.59 meters, which converts to a range of 10.24 to 23.23 inches. The IPCC further claimed that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. The apple-to-oranges comparison Broad made on sea levels was noted by Bob Somerby on his weblog, The Daily Howler.

*mediamatters.org/research/200703230007

Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists) took part in the second annual International Conference on Climate Change—sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank—in March 2009. Keynote speaker and Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen told the gathering that "there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons."

Most skeptics attribute global warming—few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature—to natural cycles, not emissions from power plants, automobiles and other human activity. "The observational evidence…suggests that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," says atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, an outspoken global warming skeptic and founder of the advocacy-oriented Science and Environmental Policy Project.

*www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth

MYTH No. 3: There will be storms, flooded coasts and huge disruptions in climate!

TRUTH: There are always storms and floods. Will there be much bigger disruptions in climate? Probably not.

Schoolchildren I've interviewed were convinced that America is "dying" in a sea of pollution and that "cities will soon be under water!"

Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) warn that "sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often."

Wow.

But many scientists laugh at the panic.

Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."

*abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1

Here is another interesting link, check it out too.
*web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Archive.html

If, u r still not satisfied (and u should not be), google on "global cooling".
One link for example, *www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141146.htm

Now, at least stop bringing Global Warming into God

 

[amitash]

^well i doubt its totally baseless...I could post a lot of links too which say they have proved global warming, but the point i get from all the links...whether for or against the "global warming theory" is that we just dont have enough data/proof to make it conclusive...We will just have to wait and see i guess.

 

[mediator]

Presuming that god is true, no its not telling them, but it creates a difference between the people none the less.

How is "it" creating diff. when the its really the people that is the cause? One one hand you agree religions are not the source and then you say "it" creates difference? It is like you understand the logic, but innately you dislike religion and hence refusing to "accept" the logic so as to override that dislike.

If someone abuses my parents, of course i will be angry and i will rebuke them, even if my parents havent asked me too...And i think 99% of the people will say that...But the same thing goes for religion and on a much larger scale...since you have compared religion to parents...you can say that each child has 1 religion (parents point of view)....If abusing occurs then only that one person will be affected...On the other hand millions of people follow a handfull of religions...one abuse will likely affect many many others...and anyway you need your parents mainly for your needs as your defenseless when your young...Because they give you all your needs and protect you, you listen to them and in most cases obey....Religion doesnt give you any of your basic needs...It just tells you its point of view...think of it like you following someone elses parents as closely as yours and you getting offended because they insulted that "someone elses parent".

And yes people have abused theists here and judged them, that was wrong...and did i say I hate people who follow religions? no just said i hate "that part of them"...and

In the world's largest democracy...
1. I don't see people killing each other "on a large scale" everyday.
2. I see tolerance more than "hatred"
3. Just because media shows what is going in a "locality", doesn't mean it is happening in whole of India.

Further, like I stated, people of most religion enjoy the festivals of other religions. And "most" of the people do that instead of a "few". Just like you stated, its human nature to get angry when something he follows is "attacked" and "abused". See for yourself its "you" who are getting angry when some abuses your parents. Its you who will "rebuke", not that your parents are telling you to. They will rather tell you to "restraint" and not indulge in a fight. Don't you agree?

1. Religions are not telling to "attack", "abuse" or "kill" which you agree. Its only a few who "exploit" religion or kill in the name of religion. Read "few".
2. Religions give a "thought", "a philosophy" to enhance your morals and ethics. And these are provided to "many" people. Read "many".
3. Is getting insulted on parents any different? The point is its "you" who are getting insulted and thinking of a "reaction". The basic point of view is "reacting" to something that you "like,follow etc" when someone "attacks" it. The same thing is behind, parents, boundaries, countries etc i.e the very thought of what is "mine" or "attacking" someone as a part of reaction.

Parents give you your needs, agreed! But this is not the point. Its the "respect" you have for your parents and the perception that is making you to react when someone attacks them. But religion do give you philophical knowledge, the points that people may or may not agree, but atleast are willing to think bt them. May be it is the knowledge you never thought of? May it is something that you "felt" but were confused about and religions giving a simple solution to your life problems??

I wouldnt abuse him (atleast not from now anyway)...Its his point of view, i wouldnt care, i would try to correct him if he says something extremely wrong but thats about it.

What if he abuses you really bad? Remember not everyone is same. You may or may not react, but someone else might react if faces the same situation.

The way i see it, in this thread differences are arising because of God...some people believe and abuse the others, some dont and abuse the believers...Its still another differences created by god but i also agree that it has escalated too much as to lead to judging other people.

Why do you say it is created by God, when it is us stupid humans who indulge and create chaos? How is god even "remotely responsible"? Is it darwin's fault that there is a verbal battle raging between evolutionists and creationists? Would it be Buddha's fault if someone abuses buddha and people get angry over it? What is Buddha doing himsef in such a situation? Remember, nude Hindu goddeses are painted all over the world. Hindu Gods are "abused" all over the world. Are most Hindus saying anything? Some do get angry and forget it. That is called tolerance. But only a "few" react violently. And even with those "few", you cannot say "God" is telling or creating a difference. To add it is much of the politics that is exploiting religion than anything else.

You misunderstood, scientists of course "explore the tools" as you said and as you said its the "use of tools" that matters...But the tools may be exploited, yes but not for scientific reasons so science is not at fault...I already agreed that its the people who exploit it who are at fault...the science of making the tool or exploring the tool itslef is not at fault, same way the people are exploiting the religion and in most cases not the religions fault, but there is God A, God B, God C and even if the gods dont tell anyone to fight, it still creates a difference...on the other hand there is just science, a single thing that doesnt cause differences....But even if you do take that the people learn to live with these different Gods in peace, I still wouldnt like it because there is no proof for this "god" even if it teaches only good things, there is still no proof or evidence, and it is just offered to the people...and that i think, is a form of brainwashing the people and stopping free thought....now do you think that this god is the right way to go? to teach?

Like I asked, do you know how many famous scientists were religious themselves? How many of em were theists themselves? Did God change their "freedom of thought"?

Btw, had you read my past replies u'd have known that I'm not against or favour of God. I simply don't care about God. I like to learn best of all the worlds and in the case of religion its "deep" thoughts in philosophy.

Science tries to solve the questions and problems of the people so it is looking for the good of the people

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Can you tell what well devised strategy science has planned "which is not without flaws" and "guarantees" to
1. To undo global warming?
2. Restore natural habitat of polar bears and penguins, i.e polar life?
3. To "undo" large scale deforestation and consequent soil erosion?

I hope you will answer these few things without the use of a phrase like "science will" which you agreed is not correct.

do you think you can see everything bad that may occur? some other problem may arise out of the solution which you term as "bad" and that also science is trying to answer...whether it will find an answer or not is secondary but atleast it tries with all the knowleedge present, to fix it...in religion, that is not the case...Its fixed and never changing...the religious scriptures never change, never amend themselves...what if there is something that is wrong or "bad" in the case of a religions philosophy? Will it ever be fixed...will anyone alter or amend the writings? will they accept their mistakes? change is an essential part of life and if there is no change, its either a bad thing or its perfect....do you think all the teachings in all the religions are perfect?
.
.
.
I dont see the consequences that have arisen from religion being fixed or amended do you?

1. Manusmriti which was being misunderstood as a part of Hinduism, is now being corrected and people getting aware of it.
2. cast system which is not even a part of Hinduism, is slowly being rejected and again people are getting aware of it.
3. Superstitions like "eggs on tuesday" are being debated. Again they are nuthing more than rumours.

Atleast a few religions are getting cleansed slowly and steadily! So I think something is being "fixed"!

You will only see the reality and the logic, if you shed your "bias", and "dislike" towards "part" of religion or God. LIke first you attacked religions, even when you knew nuthing bt the scriptures of even 1 religion appropriately.

So you think that in all cases science should think of all the consequences? If science had to think of all the consequences, science had to know everything, but it doesnt so how do you expect it to see everything? BUT even if it does lead to unforeseen consequences, science tries to amend it, to fix it, its even a part of science to fix it...

Exactly my point of view. It is simply exploring. Where's the conscience then? But yes, I do think science shud gather all the possible cases so that everyone understands the ills of tomorrow and thats what becomes "moral science". Even then, even after knowing the ills, are we still willing to give up on our own comfort and luxuries? Ofcourse not!

Now dont you think you are being close minded? what if science IS involved? what if there is an explanation but not found yet? One theory the scientists have given is that: "Evolution and natural selection modified some X,Y,Z things in our brain so that we pay respect to elders etc etc" now it may/may not be true, but isnt ruling that possibility out makes your statement more of a theistic one? where you are sure, you "believe" that science has nothing to do with it and its all phillosophy?

I think you don't understand the difference bet. science and philosophy. If a scientific "explanation" is given then don't you think it needs to be "uniform"?? Some pay respect towards elders, some rape, some kick out elders from their homes and all sort of crimes. Random behaviour and acts "explaining" uniform human nature is not science!
I think you r being ignorant again and confusing philosophy with science. National laws have been created for the betterment of human society. "Nari aadar" (respect towards female), "athiti devo bhava" (guest is god) are nothing but an expression to show "respect towards female and guest". It is related to ethics and not science.

How you should dress in school is ethics not science! So don't be confused!

No i dont think its the survival of the humans that makes them think about it, its our natural curiosity to learn things, to explain things, to solve things....do you think, that we would have stopped questioning and thinking if our survival was guaranteed?...Imagine you were the last living thing on earth, you had plenty of food, shelter, luxuries that we see today etc and that you had no chance of being killed....in that situation, will you stop questioning and trying to find the answers?
And i do think scientists have learned from the past and tried not to repeat their mistakes....they learnt for eg: that the car causes a lot of pollution so they made hydrogen powered cars which only give out water...now can you see a problem arising in those cars? To the best of their knowledge scientists have built this car and think there are no negative effects of it...now what if something bad does happen? is that the scientists fault? Isnt morality there too?

My question was on "global warming" which made the world to think upon it, not science's curiosity. And it is based upon your premise that tells "science fixes afterwards" and hence my statement that "conscience is not something that comes "afterwards", but in present and before taking an action and learning from the past". And hence science does not contain conscience. Read it again...

Back to basics. With rapid urbanization, can trees exist in proportion to the population and all the above factors? We have already predicted that polar icecaps would be gone by 2050. What would science do to bring back the polar icecaps, i.e the natural habitat of polar bears and many penguins? Science might to do it and might not. But who forced the world to think upon it? Don't you think its the very survival of the humans that forced them to think about it? Remember conscience is not something that tells you to act when you are at the brink of extinction. It is not something that comes up when you slap your girlfriend and ruining a relationship already and then grieving bt it, but "before" you slap. It is more related to "prediction of future and thinking bt present, prediction of right and wrong before doing an action" and "learning from the past" for a better tomorrow. Do you really think science and scientists have learnt from the past? It is simply "not their job" in the first place to "judge" let alone learning from the past, but to keep "exploring and explaining". And hence, Moral science simply means to induce "morality in the definition and the work of science".

And i do think scientists have learned from the past and tried not to repeat their mistakes....they learnt for eg: that the car causes a lot of pollution so they made hydrogen powered cars which only give out water...now can you see a problem arising in those cars? To the best of their knowledge scientists have built this car and think there are no negative effects of it...now what if something bad does happen? is that the scientists fault? Isnt morality there too?

Here again, treating the earlier work of science as a "mistake", you are directly implying that "science" did something bad. On the other hand, you say science is not at fault since it is explaining and exploring the stuff, which is my point too.

But again scientists have not created a perfect car that
1. Cannot do heat generation.
2. Cause accidents

If humans drive it, there is bound to be heat generation and accidents. And hence again it is humans who are at fault and not science. I already stated global warming, dangers of nukes etc are not because of science, but humans and exploitation of science by humans. I think even after getting my point, you are not able to comprehend it crystal clear. I guess you understand it only vaguely or remain confused.

Conscience simply means that all the major dangers do not arise in the first place! You would not "hurt" a child if you have conscience would you? Or would you hurt him and then find ways to make him laugh?

So moral, conscience is really not a part of science. Moral is basically a standalone "addon" to the definition of science, just like nokia phones have various addons to improve its functionality.

I may start to "love buddhism" or follow it if i learn everything it has to say and reason it as being correct...

Good!

Im still confused...so the universe is composed of lifeless stuff...we are made of lifeless things, we cannot feel them dying etc, but so what?

Leave it. The question is deep actually.

contradiction?
.
.
we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science

confusion?

By stating diff. corporates for science I essentially mean the same thing that I started with and that is "corporate greed" or "we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science".

But the same can’t be said about a religion which, for example, teaches a person, that one who doesn’t believe in my holy texts is either a “pagan” or a “kaffir” or a “nastik”, or any other term that any other religion may use to mean the same thing.

I think you said something about "abrahamic religions" earlier. I'm not debating bt "abrahamic religions", but eastern religions from the start. And hence I've been asking where are the "my god", "my religion", "my texts" in eastern religions? And since you have said about religion too that amitash said earlier and discussed before, I wud only repeat and ask you to tell where in "all" of these religions is self-glorification mentioned? I expect you to understand the meaning of "all" of their scriptures and then post it. Where is sikhism telling that sikh texts are the best? Where is Hinduism telling that something called "Hindu" texts are best? What about Buddhism etc?

"nastik" is not an offensive term, but simply means an atheist. So are these religions self-glorifying?

quote=karnivore]
Science is not philosophy. You want to learn “HOW” this universe works, read science. You want to learn “WHY” this universe works, read philosophy.
[/quote]
Exactly

A person is indeed responsible for his/her actions, make no mistake about it, but the bigger question is, would s/he have acted the same way, if s/he was not prejudiced by his/her religion. In other words, are his/her actions directly or indirectly fuelled by his/her religious belief ? Even bigger question is, are personal actions, however heinous, justified, by his/her religious belief ? If answer to any or both the questions is “yes”, then in addition to the person, his/her religion gets the blame as well. In the same way, if actions can be traced back to bad parenting, his/her parents get the blame as well.

And thats the part where "blind believing" comes in that I discussed before. Does that mean the topic of philosophy should be removed? If religions don't preach it, then someone else will like Sri Sri Ravisankar who get huge fan following. It is the same thing that we quote the philosophical statements of different people and scientists once we agree to it for some thought povocation. People might agree with or disagree with it.

Veda which means "knowledge" is not a name, but a sanskrit term which means "knowledge" and has been stressed on in the scriptures. It simply means we should adher more to knowledge of all kinds, be it scientific, spiritual, duty towards work, respect for the betterment of society. A person who understands this cannot ever do "blind believing" in the first place.

Is it the fault of Hindu scriptures, that christian missionaries distorted it, mistranslated Vedas, glorified manusmriti even when the Vedic authorities talked differently? Don't you think it is again human nature that is sowing the seed of hatred and "intolerance"?

One may follow up on the scientific discoveries, but one can’t “follow” science, in the same way as one follows religion. If by “follow science” you mean believing in scientific discoveries, then it is same as being on the side of rationality and logic. Not to “follow science”, is to reject rationality and accept illogic. It is hardly a choice.

Blind believing happens everywhere. And hence as far as "following" is concerned both fall under the same category. A few "explore science" and the rest follow until the earlier is modified by the science explorers and a new explanation comes in refuting or modifying the earlier. If that is not "following" then what is it?

Every religion ensures adherence to it, by some rules, rituals and symbols. No matter how flimsy these rules may seem, if one doesn’t follow those, one ceases to be the proponent of that religion. For example, if you are a hindu and eat beef, to many schools of thought you cease to be a hindu or there is only a certain way that you can perform yajna. If you are a sikh and you do not maintain the 5 Ks – Karha, Kirpan, Kangha, Keski and Kacha – you cease to be a Sikh. These are all means of keeping the flock together.

You are only saying that becoz you are not religious yourself! You don't have the unbias when it comes to religions.

I don't follow any rules (again manusmriti is not a part of Hinduism). I don't adhere to any rituals, or goto temples or wear some symbols. I question a brahmin who calls himself a brahmin only to surprise him. I discuss logic with those who refrain themselves from eating eggs on tuesday. I ask them to define the start of time and define "tuesday" on the basis of that. I ask why is he following "tuesday" for tuesday is not a part of "hindu calendar" to redo his egg logic. BUT, I call myself Hindu like everyone else does and till date "all" the hindus I have debated on hinduism have only agreed to my discussions regarding Hinduism!

So do I cease to be a "proponent" of Hinduism? AFAIK, I'm the only bad guy who talks Hinduism the most in this forum.

Think again, u'll find plenty of people like me and thats the beauty of Hinduism which talks God and science, philosophy, morals, ethics, duties, and at the same time stresses "against" blind believing from its defining term only......all in one.

Regarding sikhism, many sikhs don't follow the 5 Ks and yet are proud to be sikhs.

Having an opinion different from you, and be vocal about it is not “intolerance”. Criticizing something, in a manner which is not to your liking, is also not “intolerance”. Ridiculing something is rudeness, but not “intolerance”. For example, the idea that “earth is flat”, doesn’t need to be respected, or even entertained, just because it will hurt someone’s feelings and criticizing or ridiculing the idea will certainly, not be “intolerance”. Similarly, the notion that “eating eggs on tuesday is bad”, needs to be mocked and ridiculed, if all reasoning with the person, holding this notion, fails, but the person, himself, shouldn’t be “hated”. “Hate” is a pretty strong word.

I disagree. "Attacking" or "abusing" someone on the basis of difference in opinion or viewpoint is intolerance, i.e "intolerant of a different viewpoint" and not "rude over a viewpoint". Rudeness is acting on the person (victim), whereas intolerance is acting on the viewpoint and "leading to" rudeness, hatred, abuses etc. Hence I have stated it as "intolerance of viewpoint" from the start and that it is basically a difference of viewpoint that we are talking of and intolerant mindset of people rather than religion that leads to hatred. It (intolerance of viewpoint) is irrespective of being verbal or physical. Do you really think all these people putting up big fonts and abusing theists here can do the same "physically"? What if a theist, is a 6+ feet body builder? Do you think they can attack his religion, parents, sister etc on his face? When it comes to reality the situation changes dramatically than what we ideally percieve as. Many would only attack from "behind" and abuse in his absence. Here people are simply being "intolerant verbally".

“Intolerance”, would be, if someone is forcibly suppressed to exercise his personal rights, for example, that of practicing his/her religion or expressing his/her opinion against such religion. I don’t see any member on this board, or for that matter any atheist anywhere, doing such, in the name of atheism. Nobody is under any obligation to anyone to entertain any opinion, that one doesn’t like. Just as you have a right to have an opinion and express it in your own way, I have the right to be critical of your opinion and express it.

"Attacking and abusing" is not really being "critical of one's opinion". I have already said I find illogic in God. Thats my opinion. I'm not doing name calling, abusing or attacking bullshitting it. I simply don't care. And yes the "how" part that you described here can be called "intolerance". But this time it is "intolerance physically".

Religion is not just a “viewpoint”, neither does it stop at expressing this “viewpoint”. It uses this “viewpoint” to define society, to define people, to define every aspect of our life. Anything, not falling in line with these narrow parameters, is unacceptable. This leads to religious intolerance. A few days back, Pope claimed that condom doesn’t prevent HIV virus to spread, in spite of researches, experiments and data, showing the opposite. This is also a “viewpoint”. But imagine the effect, the “viewpoint” may have. But in Pope’s religion, using condom is “sin”. Cut back to India. Here you have a bunch of people clamouring for a ban on cow slaughter, because their religion considers cows to be sacred. Therefore, cow slaughter, for them is “sin”. It is the “viewpoint” of one religion. But what about the “viewpoint” of another religion that requires cow sacrifice, in some of their rituals. Why not root for ban of animal slaughter, as a whole, in any religious or cultural ritual. But no. Because the one’s asking for a ban on cow slaughter, requires to slaughter some other animal for their rituals. Now what is this “viewpoint” doing other than creating fissure within a secular society. That my friend, is religious intolerance. When a painter is forced to live outside his country, for daring to paint some goddesses in a manner that a bunch of intellectually handicapped person found unacceptable, it is religious intolerance. When a writer has to live underground for the better part of his life, for writing something, that some fanatic thought, was derogatory to his religion, it is intolerance. When scientific data, tested and proven, is dismissed simply because, it doesn’t bode well with someone’s holy book, it is intolerance.

That again is "intolerance of viewpoint" that is leading to "hatred" and "rudeness" and please don't talk about abrahamic religions or mix them in the discussion! I hope I was clear about difference bet. an organization and religion. Like I said all religions are not the same. You are only making me repeat my words. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc do not have any problem with science, the evolution theory, the stem cells etc. The members of eastern religions live far more tolerantly together and that my friend is "tolerance of viewpoint"!

And again saying religions do this and that involves...
1. You know all the religions of the world
2. You treat all religions as same.

Actually, of whatever little knowledge of Sanskrit, I have, the word “dharma” doesn’t have an equivalent word in English. Although we generally translate it as religion, it is far from it. (Curiously, again, the word “religion” doesn’t have an equivalent in Sanskrit). “Dharma” roughly means attribute, something inherent to something or someone. For example, it is water’s “dharma” to be wet. It is fire’s “dharma” to burn. You can’t exactly translate this word as “duty” either.

Religious is something that "dharmic" can be translated to but may be not a perfect match. Although the term "religious" is percieved by many as following like "religion", but I think another meaning of religious is "extremely scrupulous and conscientious".

What if I say, entire Gita is justification for war, sugar coated as good against evil, dharma against adharma. (In fact if you read Gita critically, you will find, Krishna hasn’t exactly been able to answer Arjuna’s question) As long as one is of the view, that his/her cause has merit and is on the side of the good, nothing stops him/her to engage in his/her private “dharmayudh”. This is where religion fails. It defines “good” and “evil” in its own terms.

Wrong! What I feel is that you have never read Gita completely. And next, you may or may not agree to what it says. Its your understanding and your opinion.

Also, you have used a wrong term here. “Materialism” is a distinct term in philosophy, which defines the universe in terms of matter alone, or it is the conviction that all processes, can be explained in terms of matter. Pursuing material comfort is not the same as the philosophical concept of “materialism”. Inadvertent mistake, I guess.

No mistake. Thats how "greed, lust etc" are defined when translated from sanskrit to english. I hope you know sanskrit terms have precise meanings and a set of rules to define the words whereas English words are often having a lot of meanings. Like discussed before, the term "You" is used to other second person. Whereas in Hindi "tu, tum, aap" are used to represent if in terms of age and respect. Sanskrit goes one step beyond!


Here's a joke...

Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

Rest discussed! Well plenty of this one was tooo.
I think @amitash is one step ahead of you in arguments. So please read my replies to him too, as I feel I'm only repeating much for u.

 

[rhitwick]

Once again, "GOD" was invented, not discovered.

 

[karnivore]

I think you said something about "abrahamic religions" earlier. I'm not debating bt "abrahamic religions", but eastern religions from the start. And hence I've been asking where are the "my god", "my religion", "my texts" in eastern religions? And since you have said about religion too that amitash said earlier and discussed before, I wud only repeat and ask you to tell where in "all" of these religions is self-glorification mentioned? I expect you to understand the meaning of "all" of their scriptures and then post it. Where is sikhism telling that sikh texts are the best? Where is Hinduism telling that something called "Hindu" texts are best? What about Buddhism etc?

What you didn’t realize, is that, I have interspersed, with examples of abrahamic religions, the glories of eastern religions as well, particularly Hinudism.

Anyway, as I have mentioned earlier, Hinduism is representative of a number of school of thoughts, sort of a collective noun. It is not a religion. But if one goes down to the level of these schools of thought, one can deal with these on individual basis (but sheer number of these schools will again, make it impossible to deal with all). One can then realize, how one sect sometimes contradicts the other, even though they both are “hindu” or how, one text is considered holy for them and the remaining not worth the salt. For example, for a Vaishnav, Krishna is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Gita “my text”. They deny everything that is not mentioned or supported by Gita. So a huge chunk of Vedas and Puranas are practically rejected. In fact, their god, is not even mentioned in the Vedas. For a Lingayat, on the other hand, Shiva is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Siva Purana “my text”. They also reject a huge part of Vedas and other associated texts. To them, Gita is just another text. Their god was a minor god in the Vedas, and went by the name Rudra. Brahma Samaj for example, completely rejects the ritualistic cannons of the Vedas. For a Shakaite (followers of Shaktism), Durga/Kali are everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Vedanta “my text”. Strangely again, neither Durga nor Kali was mentioned in the Vedas. (The major gods in the Vedas, are Indra, Varuna, Soma and Agni – none of which are considered as major gods today)

Shikhism is monotheism, with prophets at the central of its philosophies. It is modeled on Islam, with philosophical inspiration drawn from, what we call “sanatana dharma”. Being a monotheistic religion, it has all its vices. I would humbly request you to read a bit of history of Nihangs.

All these religions do glorify their respective religion. Just join a Vaishnab congregation and just hear their narcissistic chants. Read some of the writings of Swami Dayananda Saraswati or Shankaracharya and see how they justify their position, by quoting Vedas. After all “Vedas” were revealed to the seers. And since it was revealed long before other religion, it has preponderance over all other.

See where I am going with this.

"nastik" is not an offensive term, but simply means an atheist. So are these religions self-glorifying?

Neither is “pagan”, to a Christian, to whom it simply means, someone, who is not a Christian, nor is “kaffir” to a muslim, to whom it simply means, someone, who is not a muslim. I knew, you would come in defense of the word. By doing that you have proved what we have been trying to tell. These words, appear acceptable, if you view it from within your own religion. But if viewed from outside, suddenly they don’t appear so acceptable.

The point that you missed is that, these religions, including the glorious Hinduism, use means to create “us and them”. The word “nastik” doesn’t mean atheism, in the same sense that we understand it in 21st Century. It actually means someone, who doesn’t believe in the glorious Vedas. I have deliberately used the word “nastik”, a relatively decent word and not “mleccha”, which is actually used in derogatory sense.

And thats the part where "blind believing" comes in that I discussed before. Does that mean the topic of philosophy should be removed? If religions don't preach it, then someone else will like Sri Sri Ravisankar who get huge fan following. It is the same thing that we quote the philosophical statements of different people and scientists once we agree to it for some thought povocation. People might agree with or disagree with it.

First you equated religion with science, then with corporations, then with parenting and now with philosophy. Where does it end ?

Anyway, religion has (not “is”) philosophy, but philosophy is not religion. It is very much possible to be an atheist or an agnostic and still pursue philosophy. Ask, Dennett, if you will. The problem is, you just can’t come to terms with the fact that a perfect philosophical, moral life can be lead, without having to resort to any religion, at all.

By the way, this Sri Sri Ravisankar (he keeps on adding salutations to his name) is actually preaching Hinduism in the guise of philosophy. Go figure.

Is it the fault of Hindu scriptures, that christian missionaries distorted it, mistranslated Vedas, glorified manusmriti even when the Vedic authorities talked differently? Don't you think it is again human nature that is sowing the seed of hatred and "intolerance"?

This is not a clever argument. Williams or Griffiths are not the only one’s who translated the Vedas. Better translations of veda and other texts exist. Translations of late 19th centuries or early 20th centuries are indeed a bit skewed, and this goes for Indian translators, e.g. Aravinda, as well. Current translations take into account the Avesta, and other contemporary texts and linguistics, thereby making it more accurate, textually. Of course, true intentions can’t be exactly translated. You can translate a Picasso in your own way, but only Picasso knows what he was thinking when he was painting.

However, I do owe you one on Manusmriti.

Blind believing happens everywhere. And hence as far as "following" is concerned both fall under the same category. A few "explore science" and the rest follow until the earlier is modified by the science explorers and a new explanation comes in refuting or modifying the earlier. If that is not "following" then what is it?

Ok, now I remember. You said something like this before as well. I see, you haven’t actually been able to move on. Anyway, there is a difference in “following” science and “following” religion. What you say is following science, is actually accepting something, which has been repeatedly demonstrated through empirical evidences, not by one but by many and is open for us, the lesser mortals, to further verify the results. For example, the “theory” that the earth is round or that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. On the other hand, following a theistic religion starts by believing, “god did it”. The scope for verifying its core belief is absent.

So basically science provides you with a paradigm to verify before believing, while religion just requires you to believe. Now, if you are calling it “blind following”, because we don’t actually go ahead and verify every single thing science has yielded, then you are doing it at the risk of dismissing the practical impossibility of doing so (if I set out to prove e=mc^2, all by myself, then even my entire lifetime wouldn’t be enough). So we accept those who have used this paradigm of science to explore nature and who have been vetted by their peers, for their findings. But when we follow a religion we just follow some mythology, some rituals and some words, all of which emerge from a belief of a god, theistic, deistic, pantheistic or otherwise.

Science is indeed provisional. This is not an insult to science, which you think, but is a complement. It means, science is not rigid, bigoted, intolerant but is very much flexible, is open to criticism and is willing to change in the face of new evidence. Compare that to religion.

I don't follow any rules (again manusmriti is not a part of Hinduism). I don't adhere to any rituals, or goto temples or wear some symbols. I question a brahmin who calls himself a brahmin only to surprise him. I discuss logic with those who refrain themselves from eating eggs on tuesday. I ask them to define the start of time and define "tuesday" on the basis of that. I ask why is he following "tuesday" for tuesday is not a part of "hindu calendar" to redo his egg logic. BUT, I call myself Hindu like everyone else does and till date "all" the hindus I have debated on hinduism have only agreed to my discussions regarding Hinduism!

So do I cease to be a "proponent" of Hinduism? AFAIK, I'm the only bad guy who talks Hinduism the most in this forum.

No. When it comes to Hinduism you can continue to be a hindu, by being a proponent of one sect while not being of another. I narrated two examples, beef eating and yajnas in certain manner, which are common to most of the sects and subsects, but clearly mentioned that you cease to be a hindu to some school of Hinduism, not “Hinduism” per se.

Regarding sikhism, many sikhs don't follow the 5 Ks and yet are proud to be sikhs.

Opinion about self doesn’t matter. Perception to the outsider matters. The same Sikh will cover his hair while visiting his Gurudwara. Guess why ?

I disagree. "Attacking" or "abusing" someone on the basis of difference in opinion or viewpoint is intolerance, i.e "intolerant of a different viewpoint" and not "rude over a viewpoint". Rudeness is acting on the person (victim), whereas intolerance is acting on the viewpoint and "leading to" rudeness, hatred, abuses etc. Hence I have stated it as "intolerance of viewpoint" from the start and that it is basically a difference of viewpoint that we are talking of and intolerant mindset of people rather than religion that leads to hatred. It (intolerance of viewpoint) is irrespective of being verbal or physical. Do you really think all these people putting up big fonts and abusing theists here can do the same "physically"? What if a theist, is a 6+ feet body builder? Do you think they can attack his religion, parents, sister etc on his face? When it comes to reality the situation changes dramatically than what we ideally percieve as. Many would only attack from "behind" and abuse in his absence. Here people are simply being "intolerant verbally".

I have read this passage quite a number of times and still don’t know what you are saying. All I see is that you are now redefining words. Anyway, lets agree to disagree.

"Attacking and abusing" is not really being "critical of one's opinion". I have already said I find illogic in God. Thats my opinion. I'm not doing name calling, abusing or attacking bullshitting it. I simply don't care. And yes the "how" part that you described here can be called "intolerance". But this time it is "intolerance physically".

“Abusing” is certainly not the correct manner of criticizing. But criticism itself is “attacking” one’s opinion.

I hope I was clear about difference bet. an organization and religion.

No. Not really. You simply told us that you find some religions with certain characteristics, to be not more than organizations. You didn’t exactly explain, the connection between those religion and “organization”.

And again saying religions do this and that involves...
1. You know all the religions of the world
2. You treat all religions as same.

1. I do know a thing or two about the major religions but, not as much as I know of Hinduism. Being born into a religion, has its own perks. Of course, it is not possible to know all the religions. But knowing theism, is enough to know what to expect of a theistic religion.
2. Correct. All theistic religions are indeed same, in their core belief. Where they differ, is how they go about their business.

And yes, you are right. We are just going round and round in circles, saying the same old stuffs.

 

[ionicsachin]

Dudes, you've got lots of time

 

[karnivore]

Is it darwin's fault that there is a verbal battle raging between evolutionists and creationists?

No. It is religion’s fault. Because evolution flies straight into the face of a certain religious belief, they just deny it.

Remember, nude Hindu goddeses are painted all over the world. Hindu Gods are "abused" all over the world. Are most Hindus saying anything? Some do get angry and forget it. That is called tolerance.

Mr Hussain, doesn’t, read can’t, live in India. You want to call that tolerance ?

"Nari aadar" (respect towards female), "athiti devo bhava" (guest is god) are nothing but an expression to show "respect towards female and guest". It is related to ethics and not science.

Actually it is culture, with roots in religion, and not ethics. Hindus have a tendency of alleviating everything and anything they revere to the level of divinity.

How you should dress in school is ethics not science!

It is about convenience, and where there is a dress code, then it is due to that dress code.

One quick question:

What will be considered as part of a religion ? Its mention in holy scripts or its practice ?

 

[mediator]

What you didn’t realize, is that, I have interspersed, with examples of abrahamic religions, the glories of eastern religions as well, particularly Hinudism.

Anyway, as I have mentioned earlier, Hinduism is representative of a number of school of thoughts, sort of a collective noun. It is not a religion. But if one goes down to the level of these schools of thought, one can deal with these on individual basis (but sheer number of these schools will again, make it impossible to deal with all). One can then realize, how one sect sometimes contradicts the other, even though they both are “hindu” or how, one text is considered holy for them and the remaining not worth the salt. For example, for a Vaishnav, Krishna is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Gita “my text”. They deny everything that is not mentioned or supported by Gita. So a huge chunk of Vedas and Puranas are practically rejected. In fact, their god, is not even mentioned in the Vedas. For a Lingayat, on the other hand, Shiva is everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Siva Purana “my text”. They also reject a huge part of Vedas and other associated texts. To them, Gita is just another text. Their god was a minor god in the Vedas, and went by the name Rudra. Brahma Samaj for example, completely rejects the ritualistic cannons of the Vedas. For a Shakaite (followers of Shaktism), Durga/Kali are everything, his “my god”, “my religion”, and Vedanta “my text”. Strangely again, neither Durga nor Kali was mentioned in the Vedas. (The major gods in the Vedas, are Indra, Varuna, Soma and Agni – none of which are considered as major gods today)

Shikhism is monotheism, with prophets at the central of its philosophies. It is modeled on Islam, with philosophical inspiration drawn from, what we call “sanatana dharma”. Being a monotheistic religion, it has all its vices. I would humbly request you to read a bit of history of Nihangs.

All these religions do glorify their respective religion. Just join a Vaishnab congregation and just hear their narcissistic chants. Read some of the writings of Swami Dayananda Saraswati or Shankaracharya and see how they justify their position, by quoting Vedas. After all “Vedas” were revealed to the seers. And since it was revealed long before other religion, it has preponderance over all other.

Like I said earlier, you have not read Gita.

1. In Gita, Krishna shows his ten avatars of Vishnu.
2. Krishna is considered the 8th avatar.
3. It is obvious that Krishna's name be missing from Vedas, as Krishna took birth much much afterwards the orgin of Vedas which is yet to be known.
4. Vishnu is clearly mentioned in Vedas.


Here's a verse from Gita ....

"I am the indwelling monitor in the heart of all beings, from Me arises consciousness, wisdom, and forgetfulness; verily I am to be known by the Vedas, I am the compiler of the Vedas and knower of the meaning of Vedas" (15.15)

Now read your line in the bold! So how can you say on "what is rejected and what not", when you yourself are not clear?

Remember, Vedas are the base of Hinduism. And Vedas like I said is not a name, but a sanskrit term that means knowledge! Further, what you stated is essentially a difference in the "viewpoint". But the fans of Shiva or Vishnu are not vowing to kill each other or be intolerant.

Like you stated, bt arya samaj, I too don't do many things, but yet I consider myself as Hindu! Diff. people might be connected to diff. branches of Hinduism, the base of all which is Veda and gita.

Further do I need to remind you which are considered the supreme scriptures of Hinduism? I think I gave you the link to read when talking bt cast system too. I think you are only confused what all is a part of hinduism and what is not, what is mentioned and what is not.

Neither is “pagan”, to a Christian, to whom it simply means, someone, who is not a Christian, nor is “kaffir” to a muslim, to whom it simply means, someone, who is not a muslim. I knew, you would come in defense of the word. By doing that you have proved what we have been trying to tell. These words, appear acceptable, if you view it from within your own religion. But if viewed from outside, suddenly they don’t appear so acceptable.

The point that you missed is that, these religions, including the glorious Hinduism, use means to create “us and them”. The word “nastik” doesn’t mean atheism, in the same sense that we understand it in 21st Century. It actually means someone, who doesn’t believe in the glorious Vedas. I have deliberately used the word “nastik”, a relatively decent word and not “mleccha”, which is actually used in derogatory sense.

1. I did not come in the defense of the term, but only explained its meaning to you.
2. You stated the terms and yet you did not understand them. Someone "who is not a christian" is much different from "someone who doesn't believe in God" or nastik.
3. You are confused about Hinduism.

The term christian/muslim doesn't mean God.

Nastik doesn't mean someone "who is not a Hindu". It is a sanskrit term that is taught in 8th class NCERT books. It simply means an atheist. Atheists can be a part of Hinduism too. Like I already debated much earlier in this thread. Atheists could be buddhists or jainists too. Being religious doesn't necessarily translates to being a theist. A religious person may or may not be a theist.

And hence, the inclusion and comparison of the word "nastik" in line of "pagan" and "kafir" is itself erroneous! I would only suggest not to go by the definition of wikipedia.

"Mleccha" has been debated, dunno why you still bring it up.
1. It only means someone who is non-adherent to Vedas.
2. It doesn't mean you have to be "completely" adherent of Vedas to get rid of that tag.
3. "mleccha" doesn't have anything to do with religions for Vedas means knowledge.
4. "Mleccha" AFAIk was really used for someone who was really corrupt without morals and conscience, without any knowledge and almost zero of human intellect.

Now people of this world irrespective of their faiths are having conscience, morals and much of the Vedic knowledge themselves. Many follow science which is stressed by Vedas and seek path of knowledge both spiritual and scientific. So, Did they read Vedas?

Read it like this, that Vedas say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions mleccha. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Vedas to be a good human? Is he a mleccha?

First you equated religion with science, then with corporations, then with parenting and now with philosophy. Where does it end ?

Anyway, religion has (not “is”) philosophy, but philosophy is not religion. It is very much possible to be an atheist or an agnostic and still pursue philosophy. Ask, Dennett, if you will. The problem is, you just can’t come to terms with the fact that a perfect philosophical, moral life can be lead, without having to resort to any religion, at all.

By the way, this Sri Sri Ravisankar (he keeps on adding salutations to his name) is actually preaching Hinduism in the guise of philosophy. Go figure.

You did not get my point bt ravisankar. go figure? Again these are your viewpoints.

Ok, now I remember. You said something like this before as well. I see, you haven’t actually been able to move on. Anyway, there is a difference in “following” science and “following” religion. What you say is following science, is actually accepting something, which has been repeatedly demonstrated through empirical evidences, not by one but by many and is open for us, the lesser mortals, to further verify the results. For example, the “theory” that the earth is round or that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. On the other hand, following a theistic religion starts by believing, “god did it”. The scope for verifying its core belief is absent.

So basically science provides you with a paradigm to verify before believing, while religion just requires you to believe. Now, if you are calling it “blind following”, because we don’t actually go ahead and verify every single thing science has yielded, then you are doing it at the risk of dismissing the practical impossibility of doing so (if I set out to prove e=mc^2, all by myself, then even my entire lifetime wouldn’t be enough). So we accept those who have used this paradigm of science to explore nature and who have been vetted by their peers, for their findings. But when we follow a religion we just follow some mythology, some rituals and some words, all of which emerge from a belief of a god, theistic, deistic, pantheistic or otherwise.

Science is indeed provisional. This is not an insult to science, which you think, but is a complement. It means, science is not rigid, bigoted, intolerant but is very much flexible, is open to criticism and is willing to change in the face of new evidence. Compare that to religion

here's a recent article on newscientist.
*www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

Aren't we merely "following" many of the "senseless" things? Gravitation is also not completely understood. I hope you remember we discussed homeopathy and I haven't moved on from that too. But neways here a statement from someone who was considered ths scourge of homeopathy....

"If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry."

Its the same things that I said that time also.

Again, astrology involves fine knowledge of astronomy. And Indians knew how earth revolves around Sun. Do I need to remind you of Indian astronomy?

And yes, you got it right that you are following because you are not verifying it yourself either experimentally or logically. We are not verifying the elementary physics or chemistry, but taking it for granted that scientists are doing correct. Who knows if we put our head into it, we might find a flaw? Forget about experimentations, many of us don't even question the scientific theories "logically".

Comparing that to religion, I see religion like Hinduism consists of science too. Do you think vedic science would not have compiled further, if India didn't witness various invasions? Do you think Vedic school of thought wouldn't have continued? It is not religion which is rigid, it is the people themselves. It is like saying an autobiography is rigid. How is it rigid? Further religions like a few I stated are not intolerant or bigoted.

This is the second time I wud be repeating for you and I guess, third time in this thread since you did not read my reply to amitash....

I wud only repeat and ask you to tell where in "all" of these religions is self-glorification mentioned? I expect you to understand the meaning of "all" of their scriptures and then post it. Where is sikhism telling that sikh texts are the best? Where is Hinduism telling that something called "Hindu" texts are best? What about Buddhism etc?

Please reply to the above....


Some will still believe in God until science finds the answer to "everything". And those who say science "will" find answer to everything aren't doing any better than theists either, which is again "hoping" from something that doesn't gurantee anything.

No. When it comes to Hinduism you can continue to be a hindu, by being a proponent of one sect while not being of another. I narrated two examples, beef eating and yajnas in certain manner, which are common to most of the sects and subsects, but clearly mentioned that you cease to be a hindu to some school of Hinduism, not “Hinduism” per se.

And what if many of the sects are not a part of Hinduism, but either pure human imagination or confusion? It is not that all ancient Indian works could be called a part of "Hinduism". Manusmriti was one such example. It was part of ancient India, but not a "base" of Hinduism.

Opinion about self doesn’t matter. Perception to the outsider matters. The same Sikh will cover his hair while visiting his Gurudwara. Guess why ?

And thats somehing of a faith, just like one believes in God. It is not that others will kill him if he doesn't cover his hair. This example would be a repeatition of the viewpoint again.

“Abusing” is certainly not the correct manner of criticizing. But criticism itself is “attacking” one’s opinion.

I disagree. There's a difference between "attacking, insulting etc" and "criticising" for criticism can be constructive too.

No. Not really. You simply told us that you find some religions with certain characteristics, to be not more than organizations. You didn’t exactly explain, the connection between those religion and “organization”.

There's really not much connection between a religion and organization, for I believe a religion is one which provides morality and conscience and doesn't preach bt hatred and self glorification, whereas when propoganda, hate, self glorification is mixed, it simply cannot be called a religion anymore, but more like an organization. Thats all I can tell, nuthing more to explain.

And yes, you are right. We are just going round and round in circles, saying the same old stuffs.

And hence, if your next post contains repetitions of the entire discussion of this thread, then I may not reply as well for I'm already getting bored.

No. It is religion’s fault. Because evolution flies straight into the face of a certain religious belief, they just deny it.

Again, not religion's fault. That would mean all. But yep, may be "certain" religous beliefs not all religious beliefs.

Mr Hussain, doesn’t, read can’t, live in India. You want to call that tolerance ?

That "intolerance" as I said earlier is a work of a "few". That "few" cannot be mapped to "all" hindus or even "most" hindus. Kamasutra is a part of ancient India and depicted on the walls of many temples. So I can only guess that these "few" people are ignorant about it. And again, Hindu scriptures are not telling to exile those who paint nude hindu goddesses. here's an example of toerance...

Baba ramdev's accused of "bone content" in his medicines. Leftists accused him only to get embarrased later. Did Hindus create violence?
Major Hindu leaders get imprisoned or false accusations. Do Hindus say anything. Remember by Hindus, I mean "majority of Hindus".
Are hindus involved in bomb blasts all over the world?

So again its only your viewpoint and bias that is picking a few examples, and conditions where a "few" are involved and not the majority.

Actually it is culture, with roots in religion, and not ethics. Hindus have a tendency of alleviating everything and anything they revere to the level of divinity.

I'm only debating, just like you are accusing religion even when it is not at fault.

It is about convenience, and where there is a dress code, then it is due to that dress code.

And behind the dress code is the work of ethics of how one should comb the hair, skirts be lower than knee, tie to "properly" done etc. Dress code doesn't mean you "just" wear the school dress. Then it would also mean to wear the dress in any fashion. Girls be wearing skirts above the knee length making it like minis, top buttons open etc and tie wore like a drunk.

What will be considered as part of a religion ? Its mention in holy scripts or its practice ?

Ofcourse the former. You may follow it or you may not.

 

[amitash]

How is "it" creating diff. when the its really the people that is the cause? One one hand you agree religions are not the source and then you say "it" creates difference? It is like you understand the logic, but innately you dislike religion and hence refusing to "accept" the logic so as to override that dislike.

I said the god in the religion creates the difference...and anyway, i realised that the only reason i dislike religion is that god is offered as an explanation without proof....just as a number of other things.

In the world's largest democracy...
1. I don't see people killing each other "on a large scale" everyday.
2. I see tolerance more than "hatred"
3. Just because media shows what is going in a "locality", doesn't mean it is happening in whole of India.

Further, like I stated, people of most religion enjoy the festivals of other religions. And "most" of the people do that instead of a "few". Just like you stated, its human nature to get angry when something he follows is "attacked" and "abused". See for yourself its "you" who are getting angry when some abuses your parents. Its you who will "rebuke", not that your parents are telling you to. They will rather tell you to "restraint" and not indulge in a fight. Don't you agree?

1.I said abusing and creating differences too and thaat i do see on a large scale
2.I dont see tolerance, i see inward hate that is caused and might one day blow out...just because people dont openly show that they hate other people doesnt mean its tollerance.

agreed parents/some religions dont tell you to fight and as i have already said, the main reason i hate some of these religions is because they offer god as an explanation.

I think you don't understand the difference bet. science and philosophy. If a scientific "explanation" is given then don't you think it needs to be "uniform"?? Some pay respect towards elders, some rape, some kick out elders from their homes and all sort of crimes. Random behaviour and acts "explaining" uniform human nature is not science!
I think you r being ignorant again and confusing philosophy with science. National laws have been created for the betterment of human society. "Nari aadar" (respect towards female), "athiti devo bhava" (guest is god) are nothing but an expression to show "respect towards female and guest". It is related to ethics and not science.

How you should dress in school is ethics not science! So don't be confused!

Can you explain how these "philosophical" explanations arise? We do say things today like: "racism is wrong" while it wasnt so a few decades ago...Science might not tell you directly not to this and that, but how did these "ethics" originate? I think We gathered knowledge about people and things that happened in the past and came up with these "ethics"...and gathering knowledge is science...so why cant it be "science of ethics"? If we came about our current set of moral rules and ethics, its because we gathered knowledge and came to logical conclusions about what is wrong and what is right and that i think ,is the morality you are looking for in science.

My question was on "global warming" which made the world to think upon it, not science's curiosity. And it is based upon your premise that tells "science fixes afterwards" and hence my statement that "conscience is not something that comes "afterwards", but in present and before taking an action and learning from the past". And hence science does not contain conscience. Read it again...

Dont you think that the scientists who made the car and used fossil fuels didnt simply know or couldnt predict "global warming"? If they predicted it and did it anyway, then i agree science doesnt have a conscience, but they couldnt predict it...no one can predict everything....science tries its best to but it can also miss things.

Here again, treating the earlier work of science as a "mistake", you are directly implying that "science" did something bad. On the other hand, you say science is not at fault since it is explaining and exploring the stuff, which is my point too.

Mistake is not equal to bad...Is it the scientists fault that they did this "mistake" because they didnt know enough to predict what happened after?

But again scientists have not created a perfect car that
1. Cannot do heat generation.
2. Cause accidents

If humans drive it, there is bound to be heat generation and accidents. And hence again it is humans who are at fault and not science. I already stated global warming, dangers of nukes etc are not because of science, but humans and exploitation of science by humans. I think even after getting my point, you are not able to comprehend it crystal clear. I guess you understand it only vaguely or remain confused.

Conscience simply means that all the major dangers do not arise in the first place! You would not "hurt" a child if you have conscience would you? Or would you hurt him and then find ways to make him laugh?

So moral, conscience is really not a part of science. Moral is basically a standalone "addon" to the definition of science, just like nokia phones have various addons to improve its functionality.

1.Agreed, but thats because they dont know how to yet.....I said that science doesnt know everything so how can it be perfect? Atleast it tries to overcome that problem and atleast the cars they have made are better than the cars we have today...So if we dont release these cars just because the heat problem hasnt been fixed, then we wont be better than what we are now...they should be released while in the meantime they are trying to fix the heat problem....If you keep waiting for perfection, then it will take forever.
2.There is some progress on that regard...I think i saw a top gear episode (its a car show) some time back where BMW made a car that can drive itself.

Conscience simply means that all the major dangers do not arise in the first place! You would not "hurt" a child if you have conscience would you? Or would you hurt him and then find ways to make him laugh?

So moral, conscience is really not a part of science. Moral is basically a standalone "addon" to the definition of science, just like nokia phones have various addons to

Your child analogy would be true only if science knew it was going to hurt the child and did it anyway...what if you did not know that the child would get hurt if you did something you thought was perfectlly safe? Isnt there morality there?

I think it is a part of science as i have said earlier, morality arises due to knowledge we gather and the logical conclusions that we make out of them...which is science.

confusion?

By stating diff. corporates for science I essentially mean the same thing that I started with and that is "corporate greed" or "we have different corporates for making money out of different things made by science".

you said: "for science we have different corporates"....science did not ask anyone to make these corporates, in your statement it seemed like you were implying that corporates were formed because of science...while i said corporates were formed because of money.

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Can you tell what well devised strategy science has planned "which is not without flaws" and "guarantees" to
1. To undo global warming?
2. Restore natural habitat of polar bears and penguins, i.e polar life?
3. To "undo" large scale deforestation and consequent soil erosion?

I hope you will answer these few things without the use of a phrase like "science will" which you agreed is not correct.

I said science is not perfect for it would have to know everything to be perfect...I never said there will be flawless solutions...I think i mentioned the whole "solution may create another problem" cycle...and i also said it is TRYING....the solutions might not be ebtirely flawless but atleast they are better than what they were before...as i said, its not perfect.

 

[mediator]

2.I dont see tolerance, i see inward hate that is caused and might one day blow out...just because people dont openly show that they hate other people doesnt mean its tollerance.

Like I said, people of diff. faiths visit temples, gurudwaras etc. If the seed of "intolerance" is in their mind alone, then why will they even "eat" with the people of other faiths? And how do you know that they don't "openly" show?

Can you explain how these "philosophical" explanations arise? We do say things today like: "racism is wrong" while it wasnt so a few decades ago...Science might not tell you directly not to this and that, but how did these "ethics" originate? I think We gathered knowledge about people and things that happened in the past and came up with these "ethics"...and gathering knowledge is science...so why cant it be "science of ethics"? If we came about our current set of moral rules and ethics, its because we gathered knowledge and came to logical conclusions about what is wrong and what is right and that i think ,is the morality you are looking for in science.

Racism is an inherent part of human nature. The feeling of superiority is not based on religion alone, but country, cast, color, sex, "logic" etc. Don't you think many people here are thinking of themselves as intellectually superior just because a few "follow" God? Remember even many scientists followed God.

Even today you will find discrmination against women in corporates. You will find rascists in other countries too. Indians are no less. "Farang", "chinki" etc are all the terms that we use to denote some of the people. "Bihari" is almost used as an abuse now. And it it irrelevant of religion. People i.e theists, atheists, agnostics etc all njoy in name calling as such.

Also, how can you say it wasn't wrong a few days ago? It was as wrong yesterday also as it is as wrong today. And think, its again a part of human stupidity and has nothing to do with religion or science. And so the question of "how these philosophical explanations arise" is irrelevant, if the human nature is bound to ignore the conscience in the first place!

"Gathering knowledge" is not always science. Understand what "exploring and explaining" means. A person might gather "the knowledge or details of mountains by seeing it" and compile it in the form of a painting. Would you call it science or rather as art? Gathering knowledge is part of spirituality also and spirituality and science are different. One can gather mathematical knowledge too to find an answer and again mathematics is not science. Further mathematics is used to deal with science.

I think you are "confused" on the very definition of science itself.

Dont you think that the scientists who made the car and used fossil fuels didnt simply know or couldnt predict "global warming"? If they predicted it and did it anyway, then i agree science doesnt have a conscience, but they couldnt predict it...no one can predict everything....science tries its best to but it can also miss things.

I think you should first understand the definition of science and then read the entire discussion from the start.

Mistake is not equal to bad...Is it the scientists fault that they did this "mistake" because they didnt know enough to predict what happened after?

But the mistake lead to that "bad". Btw, why are you calling it a mistake neways? And if you want to continue on that incorrect logic, then yes scientists should have predicted everything that they could.

1.Agreed, but thats because they dont know how to yet.....I said that science doesnt know everything so how can it be perfect? Atleast it tries to overcome that problem and atleast the cars they have made are better than the cars we have today...So if we dont release these cars just because the heat problem hasnt been fixed, then we wont be better than what we are now...they should be released while in the meantime they are trying to fix the heat problem....If you keep waiting for perfection, then it will take forever.

And so we should screw the nature...everyday? Our conscience is telling us not to, but what can we do?

2.There is some progress on that regard...I think i saw a top gear episode (its a car show) some time back where BMW made a car that can drive itself.

Can it drive in lawless Indian roads too where people jump on traffic lights, beggars keep blocking the roads etc? Remeber there are a few things that AI can never match humans and one of those things is "gut instinct" and "road experience" and knowing in your heart where the car ahead of you is going to turn even if it is giving the wrong signal. It is experience of knowing how the biker behind your car is going to take over and from which direction. It is the experience of knowing how someone can suddenly pop out from behind the wall while talking on the phone.

And like I said conscience comes before acting. It involves the present and the future and learning from the past. Are scientists really learning? Even after their repeated attempts to "improve" the cars, what I only see is the "rising" number of accidents. In the past the no. of accidents were less than the present scenario. You seem to have divorced yourself completely from the "reality" while "defending" science ardently.

So ponder and ponder well, judging what is right and wrong is not the work of scientists!

you said: "for science we have different corporates"....science did not ask anyone to make these corporates, in your statement it seemed like you were implying that corporates were formed because of science...while i said corporates were formed because of money.

Similarly buddha did not ask to create "buddhism", nor did Rama/krishna etc said to created Hinduism.

Science tries to solve the questions and problems of the people so it is looking for the good of the people

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Can you tell what well devised strategy science has planned "which is not without flaws" and "guarantees" to
1. To undo global warming?
2. Restore natural habitat of polar bears and penguins, i.e polar life?
3. To "undo" large scale deforestation and consequent soil erosion?

I hope you will answer these few things without the use of a phrase like "science will" which you agreed is not correct.

I said science is not perfect for it would have to know everything to be perfect...I never said there will be flawless solutions...I think i mentioned the whole "solution may create another problem" cycle...and i also said it is TRYING....the solutions might not be ebtirely flawless but atleast they are better than what they were before...as i said, its not perfect.

So how is science looking for the good of people if the problems keep arising continously leading to large scale sufferings for animals, soil, people,....i.e nature? For what I see is the scale of problems is much more than any conscience which only appears to be imaginative. You only keep saying that science will do this and that ( in terms of good ) for the reality speaks in your face in terms of accidents, global warmings, nuclear disasters etc etc.


And so again, ponder and ponder well, judging what is right and wrong is not the work of scientists!!

 

[karnivore]

Some interesting points you have raised. Lets see if I can make it equally interesting.

Like I said earlier, you have not read Gita.

1. In Gita, Krishna shows his ten avatars of Vishnu.
2. Krishna is considered the 8th avatar.
3. It is obvious that Krishna's name be missing from Vedas, as Krishna took birth much much afterwards the orgin of Vedas which is yet to be known.
4. Vishnu is clearly mentioned in Vedas.


Here's a verse from Gita ....

"I am the indwelling monitor in the heart of all beings, from Me arises consciousness, wisdom, and forgetfulness; verily I am to be known by the Vedas, I am the compiler of the Vedas and knower of the meaning of Vedas" (15.15)

1. & 2. Indeed so.

3. I am not sure, how it is obvious. I would agree, though, that the writers of these verses, are unknown, except for a passing mention of Vysadev as its compiler. There is evidence to suggest that these were written over a really long period of times, with numerous, redactions and interpolations. But that is a minor point, and is close to being irrelevant. The major point is the inconsistency. Fortunately for me, you have cited the verse, that I would have cited, anyway. The verse BG 15.15 implies, that the Vedas were compiled by Krishna, in the incarnation of Vysadev (Ref: Pravupada’s interpretation). Which of course means, Krishna preceded the compilation of Vedas, albeit in another incarnation, just opposite of what you are trying to imply. Yet, he, forgot to mention anything about himself or any of his Avataras. In fact the concept of “avatara” is not only missing, but the word itself is absent. Interesting, isn’t it ?

4. The major gods in Rg Veda were, Indra, Soma, Varuna and Agni. Vishnu, in Rg Veda, is a minor god, who requires the help of other gods, for example, Indra, to defeat his enemies, not something that a supreme being would need. The supreme nature of Vishnu, e.g. the episode of “trivrikrama” (3 steps, one in Heaven, one on Earth and one in Hell), appears much later in the vedic cannons and is found in interpolated verses of Rg Veda.

Also absent are Ganesha, Durga, Kali, Shiva (although the character Rudra is considered to have evolved into what we today know as Shiva), Hanuman, Ram. Interesting, what say you ?

But the fans of Shiva or Vishnu are not vowing to kill each other or be intolerant.

Certainly not, at least not today. There is evidence of such animosity in the past though. But my argument of Shaivism and Vaishnism was not regarding intolerance but regarding the misconception that Hinduism is homogeneous, or that the mere floating of the term in the air would mean anything at all. Hinduism is a sum greater than its parts. So please do me a favour and don’t conflate everything into tolerance v/s intolerance.

Like you stated, bt arya samaj, I too don't do many things, but yet I consider myself as Hindu! Diff. people might be connected to diff. branches of Hinduism, the base of all which is Veda and gita.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Opinion about self is irrelevant. I can think of myself as superman. But I wouldn’t be perceived as superman, unless I really show, what a superman is supposed to do. Personal faith or practice is not a matter of concern, as long as it remains personal.

Further do I need to remind you which are considered the supreme scriptures of Hinduism? I think I gave you the link to read when talking bt cast system too. I think you are only confused what all is a part of hinduism and what is not, what is mentioned and what is not.

Nope, you don’t have to. I remember how he rejected “smriti” as scriptures, not realizing that Gita is a “smriti”. Actually that link was a huge turn-off, cause I have seen better arguments.

1. I did not come in the defense of the term, but only explained its meaning to you.
2. You stated the terms and yet you did not understand them. Someone "who is not a christian" is much different from "someone who doesn't believe in God" or nastik.
3. You are confused about Hinduism.

The term christian/muslim doesn't mean God.

Nastik doesn't mean someone "who is not a Hindu". It is a sanskrit term that is taught in 8th class NCERT books. It simply means an atheist. Atheists can be a part of Hinduism too. Like I already debated much earlier in this thread. Atheists could be buddhists or jainists too. Being religious doesn't necessarily translates to being a theist. A religious person may or may not be a theist.

And hence, the inclusion and comparison of the word "nastik" in line of "pagan" and "kafir" is itself erroneous! I would only suggest not to go by the definition of wikipedia.

"Mleccha" has been debated, dunno why you still bring it up.
1. It only means someone who is non-adherent to Vedas.
2. It doesn't mean you have to be "completely" adherent of Vedas to get rid of that tag.
3. "mleccha" doesn't have anything to do with religions for Vedas means knowledge.
4. "Mleccha" AFAIk was really used for someone who was really corrupt without morals and conscience, without any knowledge and almost zero of human intellect.

Now people of this world irrespective of their faiths are having conscience, morals and much of the Vedic knowledge themselves. Many follow science which is stressed by Vedas and seek path of knowledge both spiritual and scientific. So, Did they read Vedas?

And you keep on proving my point. Now you are defending the word “mleccha”.

Firstly, what does it matter what Veda means textually. Bible means “collection of writings”, and Koran means “to call out to”. What difference does it make to what these actually imply.

Secondly, a quick question: Who is a Hindu ? Answer that and you will know half the things that you have asked.

Thirdly, I didn't use Wiki.

Read it like this, that Vedas say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions mleccha. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Vedas to be a good human? Is he a mleccha?

Lets see…

Read it like this, that Bible/Koran say to be good human. A person who doesn't know this meaning questions pagan/kaffir. He himself might be a good human. So how did he come be a good human? Did he read Bible/Koran to be a good human? Is he a pagan/kaffir ?

Sounds right, doesn’t it ?

here's a recent article on newscientist.
*www.newscientist.com/article/...ake-sense.html

Aren't we merely "following" many of the "senseless" things? Gravitation is also not completely understood. I hope you remember we discussed homeopathy and I haven't moved on from that too. But neways here a statement from someone who was considered ths scourge of homeopathy....

"If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry."

Its the same things that I said that time also.

Again, astrology involves fine knowledge of astronomy. And Indians knew how earth revolves around Sun. Do I need to remind you of Indian astronomy?

O no. Not again.

This is the second time I wud be repeating for you and I guess, third time in this thread since you did not read my reply to amitash....

I wud only repeat and ask you to tell where in "all" of these religions is self-glorification mentioned? I expect you to understand the meaning of "all" of their scriptures and then post it. Where is sikhism telling that sikh texts are the best? Where is Hinduism telling that something called "Hindu" texts are best? What about Buddhism etc?

Please reply to the above....

Actually no religious text says that it is the best. What they do say, though, is that their godhead is the only godhead and rest are a nullity or inferior. Bible does that. Koran does that. And your Gita does that too. Some samples from your Gita. (Translations by Swami Sivananda)

“There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string” – BG 7.7
COMMENTS: So a Christian’s God, or a Muslim’s Allah, or a Jews Yewah are pretty much inferior. In fact, a certain Shiva, or Durga or a Ganesha are inferior too.

“The evil-doers and the deluded, who are the lowest of men, do not seek Me; they whose knowledge is destroyed by illusion follow the ways of demons.” – BG 7.15
“Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.” – BG 9.11
COMMENTS: So basically, one who is not worshipping Krishna, is a “evil doer”, “deluded”, a “fool”, and of course they are demon followers.

“To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other, of those ever united, I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess.” – BG 9.22
COMMENTS: Means, “surrender to me, or you are doomed”.

Will these verses count as self-glorification. Of course not, if you are a Hindu or more specifically a Vaishnab.

As with Sikhism, I haven’t read Granthasahib to make quotes like above. As with Buddhism, it is not a theistic religion.

That "intolerance" as I said earlier is a work of a "few". That "few" cannot be mapped to "all" hindus or even "most" hindus. Kamasutra is a part of ancient India and depicted on the walls of many temples. So I can only guess that these "few" people are ignorant about it. And again, Hindu scriptures are not telling to exile those who paint nude hindu goddesses. here's an example of toerance...

Baba ramdev's accused of "bone content" in his medicines. Leftists accused him only to get embarrased later. Did Hindus create violence?
Major Hindu leaders get imprisoned or false accusations. Do Hindus say anything. Remember by Hindus, I mean "majority of Hindus".
Are hindus involved in bomb blasts all over the world?

So again its only your viewpoint and bias that is picking a few examples, and conditions where a "few" are involved and not the majority.

First, Kamasutra is medieval Mills & Boons, (read it to know it) and has nothing to do with divinity. Sculptures at Kahjuraho, also do not depict divine in the nude or in sexual act.

Second, I am sure, Koran didn’t tell Khomeni to issue a fatwa on Mr Rushdie for writing a novel. But it did happen, just as death threats on Mr Hussain. You can’t dilute the issue by referring to these. Some of these “few” hindus are actually hindu intellectuals and includes pretty heavy names. I am sure they know it better than you and I do.

Third, through out human history, it is always a “few” who do.

Fourth, even Muslims say that there are only few who do what they do. Is that stopping you from generalizing. This argument of “majority” is a fallacy, because, you can never know, how many support something morally, without being actively involved.

Fifth, what Babji did was illegal. Having bones in medicine was not the issue. But not printing it on the label, was. In any case, there were number of demonstrations against Ms Brinda Karat, where her effigies were burnt. CPI(M) party office at Delhi was ransacked, by “few” of his followers.

What will be considered as part of a religion ? Its mention in holy scripts or its practice ?

Ofcourse the former. You may follow it or you may not.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[karnivore]

I think you should first understand the definition of science and then read the entire discussion from the start.

Please tell us what you think, science is.

you said: "for science we have different corporates"....science did not ask anyone to make these corporates, in your statement it seemed like you were implying that corporates were formed because of science...while i said corporates were formed because of money.

Similarly buddha did not ask to create "buddhism", nor did Rama/krishna etc said to created Hinduism.

Buddhism, is what Buddha taught. One who follows Buddha’s teachings is called a Buddhist. Hinduism is a way of life, reflected in certain ancient texts. One who follows that way of life is a Hindu. What Krishna taught, rather lectured, came to be known as Gita. One who follows that, is called a Vaishnab.

Lets see if I can fit it with science vis-à-vis corporation. One who follows science is called a corporation ?

Nahhh…doesn’t fit. Does it ?

But, what if I say, one who follows science, is scientific minded. Hmm…makes some sense. Doesn’t it ?