Number 6 Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 another sig and avatar change then. I'd change your name to God too, just for the sake of it. One good point Dawkins' made was that society seems scared to question people's beliefs. We question each others politics etc but not religion.
Dr The Singh Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 You support an argument for the existence of a deity on the back of Einstein's theory of relativity? Einstein who denounced the existence of a god. A theory is a testable proposition, either through experiment or empirical observation - there is no 'theory of god'. Religion grabs bits of science that it likes and rejects out of hand all of the bits that run contrary to its existence. We know, and can measure, exactly what happens to the energy contained within a body when it dies; What you are alluding to, I suspect, is 'spirit'. Your reference to the altruistic-based part of your faith is dealt with in an excellent manner by Dawkins in The God Delusion with reference back to The Selfish Gene...and I'll not bother copy-pasting the large chunks or text here but would commend its reading. The argument he presents against the existence of a deity is hugely compelling and history provides us with even more compelling arguments against organised religion. It's not a diety Daggers, god in sikhism isn't a human type being it's a source of energy a supreme conscious like a higher plane of conscious!!! Like I said in another post SIkhism believes in the laws of universe to be a force created by this 'god'. Everything has a purpose and like nature there's a balance!!! Daggers i've got a masters in chemistry and i agree to the point about the theory of god, scientifically the evidence is totally against it, but on the 'spirit' point could be taken as a transference of energy to another form????????. Just because we don't have the tools, or knowledge to comprehend such thoughts to theories it's still not impossible that in the future such theories could exist!! The theory of relativity is still a theory and there a many to condradict it, we still don;t know for fact how our universe was created, or how we became humans, but yes it's still a stronger case for the existance of mankind Like i've said religion is a personal thing, with me it boils down to what i've studied science vs sikhi and I believe there is something more!!! I won't comment on all faiths but the Sikh holy book doesn't go and try and answer each question, in fact it concentrates more about our relationship with the 'supreme concious', and humanity. In fact Sikhs are encouraged to learn, diverse and explore, the meaning of SIkh, is 'to learn', it does not try to conflict with science or scientific findings!! There is stuff in the Granth written regarding the universe etc, but i'm glad most SIkhs don't consider it scientific, although some of it is insightful and doesn;t condradict science!! I've read Richard Dawkins book on selfish gene but it's totally false in relation to sikhism for example the teachers of our faith never massed large wealth for themselves or there kin, they were offered princely titles and estates but they turned them down as 'truth' was more important. Sikhism isn't missionary, it's not out convert the world, it's message is very simple, numbers aren't an issue. It doesn't state that it's the only path to god. The evolution of the SIkh faith goes totally against the effects of the 'selfish gene'. Sikhs as far as i know faught against an empire because they were tyranical against another faith, Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself, risked his family people of his faith just because an emporer threatened to convert the most devout hindu's or be put to death, how un selfish of him. SIkhs have done this throughout there time, even today!! As an organised religion, sikhism isn't exclusive, everyone has access to the holy book, temples etc!! Overall I believe Sikhsim could be a much larger richer faith if it had been selfish, Sikhism went through 3 holocausts, genocidal attacks, if the Sikhs didn;t stand for the truth all these event would never of happened!! ALthough slowly slowly many are taking advantage of the mighty SIkh faith and using ot for there own purposes, including those that state they are keepers of the faith!!!
Phube Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Question: How many followers must you have to change from a Crazy cult/sect; into a bona fide religion?
Daggers Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 It's not a diety Daggers, god in sikhism isn't a human type being it's a source of energy a supreme conscious like a higher plane of conscious!!! Like I said in another post SIkhism believes in the laws of universe to be a force created by this 'god'. Everything has a purpose and like nature there's a balance!!! Sounds like a godhead to me: Sikhism is a monotheistic religion.[7][8] In Sikhism, God—termed Vāhigurū—is formless, eternal, and unobserved: niraṅkār, akāl, and alakh. The beginning of the first composition of Sikh scripture is the figure "1"—signifying the universality of God. It states that God is omnipresent and infinite, and is signified by the term ēk ōaṅkār.[9] Sikhs believe that prior to creation, all that existed was God and his hukam (will or order).[10] When God willed, the entire cosmos was created. From these beginnings, God nurtured "enticement and attachment" to māyā, or the human perception of reality.[11] Daggers i've got a masters in chemistry and i agree to the point about the theory of god, scientifically the evidence is totally against it, but on the 'spirit' point could be taken as a transference of energy to another form????????. Just because we don't have the tools, or knowledge to comprehend such thoughts to theories it's still not impossible that in the future such theories could exist!! The theory of relativity is still a theory and there a many to condradict it, we still don;t know for fact how our universe was created, or how we became humans, but yes it's still a stronger case for the existance of mankindLike i've said religion is a personal thing, with me it boils down to what i've studied science vs sikhi and I believe there is something more!!! I know you are both intelligent and a scientist I can not argue about your belief, it is your belief. All I can do is refer you back to the Douglas Adams quotation and the statistical evidence provided by Dawkins for the improbability of the existence of a god. Those, and the arguments put forward in the following 3 books
Daggers Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Question: How many followers must you have to change from a Crazy cult/sect; into a bona fide religion? Cargo cults are covered in Dawkin's book - but I can't link to that so forgive me for linking to Wikipedia...
Dr The Singh Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Sikhism is a monotheistic religion.[7][8] In Sikhism, God—termed Vāhigurū—is formless, eternal, and unobserved: niraṅkār, akāl, and alakh. The beginning of the first composition of Sikh scripture is the figure "1"—signifying the universality of God. It states that God is omnipresent and infinite, and is signified by the term ēk ōaṅkār.[9] Sikhs believe that prior to creation, all that existed was God and his hukam (will or order).[10] When God willed, the entire cosmos was created. From these beginnings, God nurtured "enticement and attachment" to māyā, or the human perception of reality.[11] That's not a bad translation, exactly what i said!! No mention of diety or this human god!!! Daggers, if I get time I will read those books, your not trying to convert me are you paaji!!!
Daggers Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Daggers, if I get time I will read those books, your not trying to convert me are you paaji!!! Yes. I may even do a bit more reading on the subject of Sikhism...although I love the Dawkins quote: "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"
Dr The Singh Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Yes. I may even do a bit more reading on the subject of Sikhism...although I love the Dawkins quote: My garden looks shit, so yes i am imagianing fairies, holefully nude ones that will supply me with alcohol for free!!!
AoWW Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Am I wrong for really not giving a toss about any of this? I'll go to hell, I know - I just hope it's warm... my feet are cold.
Manwell Pablo Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 It's not a diety Daggers, god in sikhism isn't a human type being it's a source of energy a supreme conscious like a higher plane of conscious!!! Like I said in another post SIkhism believes in the laws of universe to be a force created by this 'god'. Everything has a purpose and like nature there's a balance!!!Daggers i've got a masters in chemistry and i agree to the point about the theory of god, scientifically the evidence is totally against it, but on the 'spirit' point could be taken as a transference of energy to another form????????. Just because we don't have the tools, or knowledge to comprehend such thoughts to theories it's still not impossible that in the future such theories could exist!! The theory of relativity is still a theory and there a many to condradict it, we still don;t know for fact how our universe was created, or how we became humans, but yes it's still a stronger case for the existance of mankind Like i've said religion is a personal thing, with me it boils down to what i've studied science vs sikhi and I believe there is something more!!! I won't comment on all faiths but the Sikh holy book doesn't go and try and answer each question, in fact it concentrates more about our relationship with the 'supreme concious', and humanity. In fact Sikhs are encouraged to learn, diverse and explore, the meaning of SIkh, is 'to learn', it does not try to conflict with science or scientific findings!! There is stuff in the Granth written regarding the universe etc, but i'm glad most SIkhs don't consider it scientific, although some of it is insightful and doesn;t condradict science!! I've read Richard Dawkins book on selfish gene but it's totally false in relation to sikhism for example the teachers of our faith never massed large wealth for themselves or there kin, they were offered princely titles and estates but they turned them down as 'truth' was more important. Sikhism isn't missionary, it's not out convert the world, it's message is very simple, numbers aren't an issue. It doesn't state that it's the only path to god. The evolution of the SIkh faith goes totally against the effects of the 'selfish gene'. Sikhs as far as i know faught against an empire because they were tyranical against another faith, Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself, risked his family people of his faith just because an emporer threatened to convert the most devout hindu's or be put to death, how un selfish of him. SIkhs have done this throughout there time, even today!! As an organised religion, sikhism isn't exclusive, everyone has access to the holy book, temples etc!! Overall I believe Sikhsim could be a much larger richer faith if it had been selfish, Sikhism went through 3 holocausts, genocidal attacks, if the Sikhs didn;t stand for the truth all these event would never of happened!! ALthough slowly slowly many are taking advantage of the mighty SIkh faith and using ot for there own purposes, including those that state they are keepers of the faith!!! Thats all good Singh but I'm not wearing a turban, or being called Singh, people would get us mixed up.
Dr The Singh Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Thats all good Singh but I'm not wearing a turban, or being called Singh, people would get us mixed up. Mate, i'm not out to convert anyone, but as far as I remember you used to be aprt of a boy band called Turbanation and often wore a turban!!!
Master Fox Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 The only thing i know is that the huge spread of Islam into European culture will only result in one thing.
Dr The Singh Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 The only thing i know is that the huge spread of Islam into European culture will only result in one thing. Increased sales of Burkhas....so that's the new business venture you were going on about?????
Master Fox Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Increased sales of Burkhas....so that's the new business venture you were going on about????? Well No, that wasn't really what i was getting at.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 But you both believe in something that doesn't exist, has no evidence supporting its existence and therefore has nothing that can be known.You get represented on phone-in's, have your say in making the laws of the country, get asked to comment on major events in society and dictate what and how children are taught - I think believers of all hues are dangerous. I'm dangerous? Cheers! Was Mother Teresa dangerous too? And are you pigeon-holing and labeling me? Also are you saying that people who don't share your opinions shouldn't have any? That's borderline fascism. It's certainly militant. By tarring people with one broad stroke of your brush you are no different in many respects to the religions you rail against. As I've said before elsewhere, a football forum isn't the place to discuss religion. I will say nothing more on the subject, cos it will start to get a bit like this... Pause For Thought For The Day
Raj Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Sorry Raj - your opening ditty is nothing more than trite guff. Think you should go for a walk and get some fresh air pal......
Vacamion Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Sooooooo Atheist. To paraphrase Sam Harris, religion could unmake the world (one lot wants to impose its universe-view on another lot) which is daft because it belongs on the same shelf as Batman and Harry Potter. Best quote from The End Of Faith by Sam Harris : "And yet, it is an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, whilst it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in morse code on your bedroom window.." There are also no ghosts, no paranormal, no tooth fairies, no angels, and, I'm sorry kids - Santa was your Dad....
Daggers Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 I'm dangerous? Cheers! Was Mother Teresa dangerous too?And are you pigeon-holing and labeling me? Also are you saying that people who don't share your opinions shouldn't have any? That's borderline fascism. It's certainly militant. By tarring people with one broad stroke of your brush you are no different in many respects to the religions you rail against. As I've said before elsewhere, a football forum isn't the place to discuss religion. I will say nothing more on the subject, cos it will start to get a bit like this... Pause For Thought For The Day If I may, I'd like to play the internet "I win because you were the first person to call someone a fascist" card. Mother Teresa? Absofrickenlutely. The Mother Teresa who believed in suffering so that individuals could learn about life through it or witnessing it. The same Mother Teresa who raised millions and yet none of it ever found its way to alleviate suffering? Mother Teresa the Catholic who shut the sick away from friends and relations so that they could die slow, lingering deaths. Mother Teresa was a major league cunt. (Ref: Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens) I've no idea where the idea that I am denying anyone any opinions is coming from - this is an open debate on religion and I am espousing my views and arguing against those I disagree with. I have no intention of differentiating religions which are "better" than others because I see no purpose in any if them. "No different in many respects to the religions you rail against"?! Nonsense. I deny the existence of a god, I believe the scientific evidence to support that stance is overwhelming and I am an athiest . How am I no different to them? The biggest example recently concerns Muslims, but a blind faith and righteousness isn't confined to them - it extends to anyone who holds an unwavering belief in something for which there is no evidence - that holding the faith despite any evidence to do so befits them with status, that they are holier than thou. In July 2005, London was the victim of a concerted suicide bomb attack: three bombs in the subway and one in a bus. Not as bad as the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, and certainly not as unexpected (indeed, London had been braced for just such an event ever since Blair volunteered us as unwilling side-kicks in Bush's invasion of Iraq), nevertheless the London explosions horrified Britain. The newspapers were filled with agonized appraisals of what drove four young men to blow themselves up and take a lot of innocent people with them. The murderers were British citizens, cricket-loving, well-mannered, just the sort of young men whose company one might have enjoyed.Why did these cricket-loving young men do it? Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, or their kamikaze counterparts in Japan, or their Tamil Tiger counterparts in Sri Lanka, these human bombs had no expectation that their bereaved families would be lionized, looked after or supported on martyrs' pensions. On the contrary, their relatives in some cases had to go into hiding. One of the men wantonly widowed his pregnant wife and orphaned his toddler. The action of these four young men has been nothing short of a disaster not just for themselves and their victims, but for their families and for the whole Muslim community in Britain, which now faces a backlash. Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people. Once again, Sam Harris put the point with percipient bluntness, taking the example of the Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden (who had nothing to do with the London bombings, by the way). Why would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it? To call bin Laden 'evil' is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to such an important question. The answer to this question is obvious - if only because it has been patiently articulated ad nauseam by bin Laden himself. The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe. They believe in the literal truth of the Koran. Why did nineteen well-educated middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of humans so fully and satisfactorily explained. Why have we been so reluctant to accept this explanation?" The respected journalist Muriel Gray, writing in the (Glasgow) Herald on 24 July 2005, made a similar point, in this case with reference to the London bombings. Everyone is being blamed, from the obvious villainous duo of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to the inaction of Muslim 'communities'. But it has never been clearer that there is only one place to lay the blame and it has ever been thus. The cause of all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance is of course religion itself, and if it seems ludicrous to have to state such an obvious reality, the fact is that the government and the media are doing a pretty good job of pretending that it isn't so. Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith.
Daggers Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 Think you should go for a walk and get some fresh air pal...... Raj - stop taking this personally. I am attacking faith & religion, the subject of the thread, not you.
danny. Posted 13 June 2008 Posted 13 June 2008 I had a discussion with a very religious work colleague and he said:-'how can you believe in evolution thats why they call it the theory of evolution' To which I responded:- 'do you believe in gravity' he said:- 'of course' to which I replied:- 'they call that the theory of relitivity' the theory of relativity has been disproved
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.