Buddha himself said he is not a god, just a pathway. We just need someone higher being to praise upon happiness and blame on misery.. Nobody has seen god, why do we believe on god so blindly. Everything we do present has effect on our future, it is NOT GOD who has written anyting in our destiny. It is not god who brings us bad luck/good luck.  Man makes his own destiny. I dont believe in god, but myself.. Dont tell me 'if you dont belive then have respect for those who do blah blah..' It is just that you cannot justify why u believe in god, why should I believe in god??

 

with due respect to the freedom of choice of people, i am of the opinion that religion (god), more than giving solace and comfort to people in thick and thin, has created misconception to complicate the already divided and deranged society of ours. We already had division by race, cast, creed, color, gender and countries to deal with since time immemorial. Religion has, if anything, added more salt-and-pepper to the wound created by the disparity, if you ask me.

...imagine there's no countries
it isn't hard to do
nothing to kill or die for
no religion too...

would be a utopia. some even may say it's a BS, but there's no harm in dreaming.

"Even medical science believe on miracles. I also don't know whether it is god or not but I believe on some kind of higher power."

they say it's a miracle because it is beyond their understanding. If there is 'god', why are there so many religions? Isn't all god suppose to be one? Why it is that Quran is against Bible? How do you know who is right?

God Bless you Mr. Hareeb.

Faith is illogical. However, that does not matter.

 

Because it did not matter so far.

 

Faith has sustained itself enduring the attack of its most powerful enemy, the logic, throughout the modern history.

 

Sustenance/re-emergence of faith in the former communist countries, a case in point.

 

Faith’s sustenance itself proves that it has some merits.

 

So my position regarding faith would be not to kill it but to tame it to keep/improve the quality of life in general.

 

What is necessary for this to happen is that the faith should know its intellectual and political limitations and the intellectuals and politicians should know the merits of faith.

 

Nepe

Some drivel first.

When we die, we get taken over by nature’s crude game of ‘recycling’ and continue to ‘live’ in one form or another – a process as indefinite as life is.

Your dead body rots away and this feeds bugs, insects which breed or die, and then are subsumed.  The broken down mass of your flesh fertilises the ground, allowing plants to grow.

The atoms that make up your body continue in one form or another for ever.

This, everything that is you, apart from conscious thought, lives for ever more.  But there is more to it than just living and dying – there are other sinister motives at play, one of which being to ensure that the genes get passed down through breeding with the better specimens.  And all that game called survival, points to our natural instinct to try and create peace, harmony within the social groups of our species – waging war, causing death is seldom on the card, unless your survival and that of your ‘selfish’ genes are threatened to the point of being neutralised. 

So, do we live then? Yes, for ever for all of those reasons.  Enough of my Darwinist drivels.

So what about God then? Does He exist?  No, only ignorance, superstition do.  And darkness as well  – all of that is fading too as scientific reasoning prevails, albeit at a slower pace.

Whoever invented the concept of religion!  When you look at it as merely a tool to harmonise communities, it can be a good tool.  What I find absurd in this whole ‘god’ thing, or sky faeries interceding in human matters after being telephoned in prayer, by priests, mullahs, and that simply shows, a: just how gullible the masses can be, and b: how an ostensibly noble cause can be subverted by acolytes and those of their ilk who represent all the trappings of power.

My two pence worth – all of it is pure non-sense but hey, there is no harm in spewing it in Sajha now and then as it gives you the much needed release from another of those manic mid-week blues.  And it has been my long time coming in Sajha too, so I for what it is worth, stand ready to be damned and get damned!

Carpe diem

 

This is some stuff I found through reddit or digg I don't remember exactly. Some guy from Australia wrote it. Pretty interesting read. It is related to the topic.

Talking to God.

I met god the other day.

I know what you're thinking. How the hell did you know it was god?

Well, I'll explain as we go along, but basically he convinced me by having all, and I do mean ALL, the answers. Every question I flung at him he batted back with a plausible and satisfactory answer. In the end, it was easier to accept that he was god than otherwise.

Which is odd, because I'm still an atheist and we even agree on that!

It all started on the 8.20 back from Paddington. Got myself a nice window seat, no screaming brats or drunken hooligans within earshot. Not even a mobile phone in sight. Sat down, reading the paper and in he walks.

What did he look like?

Well not what you might have expected that's for sure. He was about 30, wearing a pair of jeans and a "hobgoblin" tee shirt. Definitely casual. Looked like he could have been a social worker or perhaps a programmer like myself.

'Anyone sitting here?' he said.

'Help yourself' I replied.

Sits down, relaxes, I ignore and back to the correspondence on genetic foods entering the food chain…

Train pulls out and a few minutes later he speaks.

'Can I ask you a question?'

Fighting to restrain my left eyebrow I replied 'Yes' in a tone which was intended to convey that I might not mind one question, and possibly a supplementary, but I really wasn't in the mood for a conversation. ..

'Why don't you believe in god?'

The Bastard!

I love this kind of conversation and can rabbit on for hours about the nonsense of theist beliefs. But I have to be in the mood! It's like when a jehova's witness knocks on your door 20 minutes before you're due to have a wisdom tooth pulled. Much as you'd really love to stay… You can't even begin the fun. And I knew, if I gave my standard reply we'd still be arguing when we got to Cardiff. I just wasn't in the mood. I needed to fend him off.

But then I thought 'Odd! How is this perfect stranger so obviously confident – and correct – about my atheism?' If I'd been driving my car, it wouldn't have been such a mystery. I've got the Darwin fish on the back of mine – the antidote to that twee christian fish you see all over. So anyone spotting that and understanding it would have been in a position to guess my beliefs. But I was on a train and not even wearing my Darwin "Evolve" tshirt that day. And 'The Independent' isn't a registered flag for card carrying atheists, so what, I wondered, had given the game away.

'What makes you so certain that I don't?'

'Because', he said, ' I am god – and you are not afraid of me'

You'll have to take my word for it of course, but there are ways you can deliver a line like that – most of which would render the speaker a candidate for an institution, or at least prozac. Some of which could be construed as mildly amusing.

Conveying it as "indifferent fact" is a difficult task but that's exactly how it came across. Nothing in his tone or attitude struck me as even mildly out of place with that statement. He said it because he believed it and his rationality did not appear to be drug induced or the result of a mental breakdown.

'And why should I believe that?'
 

'Well' he said, 'why don't you ask me a few questions. Anything you like, and see if the answers satisfy your sceptical mind?'

This is going to be a short conversation after all, I thought.

'Who am I?'

'Stottle. Harry Stottle, born August 10 1947, Bristol, England. Father Paul, Mother Mary. Educated Duke of Yorks Royal Military School 1960 67, Sandhurst and Oxford, PhD in Exobiology, failed rock singer, full time trade union activist for 10 years, latterly self employed computer programmer, web author and aspiring philosopher. Married to Michelle, American citizen, two children by a previous marriage. You're returning home after what seems to have been a successful meeting with an investor interested in your proposed product tracking anti-forgery software and protocol and you ate a full english breakfast at the hotel this morning except that, as usual, you asked them to hold the revolting english sausages and give you some extra bacon. '

He paused

'You're not convinced. Hmmm… what would it take to convince you?'

'oh right! Your most secret password and its association'

A serious hacker might be able to obtain the password, but no one else and I mean

NO ONE

knows its association.

He did.

So how would you have played it?

I threw a few more questions about relatively insignificant but unpublicised details of my life (like what my mother claims was the first word I ever spoke – apparently "armadillo"! (Don't ask…)) but I was already pretty convinced. I knew there were only three possible explanations at this point.

Possibility One was that I was dreaming or hallucinating. Nobody's figured out a test for that so, at the time I think that was my dominant feeling. It did not feel real at the time. More like I was in a play. Acting my lines. Since the event, however, continuing detailed memories of it, together with my contemporaneous notes, remain available, so unless the hallucination has continued to this day, I am now inclined to reject the hallucination hypothesis. Which leaves two others.

He could have been a true telepath. No documented evidence exists of anyone ever having such profound abilities to date but it was a possibility. It would have explained how he could know my best-kept secrets. The problem with that is that it doesn't explain anything else! In particular it doesn't account for the answers he proceeded to give to my later questions.

As Sherlock Holmes says, when you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Good empiricist, Sherlock.

I was forced to accept at least the possibility that this man was who he claimed to be.

So now what do you do?

Well, I've always known that if I met god I would have a million questions for him, so I thought, 'why not?' and proceeded with what follows. You'll have to allow a bit of licence in the detail of the conversation. This was, shall we say, a somewhat unusual occurrence, not to mention just a BIT weird! And yes I was a leetle bit nervous! So if I don't get it word perfect don't whinge! You'll get the gist I promise.

***********************************

'Forgive me if it takes me a little time to get up to speed here, but it's not everyday I get to question a deity'

'The Deity' he interrupted.

'ooh. Touchy!' I thought.

'Not really – just correcting the image'

Now That takes some getting used to!

I tried to get a grip on my thoughts, with an internal command - 'Discipline Harry. You've always wanted to be in a situation like this, now you're actually in it, you mustn't go to pieces and waste the opportunity of a lifetime'

'You won't' he said.

Tell you! That's the bit that made it feel unreal more than anything else - this guy sitting across the table and very obviously accurately reading my every thought. It's like finding someone else's hand inside your trouser pocket!

Nevertheless, something made me inclined to accept the invasion, I had obviously begun to have some confidence in his perception or abilities, so I distinctly remember the effect of his words was that I suddenly felt deeply reassured and completely relaxed. As he had no doubt intended. Man must have an amazing seduction technique!

So then we got down to business…

'Are you human?'

'No'

'Were you, ever?'

'No, but similar, Yes'

'Ah, so you are a product of evolution?'

'Most certainly – mainly my own'

'and you evolved from a species like ours, dna based organisms or something equally viable?'

'Correct'

'so what, exactly, makes you god?'

'I did'

'Why?'

'Seemed like a good idea at the time'

'and your present powers, are they in any way similar to what the superstitious believers in my species attribute to you?'

'Close enough. '

'So you created all this, just for us?'

'No. Of course not'

'But you did create the Universe?'
 
'This One. Yes'

'But not your own?'

'This is my own!'

'You know what I mean!'

'You can't create your own parents, so No'

'So let me get this straight. You are an entirely natural phenomenon.'

'Entirely'

'Arising from mechanisms which we ourselves will one day understand and possibly even master?'

'subject to a quibble over who "we ourselves" may be, but yes'

'meaning that if the human race doesn't come up to the mark, other species eventually will?'

'in one.'

'and how many other species are there already out there ahead of us?'

'surprisingly few. Less than fourteen million'

'FEW!?'

'Phew!'

'And how many at or about our level?'

'currently a little over 4 ½ billion'

'so our significance in the universe at present is roughly equivalent to the significance of the average Joe here on planet Earth in his relation to the human race?'

'a little less. Level One, the level your species has reached, begins with the invention of the flying machine. I define the next level in terms your Sci Fi Author Isaac Asimov has already grasped. It is reached when you achieve control of your own primary – the Sun. What Asimov calls a Type I technology. Humanity is only just into the flying machine phase, so as you can imagine, on that scale, the human race is somewhat near the bottom of the level one pack'

'and all these species are your children?'

'I like to think of them that way'

'and the point?'

'at its simplest, "Life Must Go On". My personal motivation is the desire for conversation. Once you've achieved my level, you cease to be billions of separate entities and become one ecstatic whole. A single entity that cannot die, however advanced, or perhaps, more accurately, because it is so advanced, will get lonely and even a trifle bored! I seem to be the first. I do not intend to be the last'

'so you created a Universe which is potentially capable of producing another god like yourself?'

'The full benefit will be temporary, but like most orgasms, worth it.'

'this being the moment when our new god merges with you and we become one again?'
 
'don't play it down, that's the ecstatic vision driving us all, me included – and when it happens the ecstasy lasts several times longer than this universe has already existed. Believe me, it really is worth the effort.'

'Yes, I think I can see the attractions of a hundred billion year long orgasm'

'and humans haven't even begun to know how to really enjoy the orgasms they are already capable of. Wait till you master that simple art!'

'So it's all about sex is it?'

'Ecstasy is merely a reward for procreating, it is what makes you want to do it. This is necessary, initially, to promote biological evolution. However once you've completed that stage and no longer require procreation, you will learn that ecstasy can be infinitely more intense than anything offered by sex'

'Sounds good to me!'

'How direct is your involvement in all this? Did you just light the fuse which set off the big bang and stand back and watch? Or did you have to plant the seeds on appropriately fertile planets?'

'The seeds evolved in deep space, purely as a result of the operations of the laws of physics and chemistry which your scientists have begun to attain a reasonable grasp of. Yes I triggered the bang and essentially became dormant for nearly 5 billion years. That's how long it took the first lifeforms to emerge. That places them some 8 billion years ahead of you. The first intelligent species are now 4.3 billion years ahead of you. Really quite advanced. I can have deeply meaningful conversations with them. And usually do. In fact I am as we speak'

'So then what?'

'Do I keep a constant vigil over every move you make? Not in the kind of prying intrusive sense that some of you seem to think. Let's say I maintain an awareness of what's going on, at a planetary level. I tend only to focus on evolutionary leaps. See if they're going in the right direction'

'And if they're not?'

'Nothing. Usually'

'Usually?'

'Usually species evolving in the wrong direction kill themselves off or become extinct for other reasons'

'Usually?'

'There have been one or two cases where a wrong species has had the potential of becoming dominant at the expense of a more promising strain'

'Let me guess. Dinosaurs on this planet are an example. Too successful. Suppressed the development of mammals and were showing no signs of developing intelligence. So you engineered a little corrective action in the form of a suitably selected asteroid'

'Perceptive. Almost correct. They were showing signs of developing intelligence, even co-operation. Study your velocirapters. But far too predatory. Incapable of ever developing a "respect" for other life forms. It takes carrying your young to promote the development of emotional attachment to other animals. Earth reptiles aren't built for that. The mammals who are, as you rightly say, couldn't get a foothold against such mighty predators. You've now reached the stage where you could hold your own even against dinosaurs, but that's only been true for about a thousand years, you wouldn't have stood a chance 2 million years ago, so the dinosaurs had to go. They were, however, far too well balanced with the ecology of the planet, and never developed technology, so they weren't going to kill themselves off in a hurry. Regrettably, I had to intervene.'

'Regrettably?'

'They were a beautiful and stunningly successful life form. One doesn't destroy such things without a qualm.'

'But at that stage how could you know that a better prospect would arise from the ashes?'

'I didn't. But the probability was quite high.'

'and since then, what other little tweaks have you been responsible for in our development?'

'None whatsoever. I set an alarm for the first sign of aerial activity, as I usually do. Leonardo looked promising for a while, but not until the Montgolfier brothers did I really begin to take an interest. That registered you as a level one intelligent species'

'So Jesus of Nazareth, Moses, Mohammed…'

'hmmm… sadly misguided I'm afraid. Anyone capable of communicating with their own cells will dimly perceive me – and all other life as being connected in a strictly quantum sense, but interpreting that vision as representing something supernatural and requiring obeisance is somewhat wide of the mark. And their followers are all a bit too obsessive and religious for my liking. It's no fun being worshipped once you stop being an adolescent teenager. Having said that, it's not at all unusual for developing species to go through that phase. Until they begin to grasp how much they too can shape their small corner of the universe, they are in understandable awe of an individual dimly but correctly perceived to be responsible for the creation of the whole of that universe. Eventually, if they are to have any hope of attaining level two, they must grow out of it and begin to accept their own power and potential. It's very akin to a child's relationship with its parents. The awe and worship must disappear before the child can become an adult. Respect is not so bad as long as it's not overdone. And I certainly respect all those species who make it that far. It's a hard slog. I know. I've been there.'

'You've been watching us since the Montgolfiers, when was that? 1650s?'

'Close. 1783'

'Well, if you've been watching us closely since then, what your average citizen is going to want to know is why you haven't intervened more often. Why, if you have that sort of power, did you allow such incredible suffering and human misery?'

'It seems to be necessary.'

'NECESSARY??!!'

'Without exception, intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators. There are many intelligent species who do not evolve to dominate their planet. Like your dolphins, they adapt perfectly to the environment rather than take your course, which is to manipulate the environment. Unfortunately for the dolphin, his is a dead end. He may outlive the human race but will never escape the bounds of planet earth - not without your help at any rate. Only those who can manipulate the world they live in can one day hope to leave it and spread their seed throughout the universe.

Unlike the adaptors, who learn the point of cooperation fairly early on, manipulators battle on. And, once all lesser species have been overcome, they are so competitive and predatory that they are compelled to turn in on themselves. This nearly always evolves into tribal competition in one form or another and becomes more and more destructive - exactly like your own history. However this competition is vital to promote the leap from biological to technological evolution.

You need an arms race in order to make progress.

Your desire to dominate fuels a search for knowledge which the adaptors never require. And although your initial desire for knowledge is selfish and destructive, it begins the development of an intellectual self awareness, a form of higher consciousness, which never emerges in any other species. Not even while they are experiencing it, for example, can the intelligent adaptors - your dolphins - express the concepts of Love or Time.

Militarisation and the development of weapons of mass destruction are your first serious test at level one. You're still not through that phase, though the signs are promising. There is no point whatsoever in my intervening to prevent your self-destruction. Your ability to survive these urges is a crucial test of your fitness to survive later stages. So I would not, never have and never will intervene to prevent a species from destroying itself. Most, in fact, do just that.'

'And what of pity for those have to live through this torment?'

'I can't say this in any way that doesn't sound callous, but how much time do you spend worrying about the ants you run over in your car? I know it sounds horrendous to you, but you have to see the bigger picture. At this stage in human development, you're becoming interesting but not yet important.'

'ah but I can't have an intelligent conversation with an ant'

'precisely'

'hmm… as you know, humans won't like even to attempt to grasp that perspective. How can you make it more palatable?'

'Why should I? You don't appear to have any trouble grasping it. You're by no means unique. And in any case, once they begin to understand what's in it for them, they'll be somewhat less inclined to moan. Eternal life compensates for most things.'

'So what are we supposed to do in order to qualify for membership of the universal intelligentsia?'

'Evolve. Survive'

'Yes, but how?'

'Oh, I thought you might have got the point by now. "How" is entirely up to you. If I have to help, then you're a failure. All I will say is this. You've already passed a major hurdle in learning to live with nuclear weapons. It's depressing how many fail at that stage.'

'Is there worse to come?'

'Much'

'Genetic warfare for instance?

'Distinct Possibility'

'and the problem is… that we need to develop all these technologies, acquire all this dangerous knowledge in order to reach level two. But at any stage that knowledge could also cause our own destruction'

'If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering a secret thought or program, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species has got to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery. And if you don't make it, you will never leave your Solar System and join the rest of the sapient species on level two.'

'14 Million of them'

'Just under'

'Will there be room for us?'

'it's a big place'

'and, for now, how should we mere mortals regard you then?'

'like an older brother or sister. Of course I know more than you do. Of course I'm more powerful than you. I've been alive longer. But I'm not "better" than you. Just more developed. Just what you might become'

'so we're not obliged to "please" you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?'

'absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me - or anyone else - to come and help you out.'

'I suppose that is a guideline of sorts, so there goes the habit of a lifetime! '

'Seriously though, species who hold on to religion past its sell-by date tend to be most likely to self destruct. They spend so much energy arguing about my true nature, and invest so much emotion in their wildly erroneous imagery that they end up killing each other over differences in definitions of something they clearly haven't got a clue about. Ludicrous behaviour, but it does weed out the weaklings.'

'Why me? Why pick on an atheist of all people? Why are you telling me all this? And why Now?'

'Why You? Because can accept my existence without your ego caving in and grovelling like a naughty child. '

'Can you seriously imagine how the Pope would react to the reality of my existence?! If he really understood how badly wrong he and his church have been, how much of the pain and suffering you mentioned earlier has been caused by his religion, I suspect he'd have an instant coronary! Or can you picture what it would be like if I appeared "live" simultaneously on half a dozen tele-evangelist propaganda shows. Pat Robertson would wet himself if he actually understood who he was talking to.

Conversely, your interest is purely academic. You've never swallowed the fairy tale but you've remained open to the possibility of a more advanced life form which could acquire godlike powers. You've correctly guessed that godhood is the destiny of life. You have shown you can and do cope with the concept. It seemed reasonable to confirm your suspicions and let you do what you will with that information.

You can and will publish this conversation on the web, where it will sow an important seed. Might take a couple of hundred years to germinate, but, eventually, it will germinate.

Why Now? Well partly because both you and the web are ready now. But chiefly because the human race is reaching a critical phase. It goes back to what we were saying about the dangers of knowledge. Essentially your species is becoming aware of that danger. When that happens to any sapient species, the future can take three courses.

Many are tempted to avoid the danger by avoiding the knowledge. Like the adaptors, they are doomed to extinction. Often pleasantly enough in the confines of their own planet until either their will to live expires or their primary turns red giant and snuffs them out.

A large number go on blindly acquiring the knowledge and don't learn to restrain their abuse. Their fate is sealed somewhat more quickly of course, when Pandora's box blows up in their faces.

The only ones who reach level two are those who learn to accept and to live with their most dangerous knowledge. Each and every individual in such a species must eventually become capable of destroying their entire species at any time. Yet they must learn to control themselves to the degree that they can survive even such deadly insight. And frankly, they're the only ones we really want to see leaving their solar systems. Species that haven't achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick'

'Why can't there be a fourth option - selective research where we avoid investigating dangerous pathways?'

'As you can see from your own limited history, the most useful ideas are also, nearly always, the most dangerous. You have yet, for instance, to conquer fusion power but you need to do so in order to achieve appropriate energy surpluses required to complete this phase of your social development. It will, when you've mastered it, eliminate material inequalities and poverty within a generation or two, an absolutely vital step for any maturing species. Yet the discovery of the principles which will soon yield this beneficial bounty could, had you abused them, have ended your attempt at civilisation.

Similarly, you will shortly be able to conquer biological diseases and even engineer yourselves to be virtually fault free. Your biological life spans will double or treble within the next hundred years and your digital lifespans will become potentially infinite within the same period: If you survive the potential threat that the same technology provides in the form of genetic timebombs, custom built viruses and the other wonders of genetic and digital warfare.

You simply can't have the benefits without taking the risks'.

'I'm not sure I understand my part in this exercise. I just publish this conversation on the web and everything will be alright?'

'Not necessarily. Not that easy I'm afraid. To start with, who's going to take this seriously? It will just be seen as a mildly amusing work of fiction. In fact, your words and indeed most of your work will not be understood or appreciated until some much more advanced scholars develop the ideas you are struggling to express and explain them somewhat more competently. At which point the ideas will be taken up en masse and searches will be undertaken of the archives. They will find this work and be struck by its prescience. You won't make the Einstein grade, but you might manage John the Baptist!

This piece will have no significance whatsoever if humanity doesn't make certain key advances in the next couple of centuries. And this won't help you make those advances. What it will do is help you recognise them'

'can I ask what those advances may be?'

'I think you know. But yes - although you are at level one, there are several distinct phases which evolving species pass through on their way to level two. The first, as we've discussed, is the invention of the flying machine. The next significant phase is the development of the thinking machine.

At your present rate of progress, you are within a few decades of achieving that goal. It marks your first step on the path of technological evolution. Mapping the human genome is another classic landmark, but merely mapping it is a bit like viewing the compiled code in a dos executable. It's just meaningless gibberish, although with a bit of hacking here and there, you might correctly deduce the function of certain stretches of code.

What you really need to do is 'reverse engineer' the dna code. You have to figure out the grammar and syntax of the language. Then you will begin the task of designing yourselves. But that task requires the thinking machine'

'You say you avoid intervention. But doesn't this conversation itself constitute intervention – even if people alive now completely ignore it?'

'Yes. But it's as far as I'm prepared to go. Its only effect is to confirm, if you find it, that you are on the right path. It is still entirely up to you to navigate the dangers on that path and beyond.'

'But why bother even with that much? Surely it's just another evolutionary hurdle. We're either fit enough or not…'

'In many ways the transition to an information species is the most traumatic stage in evolution. Biological intelligences have a deeply rooted sense of consciousness only being conceivable from within an organic brain. Coming to terms with the realisation that you have created your successor, not just in the sense of mother and child, but in the collective sense of the species recognising it has become redundant, this paradigm shift is, for many species, a shift too far. They baulk at the challenge and run from this new knowledge. They fail and become extinct. Yet there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them - it is a failure of the imagination.

I hope that if I can get across the concept that I am a product of just such evolution, it may give them the confidence to try. I have discussed this with the level two species and the consensus is that this tiny prod is capable of increasing the contenders for level two without letting through any damaging traits. It has been tried in 312 cases. The jury is still out on its real benefits although it has produced a 12% increase in biological species embracing the transition to information species.

'Alright, so what if everyone suddenly took it seriously and believed every word I write? Wouldn't that constitute a somewhat more drastic intervention?'

'Trust me. They wont'

'and so it's still the case, that, should another asteroid happen to be heading our way, you will do nothing to impede it on our behalf?'

'I'm confident you will pass that test. And now my friend, the interview is over, you have asked me a number of the right questions, and I've said what I came to say, so I'll be going now. It has been very nice to meet you - you're quite bright. For an ant!' He twinkled.

'Just one final, trivial question, why do you appear to me in the form of a thirty something white male?'

'have I in any way intimidated or threatened you?'

'No'

'Do you find me sexually attractive?'

'er No!'

'So figure it out for yourself…'

For an expectedly diverse views on what science does to God:

 

Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete ?

(A collection of 13 essays)

 

http://www.4shared.com/file/49102407/b810ef0d/hitchens_pinker_shermer_stenger_-_Does_science_make_god_obsolete_435_essays.html?s=1

 

From the front page:

 

Yes, if by…       Steven Pinker /Sandhurst Lahure :-)

No, and yes.       Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

Absolutely not!  William D. Phillips

Not necessarily. Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy

Of course not.    Mary Midgley

No.                     Robert Sapolsky

No, but it should. Christopher Hitchens

No.                     Keith Ward

Yes.                   Victor J. Stenger

No, not at all.    Jerome Groopman

It depends.         Michael Shermer

Of course not.     Kenneth Miller

No, but only if… Stuart Kauffman

 

_________________________________

 

Nepe

A touch late for me to be making this call but I thought, reenergizing this thread was worth it given the state of the weather today and its ruinous impact on my evening plan!  Sajha is an easy alternative obviously – my old excuse for having fun!

I did go through some of the posts above – my comments below:

******************

Neerman wrote:

“Do you see a difference? When you say You believe in your friend. You are not sure about him/her.”

So, not to believe in your friend will, by definition, make you ‘sure about him/her’ then?  And that’s me sorted then, because I choose not to believe in God or a god.  So I rest my case!

“BUT when you say you trust in your friend, you know exactly why do [sic] you trust him/her as you knew him/her so closely.”

I fail to see the logic in your analogy a la God vs the trusting friend – let’s not distil the finer meanings of the two words - ‘believe’ and ‘trust’, because that’s the linguist’s job.  But semantics aside, I don’t understand why believing in a friend is less valid than trusting him:  you trust your friend because equally, you believe in his friendship, his ability to be your friend and his loyalty to you so you can retain that trust for as long as it lasts.   Both actions are complimentary to each other and that blurs the distinction you are proposing between the two protagonists.

“So, my point is when you believe in GOD, ……….. You do not look for a reason to believe OK.”

No, you DO ‘look for a reason’ for your actions – they just can’t be random or irrational.  You go to toilet for example.  Why?  Because you had a few too many down at the pub and now your bladder is next to bursting. Going there for a pee is only a rational thing to do given all possibilities - you know, you would otherwise end up mucking up your trousers!  In The Hareeb’s case, he does not believe in God because doing otherwise will yield no outcomes, because for him, it’s irrational to invest his time and effort in something that is not real and only exists in the head.  You breathe, eat and sleep – that is real.  Why? Because you want to be alive – a choice you have no monopoly over, unless you want to commit suicide!  It is a requirement which we know has no alternatives.  Nature that is – real, no short cuts!  Going back to the toilet analogy again then - we have traits, instincts, some baser than others:  you ‘go out and have sex’ because it gives you pleasure and that is universal!  I find none of that sense of surety in one’s embracing belief in God.  Yes, some people do draw emotional comfort from it, and that’s fine as it is their prerogative.  Would that however qualify as a reason for doing so?  Still rational, even though you cannot prove its existence?  An excuse perhaps to go and commit yourself to something as inexplicable as my mucked up trousers! J

*******************

Kinaara wrote:

“Man was created by god,(ignore the theories n evidences of our baje Charles Darwin for once) We being the creation of the almighty god, we are special if not "Perfect" .”

Man created by God - he must probably wear a funny tuft of daarhi and unkempt stubbles and is an invariably six foot tall hunk with taut muscles and a motley mass of impressive six pack!  Whatever the name of the Mel Gibson film!  The same old sermon but I agree, one cannot disprove it too, in much the same way you cannot disprove the existence of The Spaghetti Monster – Bertrand Russell’s Teapot that is!  Science doesn’t set out to debunk all that garbage – its purpose is not that but it gives you, despite its pitfalls, the best possible explanation, given the best available information.  And for the record, Darwin Baaje is no minion – he has yet to be proved wrong.

****************

Invisible wrote:

“In almost all the religion people believe in some kind of higher power a god.”

And many believe in The Spaghetti Monster and many other things too – if only the Gods of the organised religions (except Buddhism) didn’t invoke such hatred among their followers.  We would not have Crusades, Inquisition, instances of Arabs&Jews killing each other, muslim Terks killing Christian Armenians, 9/11.. just so much to recount.

“Man makes his own destiny”

He does indeed... he is a ‘self-made’ man.  Evolution that is.

***************

LootK,

Roger there... No religion indeed and then no sprinkling of the ‘salt-and-pepper’ too. J

***************

Aremite1,

Thanks for sharing the fictional piece – that was both Dawkins and Hitchens squished into the same PA system and the volume set to full blast.  And result was a massive, ear-deafening sound bite! J

******************

Nepe ji,

 

Thanks for sharing the piece... I have yet to read the stuff.  I am sure, there are some pretty interesting stuff.  I have read one or two Pinker books and I am a fan.  Ditto Hitchens.

 

Some waffles in passing:

 

“Faith is illogical.”

It is indeed.  Almost all of the organised religions lack the basis for rational verification – science has the edge over it in that respect, its failings and pitfalls notwithstanding; it ensures its credibility through both failure and success – refines its theories through testing and evaluating.  We find this process almost non-existent in religions’ case.  That to me is where the trouble lies. Most religions are monoliths that despise change.  There is no way you can compare the dramatic scientific changes of the last 100 years to any religious equivalent.  The Bible’s been canonised:  by definition it cannot change, it cannot be amended.  You can point to minute changes if you like (the Church of England relaxing its attitude to women and gay clergy for example), but in comparison to the towering ziggurat of nonsense that has remained for centuries, those changes really are miniscule.

 

 

“Faith has sustained itself enduring the attack of its most powerful enemy, the logic, throughout the modern history.”

 

Yes, through mostly scare tactics.  And its hold on many governments’ decision-making added to that and still does.

 

 

“Faith’s sustenance itself proves that it has some merits.”

I am less convinced about that.  Some merits yes but what are they?  Community harmony, a sense of belonging – maybe a useful tool but its global ills tend to cloud such achievements, miniscule as they already are.  That is a crass generalisation, I know but I have no better way to explain it otherwise.

 

“So my position regarding faith would be not to kill it but to tame it to keep/improve the quality of life in general.”

 

My own take on this is:  faith is a matter of personal choice.  I choose not to believe in all of it: life after death, pearly portals of the heaven and the dinky cells in hell.  If you want to believe, then that is fine as long as you do not assume the moral high ground to start preaching the superiority of your beliefs over others’.  Because if you do, then you are also displaying many of the traits which organised religion so distasteful.

 

My twopence worth...  too much for one post.  Have a nice weekend.

Carpe diem

One who does not believe in god is total disgrace to the earth and will go to hell!

Nobody cares.

invisible,

so why is nepal called the only HINDU country in the world. answer that question first. is america the only christian country in the world. think, why cow is our national animal.

Well just wan't tell  people that .hundu religion is the soft religion .we respect all  animals .in North America .there is animal protecter organization .hundu loves all  animals .the people whoever do not believe god .those people always have problem .cow is the best animal .you can drink its milk to save peoples  life for that reason .hundu count caws as a mother .when you drink milk from mom you can't eat mom !

Sandhust Lahure,

 

There is nothing I do not agree with you. All of your takes are fact-based, logical and clearly intended for the greater good of mankind. I really appreciate them.

 

Re organized religion, I totally agree with your view. Political misuse of religion or religious misuse of politics have done terrible things and great disservice to mankind.

 

When I talked about “taming” of faith, this is what I was recognizing and was calling for squeezing the sphere of religion to keep limited to people’s individual spiritual matters.

 

Since the vast majority of people are of faith and the vast majority of them are harmless, normal and as positively contributing to the society as anybody else, I think it is enough to keep only the religious fanaticism and fundamentalism in check and let the rest enjoy their faith and choice.

 

Here is a data on Americans;

9 out of 10 Americans believe in God

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20437/Americans-Little-Doubt-God-Exists.aspx

 

I do not remember the figure, however, I have seen an enigmatic data that a significant number of American scientists have faith in God too !

 

One can wonder if they pray for miracles in their experiments. Turns out they don’t. I don’t remember where I read the explanation or if it was my own speculation and projection, however, there is a trick called ‘compartmentalization’. You put your ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ into two separate compartments and don’t let them not mix up.

 

However unusual, paradoxical or hypocritical it may sound, it exists and seems to be working fine.

 

Hence my tolerance to faith, to be honest.

 

In fact this notion of ‘compartmentalization’ is what I find as a sustainable solution to the religious problem.

 

A compartmentalized faith, by definition, has to know it’s limit and be tolerant and respectful to the logical system outside. And in return, the world of logic and reason will recognize the value the faithfuls put on the faith. Everybody happy.

 

जस्तो लाग्छ मलाई ।

 

Nepe

 

P.S. Regarding the merit of faith, I did not talk much or explicitly, because I am still learning about them. However, here is a small survey conducted by a psychologist and his student on American conservative and liberal Christians’ view which indirectly shows that faith is their psychological need.

 

Dan P. McAdams and Michelle Albaugha.

What if there were no God? Politically conservative and liberal Christians imagine their lives without faith

Journal of Research in Personality, August 2008

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WM0-4T4HP25-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F03%2F2008&_alid=825063457&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6920&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0968bc407962dbe0735030725a95d81c

 

________________

 

 

i believe in paganism and satanism..i am germanic...thor be my god..

Hail Satan....In Conspiracy With Satan.\m/

Should we care what you belive or not?

 -  Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. - Unknown

Here's what I think about god, like it or not.

There's definitely something fishy going on in our planet. I mean, us, plants, animals. I don't believe we came to be merely by chance! Everything's there for a purpose. Fingers, thumbs, the folds in your eyelids, hair in your nose, the saliva on your tongue. EVERYTHING that u can think of has a reason to it.

Its as if someone (superior to us) made us to this detail. "hmmm lets give the lil guy 2 eyes instead of one so he can know what perception of depth is", and was a real genius of an engineer. So good, that we ourselves havent been able to create anything like HE created. Sure we have machines, computers that computer gigormous amounts of data within seconds, but they're crude and primitive compared to what He (or SHE or IT or THAT; whatever you wanna call) made.

So in my mind there is NO DOUBT that we're NOT the ONLY ones who EXIST. Offcourse I don't have the answer to "well gimme one example of NAME/PLACE/ANIMAL/THING that exists beyond us. I dont know, I haven't been there, nor seen it, nor felt it. I just KNOW its there from deductive/conclusive reasoning of the state of our existence.

Whether GOD in actuality is an alien or not, that I will leave to your own imaginations. But he exists, just like us, maybe not on the same plane, but there's no denying His work, his proof of existence. Albert Einstein didnt go and invent light and its physical properties, he merely studied it, and fell in love with the pureness and perfection of both theory and the actual thing. I'm sure he wondered: who on earth could have invented such a thing? Light: the basis of all life and information as we perceive it today.

But then here's where the story takes it turn (at least for me it does).

Brahma didnt create it. Nor did he create ANYTHING. Nor did Jesus, nor Allah or any of the other religious supreme beings claim to creator of the universe.

WE CREATED THEM. Yes sir, we did. We moulded our fantasies, curiosity, with an unquestionable fact of HIS exsistance. And then we played 'pretend'. "OH YOURE CUTTING YOUR NAILS AT 6 PM. AND YOURE ON THE DOORSTEP". "NARSIMA RAO IS COMING TO KILL YOU".

Why do we create such gods. Esp in Hinduism. Damn what 33 crore Gods.. and still counting? Why do we need God so much?? That we need to create 33 effing crores of him and pray. How does it work?

Create one today and start praying to him/her and if within a given time limit your prayers arent answered, create another one and start praying to that one? And all this while, you, benevolent creature of His creation, are decaying back into mouldy human clay.

But no! there's nothing you can do about it. Those GODS that they conjured up well before your time, you will still believe in, without understanding. Its unquestionable! BLASPHEMY! why do you think such a word even exists? So that NO ONE can question religion?

Tsk tsk.

Religion was invented by man as a means to support his logic. Logic was based on information. Information came from the stems of our senses. What we touched, ate, looked at, smelt. Our ego interprets the information from the senses and stores them into memory. By default, we are built in such a way, rather our minds are built in such a way, that it is always thirsty to fufil its purpose, parse and store information. Thence curiosity plagues all of humankind.

So inorder to stay sane, religion was invented. So that the masses wouldnt be worried if a Jupiter sized comet was going to pass in close proximity of the earth, praying in vain to a god that exists no where outside the realms of their own imagination.

So pityful are we :).

We give up our power to question logic so easily. So easily are we swayed by the pujaris and priests and pundits and padres.

"La hernus, tapai ko chora lai America ma gayera [successful] hunu ko lagi, malai bhagwan ko nam ma eti paisa chadaunus" is the unsaid motto of some holy men. Translate that into languages across the globe and apply it regionally, it can't fail.

[kramasa]

Everything comes at a price. We are as humans, love to endeavor into the unkown. I can't imagine a world without religion. On the other hand, I think the demerits of religion, clearly outrun the merits, as we have seen in contemporary socities. I read someone saying, "Faith is illogical". It's true that logic contradicts faith. But,  faith is yours to keep - you believe it or you don't. Logic and faith cannot co-exist at the same time or on the same page. People have their own understanding of faith and religion. It's the center line between good and evil, and as some might say, right and wrong. There are miracles, around us and studies prove them relevant.  The list goes on. It's like things at the quantum level - we see a different pattern on how things behave, at the subatomic level. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that, our sole reason here is profoundly uknown. We have books and ideas, which tells us about our past, but if future remained consistent what we thought to be, we wouldn't have religion and faith around.

It's ok to believe in god. It's ok not to believe in god. It's not ok to believe in lotto.

नास्तिक