Atheism Why Atheism Will Replace Religion!

[spnadmin]

BTW, if u wanna call communists an atheistic state. Im claim buddhists and jains as atheistic religions lol jus so u no if were going to be playin tha claim game. im pulling ur leg




[/FONT]

On religion, Marxism, buddhists and jains


It was Karl Marx who said, Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. It was my impression that communism considers itself Marxist. LOL I could be wrong. Communists may be more religious than buddhists and jains. They are certainly more dogmatic. And one could even argue they have made a deity of the state, with a set of rules and norms of morality that serve the state above the individual. And there are even hierarchies of practitioners and sacred writings no less. I must be fooling myself to think they are atheist.

Do we know how many buddhists are sitting in jails in Tibet at this moment? Jailed for crimes against the state?

Notice I don't make claims, but ask questions, and am careful to use the words "may," "seem" and "appear." Notice I did not call Marx a communist, so don't anyone start a straw man argument over that.

 

[Navdeep88]

Re: Why Atheism will Replace Religion?

Caspian Ji,

I must say, your understanding of what it means to be religious is very impersonal...maybe a lot of people who have faith in God care more about the commonalities between all human beings and don't focus on the differences as much because they're mostly superficial.

Being religious isnt always about externally shouting it out to the world...or putting up boundaries...that would be very easy to do because that requires doing the same thing all the time, staying in the same place...there is a great deal of COMFORT in that stance because you dont actually move. There is a lot more personal responsibility that comes with religion, and you assume it by your own choice, and actually LIVE that way (which is very difficult), regardless of what any set of statistics say because they matter less than your own belief that goodness always prevails.

 

[jasbirkaleka]

Re: Why Atheism will Replace Religion?

I do not think Atheism will ever replace religion. The purpose of the live is to be one with God. In Atheism there simply is no God. All religions guide is through a path to be one with God. God is the only Truth in this World. I don't believe that this truth will ever go away.[/QUO

gursikhi.jeevan ji,

Pls.could you explain--

Why is the purpose of life to be one with God?
Why did he seperate us from Himself in the first place?swordfight

 

[jasbirkaleka]

Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is thus a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism?

First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism (Zuckerman, 2007). Belief in God declines in more developed countries and is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.

The question of why economically developed countries turn to atheism has been batted around by anthropologists for about eighty years. Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence (see my earlier post on this).

Atheists are more likely to be college-educated people who live in cities and they are highly concentrated in the social democracies of Europe. Atheism thus blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure. But why?

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion.

In addition to being the opium of the people (as Karl Marx contemptuously phrased it), religion may also promote fertility, particularly by promoting marriage, according to copious data reviewed by Sanderson (2008). Large families are preferred in agricultural countries as a source of free labor. In developed "atheist" countries, women have exceptionally small families and do not need religion helping them to raise large families.

Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion.

Moreover, sport psychologists find that sports spectatorship provides much the same kind of social, and spiritual, benefits as people obtain from church membership. In a previous post, I made the case that sports is replacing religion. Precisely the same argument can be made for other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply involved. Indeed, religion is striking back by trying to compete in popular media, such as televangelism and Christian rock and by hosting live secular entertainment in church.

The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.

References
Sanderson, S. K. (2008). Adaptation, evolution, and religion. Religion, 38, 141-156.
Zuckerman, P. (2007). Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In M. Martin (ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book is not held by any U.S. Library.

Aman Singh ji,

Thanks for posting this article.
Exactly my views for more than 30 years.swordfight

 

[kds1980]

People should read about how Russian orthodox Church revived quickly after fall of soviet
union.Many interesting articles are available on net about it. Here is one of them

http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm

 

[findingmyway]

Re: Why Atheism will Replace Religion?

Why did he seperate us from Himself in the first place?swordfight

He didn't separate us, we separated ourselves. If we tackle our ego we can break down the wall :meditation::idea:

 

[findingmyway]

I am tired of hearing about how atheism is better and religion is bad. Australian and UK media bang on and on about it. Religion is such a personal thing, and the beliefs vary so much that how can you bundle all with beliefs in 1 group? The spectrum of beliefs is so wide and there are many levels that lumping them all together is absurd. Religion plays a different role for different people and that has a big impact on how it is followed, thereby influencing how someone views it. There are many regions of grey. Many very intelligent people are religious so I do not accept the link between atheism and education. I think when people are educated there are just more shades of grey. It depends on how you ask the question, what wording you use, the circumstances of the research, how people were approached, what population being represented. All these factors and more will affect the outcomes in any kind of research, especially when about something so subjective.

As for Hitler, what we were taught in history lessons is that he used religion originally to connect with people. He was very clever and had an amazing propaganda machine-really knew how to suck people in. Later when in power that couldn't be challenged, the bible was replaced with mein kampf and religion replaced by reverance to Hitler himself. For someone who is supposed to be an academic, Caspian you do rely on wikipedia an awful lot! Might be worth widening your reading list whislingmunda
Atheists are big on freedom so why can you not just live and let live. Different strokes for different folks-one way of thinking will NEVER suit everyone in this world :44:

 

[findingmyway]

For all those who think atheism and intelligence go hand in hand, I recently heard on the radio that Einstein had said, "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind." He also hated being called an atheist. This website makes some interesting reading:
http://einsteinandreligion.com/
Jasleen

 

[spnadmin]

I would like to propose an Internet challenge.

Objective: To compare the content of established, reputable scientific foundations, such as the Royal Academy or the National Science Foundation, and web sites of leading scientific journals, with the content of web sites dedicated to the promotion of atheism.

Then answer these questions. Which of the established and reputable science sites profess a preference for atheism, or even discuss it?

versus

Which of the established and reputable atheist sites profess that atheism is affirmed or validated by science and scientists?

When you find sites that answer one or both of these questions, please give their names. Provide some links to articles that illustrate your findings.

 

[Caspian]

For all those who think atheism and intelligence go hand in hand, I recently heard on the radio that Einstein had said, "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind." He also hated being called an atheist.

Einstein also hated being called religious. He was an agnostic, he didnt really care for it.

Einstein in response to being labled an atheist, would say "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views"

and Einstein in response to being labled religious would say, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Needless to say. Even if einstein was religious there is still a strong correlation with intellect and atheism.

 

[Caspian]

Which of the established and reputable atheist sites profess that atheism is affirmed or validated by science and scientists?

Why do this challenge? it seems like such a biased attempt to try and invalidated atheism. You know none of those sites would profess that atheism is affirmed or validated by science (you can never validate any theory, you can only provide support for it, you shouldnt even catch an atheist saying "science proves there is no god" at best we can say "in all liklihood there is no god") any more so then they would profess the belief in god is affirmed and validated by science. Its beyond the scope of the sites in question. But the way you phrased the question, makes it seem like you wanna invalidate Atheism because the "well-reputed sites" make no mention of atheism on the sites themselves. If the sites dont make a mention of a belief in god either though, the best one can infer from that is a neutral indiference to the whole question. The best way to find out what scientists think about religion is to ask them, themselves, whether or not they believe in god. So in keeping with your challange, I will cite a study done by "Nature" magazine as it polled scientists from the "National Acadamy of Sciences" (a no-doubt well reputed scientific authority). What they found is listed as follows.

Nature's chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).[10]

 

[spnadmin]

Thanks for the statistics. I wonder why those same nonbelievers and agnostics keep their personal inclinations out of view when they are doing science.

Anyway -- your answer is actually better than I thought I would receive overall. Actually quite good. Thanks for that. A few questions.

You know none of those sites would profess that atheism is affirmed or validated by science (you can never validate any theory, you can only provide support for it,

So then why would atheists claim scientific superiority on their sites? And what is the theory of atheism anyway? What evidence from science supports it (to borrow from your own words)/

you shouldnt even catch an atheist saying "science proves there is no god" at best we can say "in all liklihood there is no god") any more so then they would profess the belief in god is affirmed and validated by science.

I agree with you on the above. So why do you think atheists so often resort to such an argument? They don't say it quite that way. They say, There is no scientific evidence or proof for God. And then demand that others provide proof they will accept. I wish they would live within the humility of the null hypothesis. But they don't.


Its beyond the scope of the sites in question. But the way you phrased the question, makes it seem like you wanna invalidate Atheism because the "well-reputed sites" make no mention of atheism on the sites themselves. If the sites dont make a mention of a belief in god either though, the best one can infer from that is a neutral indiference to the whole question

Neutral indifference to the whole question would not only be scientific, but it would also be intellectually honest.

 

[Caspian]

So then why would atheists claim scientific superiority on their sites? And what is the theory of atheism anyway? What evidence from science supports it (to borrow from your own words)/

Atheists (if they do claim scientific superiority) may claim scientific superiority in america because the religious right takes an almost ridiculously extreme position on most scientific issues (like evolution).

This notion of scientific superiority doesnt translate to sikhism as well as it does to say islam or christianity but as we are discussing "religions in general" (and seeing as sikhism constitutes such a small percentage of religious people)—I dont see a problem with the notion that atheists are smarter and their position more scientifically sound then that of their religious counter parts.

If this was strictly a atheism/sikhism debate... it would be harder for atheists to claim scientific superiority against a religion that is (in my opinion) largely indifferent to the implications of science. Sikhism doesnt care for evolution, the big bang theory, and other theories that other religions find blashphemous.

There is no theory of atheism. But the idea of atheism receives support from challenging the idea's people have about what god should be doing. For example, if people think that "prayer" works and may help save the lives of sick individuals, science conducts a study (which they have) that proves prayer at best has no effect on the death toll of cancer-stricken patients and at worst seems to have a slightly negative affect on their health (slight but not significant). Then, from their, atheists would view that as more evidence in support of their notion that god cannot exist if that was indeed one of his properties (the ability to answer prayers).

Again, the above doesnt really apply to sikhism. But other stories that the general sikh populace is keen on (guru nanak's handprint on the boulder, the ganga sagar, baba deep singh fighting an entire army without his head) can be scientifically discounted.

So, in my point of view, support for atheism comes from the lack of support for theism (whether it be christianty, islam, sikhism, etc). I believe that miraculous claims (like the idea that their is a god) need strong evidence to support it. It is, then, the onus of sikhs, muslims and christians to provide the evidence in support of their view. Atheism is simply the default or null hypothesis, if no evidence can be provided in support of the original hypothesis (that their is a god) then that is seen as evidence for the null hypothesis (there is no god).

I agree with you on the above. So why do you think atheists so often resort to such an argument? They don't say it quite that way. They say, There is no scientific evidence or proof for God. And then demand that others provide proof they will accept. I wish they would live within the humility of the null hypothesis. But they don't.

I have personally, never seen an atheist resort to that argument. I have seen many atheists suggest that science has provided evidence that strongly contradicts the idea that their is a god. And that in all probability, there is no god, based on the lack of evidence in favor of a god. But again, that argument is long-winded. I can see why some atheists might just up and say "science proves god cant exist." So if your asking me why some atheists might resort to that argument? I'm guessing simply because they dont want to be long winded lol. However, the null hypothesis in my point of view is "that there is no god." Are we on the same page their or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god?

If we are on the same page. I guess it would be an obligation on our part to spread the truth as we see it from a scientific point of view. Because so many religions can have such a negative or dangerous impact—asking the religious to provide support for their views is our way of hoping they can keep themselves in check? I'm not so clear as to what ur asking, I think your asking "why cant atheists just leave theists alone" and if thats the case, i do think the large majority of atheists do leave theists alone. But some of us, especially those raised from super religious families, do consider it an obligation to prevent the spreading of something that is simply wrong. Thats why i cant simply live with knowing im right and the rest of the religious world is rong. I wish to see people change their views and "become more right."

Neutral indifference to the whole question would not only be scientific, but it would also be intellectually honest.

Agreed, but scientists are allowed to come to their own conclusions of whether or not they believe in a god based on the neutral evidence. So The evidence is neutral and indifferent as it should be because that lends more support to the notion that their is no god. The evidence isnt biased for one view (or the other) but it does support one view over the other.

 

[kds1980]

But some of us, especially those raised from super religious families, do consider it an obligation to prevent the spreading of something that is simply wrong. Thats why i cant simply live with knowing im right and the rest of the religious world is rong. I wish to see people change their views and "become more right."

Almost all people beleive that what they are doing is right,.Christians beleive that they are saving souls of people from going to hell,muslim believe that by converting kafirs they are saving them,so how your thinking is different from them?.

 

[spnadmin]

Caspian ji

I don't want to be long winded either. LOL So I will react to a small subset of your overall reply, and perhaps come back later.

So if your asking me why some atheists might resort to that argument? I'm guessing simply because they dont want to be long winded lol

My own impression is that they have been very long winded especially on YouTube.

However, the null hypothesis in my point of view is "that there is no god." Are we on the same page their or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god?

No! Sadly we are not on the same page. I reject the notion that "There is no God." The absence of evidence from a scientific standpoint only justifies the conclusion "There is no material evidence for God." And then further in the absence of evidence one would have to accept an agnostic stance not an atheist stance. Why do I say this? Because the atheist stance believes it proves the negative. The absence of evidence in science only permits a tentative conclusion. How is it logically possible to "prove" the "negative" or "absence" of anything except in the most tentative way.

or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god?

No,I do not agree. The null hypothesis is not subject to belief or disbelief. It is also not subject to proof or disproof. The null hypothesis is never tested. Only its alternative is tested. Therefore, for science the null hypothesis just is--- until evidence to the contrary suggests that its alternative exceeds the expectation of chance, according to a stated mathematical probability.

It is semi-ridiculous to want to subject God to inferential proof rather than ontological proof. But let's give it a go. For someone like me who accepts that God is, God is much like the null hypothesis. God just is, until one can demonstrate that there is a better alternative.

 

[Caspian]

God just is, until one can demonstrate that there is a better alternative.

The thing I dont like about this, is it sets a nasty precedent for all future claims. One could suggest that anything such as fairies, bigfoot, aliens (and i do believe in aliens) just "is" unless one can demonstrate that they dont exist. If science worked like that, we'd be spending all our time proving the non-existance of an infinite amount of ideas. I'm hoping you would agree that it isnt practical, and for practical purposes the onus has to remain on your side to come up with the evidence.

Your idea that the null hypothesis being "agnosticism" is interesting. I cant say I fully agree, but I see where your coming from. The reason why I dont fully agree is that, lets say we did one experiment to determine whether or not god exists. We find no support for his existance so we resort to your null hypothesis in this instance, that we cannot know for sure whether he exists or not (agnosticism). Then we do a 2nd, 3rd, 4rth - 100th experiment and always we end up resorting with the null hypothesis. (This is again, is more true for christian religions or religions that aren't as indifferent towards science—that actively utilise science to validate their beliefs). Somewhere along the line, when there is no support for the same alternative hypothesis, despite numerous different attempts and experiments, it seems okay to suggest that in all liklihood there is no god.

So while i agree your null hypothesis is probably best for individual experiments early on in the history of this whole religion/science debacle. After the time that has passed, and the amount of unverifiable claims, atheism is the default option. This is true with any claim I would say

We could treat bigfoot in largely the same way. At first the null hypothesis is "we cannot be for sure" but after years of unverifiable claims, the default position is that bigfoot does not exist.

My own impression is that they have been very long winded especially on YouTube.

I agree for the most part. There is a notion that religion cannot survive on the internet because the internet allows for anonymous criticism of anything or anyone. And under such spotlight, most religions do not tend to do well.

 

[findingmyway]

Einstein also hated being called religious. He was an agnostic, he didnt really care for it.

Einstein in response to being labled an atheist, would say "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views"

and Einstein in response to being labled religious would say, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Needless to say. Even if einstein was religious there is still a strong correlation with intellect and atheism.

Actually Einstein objected to be called a follower of an organised religion. Re-read my quote and the quotes from the website, he was definitely religious in that he believed in a higher power. Sikhi also rejects a personal God and if you look at Einstein's beliefs a lot of them are actually in line with Sikhi way of thinking!! In the same vein you could also say I reject organise religion in that I reject a lot of rituals practised by the community which I do not believe fit in with the Guru's teaching. In a broader sense, religion is a belief in God-this does not have to be a Abrahamic deity God.

I will cite a study done by "Nature" magazine as it polled scientists from the "National Acadamy of Sciences" (a no-doubt well reputed scientific authority). What they found is listed as follows.

Nature's chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and

God and immortality are disconnected so before accepting these results I would be interested in seeing the wording of the questions posed as that can have a huge influence of the results. You have already pointed that out! Also is it asking about a belief in an Abrahamic or Hindu concept of God? I would reject both of those too!

Atheists (if they do claim scientific superiority) may claim scientific superiority in america because the religious right takes an almost ridiculously extreme position on most scientific issues (like evolution).

Isn't that *** for tat? Sounds like the Christian an eye for an eye theory of behaviour there!! Is it sensible to use the justification for your behavious that is endorsed by the very belief system being rejected?

For example, if people think that "prayer" works and may help save the lives of sick individuals, science conducts a study (which they have) that proves prayer at best has no effect on the death toll of cancer-stricken patients and at worst seems to have a slightly negative affect on their health (slight but not significant). Then, from their, atheists would view that as more evidence in support of their notion that god cannot exist if that was indeed one of his properties (the ability to answer prayers).

Actually there are studies that show prayer has a positive impact on treatment in the same way a positive attitude does. Prayer does not cure cancer but then not all cures are explained by science on the flipside! How many people (religious and non-religious) have cured and the dr's have no idea why. A review of the medical literature will reveal several for many serious diseases. Sikhi believes prayer is for your personal benefit rather more than anything else. There are threads that discuss this so I do not want to argue about this point here.

But other stories that the general sikh populace is keen on (guru nanak's handprint on the boulder, the ganga sagar, baba deep singh fighting an entire army without his head) can be scientifically discounted.

I'm sure I have already discussed this with you. Many Sikhs do not believe in these stories yet are still religious!

the null hypothesis in my point of view is "that there is no god." Are we on the same page their or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god?

The null hypothesis can go either way depending on the researcher. Either way scientific proof is inconclusive. You might say that the proof is not conclusive of existence so I will not believe. Others will say there is no conclusive proof that God does not exist therefore I believe. Both points of view are valid.

Because so many religions can have such a negative or dangerous impact—asking the religious to provide support for their views is our way of hoping they can keep themselves in check?

That's a sweeping statement! Religions are also a positive force on a personal and global level so should that be curbed too? Many conflicts are not due to religious reasons (eg Rwanda) so how are you going to curb those? You will prob find that if you eradicate religion, these other reasons will be used more for conflict. We are a horrible sadistic species!!

But some of us, especially those raised from super religious families, do consider it an obligation to prevent the spreading of something that is simply wrong. Thats why i cant simply live with knowing im right and the rest of the religious world is rong.

Whoa!!! Look at the ego!! You sound like a Christian missionary-the very people you reject! How do you know you are right? You don't as proved by this statement from another post:

at best we can say "in all liklihood there is no god"

You have admitted you don't know for sure. Many religious people are good people doing good things. Many people gain strength from religion. How can you paint them with the same brushstroke as the bad? There are also good and bad atheists-shall I judge you according to that? If your child decided religion was the right way for them, would you force them to be an atheist? If yes, then that makes you no different from your parents. If no, then you are a hypocrite. Different things work for different people so why not let everyone make their own decision? What harm have Sikhs done to you that you are on a crusade against them? You are behaving the same way as the very people you condemn!!

The evidence isnt biased for one view (or the other) but it does support one view over the other.

No it doesn't. The evidence is inconclusive either way. You are hardly an unbiased observor in view of your declaration to convert people to atheism!

The thing I dont like about this, is it sets a nasty precedent for all future claims. One could suggest that anything such as fairies, bigfoot, aliens (and i do believe in aliens) just "is" unless one can demonstrate that they dont exist. If science worked like that, we'd be spending all our time proving the non-existance of an infinite amount of ideas.

But that is exactly what science does!! What do you think CERN is all about? There is no strong evidence for aliens yet you believe in those? I'm a little flummoxed by your double standards! What's wrong? You afraid? Any belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny, even yours so no precedent is nasty.

Somewhere along the line, when there is no support for the same alternative hypothesis, despite numerous different attempts and experiments, it seems okay to suggest that in all liklihood there is no god.
So while i agree your null hypothesis is probably best for individual experiments early on in the history of this whole religion/science debacle. After the time that has passed, and the amount of unverifiable claims, atheism is the default option. This is true with any claim I would say
We could treat bigfoot in largely the same way. At first the null hypothesis is "we cannot be for sure" but after years of unverifiable claims, the default position is that bigfoot does not exist.

Are you sure you do science? The position on bigfoot is that he probably does not exist now but may do and may have done in the past! Even when experiments prove something it is only with 95% probablility levels so there is a 5% probability the conclusion is wrong. The more the times an experiment is done, the more likely you are to get a range of results including false positives or false negatives because of this 95% probability level. CERN repeat again and again yet cannot come up with conclusive results due to the above and what they are trying to measure is so difficult and difficult to capture (like God). You also need to define God carefully. Abrahamic God, I agree with you. However, the Sikh definition of God is very different and I don't think will be ever disproved due to the nature of God. Atheism is not the default hypothesis-it is as much a belief as theism as neither way can be proved with 100% certainty according to modern scientific methods.

There is a notion that religion cannot survive on the internet because the internet allows for anonymous criticism of anything or anyone. And under such spotlight, most religions do not tend to do well.

Sikhi has increased with the internet. It is easier to weed out inconsistencies. Having the resources at our fingertips to understand gurbani has actually helped it to spread! Therefore this argument doesn't hold either. The BBC recently held a fascinating radio debate on the topic. There was as much support for as against.

I would like to end with the fact that no group that I know of has been able to find inconsistencies in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji (not when it is properly understood).

 

[Caspian]

Actually Einstein objected to be called a follower of an organised religion. Re-read my quote and the quotes from the website, he was definitely religious in that he believed in a higher power. Sikhi also rejects a personal God and if you look at Einstein's beliefs a lot of them are actually in line with Sikhi way of thinking!! In the same vein you could also say I reject organise religion in that I reject a lot of rituals practised by the community which I do not believe fit in with the Guru's teaching. In a broader sense, religion is a belief in God-this does not have to be a Abrahamic deity God.

I'm not going to argue this point any further. You can twist almost any quote of his to make him seem like a religious man. He has been on record as believing in "Spinoza's God." (Spinoza suggested god exists only philosophically, and that god was abstract and impersonal). He did not literally believe in a higher power as you or that site seem to suggest. But you can believe he was a religious man; Just because einstein did it doesnt mean that it is the end of discussion. Einstein is but one man, and like any other man he made many mistakes. He discounted quantum mechanics—even going so far as to suggest "God does not roll dice" (again he was using the term god figuratively). But since you think he literally believed in god, it turns out he was rong, quantum mechanics was right, and that his non-dice-throwing-god doesn't exist. Every forum I go to, be it christian, muslim, or sikh—someone mistakenly associates einstein with religion and expects that to be the end of the discussion on the association between intellect and religion. Even if einstein was religious, most intellectuals are overwhelmingly atheist. End of discussion. Dont care for einstein. Cool guy and all tho

Isn't that *** for tat? Sounds like the Christian an eye for an eye theory of behaviour there!! Is it sensible to use the justification for your behavious that is endorsed by the very belief system being rejected?

Yes it is *** for tat. And it works. Read Carl Sagan's paper "Rules of the Game" they give a good explanation using Game Theory for how "*** for tat" is the definitive moral ground. Its funny how *** got censored though lol. Btw, christians were not responsible for the "eye for an eye" bit—christians were responsible for the golden rule: treat others how you would like to be treated. and the whole bit about "turning the other cheek" just sayin.

Actually there are studies that show prayer has a positive impact on treatment in the same way a positive attitude does. Prayer does not cure cancer but then not all cures are explained by science on the flipside!

Prayer doesnt cure anything period. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html theres the link to the study I was referencing. Does prayer have a positive effect on the person praying? Yes it can, but all of which could be explained by the placebo effect. Prayer has no effect when the person in question does not know someone is praying for them.

How many people (religious and non-religious) have cured and the dr's have no idea why. A review of the medical literature will reveal several for many serious diseases. Sikhi believes prayer is for your personal benefit rather more than anything else. There are threads that discuss this so I do not want to argue about this point here.

Can you cite some examples from the medical literature of unexplainable miracle cures attributed to god? Their certainly are miraculous recoveries but you make it sound like its a regular old thing. It happens so infrequently and regardless of faith that it is purely random. And often time, just because you cant explain it right away, doesnt mean God did it. The tv show House has on numerous occasions used real life examples of "miraculous" recoveries only to show the viewers that there is nothing miraculous about the cures.

I'm sure I have already discussed this with you. Many Sikhs do not believe in these stories yet are still religious!

Yet MOST sikhs do believe in these silly stories. I consider that dangerous and I consider it my obligation to spread the "truth" in those situations. Of course u seemed appalled by that as I will later cover.

That's a sweeping statement! Religions are also a positive force on a personal and global level so should that be curbed too? Many conflicts are not due to religious reasons (eg Rwanda) so how are you going to curb those? You will prob find that if you eradicate religion, these other reasons will be used more for conflict. We are a horrible sadistic species!!

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=rwandan

Actually, the roman catholic church played a pivotal role in the rwandan genocide. The actively supported the Hutus I believe. Heres one example

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Seromba was the Roman Catholic priest at Nyange parish in Kivumu Commune, Rwanda, and is ethnically Hutu. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. These centred on the destruction of his church where about 2,000 Tutsis had sought shelter in April 1994. He was accused of ordering the destruction of the church by buldozers, which led to the deaths of all inside, and of sending in Hutu militia members to kill Tutsis who tried to flee. He also personally shot refugees who tried to escape the killings and handed survivors over to the killers, many of whom were then murdered in his presence. In addition he personally manned a roadblock to check identity cards so that Tutsis could be singled out and killed. [/FONT]

I think you will find religion rear its ugly head in most cases like this. The roman catholic church, especially, has played host or contributed to many genocide: the crusades, holocaust, and rwandan genocides to name a few.

Whoa!!! Look at the ego!! You sound like a Christian missionary-the very people you reject! How do you know you are right? You don't as proved by this statement from another post:

I dont reject anybodies capacity to put fourth their point of view, thats what I do. And i dont know whether or not I am right for sure—but in all liklihood, I am. I know that most religious points of view will ultimately wither away in a puff of logic. Either which way, I try to focus on the simple things that even you would agree are not true. The ganga sagar story, guru nanak's hand print, and baba deep singhs headless fight. And i debate the neccesity of the 5 k's which seem utterly pointless to me. IMO the sikh religion would be far more accepted and universally appealing without such ridiculous requirements. My main quarrel with sikhism has less to do with the sikh concept of god and more to do with the silliness sikhism has adopted since guru nanak's time (such as the 5 k's). I reject alot of the later guru's teachings as inherently contradictory to guru nanak's message. (I find the 5 k's contradictory).

The larger question of whether or not god exists—thats a debate I have more thoroughly with people who believe in a personal god (and believe me, even alot of sikhs believe in a personal god). I find that what most members on this site consider to be the "true" representation of the sikh god just not worth arguing over—he, she, it is largely pointless in my opinion. Even if he, she it exists, the world is no different then if he, she, it didnt exist. I'm going to go so far as to say that sikhi is "almost" an atheistic religion not unlike buddhism and that the sikh public cant decide whether or not their god is a personal god or an abstract largely philosophical god (like einsteins god). Some other members on this site have gone farther and said to me that "Sikhi has no god"—I'd like to agree with that notion. But what exactly does the sikh god do? It seems like he exists for the sole reason of existing—pointless much

You have admitted you don't know for sure. Many religious people are good people doing good things. Many people gain strength from religion. How can you paint them with the same brushstroke as the bad?

Yes, i have admitted that i dont know for sure. If only the religious could admit that they dont know for sure either—would u be kind enough to volunteer? Or are you "for sure" that your god exists. If so, based on what logic, reasoning or evidence? Ah.... were getting back to this now lol anyways...

Yes many religious people are good. But if a religious person does something good because their religion beckons them too—for example the sikh concept of sewa. I wont consider that "as good" as an atheist who does the same thing (sewa) for no reason other then out of their own kindness. At its best, Religion is simply a tool to motivate people to do good things or else face some kind of consequence, in the case of sikhism, this consequence is the inability to escape the cycles of birth and death. But I believe we can motivate people to do good things for the sake of doing them—and not because some imaginary being is going to send u to hell, turn u into a frog in ur next life, or cut ur allowance.

There are also good and bad atheists-shall I judge you according to that? If your child decided religion was the right way for them, would you force them to be an atheist? If yes, then that makes you no different from your parents. If no, then you are a hypocrite. Different things work for different people so why not let everyone make their own decision?

I would not "force" my religious child to become an atheist. But thats not hypocritical unless I was forcing you guys to become atheists as well. Which I am not doing? As far as I'm concerned were having a discussion on the merits of religion and atheism. Would i have this same discussion with my religious child? Most definately. Would i occasionaly poke fun at his religion—probably, i would expect him to do the same to me too . I have thick skin, I can live with it, and religious preference is a personal issue. Would it pain me to see him be religious? No more then it pains me to see anyone else as religious.

But that is exactly what science does!! What do you think CERN is all about? There is no strong evidence for aliens yet you believe in those? I'm a little flummoxed by your double standards! What's wrong? You afraid? Any belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny, even yours so no precedent is nasty

No that is not what science does. the experiments at CERN, particularily the mission to find the Higgs Boson particle are based on quantum and mathamatical calculations. Simply put, their is a gap in the "standard model" (which has correctly predicted the existance of prior particles) where scientists predict the higgs boson (aka the god particle) should be—but they have never found such a particle because all other haddron colliders are too weak to discover it. The hypothesis that it does exist is based on strong evidence tho, mainly the gap, the math, and its effects. If they dont happen to find the higgs boson—then they have to re-write their theory. Something religion oughta consider doing considering it has never found god

There is strong evidence for aliens as well. Not to mention the probability, that with billions or trillions of stars out their, and hundreds of "earth-like" planets already found, that chances that life exists on atleast 1 other planet (other then earth) are essentially ~100 percent. The question is whether or not that life is intelligent. As for aliens, we already know they have existed—im sure your aware of the "mars rock" found in ant arctica that contains the fossilized remains of bacteria. We know for a fact that mars once has life on it.

So their, both your examples, Cern and Aliens have strong evidence behind the ideas. Far more stronger then the evidence behind god atleast. There is a sound precedent for both the higgs boson experiments at CERN (as the standard model has correctly predicted prior particles that were found) and the belief that aliens may exist in our universe (as we know from the mars rock that bacterial life forms once existed on mars)

Are you sure you do science? The position on bigfoot is that he probably does not exist now but may do and may have done in the past!

That is not the position on bigfoot. Big foot never existed. If he did we would have found some kind of fossil remains by now. Indeed the fossil record is a good predictive model as well. We have found so many fossils now that we are essentially trying to find the intermediate gaps in the fossil record. Not unlike finding the higgs boson—when it comes to finding fossils, we know what were looking for, its only a matter of time. Having said that, big foot fits NOWHERE in the fossil record IF it indeed existed before and was some kind of primate. It would throw into dissaray the entire concept of evolution—especially mamallian evolution. I dont know where you get your facts from. But i would love for u to cite me your source for why you think big foot may have existed.

However, the Sikh definition of God is very different and I don't think will be ever disproved due to the nature of God.

From now on, I'm of the opinion that sikhi has no god. This is not my own opinion, this is the opinion of Tejwant Singh (i think thats his name) on this board. But I agree with him. Either the sikh god is essentially pointless or he just doesnt exist in the way you want him to.

Atheism is not the default hypothesis-it is as much a belief as theism as neither way can be proved with 100% certainty according to modern scientific methods.

Modern science doesnt seek to prove with 100 percent certainty. Even such well accepted ideas such as gravity carry an uncertainty of .0000 (infinit 0's) 0001 %. What modern science seeks to do is determine what notion, theory, or idea holds more merit (or is closer to the 100 percent value). God is one of those ideas that fall far closer to the 0% percent of the scale then the 100%.

 

[findingmyway]

You have taken a lot of what I have said out of context for your own means so I no longer consider this an intellectual debate and do not want to continue. You have also twisted Tejwant Singh Ji's words-he has never said Sikhi has no God, rather you have not understand the Sikhi concept of God and in many of your posts you keep referring to an Abrahamic version. You keep bringing up the same old issues even though I have said that I either don't believe in them or you have the wrong end of the stick. You have declared your intent in 'converting' people so to me you are as bad as the Jehovah's witnesses that pester me on the streets and I can no longer take you seriously when you won't have an open mind as people here do. You say you know the truth but in another breath say you cannot be sure! You can't have it both ways. A lot of what you have written is opinion. Scientists frequently have wars over opinions and things considered fact are often revised in the future. I do believe the God described by mool mantar but I respect choice to choose and have never acted otherwise. You however do not respect choice. Therefore, this discussion is closed.

 

[Caspian]

I resent the fact that you think I have taken your quotes out of context. Especially seeing as I have copy pasted most of your quotes down word by word and I think i did more then a fair job refuting alot of your points—especially those regarding einstein, the role of religion in rwandan genocide, bigfoot, cern, and aliens.

Having said that, I wouldnt mind if tejwant clarified what he meant when he said "sikhi has no god"—cuz it sure seems like he meant sikhi has no god .

Nonetheless, it was a good discussion. And i'm not here to convert anyone, theres a difference between active conversion and what I have called "spreading the truth." I'm not asking you to become an atheist, or coercing you at all. I'm arguing and debating, getting people to think criticall and thinking critically myself in the pursuit of "truth" — thats it.