WHY RELIGION ?

[Roshan]

As a matter of principle, I donot get into any discussion (invariably they get reduced to arguments) on religion and religious beliefs. Rational discussion on a belief is a contradiction in itself.
It was in one of my weaker moments that I posted those lines.

:cry: Same here Shekhar !! It was in one of my weaker moments too, that I posted a response to yours.

[selvakumar]

As a matter of principle, I donot get into any discussion (invariably they get reduced to arguments) on religion and religious beliefs. Rational discussion on a belief is a contradiction in itself.
It was in one of my weaker moments that I posted those lines.

:thumbsup:
I try to do that. But few times I go overboard. :oops:

[goodsense]

Yea, I buy into all of it when I see what is written elsewhere "after the fact". There are hundreds of hubbers on hub. Don't tell me there were all and at all times making "goodsense" even when they were not challenged and no one else other than myself is so peculiar to be "singled" out in this manner and "only" by certain characters and on numerous occassions over a period of time by the same characters. Characters who were already proven wrong. It seems to me to be more of a case of some "unfinished business".

I had commented in that Karma thread (in partial response to what the "secondary" commentator said about post from SRS) just before it got locked. Wonder if this is just a tit for tat opportunity waited, now claimed to be an idea before the other hubber raised it based on his narrow interpretation for reasons aforementioned. In any event, what Jairam said in that link I posted here two days ago, would have addressed the concerns of that particular hubber expressed in the Karma thread relating to SRS. But it is not seen for this reason or any other, only for obscure ones. :wink: You just can't win.

Wasn't for that email I received a few days ago, none of this would have happened because I was adamant about what I was doing and keeping off hub. :(

[Selvam_mayyam]

As a matter of principle, I donot get into any discussion (invariably they get reduced to arguments) on religion and religious beliefs. Rational discussion on a belief is a contradiction in itself.
It was in one of my weaker moments that I posted those lines.

Escapism and defeatism personified..:D

[Shekhar]

As a matter of principle, I donot get into any discussion (invariably they get reduced to arguments) on religion and religious beliefs. Rational discussion on a belief is a contradiction in itself.
It was in one of my weaker moments that I posted those lines.

Escapism and defeatism personified..:D

Selvam,
You are like a typical wife. :lol: :lol:
This is precisely how wives drag their unwilling husbands into arguments and squabble which they know they will always win because of their sharper tongue !! :) :P :smile2:

[Rohit]

[tscii:6203cdfb67]
As a matter of principle, I donot get into any discussion (invariably they get reduced to arguments) on religion and religious beliefs. Rational discussion on a belief is a contradiction in itself.
It was in one of my weaker moments that I posted those lines.
Shekhar,

Though, I do not remember having any conversation with you, somehow I feel your above response and the subsequent reactions to it require a keen observation, which you may ignore altogether as you don’t have to respond to it anyway. :)

When it comes to prove a point, not based on some belief but on the strength of raison d'être (rationale), any fear of lengthy arguments does not and cannot negate what is perceived as a contradiction in engaging oneself in a rational discussion, even when it is on some belief.

It is only this fear that renders one weaker and not the contradiction itself; as there would be no contradictions otherwise and everything would have appeared in complete agreement.

:D :) :thumbsup:[/tscii:6203cdfb67]

[goodsense]

[tscii:c04d27579b]I have an opinion about a particular post here and as much as I don’t want to waste my time commenting in detailing a response, I have a point out a few things. My initial Understanding as to the reason for the “avoidance”, was that it was based on an opinion where another hubber was innocent and I was accusing that hubber. I was later able to vindicate myself from the basis of the accusation against me. That being the case, which the forum records would show, including the recent “hubbers concern” thread removed, there seems to be a different tune now.

For one thing, only very old hubbers may understand the scope, fairly new ones would be lost. It is clear to me where this hubber is coming from which to me, is further proof of defeat, escapism...

In this public forum, one should expect that when they make a post, it can be responded to by anyone whether they like it or not or whether or not the responder wants to avoid the posting hubber or the posting hubber wants to avoid that particular responder. It all depends on the conviction with which the response/post is made, directly related to the current "situation" and not with the past "animosity" on some other situation especially when it involves your friends or if you think the responder's tongue was shaper in a previous situation, failing to see why the responder responded in that manner. Also, there is no "force" here to respond in justifying poor or shortsighted responses from past based on a number of reasons, in escaping responsibility and failing to give credit where it belongs.

Further, each situation on this hub is unique enough not to be confused with any "squabble". Moreover, to say women use their tongues than their minds and intellect, is a clear example of escapism, especially when using the word "squabble" in the middle of it. A sharp mind and intellect is connected to a sharp tongue in the unique situation that shows no evidence of a squabble. And to claim a man has just as good or is greater in such capabilities, without demonstrating it in refusing to argue because he thinks he was dragged into the argument or the woman's tongue is sharp, is a weak defense which also suggest defeat and escapism.

I was forced to count how many males I had fights (where most of them (these males) were "abusive")) with on this hub, so far it is adding up to about “seven” (one from Sri Lanka and the rest from India). So don’t want to go on and on…..But it is important that the hubber knows that I know where he is coming from and the strength of that and shouldn’t be allowed to walk away with the wrong thinking.

Thinking of the abuse (which I haven't seen them showing to their own women in such a public place. Even when such women spoke nonsense, or failed to express themselves clearly under different circumstances, these men tried to make sense of it and tap them on the shoulders. I have been patient in these observations over the years.), it all relates to the EGO, double-standard and hypocracy, I must say.

The scriptures says clearly, men should not be abusive (physically, psychologically or otherwise) to women based on strength, age, colour, past, health, etc. It is through manners and deeds that come from our "words" and actions that show our "divinity", which in turn, proves who we are. :thumbsup: :wink: [/tscii:c04d27579b]

[Shekhar]

Mr.Rohit,
i think the point you have raised calls for a different thread.
you seemed to have reconciled your reasoning with your belief with ease. i cannot. (i presume you are not an atheist)
i concede that your point is very valid. but to clarify my stand, it is not the fear of a lengthy argument that deters me, but the futility of the whole excercise. i have been into innumerable discussions (rather arguments ), but have realized that no amount of reason or rational can stand before belief. It's one own pursuit of truth that can change your outlook and philosophy either way and not any discussion.
It's nice to be interacting with you.

[Roshan]

Mr.Rohit,
i think the point you have raised calls for a different thread.
you seemed to have reconciled your reasoning with your belief with ease. i cannot. (i presume you are not an atheist)
i concede that your point is very valid. but to clarify my stand, it is not the fear of a lengthy argument that deters me, but the futility of the whole excercise. i have been into innumerable discussions (rather arguments ), but have realized that no amount of reason or rational can stand before belief. It's one own pursuit of truth that can change your outlook and philosophy either way and not any discussion.It's nice to be interacting with you.

You are absolutely right Shekhar :clap: :notworthy:

[Rohit]

Mr.Rohit,
i think the point you have raised calls for a different thread.
you seemed to have reconciled your reasoning with your belief with ease. i cannot. (i presume you are not an atheist)
i concede that your point is very valid. but to clarify my stand, it is not the fear of a lengthy argument that deters me, but the futility of the whole excercise. i have been into innumerable discussions (rather arguments ), but have realized that no amount of reason or rational can stand before belief. It's one own pursuit of truth that can change your outlook and philosophy either way and not any discussion.
It's nice to be interacting with you.
Thank you Shekhar, though I did not expect your response.

As a matter of record, I am not a believer; whatever that may mean.

Theism and atheism are antonyms of each other; and therefore, negate each other.

If a belief in something without valid reasons is theism, then the annihilation of that belief based on reasons implies atheism.

I am not a theist; and therefore, I firmly maintain what I have said.

Thanks!

:D :) :thumbsup:

[goodsense]

When threads are opened here, we all know they are opened for discussions, you either chose to discuss or stay away completely.

I wish to say in this religion thread, if I may, there are three groups of people under spirituality and we are all spirits. One group contributes and discuss with nobility, the other contributes/discuss with ego and the other group only sets back to analyze and find faults. We have seen all of that here and elsewhere. Where does the search of truth finds itself?

The wholly scriptures have identified these three groups: Nobility, Egotism and Criticism and we have seen how well they play and the "consistency" with which they do. The proof of the existence of the third category is most obvious and for the other two, proof can be found in the responses you get when post from each category is being challenged. Often, the Egotism one results in personal attacks rather than focusing on the aspect of the subject or the subject itself. Old posts can be checked.

[Selvam_mayyam]

As a matter of principle, I donot get into any discussion (invariably they get reduced to arguments) on religion and religious beliefs. Rational discussion on a belief is a contradiction in itself.
It was in one of my weaker moments that I posted those lines.

Escapism and defeatism personified..:D

Selvam,
You are like a typical wife. :lol: :lol:
This is precisely how wives drag their unwilling husbands into arguments and squabble which they know they will always win because of their sharper tongue !! :) :P :smile2:

Read what Goodsense said. You're just another MCP stereotype. Why would you generalize a wife? I can assure you that my wife isn't as 'typical' as you say. Maybe it's these generalizations that drives them to be what they are.

[goodsense]

Selvam,

I think it's just a situation where he couldn't find a better way to make "indirect" attacks.

The problem is, it's ok for some men to have sharp tongues in telling some women about their "slave" past. When the appropriate response was given, it was regarded as coming only from someone with a sharp tongue and the logic and reality were further disregarded. The "squabble" and "animosity" came from the side of the men and the basis were exactly what were disregarded. I hope the new hubbers will clue in and be realistic about this.

[thamizhvaanan]

I found this hilarious open letter in the internet, supporting a new religion called "Pastafarianism", which beleives that the universe was created by a "Flying Sphagetti Monster" which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He putforth this piece of satire to confront an US school's decision to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. He says both his theory and ID theory has equal credibility :rotfl:

His stance is not against any religion as such, but against religion trying to pose as science. He highlights the fact that correlation doesnt imply causation with a seemingly authentic graph that proves that Climate change, Global warming are all directly caused by the decline in the number of pirates.. :rotfl: .For the full letter see below:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[thamizhvaanan]

[tscii:c5b66adf46]Few more tenets from the same religion

* A "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe, Earth and its creatures, making a few mistakes on the way after drinking heavily from heaven's beer volcano.

* All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith — a form of the Omphalos hypothesis. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

* The FSM hid dinosaur fossils underground to "dupe mankind" about Earth's true age and is the secret force behind gravity, pushing everything downward with its "noodly appendage."

:rotfl:[/tscii:c5b66adf46]

[kannannn]

I found this hilarious open letter in the internet, supporting a new religion called "Pastafarianism", which beleives that the universe was created by a "Flying Sphagetti Monster" which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He putforth this piece of satire to confront an US school's decision to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. He says both his theory and ID theory has equal credibility :rotfl:
I am a great fan of FSM. As absurd as it seems, it still makes an effective argument against religious fanatism. Richard Dawkins uses the FSM to great advantage in 'God Delusion'. Of course, 'South Park' in its own irreverant style lampoons both Dawkins and his preference of FSM as an instruction tool in 'Go, God Go' ( a two-part episode to boot!!).

[Lambretta]

:roll: :?

[thilak4life]

Of course, 'South Park' in its own irreverant style lampoons both Dawkins and his preference of FSM as an instruction tool in 'Go, God Go' ( a two-part episode to boot!!).

Need to watch South Park, would far surpass (m)any expectations I think..

[kannannn]

Need to watch South Park, would far surpass (m)any expectations I think..
Highly recommended :D . If you can look past the intentional vulgarity and grossness, you will find that the show is intelligent, humorous and highly original - rare attributes in TV cartoons. Of course, there are some dull episodes as with any show, but on the whole, it is one of my favourite programs ever. Stone and Parker are geniuses :notworthy: .

[thamizhvaanan]

Hmmm... :) naanum South park paakanum pola irukkey :)

[Lambretta]

Hmmm... :) naanum South park paakanum pola irukkey :)
Macha, unnai porutha varekum South la entha park la eppoAthu semma FIG therinja antha park-a thAn pArkanum pola irukum.......illeya?! :wink: :P :lol: