The god fallacy

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

...Ok I will address your point directly. The way to discerning the higher purpose of evil is in understanding that we learn from bad and harrowing experiences and more so than from pleasant experiences. This aspect called LEARNING is the crux of all. That is what drives our evolution all the way up to divinity. But if we did not benefit from evil experiences but just suffer then you have a point. But that is not the case.

Dear sravna, you are striving hard to find an explanation because you don't want to change the conclusion to which you have cuffed yourself. Hardship do serve as a learning experience for all of us, but to say that God permits evil so that people can learn from the suffering is very weak. Even within my own limited human experience I have never let my children suffer just so that they will learn.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

As Alber Einstein explained to his professor - Evil does not exists unto itself, it is simply the absence of Good...(similar to the existence of darkness due to absence of light and the existence of cold due to absence of heat)

This is an urban legend. Please take a look at these:

Einstein proves God in an encounter with a professor-Fiction!

Einstein Proves God Exists - Urban Legends

This happened with AM also in the Gruesome thread. In this age of Google, many of these claims can be easily checked by taking no more than 2 or 3 minutes. If something looks too outlandish to be true, chanced are they are.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Majority of humans who believe in Him, could experience and accept the above, out of real life experiences.

Thanks Ravi, for your perspective. I agree, a majority of humans probably accept the notion that the guilty receive punishment, while they are living, or at least after death in one form or another. But all this says is majority of people believe this, not that such belief is valid.

Even within the religious realm, punishment is not a guarantee, most religious theology speak of redemption by simply acknowledging and accepting the grace of God. Even mass-murders and child rapists who are not caught by secular authority can take this easy route to escape punishment.

Besides, punishment is only one aspect, the suffering that comes first requiring a punishment is an inseparable issue. The belief that the guilty will be punished one way or another does not even begin to address why the evil took place in the first instance.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

<Edtd - KRS>

anyways, whats the answer of atheists, about SS/stalin/pol pot's murders? do you call it as the result of 'survival of fittest?..

how come , now, thou art using the same reference of hitler? convenience right!!

ShivKC, take a look at the discussion I am having with Saidevo, sravna, and Ravi. If you are willing to follow these basic rules of civility I will answer your questions. In three responses Shri KRS had to use his red ink twice. It is up to you, make a commitment to mutual civility and I will engage. If not, bye ...

 

[KRS]

Dear Brother Nara Ji,

You said and Sri Yamaka quoted:

"Spirituality is the work of neurons" - Nara.

From what I have been able to gather from current research, your statement above is just a conjecture and an opinion and not a settled issue by science.

Obviously, neurons are active when any human thought, including the religious/spiritual ones occur as the brain is the seat of the mind. But to extrapolate this in to saying that because of the neurons, spirituality happens is not supported by any research conclusion, as far as I know.

In fact, most of the research I have read seem to support the view that brain images show that spirituality is indeed hardwired in our brain. In fact, preliminary studies are now starting to show that our thoughts do not occur randomly at all, but seem to spring from our deep sub conscious mind.

Are you claiming your above statement as a proved scientific fact?

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

...Are you claiming your above statement as a proved scientific fact?

Dear brother, no, I am not claiming this at all. This quote is from my post #71 [please see a comment below] which was an answer to Saidevo's question, "I think you have declared yourself to be an atheist in practice and agnostic in thinking, so wrt Sarma's post #61, what is your position on an immanent God?"

I was only giving my opinion. From the literature I have read I think this is the most plausible theory to date. But I do agree, this is not a settled scientific fact.

Cheers!

(a general request to everyone, when quoting please provide a link, and when quoting dont delete the number that is included in the QUOTE tag so that we simply can click it to read the cited post and find the context.)

 

[Yamaka]

Can fMRI see difference between the brain of Yamaka and a Theist?


A very sensitive technique called fMRI is used to find out the glucose utilization of the brain tissue live.

When the brain is "fired up" there will be brighter spots in all most all parts of the brain, some locations will have lot more than other areas.

But, this fMRI just can't distinguish between a brain from a long term Atheist like Yamaka and a Theist (age, sex matched).

"Spirituality & Theism is hard wired in the brain" just can't be proved by any known technique, IMO.

But, it is quite possible that the thinking pattern and behavior of Theists ARE heavily influenced by TRADITION and FEAR (and possibly Superstition), as I have said many times before.

Wait & watch

 

[Nara]

Mark Twain

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, was a severe critic of Christianity and the Bible. Legions of hilarious quotes can be found in his various essays and commentaries. I give below some excerpts of his criticism of the Bible. I would like to alert the readers that these criticisms are equally valid for Brahminism and its revered Dharma Shashthras.

"The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes.... The dull and ignorant physician day and night, and all the days and all the nights, drenched his patients with vast and hideous doses of the most repulsive drugs to be found in the store's stock ... He kept him religion sick for eighteen centuries. ....

the changes observable in our century.... -- the revolt of the patient against the system, they were not projected by the physician. .... The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession -- and take the credit of the correction.

[..]

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, .... worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.... There are no witches, and never had been. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. .... More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

[...]

It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency."


​

Followers of Brahminism/Hinduism may try to disassociate from these charges with the argument that somehow their religion is better than Christianity and their Vedas and Dharmashasthras are better than Bible. This does not hold water when scrutinized under the light of the Hindu religious and social history of at least the last 1000 years. Applying Mark Twain's observation regarding Chritianity and its clergy to Brahminism and its clergy so to speak, any correction that has come about is not because of the Brahminical religious leaders, but in spite of them.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna, you are striving hard to find an explanation because you don't want to change the conclusion to which you have cuffed yourself. Hardship do serve as a learning experience for all of us, but to say that God permits evil so that people can learn from the suffering is very weak. Even within my own limited human experience I have never let my children suffer just so that they will learn.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

To understand what I say, just consider the alternative. That there are no suffereings. You would not be learning everything. Your ignorance in a certain aspects wouldn't be removed. Pain is something you undergo so that you transcend it finally and attain lasting bliss. You may ask, why give pain in th first place? Why not directly grant that bliss? My answer is, that there should be a rationale for even the bliss enjoyed in the spiritual world and the experiences in the physical world show that mechanics.

 

[Nara]

.. Why not directly grant that bliss? My answer is, that there should be a rationale for even the bliss enjoyed in the spiritual world and the experiences in the physical world show that mechanics.

I would sravna, I am not going to look for a rationale when it comes to my children. An omnipotent and all compassionate God, if it exists, why should it be any less compassionate than a mere insignificant speck of a human being, me?

sravna, I think we have reached the stage of repeating ourselves. Unless there is any significant new point raised, I wish to sign off with you. You are welcome to post your final comment and have the benefit of last word.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

I would sravna, I am not going to look for a rationale when it comes to my children. An omnipotent and all compassionate God, if it exists, why should it be any less compassionate than a mere insignificant speck of a human being, me?

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

It is not that I want to have the last word.

The answer to the point you raise is, I want my son also to be omnipotent and omniscient. If he wants to reach that stage he should be able to endure them all and triumph over them. So I have the larger interest in mind.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

Summary of various research in to brain and spirituality and religiosity.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - God on the Brain

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMo...eligious-center/story?id=9796634#.T1l5b8B8CSo

Regards,
KRS

 

[sarma-61]

Namaste everyone,

All these animated discussions take place because of a very basic error in our understanding as to what GOD is and what God is not, imho.

Almost all religions, from the primitive Shamanism to the current major religions, have posited a God which is external to Man, have given many interesting (and at times unbelievable) accounts of the God's reach and powers, emphasized the necessity of praising/worshipping God and have thus succeeded in molding human thoughts in support of those who gain by/from religion (the religionists). Religion has thus been "hard-wired" into Man by Man's own ingenious efforts, and not by nature, but fear of death is. This is another point which the religionists have used in the most profitable manner for themselves, imho.

Quite obviously God cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent and all merciful, all at the same time. So, the contention of atheists in this regard is correct.

God is akin to the "parabrahmam" concept of advaita but it is the one which causes "LIFE" in each one of us, as also in the animals, trees and even those things which we usually call inanimate but are animate in their own way.

Man can experience the presence of this life through constant meditation on "who am I?" as suggested by Ramana Maharshi or even just by thinking deeply (cogitate — after all, did not some great person say 'cogito ergo sum'?) on what makes one live and be capable of even thinking well or ill, as our mood may be. It is a very difficult task but, if there is perseverence, result will be there; unlike religious devotion, there is no need for "belief" or complete trust here — one can start as a doubting Thomas, or even as a complete non-believer, and continue till he comes to a stage of yes or no.

If only more and more Tamil Brahmins will start performing this "cogitation" about "what is it that makes me alive?" or "who am I?", anytime, any pose, anywhere, we will find a new awakening. Then all these so-called "learned discussions" in the name of God, Sanatana Dharma etc., which go on here in this Forum will start appearing like toddlers' prattle.

 

[C RAVI]

I would sravna, I am not going to look for a rationale when it comes to my children. An omnipotent and all compassionate God, if it exists, why should it be any less compassionate than a mere insignificant speck of a human being, me?


Cheers!

Shri Nara,

Yes, we as parents would mostly be irrationale when we want to protect our child. That's how are we as humans.

We can be irrationale to protect our interest and succeed in our wanting and that of our spouse as well. That's how are we as humans.

For instance, there was a tamil movie - "PRIYANKA" which was a remake of a Hindi Movie - "DAMINI". The story of the movie is about how hard rich and influential parents struggle with the support of a criminal lawyer to uphold the family respect and to rescue their son out of the clutches of the law, who brutally engaged in rape with house maid (a young girl) along with couple of his filthy friends. And how the lead role - Priyanka (actress Revathy) who is a daughter-in-law remains righteous and tries her best to get justice to the victim and to punish her brother-in-law. She could at last succeed with the witness of her husband in the court, who infact was against the efforts of Priyanka for a long time.

In this story, we see Evil here in Five forms -

1) As parents of a filthy son, who were irrationale for the sake of their filthy son.
2) As a filthy son of the irrational parents, as a rapist.
3) As couple of filthy guys who all were the friends of the rapist, raping the girl.
4) As another emotionally influenced irrational son (though of not filthy personality), who is the husband of Priyanka
5) As a criminal lawyer, for whom professional success, name, fame and money only matters.

All the above Evil humans know what was the truth, what was the gravity of crime and can well realize and feel the level of emotional and physical pain & suffering the house maid had during her rape and after the rape, having physically injured extremely and bleeding constantly.

But all the Evil humans were very much perticular about applying their Rationale Brain alone, for all their irrationality, to protect each of their interests.


Now what we see is, all the above Evils are Human's thoughts and actions, due to the absence of goodness in their Brain's thinking process.

Now what we can question is, How all omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, all knowing GOD as wellwisher of Human beings has allowed lapse of goodness in some of the human brains?

The fact here is, all the humans sub conscious mind and inner self consciousness is absolutely full of goodness. It never conceals the truth, justice and righteousness from oneself, pertaining to oneself and others.

The Goodness/God dwells deep within every humans inner consciousness. Such that, if humans wish they can ever be righteous and never give a chance for Evil incident to occur at first and have the Evil influencing other humans, associating with the person allowing Evil to occur.

Having this truth within themselves, Humans are challenged to lead their personal life with their Intellignet and Rational Physical Brain, thats been offered to them, which if humans wish can condition properly to fecilitate accepting the signals, thats been constantly transmitted by their purest inner consciousness to their brains.


This purest inner counscious may fail to transmit the righteous signal to the brain or may not be fully capable to emit the signals from within itself due to Lack of Spiritual Energies OR Insufficient Spiritual Energies.

There are folks who receive the purest signals from their inner consciousness and act righteously to the best of their judgement and capabilities, without being spiritually inclined, but with belief in God OR even without carrying the belief in GOD, in their rational brains.

We distinguish ourselves as Theists and Atheists, coining the relevent terms out of our Rationale brains, and project ourself to the outside world as what we believe in and which category we belong too. This diclaration by one side, recognizing this by athor side & counter arguments between the two in favour and against God/Spirituality are all irrelevent to the hidden truth, deep within our inner consciousness.


The great souls of the past, with their beleif in God, have conditioned their rationale brains perfectly, reckoning their purest inner consciouseness ever, with the help of their highest Spiritual Saadhna. They have formed the basis of belief in God and Spirituality in millions of Human's Rationale Brains.


As Shri Sravna has stated perfectly in his post #111, theists parents with their strong sense of spirituality ,would help their son and daugther to recognize the truth hidden deep within their inner conscious and would enable them to endure and triumph over all evil, keeping the larger interest in mind.

 

[Yamaka]

Assault and Murder Rate between China and India

Namaste everyone,

All these animated discussions take place because of a very basic error in our understanding as to what GOD is and what God is not, imho.

Almost all religions, from the primitive Shamanism to the current major religions, have posited a God which is external to Man, have given many interesting (and at times unbelievable) accounts of the God's reach and powers, emphasized the necessity of praising/worshipping God and have thus succeeded in molding human thoughts in support of those who gain by/from religion (the religionists). Religion has thus been "hard-wired" into Man by Man's own ingenious efforts, and not by nature, but fear of death is. This is another point which the religionists have used in the most profitable manner for themselves, imho.

Quite obviously God cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent and all merciful, all at the same time. So, the contention of atheists in this regard is correct.

God is akin to the "parabrahmam" concept of advaita but it is the one which causes "LIFE" in each one of us, as also in the animals, trees and even those things which we usually call inanimate but are animate in their own way.

Man can experience the presence of this life through constant meditation on "who am I?" as suggested by Ramana Maharshi or even just by thinking deeply (cogitate — after all, did not some great person say 'cogito ergo sum'?) on what makes one live and be capable of even thinking well or ill, as our mood may be. It is a very difficult task but, if there is perseverence, result will be there; unlike religious devotion, there is no need for "belief" or complete trust here — one can start as a doubting Thomas, or even as a complete non-believer, and continue till he comes to a stage of yes or no.

If only more and more Tamil Brahmins will start performing this "cogitation" about "what is it that makes me alive?" or "who am I?", anytime, any pose, anywhere, we will find a new awakening. Then all these so-called "learned discussions" in the name of God, Sanatana Dharma etc., which go on here in this Forum will start appearing like toddlers' prattle.

Dear ALL:

"Quite obviously God cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent and all merciful, all at the same time. So, the contention of atheists in this regard is correct." Good to know that this point is at least well understood by the Theists.

Here is another point of some importance.

Please see the crime statistics as reported in NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons

I am now comparing a vastly Theistic India Vs vastly an Atheistic China. Most Believers of Super Natural Agent (= God) mistakenly believe that their Gods have made them "noble" in their daily life... but the empirical data shows otherwise...at least in the category of Assault and Murder Rate.

Why then India has HIGHER assault and murder rate than China?

I posit that God is non-existent because many of the worshipers remain "bad people" and because of the belief of the Theists that the Prayers, Poojas and Bhajan will somehow nullify their crimes by their man-made Gods!

Alas.. the Criminal Justice System records most of the crimes they commit in spite of their belief in God!

Crime stats: China vs India

	Chinese Crime stats	Indian Crime stats
Assault rate	9.5	23.1
	Ranked 9th.	Ranked 46th.
Illicit drugs	major transshipment point for heroin produced in the Golden Triangle region of Southeast Asia; growing domestic drug abuse problem; source country for chemical precursors, despite new regulations on its large chemical industry	world's largest producer of licit opium for the pharmaceutical trade, but an undetermined quantity of opium is diverted to illicit international drug markets; transit point for illicit narcotics produced in neighboring countries and throughout Southwest Asia; illicit producer of methaqualone; vulnerable to narcotics money laundering through the hawala system; licit ketamine and precursor production
Murders > per 100,000 people	2.2	5.5
	Ranked 92nd in 2004.	Ranked 67th in 2004. 150% more than China
Murders > WHO	1.9	3
	Ranked 133rd in 2004. Cheers.

 

[KRS]

Sri Yamaka said:

Why then India has HIGHER assault and murder rate than China?

I posit that God is non-existent because many of the worshipers remain "bad people" and because of the belief of the Theists that the Prayers, Poojas and Bhajan will somehow nullify their crimes by their man-made Gods! Alas.. the Criminal Justice System records most of the crimes they commit in spite of their belief in God!

As usual, a 'theory' posied without any foundation.

Chinese do have their God and demi gods - the primary God is Chairman Mao, and the religion is communism.

What makes the Crime rate in China so low?
1. Under reported crime.
2. A party official who is always spying and a party that is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, but definitely not at all Merciful.

If one had been to China at all, these facts are readily obvious.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Yamaka]

Neuro-Theology or Theo-Neurology and the Believers - A Commentary.

1. If one looks at the articles published regularly in main stream publications like Nature, Science, Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Neurosciences etc these words do NOT exist. It's an anathema for these journals to print such nonsense.

Believers understand that their Belief is on constant attack by Science, Engineering and Technology (and Secular Thinkers). They desperately want some "Scientific Basis" of God! Hello...both are totally OPPOSITE in the logical scale: God is just a Belief, against all logic and reasoning.

2. People with lobectomy and brain cancer will have "altered brain" somehow. They are quite abnormal by definition.

Is it possible that the brains of Believers are altered in the sense that they are delusional and perhaps hallucinating all the time?

Maybe... most of the Believers are FEARFUL people... they are always FEAR of death, FEAR of losing their wealth or loved ones etc etc...

Therefore, their pineal gland and amygdala (organs involved in FEAR and Flight emotions) may be hyperactive....


Wait & watch.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sarma-61 Ji,

One can not just pooh-pooh the fact that religiosity may be hard wired in to the human beings. To call our knowledge of God as a 'basic error' is an error by itself. Whether there is a 'all merciful' God that physically exists as a separate entity or there is a impersonal entity that permeates the Universe and in all beings is not at all relevant to the condition of human beings. Given that we were all 'created' by some entity lends to the fact that we are connected to that entity in some way. Whether man looks at it from the view point of animism or a morality driven form of a human or a formless entity corresponds mainly to the deep inherent need of the man. It may even be based on evolution as the atheists claim, but this can never be proven by science, as we have shown here many times and as some atheists also agree.

So, the current status of the man across the globe have us all in a condition where we have the majority believing in God, either personal or impersonal, but with a firm belief that 'knowing' that God is the paramount or at least a very important seeking activity in one's life. Based on one's culture and birth, one uses the religion one is born in to for this purpose. Minority are the folks, who either change their religions or adopt atheism, as these folks obviously have an inborn urge to do so. In the God business, it is my opinion that one's make up as a person with respect to one's spirituality essentially guides them in this endeavor. So, to call such an activity as something wrong and 'childish' by itself shows a very arrogance towards humanity, so much like a person with a very high intelligence looking down upon ordinary human beings with average intelligence as unworthy human beings.

I think the intolerance of many atheists towards the theists is based on their incorrect assumption that somehow the religions are responsible for all the ills of the world today. This may be true from the viewpoint that the societies and events produced by religions look anachronistic based on today's human condition, spurred on by the technological advancements and changes in mores. The lesson is not to ascribe the ill preparedness of some cultures and people to adopt to such advancements and changes to religions. Like what it takes a child in growing up and maturing over time, it will take time for the man to adopt to the ever changing world. And, in my humble opinion, religion provides a constant support for their psyche and well being. One has to always remember that religions are there to support the man and not the other way around. In this respect, like a child, once it comes to the self thinking age discarding certain practices adopted in younger age will grow out of any negative practices adopted in the past, on the basis of a perceived edict from a religion - whether it is discrimination against another religion, or attacking other peoples etc. Such practices of the past can not be sustained in the future, with the changing of the world on the lines of humanism and equality and the universal concepts of human rights.

Even in the new brave world, 'isms' based on atheistic beliefs that were constructed as Utopian societies have failed. We all have seen what 'rationalism' thrust upon people whose svabhava based on nature fail, case after case. Any idealism that is against the nature of the man will surely and always fail. This is why, all these railings about theism as illogical and irrational will not go anywhere, except to give some satisfaction to those thinkers that they are really 'changing' others, so that they can rest in peace. There were atheists before, there are atheists now and there will be atheists in the future. What will also not change is that the majority will always believe in some sort of theism, however 'hard wired' it is in the humans.

Sadly in my opinion, the atheists, without understanding this, will forever be engaged in erecting straw men against religions and like Don Quixote fight against the windmills of the theism, the religions. They will spend countless hours and time on this activity and forever will look down upon the rest of the fellow human beings as 'illogical and irrational' and will sleep well knowing that they have done good to the poor humanity, a majority of which just does not 'know any better'.

Regards,
KRS

Namaste everyone,

All these animated discussions take place because of a very basic error in our understanding as to what GOD is and what God is not, imho.

Almost all religions, from the primitive Shamanism to the current major religions, have posited a God which is external to Man, have given many interesting (and at times unbelievable) accounts of the God's reach and powers, emphasized the necessity of praising/worshipping God and have thus succeeded in molding human thoughts in support of those who gain by/from religion (the religionists). Religion has thus been "hard-wired" into Man by Man's own ingenious efforts, and not by nature, but fear of death is. This is another point which the religionists have used in the most profitable manner for themselves, imho.

Quite obviously God cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent and all merciful, all at the same time. So, the contention of atheists in this regard is correct.

God is akin to the "parabrahmam" concept of advaita but it is the one which causes "LIFE" in each one of us, as also in the animals, trees and even those things which we usually call inanimate but are animate in their own way.

Man can experience the presence of this life through constant meditation on "who am I?" as suggested by Ramana Maharshi or even just by thinking deeply (cogitate — after all, did not some great person say 'cogito ergo sum'?) on what makes one live and be capable of even thinking well or ill, as our mood may be. It is a very difficult task but, if there is perseverence, result will be there; unlike religious devotion, there is no need for "belief" or complete trust here — one can start as a doubting Thomas, or even as a complete non-believer, and continue till he comes to a stage of yes or no.

If only more and more Tamil Brahmins will start performing this "cogitation" about "what is it that makes me alive?" or "who am I?", anytime, any pose, anywhere, we will find a new awakening. Then all these so-called "learned discussions" in the name of God, Sanatana Dharma etc., which go on here in this Forum will start appearing like toddlers' prattle.

 

[KRS]

1. Obviously NeuroTheology is something that the Theists have come up with to characterize their inquiry in to any connection between the human condition of faith and their biology. As long as they pusue this within the norms of accepted science, I don't see any dichotomy, just because of the label.

2. Flight ot fight and the fear of death are normal human responses to their condition. To belittle the latter as somehow that is a quality to be rejected is not based on a rational way of understanding the human condition. There is no shame in accepting this as a part of a human being's life. What is however a shame is assuming that the apparent non fear of death somehow is a 'superior' response in a human being. Like religion, this is a very deeply held personal attribute, not to be viewed as something that needs to be derided.

Regards,
KRS

Neuro-Theology or Theo-Neurology and the Believers - A Commentary.

1. If one looks at the articles published regularly in main stream publications like Nature, Science, Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Neurosciences etc these words do NOT exist. It's an anathema for these journals to print such nonsense.

Believers understand that their Belief is on constant attack by Science, Engineering and Technology (and Secular Thinkers). They desperately want some "Scientific Basis" of God! Hello...both are totally OPPOSITE in the logical scale: God is just a Belief, against all logic and reasoning.

2. People with lobectomy and brain cancer will have "altered brain" somehow. They are quite abnormal by definition.

Is it possible that the brains of Believers are altered in the sense that they are delusional and perhaps hallucinating all the time?

Maybe... most of the Believers are FEARFUL people... they are always FEAR of death, FEAR of losing their wealth or loved ones etc etc...

Therefore, their pineal gland and amygdala (organs involved in FEAR and Flight emotions) may be hyperactive....


Wait & watch.

 

[Nara]

On Spirituality

I would like to share a couple of articles on spirituality, one on the natural evolutionary basis of it, and the second about the usurpation of what is seen as spirituality by the religionists.


[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1

Excerpt:

IN the Oaxaca Valley of Mexico, ..... (D)during 15 years of excavation they have uncovered not some monumental temple but evidence of a critical transition in religious behavior. The record begins with a simple dancing floor, the arena for the communal religious dances held by hunter-gatherers in about 7,000 B.C.

[...]

That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods.

What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned.

[...]

It is easier to see from hunter-gatherer societies how religion may have conferred compelling advantages in the struggle for survival. Their rituals emphasize not theology but intense communal dancing that may last through the night. The sustained rhythmic movement induces strong feelings of exaltation and emotional commitment to the group. Rituals also resolve quarrels and patch up the social fabric.

​

[2] Spirituality: It’s only human! - - The Washington Post

I shared this one sometime back...

Excerpt:

Much like ‘Intelligent Design’ as a euphemism for ‘Creationism,’ ‘spiritual’ is a word that believers throw in when they’d like to claim something for religion, but suspect they wouldn’t get away with it. ‘Spiritual’ is conveniently ill-defined and therefore perfect for their purposes, conveying, as it does, a vaguely religious implication that humans are special, somehow elevated above the other animals, attuned to other-worldly influences and having an added dimension that cannot be satisfied with mere Earthly matters. ‘Spiritual’ leaves open the possibility of ‘mysticism’ and ‘higher powers’ and ‘immortal souls,’ without ever having to spell out, and therefore defend, what is meant by such things.

[...]

We non-religious might also resort to the word on occasion, when groping for a term to describe a particularly intense sensation of peace or beauty or harmony; but generally speaking, it is rare to find an example of ‘spirituality’ being used in a context where ‘emotional and psychological well-being’ would not be a more appropriate term.

[...]

Again and again we see religion attempt to hijack some core aspect of what it means to be human and claim it as religious: our ability to love and our appreciation of beauty, for instance. The most obvious example is morality.

[...]

This hijacking of morality by religion has been one of the greatest heists in history, and yet it has passed almost unnoticed.

Religion is a parasite that feeds on all that is good in humanity as a whole and then proclaims it as its own gift to the world.


​

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

As usual, a 'theory' posied without any foundation.

Chinese do have their God and demi gods - the primary God is Chairman Mao, and the religion is communism.

Chinese are very very superstitious in their beliefs and Rajasic in their approach in life where material wealth is always placed above anything else.
They also have strong belief in elemental spirits and ancestor worship.

After all religion doesn't have to mean praying to God as in any organized format and doctrine.
Religion is a belief and Chinese do have their own believes.

 

[renuka]

1. Obviously NeuroTheology is something that the Theists have come up with to characterize their inquiry in to any connection between the human condition of faith and their biology. As long as they pusue this within the norms of accepted science, I don't see any dichotomy, just because of the label.

2. Flight ot fight and the fear of death are normal human responses to their condition. To belittle the latter as somehow that is a quality to be rejected is not based on a rational way of understanding the human condition. There is no shame in accepting this as a part of a human being's life. What is however a shame is assuming that the apparent non fear of death somehow is a 'superior' response in a human being. Like religion, this is a very deeply held personal attribute, not to be viewed as something that needs to be derided.

Regards,
KRS

I fully agree with what you have written.

Almost everyone fears death when it approaches us especially in cases of painful,unnatural death.

Even the adrenals of those with delusion of grandeur will be spewing adrenaline when there is impending death of the painful kind.

 

[Yamaka]

Fallacy of God & Religion and Majority Principle:

Historians have said clearly that some MEN created the Gods & Religions for the purpose of controlling or exploiting the Society: Vedic People and the Puranic Authors created Hinduism, the followers of Jesus created Christianity and the followers of Muhammed created Islam. These religions from the beginning created by MEN as a cut-throat competition to the other existing religion(s). Hence, they are not brothers, but enemies in all sense of the word.

Talk to the Islamist of Al Qaeda: they want to destroy Christianity and the West. Talk to the Sang Parivar: they want to kill and bury the Islamist in India.

Therefore, if 4.5 billion people in the world are religious and worshiping SOME God of different Ideology, this does not mean this MAJORITY is good over the 2.5 billion solid non-worshiping, non-Believing people around the world.

Yes, Majority Principle is good and is used in electing a Political Party to govern the State as in Democracy.

Can the same Majority Principle be good in legitimizing Religious FATALISM and the consequent poverty, ignorance and superstition?

Please see the small minorities of the richest countries in the world in the order of decreasing per capita income per year (per capita GDP times 0.8 gives the per capita income per year) :

Norway $43K per capita income per year
Switzerland
USA
Japan
Denmark
Sweden
UK
Finland
Germany
Austria $23K per capita income per year. (For comparison, India sports a per capita income of $1.3K a year)

These countries have hardly 10% of the population of the world of 7 billion people.

What's striking is, Industrial Revolution started and flourished in all these countries, and Science Engineering & Technology is in the front seat and God & Religiosity is at the back!

Most other countries are in the death-grip of Religious FATALISM as in India, Africa, Central and South America.

China, the most populace country in the world, is breaking the mold and galloping towards prosperity by discarding the man-made God & Religion.

Therefore, please do not use Majority Principle to patronize poverty, ignorance and superstition.

Innum varum....

 

[sarma-61]

Please see the crime statistics as reported in NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons

I am now comparing a vastly Theistic India Vs vastly an Atheistic China. Most Believers of Super Natural Agent (= God) mistakenly believe that their Gods have made them "noble" in their daily life... but the empirical data shows otherwise...at least in the category of Assault and Murder Rate.

Why then India has HIGHER assault and murder rate than China?

I posit that God is non-existent because many of the worshipers remain "bad people" and because of the belief of the Theists that the Prayers, Poojas and Bhajan will somehow nullify their crimes by their man-made Gods!

Alas.. the Criminal Justice System records most of the crimes they commit in spite of their belief in God!

Shri Yamaka sir,

China is imho, different from India in many aspects. First, India and Bharat (the vast countryside with acute poverty and diseases being rampant) are well connected and all statistics about India will cover both India & Bharat with a good amount of accuracy. In China, the very vast rural countryside is practically cut off from the outside world and the outside world is also cut-off from those vast areas. Whatever statistics the Govt. of China puts out is what it feels is good for the nation's well-being. Even Nationmaster has to go by published statistics only and I very much doubt whether even the CIA worldfact book is capable of giving the true data on China.

Secondly, the conclusions which you draw, viz.,Assault and murder rate has to first take the legal definitions of assault in both countries, imo. And, there is no reason in attributing atheism as the panacea for all the ills of this world; even USA was and is very much a god-believing country.

Though this may sound personal, it is not correct to claim that god-belief is the root cause of all problems in life, simply because in your life, fortuitously, you turned to be an atheist while in college and somehow life has been good for you. But Dhirubhai Ambani (to whom, incidentally, even you cannot hold a candle) was a very great believer in God. The Birlas were and are; they built so many Birla Mandirs. Ramnath Goenka who came to India with just only a small "lotta" to wash after defecation, built a newspaper empire and he was a God-believer. Such instances are many.

So, I will very humbly request you to sit back and think over whether what minuscule providence has helped you in your life can or will definitely aid any large population.

You should probably read the story of the "king's barber and his golden drop" from Tenali Raman stories, I will say.

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Quote: "Freewill is a different, complex subject; highly technical and liable to lead into another round of unresolvable debate. Besides, role of freewill of individuals cannot possibly mitigate the existence of evil that an all powerful and compassionate god, if it exists, cannot eliminate. Babies born with birth defects like cerebral palsy or autism do not do so out of their own freewill. Death and destruction caused by natural disasters do not happen out of the freewill of people. Have we not seen mere mortals try their best to help the unfortunate victims of these events? How come a compassionate and all powerful god not stop these evils? I would, if I had the power, even though my compassion can not be limitless as that of the presumed God.

If you say natural disasters are not evils, then what about the millions who were murdered by wars by many nations, Russians, Germans, Japanese, Turks, British, Americans, etc. In what way the freewill of the victims play a role in these evils?

No, if there exists a god, there might be, but I doubt it, it does not care for humanity, any more than it would care for the Zebra who gets hunted down by the lionesses while the lazy good-for-nothing lion sits and watches.

My friend, the riddle of Epicurus is not a paradox, it has an answer, and it is that there is an all powerful and compassionate God is untenable."

Mr. Nara, May I point out that you sound rather 'confused' and 'confounded' in the above-mentioned passage. If your point is that all things, or rather events, do not happen by reason of the 'free will' of human beings, do you have to cite the example of the 'aberration' that may occur in the 'natural process' of child birth to say that the child has not 'chosen' the 'defect or deformity' with which it was born? Or, for instance, give the example about about the 'death and destruction' caused by 'natural disasters' like earthquake, volcanic eruptions, and the like? By citing such illustrations, you yourself concede that there are 'forces' around like 'Nature', which are greater than the 'reasoning' power of human beings with their very limited capacities of perception! In effect you do concede that we are not the 'beginning and the end' of all that there is! There is 'something' else -- some forces -- much larger and more overwhelming than our own power to produce 'weapons of mass destruction' through our 'scientific understanding' and 'manipulation of natural processes' and thereby cause 'death and destruction' untold in the wars fought down the centuries and particularly so, in the last century! And yet, we have shown immense power of 'love' and 'compassion' to help the millions of victims of 'natural disasters' or 'man-made' calamities! If you concede that much, why, you are already 'en route' to a clearer understanding of 'That', which still remains 'incomprehensible' with all 'contradictions' that defy ordinary 'human understanding'!

I should think that what you are 'militating against' is the 'cultural heritage' of mankind -- our notions of 'God' that have been developed over the history of mankind around the world -- by quoting all those persons like Epicurus, Omar Khayyam, Galileo, Thomas Hobbs, John Stuart Mill, Percy B. Shelley, and a host of others who rebelled against those very notions that have developed over the centuries regarding 'God' as 'benevolent' or 'malevolent'! Essentially they all seem to be united against the idea of a 'God' who was 'omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent' as may be seen from a reading of some passages that you have quoted from their works. Some of them were also against the idea of a 'personal God' who granted 'boons' in response to the prayers of the faithful! Some others were against the idea of a 'God' playing the dice in 'Heavens' and 'pre-determining' the course of our lives in this world for that seem to exclude our commonsense notions of 'free will' and 'personal responsibility' or any kind of 'accountability' for our actions flowing from our 'ability to choose' to do 'good deeds' or 'bad deeds'! Such notions of a 'fate' even militated against the notion of our 'soul' being consigned forever to a 'heaven' or 'hell' according to the overall 'goodness' or 'badness' of our life in this world! And yet others were against the Hindu 'doctrine of karma' presuming a 'cycle of birth and death' for 'individual souls' pre-determining where and in what circumstances we are born in this life and where we are headed in the 'next life' by reason of the further 'karma' accrued by us in this life! Thus, any number of 'dissenters' there were for any kind of notion of 'God' or a 'Universal Soul' and its 'attributes' that were formulated by mankind over the centuries.

However, you cannot get away with a 'LOL' like our other contributor, Yamaka, over all these notions and go your own sweet way after raising a 'case and controversy' on these pages about the 'fallacy of there being a God who is all-loving' or 'caring for mankind'! Having conceded initially that there are forces at work that are 'greater than' the 'reasoning' power of mankind and their 'ability' to understand and manipulate natural forces -- as you yourself concede the forces of 'Nature' to be -- you must come with a clear formulation of your own views on these 'Forces' that are at work, their 'attributes', and where we stand vis-a-vis the same! You must put those views across the table for everyone to see -- come on be a 'Nara' to all the Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and the like, who propounded their views -- to to be analysed and argued over to reach a conclusion whether you have got it right! Otherwise, you are not the 'light' that you imagine yourself to be! Just one of those 'mirrors' that reflect the views of others without any substance to show for all these years lived!