The god fallacy

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

What men do because of religion and god ....

Panguni Uthiram 2012: Hindu Body Piercing In New Delhi (PHOTOS)

 

[renuka]

What men do because of religion and god ....

Panguni Uthiram 2012: Hindu Body Piercing In New Delhi (PHOTOS)

Yes becos they are willing to do anything for Him and not think that "What can HE do for me" and then abandon HIM when things dont go the way it should.

I feel its better to reserve comments when it comes to modes of prayers of devotees which ever way it is so that one fine day we might not need to swallow our words.

I have seen many people who even laugh at such practices and finally one day land up taking the same for a cure of an ailment.
When it comes to God its better we humans dont think too great of ourselves.

 

[C RAVI]

Very well said dear Renuka,

Devotees do anything that they feel they could manage with and with that attempt to show their love and devotion to their God. They perform such acts to showcase their Bakthi and commitment towards their assertions.

These devotees take all sorts of hardship in devotion to their GOD. Ironically these things helps Atheists to mock on the believers.

Many devotees/believers are into many wrong things as mere humans, to live this challenging material life with all relationships and commitments. Ironically these too facilitates Atheists to frown upon believers/God/Spirituality.

Many cruel/evil things happens around the world and both believers and non believers have to experience them without any distinction, in this physical world meant for all. These existence of Evil also provides solace to Atheists and keeps them going in their path of Atheism as a Cheshire Cat.


I do agree that Atheists have all mental strength and thus the comfort, without any need to recognize, realize and worship God. Hence, I can understand their potent sense of criticism of God/Spirituality and theists in any possible ways and means, as a natural instinct. If a theist warn them with possible repercussions as a test posed on them by God, for any of their mockery and criticism on God/Spirituality, it would in turn lead to mockery on the same theist as a person. Theists should understand that their warning with good intentions not gonna serve any purpose when Atheists frown upon God/Spirituality and the people who believe in them and practice them.

 

[Nara]

... If a theist warn them with possible repercussions as a test posed on them by God, for any of their mockery and criticism on God/Spirituality, it would in turn lead to mockery on the same theist as a person. Theists should understand that their warning with good intentions not gonna serve any purpose when Atheists frown upon God/Spirituality and the people who believe in them and practice them.

I can't speak for all atheists, they are a motley group. So speaking just for myself, I mostly try to stay away from theistic threads, of which there are plenty. If I venture in, it is always for giving some clarification about stuff that I know. Couple of most recent examples are (i) Muktinath and (ii) Color of Vishnu. I have not deliberately gone in and disrupted their discussions with inane stuff, or mocked them in anyway, ever.

On the contrary, when I started this thread to share what atheists all around the world, and over time, have said, I have been constantly bombarded with only mockery, or inane banter, right from the start, from the theists. Take a look, go to the first few pages and you will see what I mean.

Even now, and even in this thread whose title is "The God Fallacy", one that I started, all I did was to post a link to an article. This is a very relevant article for this thread to show what men would do for their religion and god. I did not make any mocking comment. Yet, I am being subjected to warnings of dire consequences later in life, followed by this charge that atheists mock. Perhaps it is embarrassing to these theists to see all this body piercing in the name of god and religion, and therefore the messenger, yours truly, the one who posted this link, must be castigated.

And you guys have the gall to tell me I mock the theists, the irony is suffocating ....

 

[C RAVI]

I can't speak for all atheists, they are a motley group. So speaking just for myself, I mostly try to stay away from theistic threads, of which there are plenty. If I venture in, it is always for giving some clarification about stuff that I know. Couple of most recent examples are (i) Muktinath and (ii) Color of Vishnu. I have not deliberately gone in and disrupted their discussions with inane stuff, or mocked them in anyway, ever.

On the contrary, when I started this thread to share what atheists all around the world, and over time, have said, I have been constantly bombarded with only mockery, or inane banter, right from the start, from the theists. Take a look, go to the first few pages and you will see what I mean.

Even now, and even in this thread whose title is "The God Fallacy", one that I started, all I did was to post a link to an article. This is a very relevant article for this thread to show what men would do for their religion and god. I did not make any mocking comment. Yet, I am being subjected to warnings of dire consequences later in life, followed by this charge that atheists mock. Perhaps it is embarrassing to these theists to see all this body piercing in the name of god and religion, and therefore the messenger, yours truly, the one who posted this link, must be castigated.

And you guys have the gall to tell me I mock the theists, the irony is suffocating ....

Shri Nara,

I can also speak for myself only. All that I said in my post #353 in response to Renuka's last post #352 was in general. It was honestly not meant to suffocate you.

All I attempted to highlight was the psychological reactions between the theists and atheist in general on the topic of God/Spirituality.

As you said, when this thread of yours is to show "God Fallacy", I find no logic in warning you of dire consequences later in life (off course I assume its not in negative sense BUT in positive sense to alert). Not just you, in fact I was relating my comments to Atheists in common.

 

[renuka]

I do agree that Atheists have all mental strength and thus the comfort, without any need to recognize, realize and worship God.

Dear Ravi,

Its not all the while true.
Sometimes the weak minded do not acknowledge greatness of others or any thing greater than them.
This is surely not comfort..its just basic insecurity that they have to imagine there is nothing above them but fail to realize that there is a sky above their head.

 

[Nara]

...All I attempted to highlight was the psychological reactions between the theists and atheist in general on the topic of God/Spirituality.

Ravi, this is quite lame!!

I am minding my business sharing posts on atheism and debating with one theist who cares to present an argument. The rest of you never say anything about the points raised, but go on making silly and speculative comments, predicting day of atonement, accusing atheists of arrogance, ego, and then, blissfully oblivious to the monumental irony, accuse atheists of mocking theists. When I point this out, you say you wanted to share your skills in psycho analysis of theists and atheists!!!

I challenge theists only in threads such as God Exists, or this one, The god fallacy. I don't pop into the scores of other threads on religion, rituals, and what not, and interfere with their discussions with gratuitous comments about their theistic ways and predicting what may happen to them in the future. I don't even pop into threads in General Discussion area like Maya and make silly comments. The posts I made there were about the subject matter, I did not speculate on the psychological relations that made them think the way they do. Why is it hard for you guys to reciprocate the same courtesy?

If you wish, take up any issue I have presented here and discuss it with me. Stop telling me what atheists are like, why they are atheists, what will happen to them, etc. All these are silly speculations, much like coming in and littering.

Thank you....

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi, this is quite lame!!

I am minding my business sharing posts on atheism and debating with one theist who cares to present an argument. The rest of you never say anything about the points raised, but go on making silly and speculative comments, predicting day of atonement, accusing atheists of arrogance, ego, and then, blissfully oblivious to the monumental irony, accuse atheists of mocking theists. When I point this out, you say you wanted to share your skills in psycho analysis of theists and atheists!!!

I challenge theists only in threads such as God Exists, or this one, The god fallacy. I don't pop into the scores of other threads on religion, rituals, and what not, and interfere with their discussions with gratuitous comments about their theistic ways and predicting what may happen to them in the future. I don't even pop into threads in General Discussion area like Maya and make silly comments. The posts I made there were about the subject matter, I did not speculate on the psychological relations that made them think the way they do. Why is it hard for you guys to reciprocate the same courtesy?

If you wish, take up any issue I have presented here and discuss it with me. Stop telling me what atheists are like, why they are atheists, what will happen to them, etc. All these are silly speculations, much like coming in and littering.

Thank you....

Shri Nara,

I have nothing against you to criticize..

I was not demonstrating my skills of psycho analysis. I don't believe in demonstrations and show offs of intellect and rational grandeur. I was just sharing my views based on psychological reactions, to the extent I could realize.

I have nothing to make issue with your presentation. I may indulge in discussions with you to exchange our ideas and opinions BUT not in the sense of handling them as an issue between you and me as an atheist and theist.

When there is a criticism of theism, certainly there will be counter argument from theists in support of theism. And in that game some statements may pop up between theists and atheist to present their views in support of their ism.

Atheists in this forum have mocked upon theists/theism to the extent possible, with their rational brains, calling them silly, ridiculous, brain washing, misleading and corrupting etc..etc. and theist have retaliated in all the best possible manner against such remarks by atheists. The subject is such that these kinds of remarks and accusation pops up to substantiate their views/believes.

You may reject them as silly speculation ONLY BECAUSE you have an upper hand holding SET that has not validated GOD/SPIRITUALITY yet. You have every right to do so. All you should do is just keep presenting your views and keep passing on your remarks against Theists/Theism in the same manner the theists do, as and when needed.


Based on human psychology all that I said was - Atheist with all their belief in Atheism and utter contempt and rejection of Theism would never ever accept a personal advice, alarming them to not criticize the devotees spiritual practices. That would only irritate them having strong rejection of God/Spirituality in the first place.

The mockery took place against each other ism and that is very much normal with the subject of theism and atheism. Whether atheist highlight such mockery or Theist, nothing should surprise and suffocate each other.

Let us keep going, honestly accepting our mockery on others ism, without over reacting to show our self in a different color.

 

[Nara]

If I am not mistaken, the forum norms allow me, as the OP, to ask members from making tangential comments. I hope members will not disrespect my wish.

Thank you ...

 

[Nara]

Having briefly discussed the Hindu views, Karl Sagan discusses the western view in much greater detail. The first argument was the "First Cause" argument, please see here. Now, the second argument.

The second standard Western argument using reason for God is the so-called argument from design, which we have already talked about, both in its biological context and in the recent astrophysical incarnation called the anthropic principle. It is at best an argument from analogy; that is, that some things were made by humans and now here is something more complex that wasn’t made by us, so maybe it was made by an intelligent being smarter than us. Well, maybe, but that is not a compelling argument.

I tried to stress earlier the extent to which misunderstandings, failure of the imagination, and especially the lack of awareness of new underlying principles may lead us into error with the argument from design. The extraordinary insights of Charles Darwin on the biological end of the argument of design provide clear warning that there may be principles that we do not yet divine (if I may use that word) underlying apparent order.

There is certainly a lot of order in the universe, but there is also a lot of chaos. The centers of galaxies routinely explode, and if there are inhabited worlds and civilizations there, they are destroyed by the millions, with each explosion of the galactic nucleus or a quasar. That does not sound very much like a god who knows what he, she, or it is doing. It sounds more like an apprentice god in over his head. Maybe they start them out at the centers of galaxies and then after a while, when they get some experience, move them on to more important assignments.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Atheists in this forum have mocked upon theists/theism to the extent possible, with their rational brains, calling them silly, ridiculous, brain washing, misleading and corrupting etc..etc.

Stop telling me what atheists are like, why they are atheists, what will happen to them, etc. All these are silly speculations, much like coming in and littering.

Dear Ravi,
I have lost count the number of times the atheists have speculated why theists believe in God (their inane reasoning speculated the reasons to be fear, superstition, tradition etc). They have even called theists as fools and frauds. The atheists want one rule for themselves, another rule for others. Do not give in to their bullying!

 

[ozone]

If I am not mistaken, the forum norms allow me, as the OP, to ask members from making tangential comments. I hope members will not disrespect my wish.

Thank you ...

OP may please note that post #351 provided no credence to the title of the thread and this created the precedent to the tangential comments if they are supposed to be. I hope the forum will not allow an OP the exclusive right to decide which posts to stay,to decide what should be said about them, and not allow selective use of such observations.

(Sorry, that I am unable to contribute to this thread intelligently beyond this)

 

[renuka]

If I am not mistaken, the forum norms allow me, as the OP, to ask members from making tangential comments. I hope members will not disrespect my wish.

Thank you ...

Once upon a time I was an OP for a thread which was forced to be shifted to the Religion and Philosophy section cos it was "attacked" by someone.

The excuse for the "attack" was that thread was in the General Discussion so its open for any sort of opinion.

So I requested a change of the thread to another section.

So same way..this is a General Discussion thread so it should be open for debate in which ever way we desire.

So have fun dudes!!

 

[C RAVI]

Once upon a time I was an OP for a thread which was forced to be shifted to the Religion and Philosophy section cos it was "attacked" by someone.

The excuse for the "attack" was that thread was in the General Discussion so its open for any sort of opinion.

So I requested a change of the thread to another section.

So same way..this is a General Discussion thread so it should be open for debate in which ever way we desire.

So have fun dudes!!

Exactly!!!! There is no logical fallacy here......

Would that be feasible to suggest the Forum Administrator to have a separate Forum for Atheists to open threads pertaining to "God does not exists". "The God Fallacy", "Primitive Devotees of Fatalistic Religion" etc.etc., in a very strict sense such that theists members who don't support such ideas should not indulge in participation and refute Atheists believes and ideologies?

 

[renuka]

Exactly!!!! There is no logical fallacy here......

Would that be feasible to suggest the Forum Administrator to have a separate Forum for Atheists to open threads pertaining to "God does not exists". "The God Fallacy", "Primitive Devotees of Fatalistic Religion" etc.etc., in a very strict sense such that theists members who don't support such ideas should not indulge in participation and refute Atheists believes and ideologies?

रवि ज़िंदाबाद!!!!

 

[Nara]

theists members who don't support such ideas should not indulge in participation and refute Atheists believes and ideologies?

All those who wish to refute the ideas I am presenting on atheism here are most welcome, I would love that. What I am requesting is not to hyjack the thread into unrelated, tangential stuff, that is all.

 

[C RAVI]

All those who wish to refute the ideas I am presenting on atheism here are most welcome, I would love that. What I am requesting is not to hyjack the thread into unrelated, tangential stuff, that is all.

Shri Nara,

I understand and agree with your desires..

But you too should understand that Theism is a belief system out of heart felt acceptance and individual's personal experiences. Though we have references to so many epic stories/scriptural references related to God/Spirituality of past dated 1000 or more years, atheist claim that all such references are hog-wash & brain storm of crooked people ONLY because such references and the phenomena of God/Spirituality, till today, has not been laboratory tested, verified and assertively declared as the Truth.

1000s and 1000s of examples with explanations, references to the quotes of eminent Atheists of the past and present, logical reasoning etc.etc. can be presented to substantiate the validity of Atheism. This is not so hard to do and is not so tough for the theists to grasp the import. When the expression are against God/Spirituality, nothing require elaborately for the theists to understand atheists POVs, when theist do have the same rational sense to live their personal life to the best possible level of fulfillment, contributing extensively for the success of dynamic world of SET.

You have provided excerpts from the messages of eminent atheists that all can either be read by members just to see how that particular atheist thinks and ignore them or may accept them OR read them and refute them as and if possible. But when you dwell deep into your atheistic fanaticism and start highlighting the spiritual practices of theists, that would carry none other than your sense of sarcasm, mockery and probably a sense of sympathy towards such folks, there would certainly be a counter expression by theists.

Whether its your sense of sarcasm, mockery or sympathy as an enlightened smart Atheist, it would only reveal your contempt towards Theism and the spiritual practices of the theists. When such things appear in General Discussion forum and not in Atheists exclusive forum, theists members would for sure express their views against such remarks of yours, holding on their belief, devotion, love and respect towards God/Spirituality. And such expressions of views obviously would be based on faith/belief out of personal/collective/shared experiences of the theists, who all do apply their rationality in their life and day to day affairs. Your assertive declarations of such views of the theists as unrelated, tangential stuff, hijacking you thread is not at all proper and relevant.

Whenever there is a rebuttal from theist, that obviously would be based on one's belief/faith and scriptural references, you would reject them as silly speculation, full of logical fallacy and tangential. This is no surprise or shock for the theists and thus there would not be much of their counter arguments with you, against the excerpts you provide, in support of Atheism.

But when you express your personal comments and provide links of devotees spiritual practices, that all obviously would be revealing your criticism, theists here would for sure refute them the way they deem fit and the way they feel sensible and possible to them.

Thus, I feel, your sense of uneasiness and anger against theistic views expressed here would not be sensible. It would only make you feel heavily burdened and irritated. So, please take them all easy as theists do here and don't feel that your personal feelings/requests/wishes has not be honored here, in this public forum.

Whether it is your contempt against God/Spirituality or your favorism with great sense of honor towards EVR and his movements or contempt against todays Brahminism and their democratic rights, all these are highly sensitive to the theists folks who have love and devotion to God/Spirituality and had/having their fingers burned due to filthy politics, till date. IMHO, "You", as out of brahmin community and atheist man here, should express your views as humbly and as sweetly as possible and ensure peace of mind to others and yours.

I know, I have no rights and eligibility to give you personal tips. But, I ended up doing so ONLY because I don't like eminent, knowledgeable and honest members like "You" here, feeling pain, uneasiness and bitterness and end up with strongly attacking the others.

 

[Nara]

I understand and agree with your desires..

I repeat -- with added emphasis:

All those who wish to refute the ideas I am presenting on atheism here are most welcome, I would love that. What I am requesting is not to hijack the thread into unrelated, tangential stuff, that is all.


And, -- personal observations are unwarranted.

 

[C RAVI]

As far as I am concerned, all the Atheistic views/quotes here are nothing other than a plain assertion about "God does not Exist".

What is there to refute when such thoughts pops up to any lay man like myself, of any age group, when 1) the brain is used deliberately ignoring the inner consciousness, realizations and acceptance and 2) when brains multiple thoughts are separated and deliberately made to generate one track ideas against God/Spirituality?

Rebuttal can occur only when the topic is pertaining to manipulated thoughts/perceptions of human brains and not pertaining to human's inner consciousness.

 

[ozone]

As far as I am concerned, all the Atheistic views/quotes here are nothing other than a plain assertion about "God does not Exist".

Dear Ravi,
You are failing to see the reality. This thread was dull without any active traffic for a few days, and with the tangential stuff introduced some activity is seen.

 

[Nara]

In this post I am presenting Carl Sagan's rebuttal of the third argument from western theists. For the earlier arguments, please see this post.

Then there is the moral argument for the existence of God generally attributed to Immanuel Kant, ....Kant’s argument is very simple. It’s just that we are moral beings; therefore God exists. That is, how else would we know to be moral?

Well, first of all you might argue that the premise is dubious. The degree to which humans can be said to be moral beings without the existence of some police force is open at least to debate. But let’s put that aside for the moment. Many animals have codes of behavior. Altruism, incest taboos, compassion for the young, you find in all sorts of animals. Nile crocodiles carry their eggs in their mouths for enormous distances to protect the young. They could make an omelette out of it, but they choose not to do so.

Why not? Because those crocodiles who enjoy eating the eggs of their young leave no offspring. And after a while all you have is crocodiles who know how to take care of the young. It’s very easy to see. And yet we have a sense of thinking of that as being somehow ethical behavior.

I’m not against taking care of children; I’m strongly for it. All I’m saying is, it does not follow if we are powerfully motivated to take care of our young or the young of everybody on the planet, that God made us do it. Natural selection can make us do it, and almost surely has.

What’s more, once humans reach the point of awareness of their surroundings, we can figure things out, and we can see what’s good for our own survival as a community or a nation or a species and take steps to ensure our survival. It’s not hopelessly beyond our ability. It’s not clear to me that this requires the existence of God to explain the limited but definite degree of moral and ethical behavior that is apparent in human society.

 

[Nara]

Continuing from the previous post .....

Carl Sagan tackles the ontological argument thus:

Then there is the curious argument, unique to the West, called the “ontological argument,” which is generally associated with [St.] Anselm, who died in 1109. His argument can be very simply stated: God is perfect. Existence is an essential attribute of perfection. Therefore, God exists. Got it? I’ll say it again. God is perfect. Existence is an essential attribute of perfection. You can’t be perfect if you don’t exist, Anselm says. Therefore God exists.

While this argument has for brief moments captured very significant thinkers (Bertrand Russell describes how it suddenly hit him that Anselm might be right—for about fifteen minutes), this is not considered a successful argument. The twentieth-century logician Ernest Nagel described it as “confounding grammar with logic.”

What does it mean, “God is perfect”? You need a separate description of what constitutes perfection. It’s not enough to say “perfect” and do not ask what “perfect” means. And how do you know God is perfect? Maybe that’s not the god that exists, the perfect one. Maybe it’s only imperfect ones that exist.

And then why is it that existence is an essential attribute of perfection? Why isn’t nonexistence an essential attribute of perfection? We are talking words. In fact, there is the remark that is sometimes made about Buddhism, I think in a kindly light, that their god is so great he doesn’t even have to exist. And that is the perfect counterpoise to the ontological argument. In any case, I do not think that the ontological argument is compelling.

 

[Nara]

Car Sagan rebutting arguments that assert existence of personal god ....

The consciousness argument
Then there’s the argument from consciousness. I think, therefore, God exists; that is, how could consciousness come into being? And, indeed, we do not know the details in any but the very broadest brush about the evolution of consciousness. That is on the agenda of future neurological science.

But we do know, for example, that an earthworm introduced into a Y-shaped glass tube with, let’s say, an electric shock on the right-hand fork and food in the left-hand fork, rapidly learns to take the left fork. Does an earthworm have consciousness if it is able after a certain number of trials invariably to know where the food is and the shock isn’t?

And if an earthworm has consciousness, could a protozoan have consciousness? Many phototropic microorganisms know to go to the light. They have some kind of internal perception of where the light is, and nobody taught them that it’s good to go to the light. They had that information in their hereditary material. It’s encoded into their genes and chromosomes. Well, did God put that information there, or might it have evolved through natural selection?

It is clearly good for the survival of microorganisms to know where the light is, especially the ones that photosynthesize. It is certainly good for earthworms to know where the food is. Those earthworms that can’t figure out where the food is leave few offspring. After a while the ones that survive know where the food is. Those phototropic or phototactic offspring have encoded into their genetic material how to find the light. It is not apparent that God has entered into the process. Maybe, but it’s not a compelling argument.

And the general view of many, not all, neurobiologists is that consciousness is a function of the number and complexity of neuronal linkages of the architecture of the brain. Human consciousness is what happens when you get to something like 10[SUP]11[/SUP] neurons and 10[SUP]14[/SUP] synapses. This raises all sorts of other questions: What is consciousness like when you have 10[SUP]20[/SUP] synapses or 10[SUP]30[/SUP]? What would such a being have to say to us any more than we would have to say to the ants?

So at least it does not seem to me that the argument from consciousness, a continuum of consciousness running through the animal and plant kingdoms, proves the existence of God. We have an alternative explanation that seems to work pretty well. We don’t know the details, although work on artificial intelligence may help to clarify that. But we don’t know the details of the alternative hypothesis either. So it could hardly be said that this is compelling.

Since the time Sagan wrote this exiting new discoveries have been made through painstaking scientific process that further support the above. To those who are interested I recommend Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker, among others.

 

[Nara]

Carl Sagan deals with the last of the western arguments and dismisses them all with a nice summary. Read on ...

Then there's the argument from experience. People have religious experiences. No question about it. They have them worldwide, and there are some interesting similarities in the religious experiences that are had worldwide. They are powerful, emotionally extremely convincing, and they often lead to people reforming their lives and doing good works, although the opposite also happens.

Now, what about this? Well, I do not mean in any way to object to or deride religious experiences. But the question is, can any such experience provide other than anecdotal evidence of the existence of God or gods? One million UFO cases since 1947. And yet, as far as we can tell, they do not correspond—any of them—to visitations to the Earth by spacecraft from elsewhere. Large numbers of people can have experiences that can be profound and moving and still not correspond to anything like an exact sense of external reality. And the same can be said not just about UFOs but also about extrasensory perception and ghosts and leprechauns and so on.

Every culture has things of this sort. That doesn’t mean that they all exist; it doesn’t mean that any of them exist. I also note that religious experiences can be brought on by specific molecules. There are many cultures that consciously imbibe or ingest those molecules in order to bring on a religious experience. The peyote cult of some Native Americans is exactly that, as is the use of wine as a sacrament in many Western religions. It’s a very long list of materials that are taken by humans in order to produce a religious experience. This suggests that there is some molecular basis for the religious experience and that it need not correspond to some external reality. I think it’s a fairly central point—-that religious experiences, personal religious experiences, not the natural theological evidence for God, if any, can be brought on by molecules of finite complexity.

So if I then run through these arguments—the cosmological argument, the argument from design, the moral argument, the ontological argument, the argument from consciousness, and the argument from experience—I must say that the net result is not very impressive. It is very much as if we are seeking a rational justification for something that we otherwise hope will be true. (Emphasis mine)

 

[Nara]

Faith and superstition can be dismissed as harmless delusion, but for practices like throwing babies from the top of the ThEr to people down below. People who indulge in such practices usually assert there is no harm and that there will be harm only if they do not fulfill their promises to God. Take a look at this Vijay TV program and watch for the reaction of the babies who are thrown down.

Nadanthathu Enna 12-04-2012 | Vijay Tv Show | Kutramum Pinnaniyum | Nadanthathu Yenna | CineKolly: Tv Shows || Serials || Movies

Then, there was this ratta kAttEri superstition. Most educated suave theists will look down upon this kind of superstitions, but their own superstitions are no less ridiculous

Nadanthathu Enna 11-04-2012 | Vijay Tv Show | Kutramum Pinnaniyum | Nadanthathu Yenna | CineKolly: Tv Shows || Serials || Movies.

On the one had we have Karl Sagan, systematically dismantling every justification for God, and on the other, those who simply reject reasoned arguments and favor faith will have to partake in such debilitating silliness.

Cheers!