|
|
|
General Forum: Religion | | the relevence of religion now a days | |
| haha kalyan....They say life chaging experince..probably because u need a life time to read and understand them :)
Posted by: Saleem At: 16, Oct 2003 9:02:49 AM IST
vaaammmo AYN RAND books size choosthey chaalu naaku nidra vachesthundhi. inkemi chadavadam :((
Posted by: Mr. Kalyan Chakravarthy At: 16, Oct 2003 8:59:48 AM IST
well I suggest you to do some deep reading If you are interested, becuase the stuff you said is just a first impression I guess....I canot clearly comment on that ...Although I am deeply impressed by her few speeches of that constructive ego.
Posted by: Saleem At: 16, Oct 2003 8:57:08 AM IST
Did you read John galt speech in "The atlas shrugged" ??
Posted by: Saleem At: 16, Oct 2003 8:53:05 AM IST
Swapna,
By any chance u read or ran into Ayn Rand objectivism? :)
Posted by: Saleem At: 16, Oct 2003 8:22:41 AM IST
Swapna,
Thank you very much for the link. Nice to see atheistic point of view presented at highest level of confidence.
raj
Posted by: Saleem At: 14, Oct 2003 0:33:27 AM IST
Vijaya,
Yes u r right..the science have proved only the formation of physical body through chemical reactions or whatever..But yet to prove the "consciousness" ..which can not come out of chemical reaction..so there should be something behind it(which is till now out of reach of human's limited mind.).
Ok ..if lets consider that force as God ..then tell me who created God..is he self existant..can't be....I dont know..
Posted by: విజయ్ At: 11, Oct 2003 7:59:20 PM IST
thank you:)
yep sure, would be further enlightened by the results of your research.
Posted by: * Quidditch * At: 10, Oct 2003 5:07:06 PM IST
Being agnostic, this posting is pushing me towards atheism rather than theism....I see few flaws in students arguments...need to do some research I guess ..will present them when I get clear.
Posted by: Saleem At: 10, Oct 2003 2:24:17 PM IST
I see someone was talking about "Science" in relation to "faith", "religion". Got this email from a friend today. About an interesting conversation between a teacher and a student, in a classroom. Dont know if this is a true version, but it does tackle something relevant.
(Wow! excuse me for the frightening length of this thing.)
*******
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on
the problem science has with Krishna.
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....
Prof: You are a Hare Krishna devotee, aren't you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to Krishna to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But Krishna didn't. How is this Krishna good then? Hmm?
(The student is silent.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Prof: So who created evil?
(The student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them?
(The student has no answer.)
Prof: Tell me, son. Do you believe in krishna?
Student: Yes, professor, i do.
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around ou. Have you ever seen Krishna?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your Krishna?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your Krishna, tasted your Krishna, smelt your Krishna? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Krishna or God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. i'm afraid i haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your Krishna doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. i only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, megaheat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we
can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light..... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has
never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
*********
In pure scientific terms, God can be considered a "Random Distribution of Energy". Heat is Energy and darkness is the absence of light (or heat) at a particular place and if we go by the most popular Big
bang theory, at any particular place outside solar system, if you reference a point (which is dark and see darkness
there), after few million years becoz of
redistribution of energy, that particular point in reference to stars(or universal coordinate system with Spacetime taken as 4th dimension) could be full of energy and might be the center of a star.
Heat, Cold, Light, darkness and everything inside the boundaries of universe are relative and as we are 3-dimensional(and perhaps 4 dimensional if mind and
thought process is accepted as another dimension), it is impossible for us to correctly decipher the concept of "ABSOLUTE".
Prof.arguments cannot be quashed away at the same time as it is scientifically proven that man's brain is the most complex structure among life.
Instead of arguing about the existence, the efforts should be to understand the structure of universe and it might give some clues. Einstein tried it, Ramanujan tried it with his works on infinity....
Posted by: * Quidditch * At: 10, Oct 2003 12:52:56 PM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
