I know it has now become a little outdated to analyse Blog content because as it is blog community as we all knew has already moved to Twitter and FB and very few now update their blogs regularly. But there is no denying that understanding blog consumption pattern help in bring traffic to page. I observed something interesting on my dashboard.
How Content Consumption pattern is Changing in Blogworld
Posted by मसिजीवी Labels: Blog Content consumption, bloggingI know it has now become a little outdated to analyse Blog content because as it is blog community as we all knew has already moved to Twitter and FB and very few now update their blogs regularly. But there is no denying that understanding blog consumption pattern help in bring traffic to page. I observed something interesting on my dashboard.
Okay its plain copy paste from Cyril’s FB wall but its too wonderful a debate to control the temptation of sharing. Cyrill initiated it by posting a quote from Salman Rushdie then it spiraled into full blown debate between believers and atheists. I like these debates despite these being paradoxical. If believers agree to reason out with logic against atheist, they are agreeing to the fact that reasoning is way to achieve truth…if they agree what is point in debating God which they believe can not be understood through reasoning.
Here goes copy paste act:
"There are people who believe in God, and people who don't believe in God. Why should the people who do not believe in god be obliged to not criticize the people who believe in God? Because, goodness knows, there's plenty of it the other way round."
- Salman Rushdie.
You can call an atheist 'Kafir', or 'Heathen', or 'nastik'. Ostracize him, or worse hang him, or kill him in hordes like the buddhists or the pagans were, and still be a great champion, but if all you do is utter words against god and religion, you're a criminal. Why?
-
Masijeevi Hindi : आस्तिक आक्रामक हैं क्योंकि वे डरे हुए हैं...
-
Cyril Gupta Milind, please focus on the qualitative aspect of it, and not the literal.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
its something very personal and emotional too
however i personally do not have any feeling to spread this to believers of god and make atheism a doctrine.
It deals with personal opinion and it has always been and will remain something very personal -
The case about God is entirely different. There are only fictionalized accounts, there's no credible proof of God's existence. Nor has it been proved that God wants humanity to behave in a certain fashion, specially as dictated by religious people.
Javed Iqbal, Why hate an atheist at all? Atheists don't hate you. As far as education is considered... We got here because we got educated buddy. Most of the atheists in existence were born surrounded by religious practitioners, and if they could move beyond their beliefs, it is only by careful consideration and thought, and by educating themselves.
Do you think it's an easy decision to not believe when everyone else believes? -
-
-
Education is indoctrination with fact which is known and you are free to prove otherwise. Religion is indoctrination with that which is unknown. and your are subservient to never know. So religion loves to ban everything, including people, science does nothing of the sort.
Religion - a never ending joke with no punchline, but yet manages a real laugh. I LOVE RELIGION. -
-
-
Science is a journey and not a destination, and I like to think we are getting ahead every year, but, whatever science has unraveled till now is enough to destroy many of the old beliefs of the religion. I guess by now the only claim you can make about science is that it has not disproved the existence of God entity. Apart from that it has pretty much destroyed all other religious doctrines laid down in the holy books.
As an atheist and understanding what atheists stand for, I can say that atheists do not feel threatened by belief in God. It is the belief in religion that is a problem. If the belief in God was a personal matter without any of the associated symptoms (preaching, public processions, masses, conversions, arguments, fights, riots, crusades), I don't we'd be arguing this point at all. -
-
-
-
-
We've used religion for practically the same purposes as science then. People have died and killed for the sake of religion, and I might say the number is quite high. I won't engage you any more in debate because I think I've said all that I can for now.
Thank you for sharing Milind, I appreciate your contribution. Let's pick this again some time as we have done earlier :). Please do make a closing remark if you wish so. -
-
Science does not understand very many things - far far more than it does understand. BUT SCIENCE UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF IT'S UNDERSTANDING IS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY, REFINEMENT, REJECTION AND REPLACEMENT BY NEWER MEMES.
That does not in anyway provide religion a licence to paint illusions or automatically make it's pontifications a truth.
Dark energy, matter black holes etc I dont know which hole you come from, but If you did build some instrumentation, through technology derived from science, that allows you to transcend your pathetic senses, you can see and experience all of them. True, others had to sit many hours in deep meditation and indulge in discourse to suggest the existence, or explain certain phenomena, either observed or predicted by maths. Same as a relgion apologist might do, to claim religion as being the same as science. But the similarity ends right there. While science provides the means for anyone to reproduce the result, eventually making it simple enough for high school students to replicate, religion still requires sophistry and punditry, the same as it was 3500 years ago, with the same hallucinatory results. I must confess I am impressed that nonsense such as this has survived to date. Might I say it's one of the oldest multilevel marketing scams going on.
You might want to read Dr. Villanur Ramchandran's brilliant unraveling of this thing we call the mind and it's workings. Turns out, it is no different from your flies, ants, lizards etc. Heck we have 98%+ genes shared with apes, yet we have religious crackpots who believe some god created man on the 7th day. The gene for eye development is the same in primitive single celled protozoa and arose abot 800 million years ago. Which however does not give you the right to claim any fancy pedigree for religion, from protoplasm days. -
-
-
Religion has no explanations to fit reality. It compulsorily require you to have faith. And it has always been used to subjugate and humiliate non adherents. Last I heard all religions were a series of prescriptions handed over to manu, moses, mohamed, or some hallucinating madman, by God. Even Buddhism required Budhha to get enlightened. Spiritualism and prescriptions via dalals = religion.
The people who brought me up had very little ability to influence the diktata's henchmen - moses, manu, mohomed, etc - time travel having not been invented then and as far as I know, now. So as an alternative, and in a very schizoid way they would intrigue me with science, via books from BC library, while requiring that i follow all those stupid religious rituals. I would share my discovery from those books and other books at the school library, with my peers - a wonderful mix of rich, poor, rebellious, conforming etc etc kids. Those kids were in the same boat as me. We learnt to question because of science. Which has a vicious side effect - that of questioning authority. And made one realise that religion is about hierarchies, conformity and subjugation to the prescribed authorities. Follow the diktat of God's choosen henchmen else you shall - be reborn as xyz, fry in hell, have a sorry life, blah blah.
And religion is not spirituality. As usual, religion has tried to usurp the positions of spirituality, philosophy and science. And there lies the major rub. I might add that there is a profound spirituality in science. The ecstasy of discovery.The excruciating low of a theory failing, the delirious high of discovery and the utter humility of understanding that we know so much yet know almost nothing. The realisation that we are no different from an amoeba or monkey. That we can contemplate upon the laws of nature that govern us and transcend some of nature's limitations. All of these does not require a God or religion or duality or singularity. But it requires one to be aloof, dispassionate involved, inspired by the magnificence of the world around, while one does science. Does that not sound like spiritualism?
My problem with religion is that it wants to occupy all the high grounds of human endeavor, without an iota of substance in it's innards. I have no problem with anyone following any religion within the privacy of their spaces and flagellating themselves to a pulp. But I do have a problem with it when it starts to be used for governance and biases decision making. -
http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2012/03/science-and-religion.html