Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I know, it just sounded like that, which is why it was funny.
Let's consider the case of humans made of clay. Why, in your own reasoning, is its mention in Quran more linked to a 21st century article which says that Martian clay gives us a good idea of what early Earth was like than it is linked to common misconceptions about the origins of humans that were present in religions that emerged in the same regions as Islam ? What, in your mind, seems more likely ?
Like Judaism and Christianity? Because they all came from the same source?
And by the way, different terms have actually been used to describe the origin of humans in the Quran, like "dust", "water" (not only clay)... which all give you a better idea about what was meant, that humans are actually made originally from the same materials the Earth is made of. That's why there is a famous saying among Muslims that humans are "from the dust and to the dust" referring to the Earth being the origin and destination of the human body.
No, the same is also mentioned in Sumerian mythology, Babilonian mythology and other non Abrahamic religions. It even is a universal recurring explanation among ancient civilizations. But people choose to believe what suits them (or more sadly what they were taught to believe in growing up).
But we find a story in the Janam Sakhi
(Biography) of Guru Nanak where the earthmoon
distance is said to have been estimated by the Guru. It is
given as 52000 Yojan.262
This gives us the distance between the
earth and the moon as 236363.63 miles. The difference between
the scientific calculations and the Guru’s supposed estimate is
merely 2503 miles, which is very insignificant when we measure
such long distances. Even scientists had calculated this distance as
225742 miles when the astronauts first visited the moon in 1969.
It is also a fact that this distance keeps changing because the
orbits of the earth and the moon are elliptical (egg shaped). It also
depends on the moment of measurement. The distance of the
Moon from us at its farthest point is 250,000 miles.
(Origin of our solar system p. 264).
(Biography) of Guru Nanak where the earthmoon
distance is said to have been estimated by the Guru. It is
given as 52000 Yojan.262
This gives us the distance between the
earth and the moon as 236363.63 miles. The difference between
the scientific calculations and the Guru’s supposed estimate is
merely 2503 miles, which is very insignificant when we measure
such long distances. Even scientists had calculated this distance as
225742 miles when the astronauts first visited the moon in 1969.
It is also a fact that this distance keeps changing because the
orbits of the earth and the moon are elliptical (egg shaped). It also
depends on the moment of measurement. The distance of the
Moon from us at its farthest point is 250,000 miles.
(Origin of our solar system p. 264).
Giordano Bruno was the first person to have stated that the
moon was one of the planetoids like our own earth. Galileo later
supported this theory in 1610. The theory contradicted the current
religious ideas about the universe held at that time and therefore
even intellectuals (like the Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Padua) declined to look through Galileo’s telescope
and stuck to their deep-held beliefs. In 1665 Newton once again
talked about the moon and its gravitational pull. It was only in the
20th century that our ideas about the moon underwent a sea
change when on 21 July 1969 Neil Armstrong and Edwin Arnold
actually set foot on the moon.
Scientists have now discovered at least 60 other known
moons in addition to ours. Saturn has at least 20 going round it.
The Earth and Pluto each have one moon. The fact that there are
innumerable moons and suns was mentioned by Guru Nanak
when he said, “There are many Indras, moons and suns and many
other worlds and galaxies” (AGGS p.7)
moon was one of the planetoids like our own earth. Galileo later
supported this theory in 1610. The theory contradicted the current
religious ideas about the universe held at that time and therefore
even intellectuals (like the Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Padua) declined to look through Galileo’s telescope
and stuck to their deep-held beliefs. In 1665 Newton once again
talked about the moon and its gravitational pull. It was only in the
20th century that our ideas about the moon underwent a sea
change when on 21 July 1969 Neil Armstrong and Edwin Arnold
actually set foot on the moon.
Scientists have now discovered at least 60 other known
moons in addition to ours. Saturn has at least 20 going round it.
The Earth and Pluto each have one moon. The fact that there are
innumerable moons and suns was mentioned by Guru Nanak
when he said, “There are many Indras, moons and suns and many
other worlds and galaxies” (AGGS p.7)
The ancient Greeks could work out how far the moon was. So I'm not sure where you're going with this. Sikhism is no more enlightened than all the other bullshit out there.
I'm sure I read up on this before and was it Aristachus (sp) by any chance? From what I remember he was quite a way off those figures I have just quoted. Maybe you can provide some evidence, I can't find much so far.
I think we must start with the inverse "Do you think nothing good has ever come out of any religion and all that religion has done to people till date is evil?"
Though morality can exist without a religion, I think in a good sense it helps "enhance" the will of people to live by a moral code. Ofcourse there are bad things done in the name of religion as with any other tool. Just take the good parts (if you feel like it) and ignore the rest!
Though morality can exist without a religion, I think in a good sense it helps "enhance" the will of people to live by a moral code. Ofcourse there are bad things done in the name of religion as with any other tool. Just take the good parts (if you feel like it) and ignore the rest!
Well, firstly the *********** Anaxagoras was the first to reason that the Sun and the Moon were giant spherical rocks (though he turned out to be wrong about the sun, but that's irrelevant, he had no way of knowing or working out how the sun functioned) and he worked out that the moon reflects sun off the light. So any factual difference between this and any of the religious books written after this shows their ignorance to some human development before they came about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxagoras
Secondly, they were able to make rough estimates which were as you would expect wrong due to the primitive nature of the way they were working it out. Still, they got it right to within 10,000 miles.
Here's a guide as to how they worked it out:
http://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-it-yourself-guide-to-measuring-the-moons-distance/
That's not to say there was no bullshit in Ancient Greece, because there clearly was, but they did actively try to reason things out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxagoras
Secondly, they were able to make rough estimates which were as you would expect wrong due to the primitive nature of the way they were working it out. Still, they got it right to within 10,000 miles.
Here's a guide as to how they worked it out:
http://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-it-yourself-guide-to-measuring-the-moons-distance/
That's not to say there was no bullshit in Ancient Greece, because there clearly was, but they did actively try to reason things out.
The morality of religions is based on achieving entrance to an afterlife, and to convince people to follow them they use scare tactics of places like hell. If someone needs a reward in order to live in a way that society deems good, they are ultimately selfish, which diminishes any idea of morality for moralities sake.
Out of 250,000 miles. A 1% margin of error after about 2000 years isn't that good compared to a 4% margin of error.
Still better though wasn't it?
So?
I apologise, I don't understand the point your trying to make.
What I am saying is not all religion excludes science, sikhism embraces it and encourages it for the strengthening of the human race. I am under the impression that you do not think it is possible for any religion to encourage scientific advances?
What I am saying is not all religion excludes science, sikhism embraces it and encourages it for the strengthening of the human race. I am under the impression that you do not think it is possible for any religion to encourage scientific advances?
Actually, as it transpires, that article is slightly wrong, the average distance of the moon is actually 238,857 miles, so the Sikhs were actually slighty more wrong than the Ancient Greeks (assuming the 2500 miles is right and the 240000 miles figure is correct).
And you're the one who went on this tangent about the moon, so I was answering it. Historically religion has actively suppressed scientific advances. I don't pretend to know anything about Sikhism as I've only had substantial contact with the Abrahamic ones. However, I have no reason to think that Sikhism is in anyway better than they are. Much like the other religions, it's a product of its time, nothing more.
And you're the one who went on this tangent about the moon, so I was answering it. Historically religion has actively suppressed scientific advances. I don't pretend to know anything about Sikhism as I've only had substantial contact with the Abrahamic ones. However, I have no reason to think that Sikhism is in anyway better than they are. Much like the other religions, it's a product of its time, nothing more.
In essence I agree with you. In practice, No.
Even if it was me, I would ask the question, why should I be good? Why should I be moral? Without the threat the prison and punishment, do you think people would inherantly be lawful and good? The persuasive powers of greed, lust & power will definitely override morality over time for many a common man. Humans do need the carrot and stick and religion provides it in form of heaven and hell.
I'm not arguing it is a perfect solution, but is still has it's benefits. Dismissing religion as completely useless and evil is a flawed way of thinkking, imho!
So you don't pretend to know anything about Sikhism yet you completely dismiss it?
Laws and punishment are part of the makeup of todays society. Yes, people aren't born with a moral code, but the law of the land is part of of what create the social norms. You're not born with any beliefs of any sorts, you're taught them, you're taught what is considered good or bad. There's no innate feeling of these things. I also disagree that religion is needed, if you look at the world today, the countries with the least religious people tend to have a better quality of life.
Are you familiar with the empathic civilization theory? (sorry in advance if this is off topic) It says that people are only good to those they empathize with, be it through family systems, nations, ethnicity, clan, or any other group they may empathize with. The theory goes on to say that the worlds problems will only be solved when we all empathize with the plight of everyone on the planet, that without a world wide empathy issues like famine will continue to exist as we won't do enough in that respect. The things that prevent this from happening are precisely those divisive grouping systems. Without notions of nation or religion there would no need to distinguish yourself from other people and you would be more susceptible to being more empathetic. The sooner people get away from these things the sooner we will have an empathic world and the sooner we can actually make a difference to the problems the world faces. The internet goes some way to help this process as it gives people a platform on which they can encounter others and empathize with them, but ultimately, as long as there are divisive devices like religion, the empathic world faces quite large stumbling blocks.
I dismiss all religions, that doesn't mean I know them all in their entirety. I don't know everything there to know about Poseidon but that doesn't mean he might be real. Asking people for full theological knowledge for every belief system in the history of mankind would be a bit much wouldn't it? Personally, my main question is "what separates your religion from all the others" and none of them have adequate answers. I asked you this earlier in this thread and you had no answer to it.
To be completely honest, I don't know as I am still learning about it. Point taken.
I get the feeling we are arguing 2 sides of the same coin
Religion is not "needed", but having one is also not "evil". Agree?Did you just not bother reading the second paragraph? Religion is divisive. Divisive things aren't good.
Read this. Science discovers what the Qur'an said over 1400 years ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307#.UbrjLvm1GSo
The Qur'an doesn't say this.
Wow. Religion really rots the brain.
You atheist feckers should stop campaigning against the divisive nature of the world's religions, because if they unite, it's your ass next.
Are you religious moses?
No, not at all.
Politics is divisive. Having countries is divisive!
It is, but why does that make it ok for religion to be divisive? And to be honest, religion plays a large part in countries in conflict. Religion is an easy way to motivate a people to a cause for some reason. Here in Ireland when our fight with Britain was changed from an ideological one to a sectarian one the revolt took shape and gather the necessary momentum.
Nowhere in that article is it said that clay is the building block of life. It states that clay could have played a role in speeding up the process of the formation of the early cell-like structures (vesicles). It also states that clay could have been a mean to transport RNA into the vesicle. The basic building blocks are still amino-acids created by chemical reactions occuring in a certain environment. Amino-acids account for 75% of your dry body weight, not clay.
It was on Silva's reply that religion is bad because it is divisive. Seeing that this reason is being singled out, I pointed back that so is countries and politics. Just for an example, both world wars fought have nothing to do with religion and in India we do have maoist terrorists so terrrism is not confined to Islam or any particular religion per se.
My view being that people have been divided and fighting long before organized religion became popular and will continue even if we eliminate all relgions. So let's not quote world peace or unity as a reson to cite religion as evil.
It's a thread about religion though? And he didn't say it was evil, he said it was divisive. Can you argue that it's not?
Islam united many areas and clans that were fighting with each other.
Interpretations interpretations.. The title was clearly saying Clay was the crucial part in the origin of life.
Are you suggesting that the Quran said that clay makes up the dry part of a human body??
You mean united by force right ? Islam had to use force in order to convert tribes in the Arabian peninsula let alone North African areas or southern Spain.
Interpretations interpretations.. The title was clearly saying Clay was the crucial part in the origin of life.
Are you suggesting that the Quran said that clay makes up the dry part of a human body??
What interpretations ? All I mentioned was pure scientific facts. The title says : "Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life" by the way. And do you generally stop at reading titles ?
Your Lord said to the angels, "I am going to create a human being out of clay. When I have formed him and breathed My Spirit into him, fall down in prostration to him!" (Qur'an, 38:71-72)
Isn't this explicit enough ? What do you need more ?
No, Islam didn't use force in order to convert tribes in the peninsula. I don't think Mohammad was strong enough to force everybody in the Arabian peninsula to be a Muslim.