Why Religious Intolerance Makes Me Mad

Image courtesy The Nation

I am writing this in response to the various articles / comments  promoting intolerance, people basing their arguments on stereotypes, and just things that I have experienced in the recent past.  You may not agree with all I have to say but I really needed to say this out loud.

My name is Anisha, I am a liberal Muslim woman and more than anything a proud Sri Lankan. I support the Sri Lankan cricket team…always have and always will. I like Pakistan, I have an amazing friend that lives there although I have never been BUT I was born here, lived here my whole life and that makes me Sri Lankan to the core. So the idea that someone assumes that because of my religion I will support a country other than my own is laughable.

I studied under the Sinhalese stream so my mother tongue is Sinhalese. I have friends from all ethnicities because I went a mixed school, which is a blessing because I get to experience a wide range of culture and food! I work hard to earn my own money because I believe in being independent and my parents are great believers that when you reach adulthood, you need to grow up and look after your own needs :) I have dedicated all of my free time to volunteering as it benefits my community as a whole and also because I believe that social change starts from the grassroots. I am educated, I rescue stray dogs from the streets…in fact all of my pets were rescued strays by my mom, my dad or me. I have great respect for Buddhism – in fact I visit temples when I can and wear blessed thread. I do not believe in the slaughter of animals. I don’t like how certain fundamentalists use Islam or any other religion for that matter as an excuse to commit acts of violence. No religion advocates the killing of human beings for the benefit of oneself or one’s beliefs. Of course that hasn’t stopped people from doing exactly that but it still doesn’t mean I am okay with it.

My dad is from the Eastern Province so you would, if you followed a stereotype think that he would be spending his retirement locking me up in my room till he found enough cows to barter me off to some unfortunate man so that we can have a million children… but being the great dad he is, he along with my amazing mom, brought me up to make my own decisions in life and that as a woman in this great country we live in, that I have more choices than most of my Muslim counterparts have in other conservative parts of the Muslim world. That is a gift that I am grateful for every day of my life.

It really is unfair to generalize anyone under a label because more often than not, that label does not fit. There are extremists representing all religions that are out there to propagate their beliefs…and if you are foolish enough to fall for that, then good luck to you. But be open minded, go out there and meet people from all religions that live here before you judge them and put them in a box. Not all Muslims are bad, but not all Muslims are good either…that rule is applicable to all religions. Not all Muslims cover their heads and grow beards, the one’s that do are not stupid…in fact some of the wisest women I know have found the perfect balance,  some of us love dogs, some of us wouldn’t touch beef if it were the last thing on earth…my point is all of us are different individually!

My late grandfather was a politician representing and winning election after election for over two decades in an electorate that is majority Sinhalese. This was when politics was a different caliber than it is now, where being a leader did not mean that you must only represent those that share your own religion. In fact I have never understood why that happens here. I strongly believe that politics should be blind to religion because it’s not who you represent that counts but the quality of work you do – we all need hospitals, schools, roads to get from point A to point B fast…we all want equal opportunities to grow up, get a good education, a decent job so we have enough money to get married, have children of our own and continue the cycle of life. That is not dependant on a religion but being a human being. That was the greatest lesson my grand dad taught me – to believe that we are Sri Lankan first and everything else later. In fact, if we all focused on what we have in common as opposed to spending so much time fighting over what makes us different, we would as a country be a lot better off.

When I was volunteering in Anuradhapura for a few weeks, I saw a poster of a politician pasted on a Bo tree. I may not be Buddhist but what I saw disgusted me because it is so clearly wrong and disrespectful. When we were visiting the historical site of Isurumuniya, the monk at the counter did not let a few of our Maldivian friends through because their head’s were covered and that if they were to come inside his temple then they must listen to his rules. He had a lot of other ‘pleasant’ things to say, which I am not going to repeat but you get my point. Apart from that being great public relations for our tourism industry, it was also a very good indication of how some people in this country think. Was I angry at all Buddhists? Did I stereotype all Buddhist monks as being close minded, intolerant and disrespectful? No, because I know what it feels like to be put in a box. I also know that you get those types in all religions, including my own. In fact, we clearly have more than our fair share.

How good or bad we are should not be defined on what we believe in or how a few of us act…it’s just a character trait and it doesn’t mean that one shallow person is the poster boy for everyone that shares his beliefs. It also does not mean that we must hate a particular religion because of that poster boy nor should we be blindly led by him, because in the end he is only propagating his own ignorance. His beliefs have no power till the day we pull wool over our eyes and believe that because of his standing in society, that he will always be right. In this day and age, when access to knowledge is so easily available, only the foolish are robots.

In a post war Sri Lanka, do we really need to focus so much on the past? Who was wronged 30 years ago? How we should get back at those who made those mistakes? I understand that mistakes happened, a lot of our leaders said and did things that formed the roots to a 30 year old war. The end result is that we all suffered as Sri Lankans, not because we were different religions. Right now, I feel that as the war is over, we have this need to find something else to fight about and the way we are going, it looks like it is intolerance towards religions.

We have 4 of the major religions living under one island and I get that my cultural practice may go against another’s cultural practice, etc,. I am sure that we can all sit together and figure it out without throwing labels at each other. In the end, like it or not, we are still an island and we have to learn to live together. We can either divide ourselves based on the little we quite frankly have as differences and build massive walls – this part of Sri Lanka for religion A, this part for religion B and so forth. OR we can hold hands, stop all this name calling and this “my religion is the greatest, my culture is the most superior” nonsense, collectively forgive all of our past mistakes (because as Sri Lankans, every single one of us are responsible for everything that went wrong) and move on. We need to focus on how we should find balance between our diverse cultures and respect what makes us different and have a strong common identity that binds us all together.

I have seen this happen. I have seen what happens when you put young people who have suffered at the hands of the LTTE and the Army in a room together. When you start communicating, that is when you realize that you have more in common that you ever thought you did…regardless of who made you suffer, empathy is in the pain that we all share and therein lies forgiveness, that in this beautiful country we live in, our future lies in the hands of not as Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim and Burgher separately but as Sri Lankans as a whole. I am not asking any of you to agree with me but just think about that!

  • Safa

    Unfortunately people tend to go by outer appearances and pre conceived notions when they pass judgement on others. Religon is meant to make oneself a better human being not to judge others. Discrimination based on race, religon, caste and creed has no place in society.

    Having said that, followers of all religons and non-religons have been and continue to be guilty of discrimination against others. It leaves a bad taste, hurts and offends people but then we cant expect everyone to understand the contradiction between their behaviour and the teachings of their faiths or systems of civilised society. The current global scene and even comments made in such fora bear ampple evidence to this type of intolerance.

    Guiding principle and the universal and fundamental truth should be the equality of all human beings. If religon or whatever system we follow does not teach this, then it is in conflict with this universal value or truth, whatever you may call it.

    In dealing with such situations it is best to excercise patience and restraint unless the situation is life thretening. As it is said there is no compulsion in religon and to you your way and to me mine. Maybe that one day people will realise the need for a united and just society free of discrimination and intolerance.

  • luxmy

    Anisha , you’re a great lady.
    I hope the real trouble-makers read this.

    • rita

      do

  • luxmy
  • Lanka Muslim, UK

    Anisha might have her own views of Islamic practices and practices of other religions. What has to be understood is that all religions have their basics and have guidance for followers as what they should do and do not. Accordingly, Islamic practices, be it either slaughter and consumption of cattle, dress codes etc. are followed according to Allah’s words explained the Holy Quran and examples set by the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon Him) according to the Holy Quran. So one who claims to be a follower of the religion cannot say that this or that practice is wrong. That is a strange position. Myself too I have lived and worked mostly with Sinhalese (Buddhists and Christians) and Tamils (Hindus and Christians) gone to Pansalas, Temples and Chruches when there are occasions. I have also strongly followed my faith Islam and have made the others understand the reasons for my engaging in the slaughter and consumption of meat which explanation my non-Muslim friends have willingly accepted. I remained a good Muslim, as far as I could before their eyes, earning their respect for being strong in what I believe and also respecting their beliefs. Trying to compromise ones own belief to satisfy others is a weakness.

  • mohamed

    I agree with anisa to some extent except few short shitings.
    I agree with her people should look in to more humanitarian side than anything else. But again this is what demanded in religion as well. Didn’t Buddhism advocate share what you have? Didn’t islam advocate you can’t be a good Muslim while your neighbor in need (let them be Muslim or non Muslims). The problem here is not religion in fact people who represent it incorrectly. All this problem we encounter is due to lack of knowledge and understanding about other culture. My advice is read about other religion from right source it will eliminate the smoke screen given in the main stream media.
    Regarding animal scarifies. Well let me question people here why it’s only attributed to cattle. Chicken and fish also got lives and we are not worried about them just because they are small in size. isn’t this act of violence then? Recent researches shows that even plant can feel the pain
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-112942/Plants-talk-say-scientists.html
    my question is why we worry too much about the food chain than human life? Can we change all people around the world to vegetarian? What will be the fate of people living in both hot and cold desert? Short sighting is commenting before an in depth analysis.
    I do respect all religion but that doesn’t mean that I have to practice them. A Buddhist cant be a Buddhist if he reject the principles of his religion and so do the Muslim, Christian or an hindu and other religious leaders have no rights to interfere in to anyone else practice.
    I am a sri lankan and my religion is Islam, I don’t give priority when it comes to food and water. Same is to my religion and my land. My religion never says to go away from the land I live and my land doesn’t care which religion I practice. I am a Muslim living in sri lanka. Just like my friend a Buddhist living in sri lanka. We both have no problem in calling ourselves as sri lankan. But for that matter I cant change what I choose to believe as its not necessary to be a sri lankan. Its only a demand by peple practicing a religion I don’t believe in!

  • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

    So glad Groundviews is back.

    Can’t speak for believers, but being a non-believer, from my perspective, this article is passionate, but it is entirely missing the point. The problem most non-believers like me have with religions like Islam isn’t its liberal followers. Of course we would mock them for cherry picking their Holy Books. But we don’t mind it very much because those Holy Books are false anyway. We object to their beliefs, but we don’t find them intolerable. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, even though we will find them false and at times ridiculous.

    What most of us really object to, and really can’t tolerate, is when religions make people do things that we deem harmful to humanity, like killing infidels, subjugating women, and executing people for apostasy and wanting to get rid of free speech which is one of the greatest achievements of human civilization.

    It’s true that only a handful of people actually go ahead and kill ambassadors because some guy shook Islamic faith by making a Youtube video. But many Muslims do believe that he got what’s coming for insulting Allah. Many of them carry signs that read “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” during “technically peaceful protests”, assuring that if they had more backbone they would do just that.

    All religions have this problem to different degrees. But Islam is just notorious. Disciples of Islam seriously need to grow up and become modern, just like the disciples of Christianity and Judaism that have the same crazy verses in their holy books but choose to ignore them.

    • http://www.groundviews.org Groundviews

      Thank you Sharanga. It’s good to be back.

    • Ahmed

      Well saranga, just like you see some belief as blind I see your belief evolution is blind, your justification of insulting others as freedom of speech is blind and expecting every dick and harry need to follow your way of life is blind and the root cause for all the problems. Either believe or disbelieve and we never choose part of the book and neglect part of the book, we don’t call them Muslims either. If your afford is to changing this attitude, well you are wasting your breath because it’s a well defined concept.
      Let the people of Palestine have their country from killing jewish Zionists, let the US stop attacking poor countries to grab oil and let the Myanmar restore the citizenship of people lived for long in that land. I find all these places Muslims are victims and not cause of the problem. In fact its your loving Americans and Europeans are creating problems all around the world by dividing and rule policy and blame is given to Muslims. It’s a known fact and don’t waste your breath on this either. Your justification of American law is only for America and perhaps you are aware of the fact that internet is not just confined to US.

      • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

        There are valid beliefs and invalid beliefs. Valid beliefs restricts expectations. That is, if the belief is true, then certain things are forbidden to happen. If evolution is true, then there is no way that you’ll be able to find rabbit fossils in the Pre-Cambrian. Show me such rabbit fossils and I will give up evolution.

        Invalid beliefs on the other hand does not constrain expectation. Your belief in god is like that. There is nothing that can convince you that he doesn’t exist. Each and every observation proves his expectation. No observation can disprove him, even in principle.

        Do you know what this reminds me of? Witch Hunting

        1. If the witch has led an improper life, she’s guilty
        2. If she’s led a proper life, this too was proof that she was guilty, because its advantageous to appear virtuous.

        3. When the woman is put in prison, and she’s afraid, she’s guilty
        4. If not, this too was proof that she’s guilty, because it is advantageous to appear innocent.

        This nonsense goes on and on. You can read “Cautio Criminalis”, for the details.

        It’s just how religious beliefs work. If your house wasn’t destroyed by the Tsunami, thank god. If your house was destroyed by the Tsunami, god works in mysterious ways.

        ***

        The funny thing about the internet is that if you don’t want to watch or read something, all you have to do is not Google it and click on the results. Haven’t the Muslim civilization figured this out yet?

        Muslims can’t play victims here. They can’t play victim after issuing a death sentence on a man for writing a book that questioned the faith. Seriously, one man named Rushdie wrote a novel criticizing the religion and you call that religious persecution?

        Islam is not the only religion that’s being mocked. But it’s only the Muslims who go around killing people for that. Why do you think that is? I don’t see Christians go around killing Dan Brown for writing Da Vinci Code?

        ***

        I find it humorous that Islam’s punishment for apostasy is death. How much sense does it make to force someone to accept faith at knife-point, and kill if they still want to argue against the self-evidently true and beautiful Word of god.

        • Ahmed

          I don’t BELIVE in dead fossils to accept scientifically one specie evolve from the other. This is the Pseudoscience the evolutionist believes in. Science is something experimentally repeating and observing in the real life. I had enough and more discussion on this BMW evolving from Benze story and I am sick of asking all these evolutionist to prove their case on lab with certainty. Take up the case again.
          1.Explain and produce your proof for cell formation from base elements (C,H,N,O) and show me the lab result for it.
          2.Explain to me how gender differences taking place in mutated species and consequently forming new specie which continues reproduction. In short how a mutated male finds with similarly mutated but a female from the same species where minor difference in mutation will not result in same specie. First of all you should understand that not a single advantageous mutation result is positive and count the probability of finding a female with same kind of mutation. Give a reliable lab test for your explanation on this.
          3.Why we don’t observe these mutations in real life or recorded history. adaptation is always attributed to evolution by these Pseudo scientist and Im not interested in adaptation where black man changed to white or one bacteria exchanging its gene to adopt to a new environment.
          4.Produce evidence for a macro organism with multiple cell structure changing from one spicy to another taken place in repetitive lab test
          I don’t need mere explanation; produce your result without claiming the old steel junk of BMW is the evidence for evolution of Benze.
          If not; you have the belief which doesn’t explain anything about intelligent design that we see around us.

          *****

          We are not cats to close our eyes and say, yah nothing is happening around us. I hope you are a grown up to understand this simple fact. those who insult islam without any evidence but for mere earning need to be punished and it is acceptable just like any law of any country. the common sense is that, dont try to make money with islam than you are safe. can any one question islamic practices. yes that is a different issue and your hero made fiction and not questioned. hope you know the differences.
          if you really care about human life than talk about million of killing taking place for oil and land by real terrorist living in US, israel and Europe. crocodile tears to one or two waste like salman rushdy is really a waste.

          *****

          I also find it humorous that Islam’s punishment for apostasy partly understood without taking any effort to grasp it fully. (May be you can take your time to read and understand this if you really care about it)
          http://www.islamicperspectives.com/apostasy1.htm

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            I will respond to you only once, just for fun. It’s predictably pointless to engage with long arguments with a person like you.
            So pretty much every respectable scientist (not just biologists) who lived after Charles Darwin is Pseudo-scientist? That’s hilarious. Let me nominate it as the funniest post-Darwinian joke. There, just nominated it.
            I will briefly respond to your hilarious objections. They are hilarious because it is idiotic for you to think highly intelligent people like Robert Trivers, Fischer, Maynard Smith etc. didn’t think of those questions. I will be brief because, well, there’s no way I can convince you that evolution is true. Since your disbelief in evolution is an invalid belief, it is protected from logical arguments and evidence.
            1. For one, how life began is not a question that evolution answers, or has to answer. Evolution is about how life evolved from primitive life forms to the complex ones we see now. For two, cells don’t form out of blue from base elements. Cells are complex structures. No. The first life form on earth did not have cells. It was just something that could replicate itself. It was far more basic than a cell. Again, this whole objection is irrelevant. Evolution doesn’t describe how life began. It only describes how life evolved from basic forms to complex ones.
            2. I don’t even know how to respond to this. This objection is one of the dumbest objections against evolution that I’ve ever heard. Evolution doesn’t require both the male and the female to have the same kind of mutation for it to work. That’s just ridiculous. Mutations happen all the time. If the mutation is big, most probably one with those genes would die. But some mutations don’t kill. Also, they don’t make it impossible for the one with it to reproduce. Usually these mutations are very subtle. For example, everyone else of species has black eyes, but the mutant has blue eyes. Now, if you have any brain, you’d realize that he doesn’t have to find a blue eyed girl if he wants to reproduce.
            3. Here’s a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment . I’m afraid the research papers themselves would be too hard for you to understand. They are usually more intellectually demanding than holy books.
            4. This objection is dumb, though not as dumb as the second one. It takes a little bit more brain to understand why this objection is dumb. Here’s why. Species don’t exist in nature. That is, nature itself doesn’t have species. Dogs don’t know they belong to one species. Species is just something human scientists have defined. But if you are interested, you can read the Farm-Fox experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
            ****
            The second part of your comment just proves the point I made. Although it is only a handful of Muslims that actually go around killing people, many of the rest would do the same if they had balls.
            ****
            The third part is funny. So suppose that the holy books really don’t recommend death for apostasy. Still, it was god’s will that people interpret it as if they say that the punishment for apostasy is death, since it is literally impossible to do anything against god’s will. Get it?

          • sabbe laban

            sharanga

            To be fair by Ahmed,you havn’t got the point that Ahmed was making with his question No.(2), because, the way he poses it is confusing!

            In other words, what Ahmed asks is, how did gender evolve in the very beginning: Say, there were two organisms of the same species with slightly different variations who never knew what sexual reproduction was!(say, they were primitive bacteria like organisms!)Due to these slight variatins, some of them could have had a better survival chance and selected by the natural selection and in time become a different species. Yet, this has not happened in evolution of the sexes, has it? How came the “male” of the species didn’t become a separate species and the “female” another separate species?(though, in a lighter vein they appear to be so, as far as the human species is concerned!)

            How did they know that they had to mix their genetic matter(say, by conjugation)as they didn’t know what sexual reproduction was? Are these questions answered? I really want to know.

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @sabbe laban
            Is that what he was saying? I’m surprised.
            I’ll try to be as brief as possible as this is not relevant to the main article. There’s not much controversy anymore about evolution of sex. But there still is a lot of controversy among scientists about the origin of sexual reproduction. There are few competing hypotheses. You realize that since these are scientific hypotheses, they are testable. But that doesn’t mean they are easy to test. For example, the Lenski Experiment I referred to above has been going on for more than twenty years and it is still going on.
            Perhaps the most popular hypothesis is W.D. Hamilton’s proposal that parasites are the most important selection pressure on living organisms. Because parasites evolve so incredibly rapidly, you need a rapid turnover of genes to survive them.
            In your comment you make a common mistake that even some evolutionary biologists used to make few decades ago. It is the mistake of not realizing that individual organisms are adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers. It’s not as if Adam, a young Homo habilis, ate an apple because he knew he needs to get its sucrose and extract its energy to survive. Adam didn’t know about sucrose or energy. Adam was hungry so he ate the first thing he saw, and survived. John, who did not have the genes to make him hungry, didn’t eat the apple and died before reproducing.
            All sexually reproducing organisms evolved from a single celled eukaryotic species. As you’d guess, a single celled organism, since it doesn’t have a brain, doesn’t know anything. It doesn’t even know that it needs to absorb things into it from the surrounding environment to survive. But only those organisms that actually did absorb things from the environment survived. The same is true for sexual reproduction. As I said, exactly what caused the origin of sexual organisms is still a controversy. But something in our ancestral environment made it very advantageous for those bacteria-like organisms to share genetic materials. Those that did share genetic materials didn’t know they were having sex (if you count what bacteria do as sex). They just shared genetic materials. Then something in the environment caused their lot to grow faster than the rest, until they were the majority of the total population.
            I know you still have questions. But I don’t think that this is the right place to discuss evolution. Hope it was illuminating though.

          • Ahmed

            @ sharanga

            I know all evolutionists like to escape when I put forward the question and I am not surprise by your answer either. When it comes to science I don’t accept just because someone say so, if I understand I accept and if not I keep silent.BTW I have the capacity to understand any scientific discovery no matter which field it represent. With your comment all I understood is that your scientific background is poor and to hide it you put forward the claim that others are not so intelligent. I am not surprise to hear that either as it was told to even Copernicus when his claim that earth was not resting in the center of universe.

            The truth is Darwinism itself contradicting the latest genetic study. if I repeat it again Modern discoveries such DNA directly conflicted with Darwin’s theory. Consider the fact that Darwin was completely ignorant of genetics, having died before this field was established as a science in 1900. In ignorance, Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics–that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny. Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents. Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children? No, his children will have two legs, because although the man’s body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.
            Now evolutionist states that “an important point to remember is that the variety of genes carried by all living species is the result of millions of years of random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.” But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest. Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information). Genetic drift, or gene shuffling, only involves the shuffling of existing genes within a kind. It does not explain the origination of any gene. Same evolutionist say “New alleles |genes| originate only by mutation.” The only way for organisms to acquire DNA other than what they inherited from their parents is for their DNA to change, or mutate. If their DNA doesn’t change, living things could never change regardless of how much time passes. Lizards could never become chickens and monkeys, and fish could never become philosophers. Since evolution rejects purposeful design, genetic change could only be random, or accidental.
            Evolutionist teaches that all the wonderful organs and enzymes in humans and animals–eyes, hemoglobin, lungs, hearts, and kidneys, all coded with DNA–arose totally by random chance through mutations in DNA. Consider the construction and operation of a machine. If random changes are made to a machine or the blueprint that codes for the construction of the machine, will that help its function? Absolutely not. Random changes occur every day that destroy the manufacture and function of machines. Likewise, random changes to information destroy the function and outcome of that information.

            Science conflicting with religion is something to do with Christianity in the middle age due to strict rules by the church against development of science. When it come to my religion it always promotes to learn the beauty of creation and the mechanism it is being govern. So from the day Islam came to date it has no problem with real science, in fact some quranic verses require the latest scientific discoveries to understand the true meaning of the verse. In short I go by what Einstein wanted to have (but of course he never was in such a system) “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”

            Pseudoscience believes in something without concrete proof but with mere explanations. The conflict of some religion with science would have turn these people to believe in pseudoscience. I don’t go by quantity and I do go by quality.

            Try to get the other side of the story as well, then access your knowledge so you also can come to the correct judgments. Not only me even Dr. Michael J. Behe was once upon a time an evolutionist and then became a critics due to clear loopholes in that.

            http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
            http://www.aboundingjoy.com/molecular-fs.html
            http://www.prophetsorevolution.com/BookList.html

            Now let me come to the 4 points

            1. abiogenesis is something evolutionist try to keep aside and try to escape. as to date none of the unanimated to animated organic compounds are properly explained and proved. With all the understanding of these molecules and developed technologies to control the environment; evolutionist in dark when it come to this subject. Even dawin proposed warm little pond and today the evolutionist have no clues about it and slowly leaving the subject aside. Tomorrow evolution will be restricted only to adaptation in single cell bacteria as this is the maximum it can take. All you did is mere explanation without single proven evidence.

            2.Thank you sabbe laban for your clarification to those who think they are the only genius under the sun. If anything controversial then it doesn’t carry concrete proof. To call it controversial there should be two result for single cause, but giving mere explanation without a single result and calling it a controversial really surprising me. Perhaps better read what is “advantageous mutation” to find out the real problem behind this question.

            3.My request for multiple cell organism and not single cell Ecoli and its adaptation. Hope you understood the question well. I said in my post earlier clearly evidence should carry multiple cell organism and should not produce adaptation as evidence of evolution. Perhaps after reading this you can differentiate real evolution that claimed from adaptation
            http://creationwiki.org/E-coli_mutation_and_evolution

            4.You simply miss the point or just acting as missed. Still it’s a fox and it can reproduce with other foxes in the jungle as it didn’t change anything other than some information it carries. Black man can mate with a white woman as both belong to human species though they may share different information in their DNA. The changes in the experiment are adaptation and not evolution. You didn’t produce any evidence for this request either.

            So while living in your BELIEF don’t undermine others!

          • sabbe laban

            Sharanga

            Thank you for the response! True, that, not all the questions regarding sexual evolution have been answered, yet it doesn’t disprove evolution by and large, as the heaps and heaps of evidence for it is so much!

            What I understood in my later “research” on sexual evolution was, that the early ogranisms who started to exchange genetic matter didn’t have a gender; even the present day earth worms, snails, tube worms and a lot more are hermophrodites. So it implies that those organisms who exchanged their genetic matter had a better survival chance, than the asexual forms. Later on, when it came to gender differentiation, the fittest surviver impregnated several females and it must have evolved on these lines! They virtually kept harems and this kept the group as one species, just like the social insects!

            None of these, on the other hand can be taken as proof of Ahmed’s “intelligent design”, as it seems that this “intelligent designer” has not been so intelligent in designing the genes, hence the malformed genes, and the immune system, hence the auto-immune diseases! Oh! What a flawed design!

          • Ahmed

            Sabbe laban
            Well, there are two problems when it comes to evolution and gender
            1.How the earliest hermaphrodite evolved in to gender differences is just one which is also just explained so far with words without single experimented result.
            2.The other part is for the evolution to continue this gender difference remain a hurdle. If I explain with an example. Lets take rabbits, if they go under some kind of mutation then according to evolution theory if that is advantageous ( meaning gives an healthy creature after mutation) it will produce another specie which is either male or female, let me call this rabitXF (lets say it’s a female). as this rabitXF cannot reproduce with existing male rabbits (as now it’s a different specie) it has to find another rabitXM which is a male but has gone through identical advantageous mutation process. Getting an advantageous mutation process itself not been proven true as most of the lab test produced only disadvantageous creatures which could not survive mean time these mutation can produce millions of results and finding the identical with gender difference will be a question to be accessed with probability ( if advantageous mutation is proven to be true)
            If there is a mechacine and its working fine then I will say there is a designer behind it, I don’t have to expect a perfect machine to think a designer to be there behind the design. Mean time your word itself the evidence that evolution cannot be accepted as malformed genes will not gives different species, it simply gives a distortion in the original system

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @sabbe laban,

            I thought that the fact that early organism who started to share genes didn’t have gender was obvious from my comment. Gender is a complex adaptation. There’s a theory in evolutionary biology, for a complex adaptation to work, it needs to be universal. For example, first there is gene A, then there’s gene B. Then there’s gene C which depends on A and B. For C to work, both A and B needs to be universal within the population. That takes time, which is why gender took a long time to evolve.

          • sabbe laban

            Ahmed

            Thank you for the prompt reply!

            When you say, “If there is a mechacine and its working fine then I will say there is a designer behind it, I don’t have to expect a perfect machine to think…” whom do you think you are talking about? it’s God with a capital “G” who is supposed to be “omniscent” and “omnipotent”, isn’t he? How can such an entity make a system where the immune system of the body fails to recognize “self” from “non-self and attacks itself? How can it create mal-formed genes where such children have to suffer life-long? By definition “God” cannot make ANY MISTAKE AND YOUR UTTERINGS ON THIS CAN BE TAKEN AS “BLASPHEMY”!

            I’ll continue with my answer after your response, Ahmed!

          • Ahmed

            sabbe laban

            as your other comment also related to this I have answered combing all here

            http://groundviews.org/2012/10/31/why-religious-intolerance-makes-me-mad/?replytocom=49133#comment-49153

    • Jayalath

      To Saranga

      Please learn to respect all the religions are existing in this planet . I do not see much different between the all religions in the world . I’m inherited to the buddhism , but I have lots of friends who are belonged to all religions . I’m an Athiest right now , and 46 years old . Living in London last 10 years , therefore , I’m old enough to understand the truth behind the all living thing . I have a golden opportunity to explore about the religions and technologically and scientifically high western world .

      Believe me , there are many many things that we have got to learn . I wish at least if you can think like Anisha .
      I have much things to add into my comment , but the time is the fact .

      • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

        @jayalath

        So lets get this straight. You would agree that Anisha is very lucky to be born in a moderately Islamic family, rather than in a ultra-conservative, fundamentalist family in Thaliban controlled Afghanistan, where she would be imprisoned in her home, forbidden to learn to even learn, right? She would also need to find four witnesses to prove it if she was raped, because otherwise she will be stoned for adultery. And if she was born in a African or middle-eastern country, into a fundamentalist Islamic family, she will be circumcised and infibulated, making it not only impossible for her to ever enjoy sex, but would also cause her great pain during her periods.

        Now you agree with upto that, right? That she’s lucky she doesn’t have to go through all that? And yet you want me to respect those teachings that make people do that sort of thing? Sorry, I have zero respect for those things. Shame on you if you are willing to let people do that kind of horrible things to other people.

        • Jayalath

          To Saranga .

          Yes, I do understand what you try to tell me , what I tell you is , we cannot accept every things has been said in a religion , as an example , genital mutation is compulsory in the Islamic law and many people do it because it is part of religion , and eating halal food is another example , but it is in the teaching of Islam , but what is the result of eating halal ? Ok, let’s put it in this way . We have 1.5 billion Muslims ,and we just imagine all of them eat halal meats, and we have 4.5 billion from other religions and faiths , so this 4.5 billion may not eat halal or definitely not care about eating halal, ok , my point is , what is the different between 1.5 halal eaters and 4.5 none halal eaters ? Are the people who eat halal live longer than none halal eaters or do they not get serious Heath problems than none halal eaters ,or do they more intelligent than none halal eaters ?

          No , honestly , there is no any advantage of eating halal meats , but it is followed by people who practice Islam . So, what is the advantage of blessed thread , nothing . Therefore , there are lots things to argue in all religions . No Muslims are consumed the alcohol ,but do not they get health problems like alcohol consumers , they do, then what is the end result of bunch of people in the world whether they did things in different Ways .,zero.

          We all will live if lucky maximum 90 with ten of thousand health problems . This is the truth , isn’t it ?

        • Ahmed

          Let me tell you what she will do if she is born to a life style some share

          She will side the injustice created by west and even justify the killing done for oil and land and finally will tell “they do all killing to make woman to get their rights back”. (in short killing for educating woman) while islam had enough and more Muslim woman scholars even at the earliest days of islam (scholars like imam malik one of the classical scholar of islam had woman teachers; in the golden period of islam, where Bagdad had many woman scholars pioneering all the field of knowledge, they did all while preserving their way of life and not became cats and dogs for the sake make some lowlives happy)

          She will be just like many ignorance try to put extreme practices to islam without taking any effort to educate themselves where clear explanation are plenty in the net
          http://islamqa.info/en/ref/427

          she will try to put the smoke screen against islam satating that it ask to wage war against everyone so that Islamic repelling against oppression can be suppressed to steal their wealth. However evidence against the killing of innocents are very well presented in islam
          http://www.whyislam.org/faqs/islam-on-violence/what-about-verses-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an-that-encourage-you-to-kill-non-believers-wherever-you-find-them/

          She will blame the prophet for sexual abuse but will not see the social acceptance of marriage at that period of time (and the service after the death of prophet aysha did by conveying the knowledge to the public she had which was a blessing to the society)
          http://www.guidedones.com/metapage/frq/Aishara.htm

          I can count on…
          Limelight will be she will not worry about millions of killing taking place all around the world for sake of Oil and to form a racist state call Israel. This may NOT sound as important as some low lives making a film or writing a novel to earn some money. What a pity

        • Ahmed

          Jayalath & gamarala
          You have a point jayalath but you can have it with the sole idea that human got full of knowledge in everything. We Muslim believe after identifying the reason behind the intelligent design that a designer exist and that power given us the law with full knowledge. Smoking creates problems to lungs just as drinking causing problem to liver. Just because I can see some live up to old age while having a good smoke, I cant justify smoking is good and no harm.
          Can you please explain how atheist define right and wrong in practice , for a Muslim the religion defines it and I hope same is true to other religious followers. But for an atheist none to follow or concept may vary among atheist, this is what I call state of confusion.
          For example, there was a time gay marriage was thought wrong and now it is considered as right by a section of people. Which section is right? If the world proceeds this way don’t you think one day having sexual relationship with their own mother will be a subject to argument just to find right and wrong.
          I do agree human differences cannot unify but for that matter your approach will not solve this, in fact it will increase the problems further. if you want to prove your way is correct than need to give some solid answers to unanswered question of life with some concrete evidence. This is what made people to believe in something and consequently formed a life style.
          The solution is simple for a country which shares multi religion and multi culture. Let the people believe in what they believe, no discrimination, no insult and respect others belief (not necessarily accept or practice it). If anyone wants me to follow their thought which is not complete then I would say such got the real mental problem not me.
          I don’t have any problem with a Buddhist practice his religion and my problem is when they interfere in to my set of belief and practices which doesn’t concern them. So do when it comes to having an atheist as friend. He can be the one he wants but should understand that I have the same right. Simply because you don’t have the full knowledge about life with concrete evidence (what was before the birth, how this system of intelligent design formed and what will be life after death) you simple cannot claim your way is right.

          • Jayalath

            To Ahmed,

            Dear , Ahmed .

            I had no any intention of pursuing this argument any further , as Im sick of discussing about the religion . It doesn’t mean that I’m not respecting to others beliefs or religions ,and ,Also , how they think or how they do things . why Did I say so is , ,because we will never win over debating religion .

            Ok ,you asked about the right and wrong of practice , well, I’m irreligious , that is my stand. Nevertheless , that I can see good & bad things in any religion . I have read Quaran a little bit not all ,and also have read little bit about Buddha, although, I’m inherited to the Buddhism.

            Do you know why I fed up with religion ? Because of associating these followers ,as they follow some thing and do some thing extremely contradicted . So, I have no sense about the religions ,honestly not .as I told u before my answer is , I do what I want and I tell what I want to , may be I’m out spoken , but it’s me.
            When I red the artical of Anisha , oh , I thought that I’m not alone in this planet , there are few people among us want to think differently , which I thought is great , awesome , phenomenal .

            Next one is a solid answer . , sorry your question is right up there , it drives me mad to find it . However , there are no solid answers to any thing in this world , because every object , every live and lifeless things ,exist and die . This is nature , as much as our life . This is solidly found in the science , in the science ,there is not eternity or infinity . In the Buddhism has similar theory to the science .,but not all at all .when we found the telephone , did we ever thought that we will find I phone , no ,. Saying that did we ever say , ok we found the phone , that’s all , no more . No, it will never stop bro, never , never .

            What we have to do for that , none stop questions ,question , question ,whom we should question ? Ask questions from every one , from parents , teachers , preachers , elderly people , scientists , artists , from every one . Every single thing has a meaning , every single thing has a value, so , we got to question , question . But be careful to embrace the nearest right one , unless , will be ended up in a mythical and mysterious world like heaven ,hell . I’m sorry , the hell and heaven theory is absolutly ludicrous to me ,.

            I m not frightened about the hell and heaven ,even if I had to queue up after death , because , we have done nothing wrong to be punish , then , who got to be careful . ? Number one on the queue of hell will be the politicians , they got to be very careful , not us .

            And ,Let me adds small thing to your knoledge , do you know chile , which is a country situated in north America , a small country next to Argentina , this country is a geographically like a long stripe , and this country has the higher altitude which is a natural geographical form , where scientists have placed number of telescope ( very large ones) to trace the aliens and their noices , basically not only for the aliens itself also to explore the universe in far better ways , lot of money has been spent to maintain those , (go to google telescopes in chile , you will learn more ) what is my concern is ,why those telescopes unable to trace any sign of having a Hell or Heaven , as these telescope can trace any thing ,even if they are few light years away, they are that strong . ( distance to each light year is 10 trillion kms ) (each light second is 300.000 km)

            Ahmed , I’m not a pundit or intelligent to teach you that much , but , the life is very short and complex. The short time we live we should be good friends and family , I’m very inquisitive and intuitive I love to listen to others . We may have different opinions , perspectives ,but we are lovely people not like many human animals . My mail is [email protected]

          • Gamarala

            Dear Ahamad,

            Certainly, I can explain how atheists figure out morals – the same way most sane people do – through reason and logic. For example, it stands to reason that if I act in a morally good way, and others also do so, all parties stand to benefit. Failing to stick to a good moral code results in chaos. This can be simply codified as the “golden rule” – do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

            Therefore, atheists, and much of the rest of the world, figures out what the right thing to do is, through debate, discussion and analysis, through application of the golden rule, the harm principle, etc. In fact, most of the developed world’s judicial systems are built on such nuanced analysis, not the immoral, unmoving edicts of ancient times.

            In contrast, those who derive their morals from religious edicts are essentially immoral. For example, if the holy book says, you should kill children if they believe in fairies, a religious person must obey that rule – after all, they must blindly follow the book. It is clearly evident that killing children for believing in fairies is not a good thing, regardless of what is written in the book. Yet, this is what religious people do day in and day out. For example, the bible/koran says that those who work on the sabbath must be killed, adulterers stoned, amongst thousands of other immoral things – which only the Taliban follows to the letter. Those who do not follow the law to the letter, clearly derive their morals from *elsewhere* – which means the books are useless.

            In other words, both atheists and sane muslims, christians etc. all derive their morals from anything but holy books – and if they are not insane – hopefully through logic and reason.

          • Gamarala

            Dear Ahmed,

            My apologies for misspelling your name. I was in a hurry and somewhat careless. I hope the editors can correct the mistake.

          • Ahmed

            Dear Jayalath

            I do agree religion is not practice by its followers properly. Mean time we shouldn’t neglect its contribution even now where it keeps human to some set of ethics. Its true that there is an extreme part of religion and its there in all religion. Now this is what threatening sri lanka after LTTE terrorism, while I am writing here I can hear on the news that some mosque is under attack in kurunegala adding in to the list of mosque attack in the country by some Buddhist. This will certainly bring down the credential for Buddhism in the international observation as people might think Buddhism can protect in sri lanka only by harming other religious freedom in the country. We can access the pros and cons just if there are no religions at all. What is the outcome, will the crime rate increase or decrease etc. Perhaps sri lanka would have faced more problem in absence of religions, who knows. What i can understand here is correct interpretation of religion is not harmful and that has been proven true with historical evidence and the surrounding I had grownup. I do agree with you in many points and I deduce some decision after going through a clear thought process which I had written here

            http://groundviews.org/2012/10/31/why-religious-intolerance-makes-me-mad/?replytocom=49133#comment-49153

            Dear gamarala
            I do understand your point; treat others the way you liked to be treated is part of religion too, in that matter I say (as I know) in islam. When a person came to get permission to do adultery, prophet asked the person will you like if your mother, sister or daughter falling in to such a practice, when the answer was negative from the person, he said, the one you commit with will be mother, sister or daughter of someone.

            On the other hand reasoning and logic is not always deduced to unified solution among all. Something reasonable to you may not sound reasonable to others. As I pointed out earlier people will form their own code of ethics and this will certainly come to some conflict. If religion can produce ten groups this reasoning and logic may produce hundreds such and this may aggravate the problem. Only solution at that point of time is allowing people to believe what they say logically correct. This is what I am asking to have with present set of belief which goes under the names of religions.

            What we should understand is human differences and unified solution is not possible. We can try to find unity within diversity. This is only by respecting (not necessarily accepting or following) others belief.

          • Gamarala

            Dear Ahmed,

            You said you didn’t understand my point. Which point did you not understand?

            Regarding “On the other hand reasoning and logic is not always deduced to unified solution among all. Something reasonable to you may not sound reasonable to others. “

            Sure. That’s why it’s necessary to discuss the issue, understand the moral implications, and then come to a decision after taking into account the facts. As I said, that’s how modern judicial systems work! Do you think modern judicial systems are unfair and immoral?

            Some issues may be difficult to agree upon. But gradually, human morality improves.
            For example, the bible/koran talk about war mongering and endorse slavery. They even describes how to beat your slave!

            Today, slavery is unthinkable. You yourself said that Mohammed marrying an underage child, or taking slaves etc. was ok since the time period was different. Clearly, though, if Mohammed lived in today’s world, he would be promptly jailed.

            So what has happened? Morality has improved, as we as human beings understand moral implications better, mainly as we reason about them more. Religion does not evolve – it mainly contains bronze age views of the world, and consequently, more often than not, bronze age morals. I’m not saying that there aren’t bits and pieces of common sense moral wisdom in Religion, but that wisdom has been superceded, which is why we should be looking at modern moral philosophy for guidance.

      • Gamarala

        Dear Jalayath,

        I cannot understand why religions should be entitled to respect. Religion is a belief, and beliefs can be valid or invalid. For example, if someone insists that the earth is flat, no one is obligated to “respect” that belief.

        Beliefs are things people can consciously choose to accept or abandon. When one chooses a belief, it is reasonable to expect that the belief is at least partially rooted in reality. If it is not, the belief is invalid, and those who insist on accepting invalid beliefs are mostly likely suffering from some form of mental failing – in the case of religion, a mental failing most often stemming from childhood cultural conditioning.

        Given that there are hundreds of religions out there, and given that most of them are mutually contradictory and cannot all be true, it is reasonable to conclude that the believers of these religions are suffering from a curable mental problem.

        I contend that we, as civilised human beings, are duty bound to cure such conditions.

        • Ahmed

          sorry.my reply had been posted on top

        • Ahmed

          Dear gamarala
          i tried to post it up its not accepting, so I’ll continue here
          well…I said I do understand what you said. please take time to read and get the point. sometimes we are in hurry and cannot grasp what other person says :)
          Well. Your model world has experimented once. Take communism in Russia. It worked just as what you said and finally what happened. Point is morality cannot be defined without set of belief as it doesn’t carry a value. A person in hunger will not abide by the rules if he doesn’t carry a value in terms of belief. He will do whatever he wishes to fulfill his requirement as there is no reason for him to obey the ethics, if a set of belief exist he will write abide by it and may violate as last resort. Mean time laws can be adopted with arguments but will that produce enough results? Take US and Saudi, which country leads in crime rate? I do not agree with Saudi when it comes to several laws as it doesn’t represent Islam but the reason its crime rate is less than US due to the set of belief. Economical and technological advancement not representing the social and moral advancement.
          Was the prophet marriage was a success or a failure? Was it was accepted by the society? Was that a marriage or anything out of wedlock? These what I asked to look. What is the right age for marriage even now? I see it defer country to country and place to place this shows still a unified conclusion do not available. in Islam puberty is the minimum age for marriage. Today we see 16 years old marrying even 51 year old in the west. Age differences for marriage is not in place even now. But child abuse, adultery, fornication which is done without any social acceptance is in an increasing trend and crime also follows this trend due to lack of belief.
          Islam advocating slavery? For your information islam is the first force in history mitigated many forms of enslaving and encouraged to treat them well and free them as per the requirement. The only form of enslaving was allowed in Islam was during the war when opposition had the intention of eradicate islam. In a time where prison system was not in place due to shortage of resources and prisoners were handled by individuals and treated them well is something to be appreciated as we see even now rape and killing is the ultimate gift a enemy line is getting. Also there are strict rules when it comes to treating slave and I can point many evidence in hadith regarding this.

          http://islamqa.info/en/ref/94840

          Tell me where morality has improved, in the west? Please don’t joke What is the moral you see,Leading a war to grab the oil and minerals and killing millions? Or giving peace price to cold blooded murders such as Ariel Sharon?
          I can keep on counting……….

  • walter

    To me religion is an absolute private matter.
    It is not necessary for anyone to display their religious beliefs publicaly. THIS IS WHAT HAS CAUSED SUSPICION.

    Muslims in particular want to demonstrate, to show to the public that their identity is different from everyone else.
    This has drawn the attention of the whole world.
    When the rest of the world is getting about their business the majority of the Muslims appear in a different attire and appearance.
    When you look at it in one way it appears that there is no real issue, but when you bisect it so many interpretations are emerging.
    If and when the Muslims get about their private business nobody cares whether they cover themselves or not.
    But when they enter a public institution they must fall in line with accepted practices.
    Example, In a classroom of 100 children whoses faces can be seen when you find two or three concealing their faces, that cannot and should not be accepted or tolerated. RELIGION MUST BE KEPT AT HOME OR IN MOSQUES,CHURCHES,TEMPLES AND KOVILS
    THE MAJORITY DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW THE DIFERENCE BETWEEN A MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, HINDU OR BUDDHIST.
    A Pastor in the U S is burning a koran the Muslims must deal with the Pastor in a civilized and legal manner.
    They should not be allowed to issue fatwas and threaten other religions. a cartoon is drawn in Holland the Muslims want to attack the whole Non Islamic world. THIS IS CRAZY.
    Any religion should be able to convert anybody else without a physical threat. If they appear to offer incentives then the receipient must decide, not any religious body.
    You see the ‘Anti Conversion Bill’ in Sri Lanka is not only meaningless but also purposeless.
    Why would Buddhist Priest’s and Buddhist’s burn Mosques and Christian places of worship?
    After all there is the Anti-conversion bill, Why the hell are they taking the law into their hands? They should go to Court, but they know that their defence will be shattered.
    Therefore they are acting with impunity, because they are supported by the Defence establishments and the Government.
    You see the height of ridiculousness. The Constitution already has given a special place for Buddhism, which is done omly in some Islamic Countries and the Majority here is over 70%, and with alll that protection they still want to suppress all other Religions.
    This is exactly they have done to the minorities. They are the Majority, they have special protection for the Sinhala language and now the whole dam’n theory has tumbled down, they have no way of rectifying the draconian laws which they perpetrated.

    • Leela

      walter,
      “The Constitution already has given a special place for Buddhism, which is done only in some Islamic Countries …” You are wrong: The Constitution of Norway imposes punitive action to those citizens that do not stick on to their religion. One of the clauses says; all the high positions in the Government are reserved only for those that follow its official religion – Lutheran Christianity. And mind you over 95% of Norwegians are Lutheran.

      Most western countries impose similar restrains in a round about way, if not through their constitutions. In France, Muslim children cannot wear head scarfs at schools.

      Yet you pick on Sri Lanka constitution. I say, our constitution is fair, if not fairer than any other in the world is. We have no restrictions what so ever as in Christian Europe. Yet, Christian web sites accuse us of being prejudice. And the NGOs backed by Europeans clamor for religious right in our streets. Truth is; they want to offer gifts to poor Sinhala Buddhists as a carrot and turn them Christian. They want such tactics to be a constitutional right.

      In the Oxford dictionary ‘bribe’ is described as a gift offered to influence a person to act in favor of the giver. If that is so, what evangelists offer to Buddhists is nothing but a bribe. And, bribe is abhorrence. No Buddhist would accept bribe as a fundamental right to turn Buddhist a Christian. They will never accept the use of bribe as an acceptable means of persuasion.
      Leela

    • Ahmed

      Muslims practice what they believe in just like any other, identity difference I see in all religion, country and race. Failure to accept these are the main curse to the world. Its peoples’ ignorance that expecting everyone to be their way and muslims do not demand this and its peoplea problem with people who can’t tolerate others. I don’t see a problem Buddhist priest wearing a robe, Christian father wearing his dress or nun wearing her dress. Or tamil or Sinhala wearing his /her national dress. As I pointed earlier here the main problem is wealth in the muslim countries and the afford to steal them under many smoke screen and all these pity issues are to hide them. Only point I can agree with you is religious freedom. No compulsion in religion

  • Jayalath

    To Anisha .

    First of all , I should thanked to your intuitive statement , which is in defiance and dignity.

  • http://www.sabithl.blogspot.com sabith

    good post young lady!

  • Jayalath

    Dear Anisha .

    I’m very greatful to you , because you have said how you feel, and from the life experience . It is an intuitive statement ,which is remarkably defiance and profoundly intelligent .
    But,sister, you will be blamed by majority people of your religion for giving a statement against the slaughter of animals and wearing blessed thread, which is contradicted to your religion , therefore , you have upset lot of people which I can realised by reading out some of the comments given above . The reason is we are living with very fewer intelligent people in the world who are only amount of handful .They are belonged to all races and religions in this small world we live .

    I’m inherited Buddhist person ,but I m very sceptical about the all religions in the world and their teachings , but do not get me wrong that I respect to all religions equally , as none of the religion is teaching of doing wrong things .but the problem is when it comes to follow , are we followed the religion ? The religion is not a monument or a symbol , it teaches you or guides you that how should we live in this world as a human being , in respect to each other and constantly dedicating to preserve the environment , including animals and trees of planet for the future generation . As we cannot live alone without well protected environment . The best nearest example is desert, can we live in a desert ? But we can live in a place with lot of trees , and when there are few animals too , why ? It brings us enormous pleasure , which is psychological and physical . ( there are many more benifits out in environment ,which is not given )

    Also, I may bring to your attention one more thing about the religion. The buddhism is about 2500 years , Christianity is 2012 ,and Islam religion is there about 1400 years and the world population is 7 billion right now . So, where is the place of our world now after 2500 years of religions and their teachings ? Could you guess , how many of them are really following the religious teachings , honestly, it would be very few .

    Therefore , to my guess the religion is a failed process, which has failed to succeed what it has aimed . Just imagine in Sri Lanka , we have been following the Buddhism for 2500 years , but where is the end result ? Failed result . Whole society is corrupted ,social deprivation ,theft , murdering ,unfairness ,dishonest , unkindness ,this is totally opposite to the religion ,but , we are religious to it’s name , not to it’s principal , or spirit .
    This is my argument ! Where is the human values ? What has happened to the humans ? This is needed to be widely concern. Where did we go wrong ? If we took panadols for the headache that headache should has been healed ,if it is not worked , then , there is some thing to be concerned about .

    And , I will come back to animal slaughter and blessed thread . Do you that first humans have been evolved from Africa and spreaded in right cross the

    • Leela

      Jayalath,
      Please note that Buddha had never said; he or his Dhamma will guide everyone in this world or even a section of it to be ideal people. Neither had he said that those who follow his Dhamma will go to heaven or Nivana and others to hell to burn forever. Western education has blinded our traditional knowledge.

      Read what Uttiya Sutta in Anguttara Nikaya says; a wanderer named Uttiya went to the Buddha to clarify number of questions about Universe.

      Uttiya asked; “Whether it is the case that the cosmos is finite…’ or … ‘The cosmos is infinite ….” Buddha had always answered queries in this way; “Uttiya, I have not declared, it is the case that the cosmos is finite … or have I declared, “The cosmos is infinite….”

      Realizing the Buddha’s position had been not to answer questions unrelated to his Dhamma but prevaricate the subject throughout long discussions to purification of beings through his Dhamma, Uttiya asked the question in another way round.

      Uttiya asked; “And, Master Goutama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding. Will all the cosmos be led to release, or a half of it, or a third?”

      Buddha s silent first and then said; “…the Tathagata does not endeavour to have led all the cosmos or half of it or a third of it to release by means of his Dhamma. But he does know this: All those who have been led, are being led, or will be led to release from the cosmos ….”

      Buddha had never said that he will lead the entire universe or even an exact section of it to release them from the noble truth. One could also assume according to Buddha Dhamma theories like Big Bang where they assume a beginning is a myth.
      Leela

      • Jayalath

        Dear leela

        Can you explain me how did Buddha know about the Cosmo? them days , there were no any scientific studies ,I prefer to hear with evidence , how did he say so, thanks

  • Jayalath

    World. We as the humans in the very early lives what we ate ? If you can remember that we firstly found fire and sharpened tools randomly . First stone tools have been found in 2.5 millon yers ago Then we learned to kill animals and consume them . This is the truth and our early ancestors always ate meats . For over 2 million years, 99 per cent of human history, man has been a hunter .it is only about 10000 years ago that man turned farmer ,controlling a crop and settling in one place long enough to see it ripen .

    So, I cannot realise whether there is any truth in relation to some religions teachings of not to eat animal ‘ s flesh or slaughter .and , the blessed thread is also contraversal to me , actually , can there be any truth ?

    However, we can argue with religious issues and religions as much as we want , but , as I told you before , it is an unsuccessful and infinite process .

    I remember that Albert Einstein once had said that foolish faiths in authority is worst enemy of the truth.
    Therefore , it is unwise to waste time on religious issues , so ,what is our argument should be there for ?
    Yes , we should tune into the real problems we face today ,. The real problems are , rising population around the world , depletion of natural resources , ( water, oil, gas ) the infertile soil , climatic changes , pollution, natural disasters .,education , these are the real threats should have addressed.

    • Leela

      Einsteinist! Better than being a theist, the result of shear fear of the One God an ancient man named Abraham introduced as the most powerful and the creator of everything yet couldn’t and cannot stop any evil but promoted all the mayhem through his Prophets and followers ever since he was introduced.
      Leela

      • Ahmed

        how do you explain the intelligent design? yah, everything came by itself. P.S concept of one god was there even before Abraham. haven’t you heard of noah story. do you want me to list down the atrocities by non Abrahamic religion before and even now? burning in Gujarat and Myanmar are done and doing by whom?

        • sabbe laban

          Where is your intelligent design, Ahmed? Your “divine designer” created millions of galaxies and billions of stars just to create this species called Homo sapiens on an insidnificant planet which revolves round an average star?

          Interesting! More than that, what a waste of space!

          • Ahmed

            Well, i see the design and purpose from universe to atom and there are enough and more books about this amazing design covering many aspect. If I start writing them I am not sure how many days and night I have to spend. As for your question, well the dark energy in the space is the one expanding our universe in an accelerating speed and the benefit we receive from this at present is less foreign matter threat to our plant as each galaxies try to apart.

            http://www.nasa.gov/missions/deepspace/f_dark-energy.html

            well in long term there is a disadvantage and one or the other day our sun will lose it’s energy. For that matter everything got an appointed time.

            They have rejected the truth and follow their own fancies. But for everything there is an appointed time. (Quran 54:3)

          • sabbe laba

            Ahmed

            In other words, what you are telling is that, God created billions and billions of galaxies in order for the humans to inhabit those, someday in the future, right? I got your point, and I’m amazed at the “far-reaching divine plan” of your creator who couldn’t take some little measures to prevent thelasaemia, conginital heart defects, Down’s syndrome, anancephaly, haemophilia, etc. Not only that, he couldn’t make some simple adjustments to prevent hernia and chronic back problems which are due to our walking on two legs!

            For all this, I don’t see the need to quote things like dark matter and dark energy, Ahmed! You don’t believe that evolution is true, but ironically you seem to have no problem with dark matter! Maybe because the scientists have discovered all the dark matter particles like WIMPs, and proven their existence! Can you name some of those dark matter particles so discovered, Ahmed?

            If they find that there are many more forms of life on other Earth-like planets and some of them are far advanced than us, what would you say about your crator’s “divine plan” in making the humans? When the things don’t tally with the ‘Holy Book’ you simply discard them, eh?

          • Ahmed

            sabbe laba
            dark matter is something already proven with experiment. If I make it simple by studying the distribution and temperature of the hot gas in a part of galaxy we can measure how much it is being squeezed by the force of gravity from all the material in the cluster. This allows to determine how much total material (matter) there is in that part of space. it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called ‘dark matter’. In short there is a clear procedure and experiment to identify them. I am not neglecting genetic study. I am neglecting assumptions which come under the name of evolution without concrete proof. When it comes to chemical reaction we don’t assume things and present as science, we go for the experiment stage to prove it. Same is true in biology. When it comes to astronomy we build models from observable and experimented facts. Expanding universe is an observable fact with Doppler Effect and existence of dark energy is proven to be present and big bang theory is a model which was developed with above and other observable facts. That’s why its call a theory and an alternative model which satisfy all the observable facts can be accepted if present as an alternative theory to big-bang.

            Nowhere god has claimed that within this dimension he created anything perfect. But what ever he created has a design and engineering. He himself stating that everything is temporary and a perfect dimension is not here. This life is all about trying to be eligible to be in that perfect dimension which is called haven. Existence of several dimension is just appearing in science and I am sure you are aware of m-theory. Of course its still not proven to be true as there are limiting factors when it comes to experimenting such advanced theory. So far its only mathematically true. then you might question why I am believing in things which doesn’t have concrete evidence. If I keep my trust only in science than I have to accept only what science says. But again science has its own limitation, I trust science anything within this limitation. In its yardstick only comes what is detectable, observable and testable. What about things beyond this limit. This is the place I choose a religion as science cannot answer many unanswered question. I studied 5 major religions (Judaism, Cristianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) and try to find the concept of super natural power and an acceptable definition for it after observing the design by it. I am convinced abut islam when it come to this. The simple reasons are it gives a clear difference between creator and creation, it links the previous religions and it explains how man altered the original religion which is one. (if I start writing about this again I need hours to present my research which I can’t effort to have). So you may ask do I believe in stories like adam and forbidden fruit. Well, what if there is intelligent and free will creatures like human and plotted a plan against human just to send to imperfect dimension that we live now. Point is we don’t have concrete evidence to say there is no supernatural power. As jayalath says we have to consider all alternatives and choose one which can seems to be true. that will be an individual choice.

            My point is; this is my understanding and conclusion. People might have different understanding and conclusion which may sound true to them. its their choice and certainly i will not accept as I have my own analysis but I can respect other beliefs, meaning I accept that ideas which is different than mine are really present and people have the right to believe whatever they want at their own risk. No compulsion in Religion.

            What if they find another planet which is advanced and they also have religion. Do I have to discard the book?

          • Ahmed

            I also would like to point out when I write about allah, I am using “he”. Many confuse it to a masculine gender. I think some clarification on this regard would be useful to understand my above point.

            http://ww2.onislam.net/english/shariah/quran/reflections/435340.html

            and
            http://en.islamtoday.net/node/652

          • sabbe laban

            Ahmed

            Thank you for the reply.

            When you say, “My point is; this is my understanding and conclusion. People might have different understanding and conclusion which may sound true to them…” I don’t disagree, yet the problem is, don’t you consider that what is written in your “Holy Book” is absolute truth and “literal word” of “God”? In this scenario it’s your duty to engage in “jihad” until those people too accept the “absolute truth” of your “holy book”, isn’t it?

            Once again, can you name some of the dark matter particles experimentally proven to exist? As you talk about the String Theory, you must be familiar with the idea that “branes” collide in a cyclical manner and countless number of universes are born! This effectively negates the requirememt for a “creator”, doesn’t it? What do you if the Buddhists say that this agrees with their interpretation of the universe?

            Once again, there is NO ESCAPE from the fact that “God” HAS TO BE perfect! If God is not perfect, he is not omniscent and omni-potent! “God” wouldn’t make anything imperfect nor will he “experiment” with various animals for 3billion years before “creating” man, his final creation; because he is God and “he knows all!”. Such a God would fall flat on his face! As we see the imperfections in the world this “God” you are talking about has fallen flat too! So don’t try to make silly excuses on behalf of “Him”, Ahmed.

            For example, when you say: “Well, what if there is intelligent and free will creatures like human and plotted a plan against human just to send to imperfect dimension that we live now….”

            Do you have any experimental proof to the above?

          • Ahmed

            Sabbe laban

            I know many islamophic sides raising the issue that Muslims should fight until every non Muslim accept Islam. In fact it’s their claim and not a request by god, this idea is propagated with partial reference of the text to demonize Islam and consequently steal the wealth that muslim countries. Religious freedom is preached in islam because Muslims believe god is the judge when it comes to belief and every sole is responsible for its own belief in front of god. However islam doesn’t tolerate oppression. A clear explanation regarding your point is given here

            http://muslim-responses.com/Fight_until_they_convert/Fight_until_they_convert_

            let’s take sri lanka. Sri lanka was known to Islamic world for its richness and wealth. It had trade relationship. have you ever encountered in the history Islamic world ever try to occupy sri lanka just as European imperialism had done in the past. The answer is NO. the reason is sri lanka was never been a threat to Islamic world and cordial relationship was maintained by sri lankan rulers with Islamic world for thousands of years. If fighting is obligatory against every non muslim as you have in mind why then a small country with immense resources and a strategically placed for trade was left alone by superpower with had best navigating resources and army at that time? Fact is many non muslims even in this forum know little about islam and that is also from a wrong source which doesn’t represent Islam

            I think I clearly explained how to identify the dark matter by an experimented understanding. I don’t have to go to the extent of classifying drak matter to prove it existence. The ekpyrotic model that you are talking about which is created from the collision of branes is also a theory which is extrapolated from the big bang assuming such incidents are repetitive. For this theory to take hold we need to observe some fact related to the big crunch, such as deceleration in expansion of universe (which for now in accelerating in expansion and no evidence is presented for its deceleration). So far bigbang model is constructed with observable facts and not the big crunch.

            God is perfect and I didn’t say my religion is claiming god created everything perfect in this dimension or universe whatever you call it. it’s a claim that you had taken from somewhere. All I pointed out is his creation in this universe got a design and engineering. Just study about human anatomy don’t you find design and engineering in that? Same true in everything I see around.

            I think you didn’t get my point clearly, I didn’t say that I am keeping whole my trust in science alone. I have clearly explained this. you and some others here is the one keeping their trust only in that but accepting some assumptions on this process when it comes to unexplainable. My position here, I am accepting science when it comes to observable, detectable and testable and accepted there is a limit when it comes to science which in fact is the reason I am going to find answers in religion. M-thoery is an example that I have pointed out to show the limitation of science.

            Can you prove there is no such intelligent creature to negate my belief?

            No point in beating around the bush or trying to keep the last word. I hope I have written clearly what is my position :)

          • sabbe laban

            Ahmed

            No problem, take your time!

            Thank you for the link; I will read it after writing this! In the meantime, you can go through your “Holy Book” to see whether there are any vague similarities between those theories and the “God’s word” in that book! For an example you can see whether it is mentioned in the “Holy Book” that whales were not created by the “intelligent clock-maker”, as there is a complete fossil record of the whale to say that they came from land mammals!

            Going back to the question that bothered you most, “would a perfect creator design an imperfect world”, I would like to say that the vast number of imperfections or defects of the “intelligent design” has made it look like something quite the opposite.

            Do you say that these imperfections too, were deliberately “created” by the creator to “test the faith” of ‘His’ ‘children’? For an example the believers of Indonesia were struck by the Tsunami, and so were the ‘non-believers’ of Japan; the believers of Pakistan and Iran were hit by earthquakes as well as the non-believers in Haiti and Chile! The believers get deformed children and so are the non-believers! The believers get cancer and die and so are the non-believers! Some of the non-believers get “miraculously” cured from cancer or escape certainly fatal accidents and so are the believers! The believers who commit crimes live until a ripe old age and die naturally, and so are the non-believers! The believers who live pious lives die suddenly and so are the non-believers! The believers who live pious lives live up to a ripe old age and so are the non-believers! Can you show any statistical significance in all these phenomena that points being a believer is more beneficial, Ahmed? (Does this sound like a sermon?)

            Please come back dude! 8D

          • sabbe laban

            Dear GV

            My last comment is posted in a wrong place! Please be kind enough to arrange it, so that it appears under the last comment by Ahmed!

            Thanks

          • sabbe laban

            Ahmed

            No problem, take your time!

            Thank you for the link; I will read it after writing this! In the meantime, you can go through your “Holy Book” to see whether there are any vague similarities between those theories and the “God’s word” in that book! For an example you can see whether it is mentioned in the “Holy Book” that whales were not created by the “intelligent clock-maker”, as there is a complete fossil record of the whale to say that they came from land mammals!

            Going back to the question that bothered you most, “would a perfect creator design an imperfect world”, I would like to say that the vast number of imperfections or defects of the “intelligent design” has made it look like something quite the opposite.

            Do you say that these imperfections too, were deliberately “created” by the creator to “test the faith” of ‘His’ ‘children’? For an example the believers of Indonesia were struck by the Tsunami, and so were the ‘non-believers’ of Japan; the believers of Pakistan and Iran were hit by earthquakes as well as the non-believers in Haiti and Chile! The believers get deformed children and so do the non-believers! The believers get cancer and die and so do the non-believers! Some of the non-believers get “miraculously” cured from cancer or escape certainly fatal accidents and so do the believers! The believers who commit crimes live until a ripe old age and die naturally, and so do the non-believers! The believers who live pious lives die suddenly and so do the non-believers! The believers who live pious lives live up to a ripe old age and so are the non-believers! Can you show any statistical significance in all these phenomena that points to, being a believer is more beneficial, Ahmed? (Does this sound a bit like a sermon?)

            Please come back dude!

          • sabbe laban

            Dear Ahmed,

            No problem, take your time!

            Thank you for the link; I will read it after writing this! In the meantime, you can go through your “Holy Book” to see whether there are any vague similarities between those theories and the “God’s word” in that book! For an example you can see whether it is mentioned in the “Holy Book” that whales were not created by the “intelligent clock-maker”, as there is a complete fossil record of the whale to say that they came from land mammals!

            Going back to the question that bothered you most, “would a perfect creator design an imperfect world”, I would like to say that the vast number of imperfections or defects of the “intelligent design” has made it look like something quite the opposite.

            Do you say that these imperfections too, were deliberately “created” by the creator to “test the faith” of ‘His’ ‘children’? For an example the believers of Indonesia were struck by the Tsunami, and so were the ‘non-believers’ of Japan; the believers of Pakistan and Iran were hit by earthquakes as well as the non-believers in Haiti and Chile! The believers get deformed children and so do the non-believers! The believers get cancer and die and so do the non-believers! Some of the non-believers get “miraculously” cured from cancer or escape certainly fatal accidents and so do the believers! The believers who commit crimes live until a ripe old age and die naturally, and so do the non-believers! The believers who live pious lives die suddenly and so do the non-believers! The believers who live pious lives live up to a ripe old age and so are the non-believers! Can you show any statistical significance in all these phenomena that points to, being a believer is more beneficial, Ahmed? (Does this sound a bit like a sermon?)

            Please come back dude!

          • sabbe laban

            To read the continuation of the confrontations of this “Highlander series”, please go to the end of this thread!

        • sabbe laban

          Dear Ahmed

          The whole point I’m making, was that you and the other creationists of monotheistic and polttheistic world religions, do is going in circles to prove that there is an intelligent designer called God, who communicates with the believers; so that they are treated nicely in heaven, and the others are going to an eternal darkness!

          The argument on God will never cease until the end of human civilisation! The simple reason is that the weak human mind looks for something divine and something super-natural to solve their day-to-day issues. Your looking for an intelligent design in the nature is a similar thing(you are not alone in this, as it’s the Christian fundamentalists who proposed this to be accepted as a “scientific theory” in US text books and failed!)

          The famous physicist Steven Hawking says that what we see as “an intelligent design” is in fact the result of a long process that has started as a mere random event. To simplify it, the question as to why does the world look the way it is(like the precise size of the H atom and our position in the solar system)a question created by us due to our lack of understanding. For an example, if it WERE another kind of a universe where H atom was of a different size, WE in the first place wouldn’t have existed to ask that question! In other words what we see as precisely selected is a mere result of random selection of this state. This implies that there are countless such possibilities and in fact such universes do exist! Yet, as WE don’t live in those universes, we can’t question about them!

          Finally, a short note about the “big crunch” of the universe: You seem to have mistaken the cyclical Big Bangs suggested by the String Theory with the Big Crunch! The point is, Ahmed, that even though the universe keeps expanding at an increasing rate, after a long time the space will become “virtually” empty; that is, the space will becomes nearly flat. This will be the time for another Big Bang to occur out of nothing, as it is a quantum fluctuation and the energy of this flat space cannot be zero, according to quantum physics!So, it’s a random fluctuation and no law of physics prevents universes coming into existence out of nothing!

          As you see, this has removed the need for a creator, and the rest…..boils down to a cause and effect relationship! You see this subsequent cause and effect relationship as an “intelligent design” which is nothing but flawed logic!

          Sorry if I burdened with too much of technical details.

          • Ahmed

            Dear sabbe labban
            I will write soon once I get time.
            P.S i can understand technical stuff as its my profession. Just to avoid misscommunication between us when it come to some technical stuff, its better to get some better Idea. Actually you didn’t get what I said as I don’t think you are familiar with Ekpyrotic model . pls kindly go through to understand what I said.
            http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
            http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-start-of-the-universe-with-string-theory.html

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            Dark matter, string theory, big crunch????

            I mean, seriously?

            It’s more simple than that. God is said to be omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent, and he created the world. So he’s responsible for every single thing that happens in the world, both good and bad. It is literally impossible for someone to do something against god’s will because god is omnipotent and omniscient. If someone kills a man, that is only because god allowed it to happen. Not just that, since god created everything, he created the murderer, knowing full well what he was doing.

            So he’s responsible for starving kids in Africa, cancer, and everything else that is bad about the world.

          • Ahmed

            Dear sabbe labban

            As is said I didn’t go not to return and if time permits I can explain every single issue that you are raising up in detail. As its not possible here, I’ll try to make my answer simple as possible.

            First of all, I know Stephen hawking writing and his limitation. Once in a while he comes with hype just like he is having concluding evidence in hand, but the reality is difference. for example in his first book “a brief history of time” he claimed big bang was a singularity and in his new book “the grand design” he favors the string theory which may not support his earlier claim. On the other hand not every theoretical physicist taking his position blindly, some even try to figure out of the laws of physics and the intelligent cause behind this law, i.e information factor. Random event and natural selection requires energy and matter alone but the design requires information processing that also part of creation. This is what not only Stephen even Richard Dawkins missing in his claims. When it comes to science its necessary to look at the facts behind it and a court ruling which is similar to middle age church decision has no impact what so ever when it comes to intelligent design.

            When you refer the evolution of whales and fossils I am really surprised you haven’t considered many aspects. Evolution has to happen in this atmosphere where reasons are biased in attributing. For example, evolution of whale resulted in one pair of flippers (front pair of leg became flippers and next pair of leg disappeared) but evolution of shark resulted in two pairs of flippers both in front and back. Both happened in same water where flippers are use to swim and navigate when it comes to survival. Why is this difference? Many fossils had many missing components and there are many assumptions in arranging the borns. Conclusion with absence of evidences is considered as science. There are many other drawbacks in addition to this and clamming completeness without anything is what I call pseudoscience.

            http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-

            I even see these evolution even in the cars

            http://topmy.com/2012/04/07/evolution-cars/

            http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/the-evolution-of-the-ferrari-formula-one-race-car-ar91140/picture364073.html

            hope in the future these changes in the car will be considered as evolution without considering the structural changes done by human. Same is true when it comes to evolution where leaps in design cannot happen without modification in DNA which is found difficult to take place without distortion ( mutation ) adaptation is a concept inherited in design to suite the environment in existing organs. Man changing his color according to climate is adaptation and not evolution.
            the main drawback I see in evolutionist, they fail to grasp events as a whole system which had to take place within this universe and the information components in the systems, let it be a physical law or DNA. in front of modern science random choices are no longer design parameters, let it be atom, universe or living organism. These are three videos I’ll present to you. Take your time to watch all three. This is just a tip of an iceberg.

            first
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo

            second
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD0N2tiodlk&feature=related

            third
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7F9gkFNi4&feature=related

            Quran is not a book of science to present the full blue print about the creation. Mean time it has given the clues which may suit time to time. After watching the videos don’t forget to read the verse “We shall show them our signs in the Universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is the witness of all things?” (Quran 41:53)Mean time some description of modern science is not ruled out in the quran either

            http://www.islamreligion.com/category/34/

            Imperfect world is not really imperfect as billions of creatures still live with perfect health. Some Imperfection is part of design to bring an end as everything got a time. Nowhere it is mentioned by the creator that this world is for believers or non believers. it is mentioned that the reward is in the next. Mean time god has given the guidance to be victorious in this and the next upon full submission. Muslim world was leading in science in a time when they obeyed the rules, on the other hand west is leading in science when they disregarded their belief which indeed man made alteration. So not just belief, the correct belief is what matters. so the belief should be from the right source. Some here got confused about fate and divine creed, etc. if anything wrongly understood it’s the fault of a person and nothing to do with the creator.

            http://www.al-islam.org/godattributes/volit.htm

            I can keep on writing, but it’s not the topic of this forum and I cannot spare that much time. Mean time addressing each and everything in detail is not possible here. If anything more to be understood can contact me [email protected] , when time permits I will answer insha allah.

            Finally intelligent design (ID) I am looking at is not driven by the personal needs as ID is driven real scince and not by assumptions, in fact those who want personal needs to be satisfied at any cost are the one rejecting the truth as upon belief they can’t do whatever they wish ;)

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @Ahmed

            The following link you provided doesn’t work:

            http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-

            However, I was able to view it through Google cache (Thank god for Google cache). There I found that the article was written by a guy named Jonathan Sarfati. The guy believes that the earth is only 6000 years old. So before you read anything he has written, the prior probability of whatever he says about evolution, let alone geology, being true is very low.

            I read the article anyway, and lo and behold, I was thoroughly convinced that evolution is false. Evolution is total nonsense. I mean, what have I been thinking?

            First of all, isn’t it obvious that if whales evolved from mammals, there should be a fossil record as good as evolution or video tape. I mean we’re only talking about we’re only talking about some 50, 60 million years ago here. So what happened to all those fossil links. And by the way, the number of those missing links can only increasing. I mean, what are these evolutionists thinking. Suppose if there is one missing link between A and B. Now suppose that some guy finds this missing link. Let’s call it X. Now you have two missing links, one between A and X, and the other between X and B.

            Of course there are those pseudoscientists who make about 99% of the so-called scientific community who thinks that they don’t even need fossils to prove evolution. They say that we are lucky to have fossils, because Darwin never even imagined in his wildest dreams that we’d be able find fossils. Darwin didn’t even know what fossils were, because they were only discovered in 20th century. These pseudoscientists think that they can prove Darwinism without fossils, using DNA evidence and other scientific experiments like the one Lenski did. But who cares. If they have missing links in the fossil record, then evolution is totally false. There’s no way that all animals ever lived couldn’t have survived as fossils over billions of years.

            I mean, they can give us whatever they think as evidence to us. They can give us DNA, Lenski, and whatever else they like. But we want settle for nothing less than our preferred evidence: fossil records and evolution on video tape (In full HD).

            I especially liked the way Sarfati describes evolution in his self-evidently true, beautiful book Refuting Evolution. He says:

            …evolution is not just about ape-like creatures turning into humans. Evolution is a philosophy trying to explain everything without God.

            If that is not wit, I don’t know what is. Have anyone ever surmised evolution so accurately and so succinctly. I don’t think so.

            So thank you very much for showing me the light, Ahmed. If not for you, I’d never have realized that Darwinism is total nonsense and creationism is totally true. Thank you thank you thank you. No amount of thanking would be enough. Thank you.

          • Ahmed

            Thank you for highlighting the link. Good that you have gone through the correct link.
            http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution
            I am surprised that sabbe labban didn’t highlight that. So people are talking without any effort to listen what other person says.
            You didn’t refute much of the contents in the link. Regarding the author, well I look at the content and not the author. If contents support the facts, that’s what matter to me. I don’t believe in many things he believes in either. Same is true with Stephen hawking, I accept some of his writing which are factual and I rejects the assumptions. Please use the same Google to analyze some more about fossils, such as interbreed of hose & donkey (i.e pony) and their incapacity to reproduce, possibility of placing them in the missing links if these facts are not known, Similarity in lion and tiger bones and considering them as same species if the same procedure of fossils play exist, etc.
            Mean time, don’t forget to watch three videos above which speaks the fact.

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            I bet that they didn’t click on those links because they usually contain total unscientific nonsense about established science, kind of like what you’ve written here. But they should really read Jonathan Sarfti. The guy is total genius who has understood that the number of missing fossil links can only go up every time that a new fossil is found, has realized that every single animal ever existed should’ve survived as fossils over billions of years, and has realized, contrary to those pseudoscientists (who make up about 99% of so-called scientists), that the strongest evidence that support evolution is not DNA evidence and experiments like Lenski’s, but rather need to be fossils of dead animals, even though Darwin figured out evolution without them.

            The man’s a genius, and is an expert on geology, just like he’s an expert in evolutionary theory, and believes the earth is only 6000 years ago, and was created in 6 days. People should definitely read him. He’ll certainly convert you.

          • Neo scientist

            Thank you Ahmed for sharing those videos. I hope it helped people with proper scientific knowledge. These videos helps to question the traditional belief naturalist got in their belief system. I am sure people with just high school level of education may find difficult to understand real science, still worth giving a try.
            Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% were creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll. This includes many that turned to intelligent design promoters such as Dr.Michael Behe and prof.Dean H. Kenyon as evolutionist. It’s really funny that evolutionists do not considering the trend of loosing importance for evolution among scientist.

    • Ahmed

      jayalath

      i can understand your feeling for the service to the man kind, i am sure no one in this blog will dispute over it. mean time religion or race is another subject which is driven by the belief system. its existence cannot be neglected and if you put forward your atheistic idea it will just be another group among set of groups with different beliefs. point is discrimination and sidelining people based on belief and race is what to be avoided. see what rohana had written below. according to him speaking in tamil is an offence, this is what called racism.

      we can build this country with all the topic what you have mentioned. i simply don’t care in which belief and in which dress they come and while speaking which language; people can join hand in hand to build this country. this is the only practical solution. Unity in diversity!

      • dingiri

        Another rather obvious flaw in all religions is their cultural specificity. Read the Quran, bible, Bhagavat Gita or Buddhist texts and you will find all references, dogmas, morals and cultural mores they refer to are bound tightly to the cultures and societies they came from.

        The buddha borrowed extensively from the beliefs and cultural norms of 6th century b.c. India. The notions of re-incarnation, karma, nirvana, and non violent compassion existed in India prior to his “enlightenment”. They were espoused by numerous other religious philosophers like Mahavira. The only reason Buddha’s teachings spread so widely was because they were adopted by Asoka who by then had a vast empire in India and took it upon himself to spread that particular teacher’s teachings. So the Buddhas teachings are not unique. His teachings merely fitted into the prevalent belifs and morals in India at that time.

        In the same way the Koran was born out of the Arab civilisation. The morals and cultural norms it tries to spread are uniquely Arab and Semitic. The attitudes to eating of pork, women’s dress, punishments for crimes are what were in existance in the Arab lands prior ot 600 a.d. and had no relavance to pygmies of central Africa or native South Americans who’s women did not feel the need to wear clothes. Nor were their menfolk adversely aroused at sight of a naked skin in the same way as their brothers in Arabia. The Quran talks about Camels, donkeys and horses, or Date Palms. Animals and trees that were not found in Australia or America. Surely if it was a universal revalation to all men and cultures should it not have at least betrayed a knowledge of the existance of 95% of the worlds population which included Polinesians, Aborigines, Veddahs, Hottentots, Incas, Aztecs and Eskimos? How were all these populations to understand the Quran which was written in Arabic? Should it not have been revealed in multiple languages to reach a wider audience? Shouldn’t there have been a prophet sent to those other people too?

        Then how about the first 90,000 years of human history when there were no organised settlements of kingdoms? According to the Quran it is mortal sin to go about naked. Hair, limbs, ankles need to be covered. But how was this possible before fabric was invented. Did all those people prior to 8,000 b.c. end up in hell?

        • Ahmed

          Dear dingiri
          What you have presented is an interesting observation, but more need to be understood to conclude. Every community in every location were sent with a messenger to guide, time to time man changed the original message and it was refined by another messenger and islam will be last in this order and its integrity will be maintain as an universal religion. Also a person not received the message is not guilty of his action. This is what religious texts (in islam) clams (believing or not is an individual choice). True; quran was in Arabic but it’s not an extinct language. From the 600 a.d there were enough and more translators and the reason it was reveal to Arabian community could be they travel on trade around the world, in 956 al masudi placed America in his world map 600 years before Columbus.
          http://lostislamichistory.com/2012/09/15/columbus-was-not-the-first-to-cross-the-atlantic/comment-page-1/
          Covering woman was not just confined to Arabia, even in Chinese (such as yao) had this in their culture, even in ancient India (verdict period) sari was the dominant costume (refer the book: Indian Women Through the Ages: Ancient India) which was even covering the head. Its true that less civilized and less resourceful community had less covering and no religious text claiming that laws were identical from the begging. For example, whether people believe in evolution or creationism, human would have spread out with two pairs. Just because it was allowed to marry their siblings during that time will not make its ok now, same is true for dressing.

  • walter

    jAYALATH

    yOU HAVE SAID IT ALL IN SIMPLE PLAIN ENGLISH, GREAT.

    NOW PLEASE IF YOU CAN USE ALL THE METHODOLOGY IN YOUR POSSESSION TO TELL THIS STORY TO THE 70% OF THIS COUNTRY.

    WHETHER THEY THE 70% ACCEPT IT OR NOT DOES NOT MATTER, AT LEAST THE SEEDS HAVE BEEN PLANTED.
    THIS COUNTRY MAY, I SAID MAY COME OUT OF OBLIVION AT LEAST AFTER ANOTHER 100 YEARS.

  • wazeela

    So you mean to say (as you wear blessed thread because you want to in your part for the love of humanity as a whole) that I can walk into a temple, church and a kovil to accept and worship the gods others believe and call myself a Sri Lankan when i’m a Muslim and have a masjid calling for me every five times a day? And has any of your non-believer friends come to the mosque with you since you’ve been to a temple?

    Religion comes with you the moment you begin your days in the womb. It is with you all along where ever country you live. Nationality maybe to support my certificates ( birth, school, university, house deed, death etc etc) and what comes later after i am born. It is not by means a religion. It simply carries the country you chose to live in. That has nothing to do with faith. Don’t tangle it up.

    Further, since you begin this article/rant by telling us your name, how do you define your name? Is it Sri Lankan or is it Muslim? If you are Sri lankan first why havent your parents named you: Nilmini, Shanthi, or Linda being the liberal you mention that they are?

  • Happy Heathen

    What a specious argument…….

    Why should we respect a racist, homophobic, chauvinist, sexist, unscientific fairy tales from stone-age….?

    What is next? should we give credence to Hitler’s Aryan Supremacy as I don’t see a difference between this and Islam or Christianity or Judaism or any other hullabaloo..

    For those who believe that there is no fundamentalist difference between religious, why are’t there Muslim Jews, or Hindu Christians or Buddhist Muslims?

    The simple reason is it’s always my GOD vs your GOD….

    Anisha, how come you don’t believe in Krishna or Ganesh? what about Unicorns? Athena? Thor? blood pressure? bubonic plague…?

    I am glad that Groundview is back , but I don’t see the rational behind giving space to religious fundamentalist to express their distorted views?

    Perhaps GV should invite KKK next time?

  • Nizam

    Anisha, you have definitely won the hearts and minds of the general public at large. Our country Sri Lanka used to be the dream land where divisions, classification based on ethnicity, communal and along religious lines never existed, until the bloody separatist war started. Now it has come to stay with us, and your passionate pleas only reminds us of how it used to be in good old times when everyone was a friend to one another. Politicians are to blame for inciting hatred and suspicion towards minority communities, just to come to power on ‘majority community’ lines. They will feed on this concept, and thus now all communities are politically split along those lines, and I don’t expect the ‘We are all Sri Lankans first’ concept to ever seeing the light of day, as long as we have politicians who survive on majority vote based on ethnicity. The door is slammed shut, and it will take a great or should I say a brave politician to break that mould to think differently, and act as one, to bring back those glorious days.

    It is good to know that you are of the Islamic Faith, and you are fully aware about other religions and beliefs in the context of promoting religious harmony. But Islam is your religion by birth, and you need to be a good practicing Muslim. There may be a lot of negative publicity on Muslim militancy, carried out by individuals or religious groups, who have hijacked the Islamic faith, and the media doing its part to discredit Islam, but that should not deter you from practicing your faith diligently. Praying Salaat, reciting Quran, Dhikr (remembrance of your Creator), fasting during the month of Ramazan, distributing Zackath (charity) to the poor and needy. All good Islamic values which you should promote for the sake of Allah’s Deen-ul-Islam. He will ask you one day ‘What have you done for the sake of My Deen which I gifted you?’ Don’t look back now at the train that has passed, think ahead and plan to meet your Creator, and do all the right things that will please Him. Most importantly, serving your fellow human beings with love, do whatever you do for Allah’s sake, and not for any personal gain, benefit or recognition. Read up on some of the Hadiths (traditions and actions of Prophet Muhammed (Sal.) and try to bring into practice. Many, many things you can do for Islam as a role model. Wish you Allah’s blessings.

    • Jayalath

      To nizam

      I do not have time to write a comment on your artical , as it needs to write well organised and thinking ,as it can potentially hurt you. I’m not interesting to antagonise people for no reason . Especially a subject like religion . It is very idiotic to argue about a religion , as no one will win over a religion . The reason is ,that many people engulfed into mythical belief and superstition , firstly we got to think rationally ,then we can start a debate .
      I am worriing about majority of us , as we are still living in a dark world. Please people , i beg you , come forward , and save the planet from these people , some people seriously need the help to think rationally .they are overwhelmed by the superstition .the earth is morning as the superstition is still growing .

  • Sinhalaya

    “the monk at the counter did not let a few of our Maldivian friends through because their head’s were covered”
    Even though you try to get the sypathy of few programmed individuals who are fond of this website,you have missed the point. You blame the buddhist monk for not letting your friends in to the temple covering your head. You might say that cover is your religious freedom. Well in the same way when we entering to a Buddhist temple we remove our hats, caps shoes etc. as a respect to lord Buddha. It is not a rule of the monk that as you are talking about here; it is a Buddhist tradition and who ever come to see any Buddhist temple in the country has to understand that reality.If you don’t! hope you understand the limits of your sensitivity.

  • Dr.Rumi London

    Respected all,

    First of all there is noting in Islam called Liberal Muslim, Islam is one.If someone doesnt want to practice, or hesitaing to practice, he is answerable to Almighty – at the same time that person should not preach his views to others.

    All of us are Srilankans, whatever the religion we may profess.If the monk said to uncover the scarf, if you are true you should have returned rather than entering or if you are so called liberal you could have removed your head cover. You will have to respect other religion’s sentiments as per the islamic religious code of conduct. We have no right to fume or grumble over that.

    We have lived in the west for more than years among the majority who are non muslims.Every hour we see many males and females with proper dress code.There is no hatred among anyone of them. My religion is for me and your religion is for you and neither of us cross the religious boundaries.

    We,the Srilankans need to realize thebenefits of co existence and practice to that extent. Politcians plant hatred among majority fod their living and power.

    • Jayalath

      To dr. Rumi London

      This is the weakest and disgusting place of some followers of religion , a person should not preach his or her views to others , do you think dr. That your comment is right ? Of course to your perspective or knoledge it could be right . I have realised this type of opinions are existing among majority Muslim people, do you know why is that ? Because they strongly believe the Islam is the only religion in this planet , therefore , as followers should not criticise it or preach against it for any reason , may it be right or wrong . . If people started to question about it only the raise questions , so , they do not need that .because they are not fit to face the questions.

      Dear, dr, every thing in this world is to discuss and question , you probably may know that better as a doctor . Do you think that we would be where we now ,if we constantly didn’t explore or examine things ?
      So, to my knoledge is that every thing and every thing had been said before should constantly study and find the very precision answer . That is the rational and profound theory that i believe .
      But it may not for you unfortunately , and my worry is ,if you as a dr, wouldn’t know it ,then who else would know better..

      This world is belonged to people like Anisha not you mate , we need lot and lot people like Anisha , because we have already enough people like you .

  • Rohana NA

    Anisha so nice to read an article like yours and I believe your words as they have come from your heart. Unfortunately this cannot be said about most of the Muslims in Sri Lanka. I can tell you my experiences which is very little as I live in Australia and comes to Sri Lanka every year. I was at the Sri Lanka and Pakistan cricket matches this year and last year and in each of these matches I personally questioned many Pakistan supporters why they were supporting Pakistan. I identified them because they talk in Tamil. Then where my in-laws live (Gampola) when Pakistan beats Sri Lanka do you know how much fire crackers are fired? When Sinhalese was the main language why Muslims speak Tamil language if they are true Sri Lankans? Confusing isn’t?
    More than anything I have few honest Muslim friends and they have personally told me how Muslim mullahs are planning to destroy Sinhalese and Buddhism from Sri Lanka. There are other evidence I have that may shock you of what these Muslims are doing to make Sri Lanka a Muslim country like Afghanistan, Indonesia etc. I wish there are Muslims who are honest like you and my friends. They should help all and should live together with Sinhalese, Tamils, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus as there own brothers and sisters. What all Muslims must never forget is there ancestry is Sinhalese and Tamils because the Arabs who came to Sr Lanka married Sinhalese and Tamils as they never brought any women. Gampola Muslims have built a Mosque over Bibile public road. Now all people majority of which are Sinhala Buddhists have to walk under the feet of the Muslims in the Mosque. Even the Buddhist monks. Is this fair? What would Muslims do if it other way around? This is why Sinhalese don’t trust Muslims. I can give more information. People like you should get involved and stop these idiots otherwise the end could be disaster as there is always a limit for tolerance and tolerance should not be taken as a weakness.

    • Ahmed

      Rohana
      I do agree some muslim supports Pakistan when it comes to cricket and I criticized them more than you. All I say to them, this is your country too and just because some racist say that this is not belong to you don’t get disheartened and try to support another country and just ignore them. Because all sri lankan are migrants and all we practice religions which are not originally from sri lanka. Have you tried to advice them this way?
      If you think some Muslims are planning a plot against the country and if your informers are reliable why don’t you take any legal action? Are we living in a jungle?
      Where it is mentioned speaking in Tamil is against the law of sri lanka. Isn’t this racism that you are preaching? What is your position, even Tamils should speak in Sinhala and call themselves Tamil and live peacefully with rest. Is this what you expect? I don’t mind speaking Sinhala but that doesn’t mean that I have to speak only Sinhala to satisfy you.
      We say we are part of sri lankan and its people from your side is the one say we have to follow your culture, religion and language to be sri lankan.
      I don’t see any truth in your story as full story and what is the other side of the story need to be heard. Address the problems to authority and they will provide you a solution

      • Jayalath

        To ahmed.

        Relation to a question raised upon, this was remained in my mind for very long period to know why the Muslims had chosen to use Tamil language ,instead of singhala , because Muslims had singhala women ,and Sinhalese mother.
        Is it to show off as minority . I think what ever the answer would be ,it is a serious mistake . A language is ,isn’t to make any one happy which is used to communicate comfortably .

        • Burning_Issue

          Jayalath,

          It appears that you are confused and delusional. You spoke about conquering the world with open discussions or something to this effect below and at the same time Muslims’ choice of their mother tongue being Tamil is a problem for you! Why is that? You wondered as to why the Muslims in Sri Lanka speak Tamil as their mother tongue but you could not figure out why!

          Let me tell you; the Muslims consist of South Indians, Sinhala, and Arabs; pre-European trading language was Tamil along the Park Strait and beyond. First Muslim settlement made of traders and centered around Colombo. When the Portuguese arrived the Colombo areas were completely dominated by the Muslims and many Sinhala were converting to Islam in draws. It was suggested that if the Portuguese had not arrived, the entire country would have become Islam and thus become Tamil speaking; it is a paradox isn’t it? So be thankful to the Portuguese!

          • Ahmed

            @burning_issue

            When the Portuguese arrived the Colombo areas were completely dominated by the Muslims and many Sinhala were converting to Islam in draws. It was suggested that if the Portuguese had not arrived, the entire country would have become Islam and thus become Tamil speaking”

            Can you please let me know the source of your statement? I feel its an overstatement to justify European imperialism just like present day war for oil, land and mineral which is labeled as war on terrorism or educating women, etc. The same is rohana’s statement that muslims are plotting against the country. I can say plot is against Muslims are going on and i can produce many destructions of mosque to facebook pages to justify my claim and I challenge rohana and you for that matter produce your proof without self proclaimed statements

          • Burning_Issue

            Ahmed,

            You have got it at the wrong end of the stick. I was being sarcastic that Jayalath needs to be happy that Portuguese were anti-Muslim!

            http://www.drshukri.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82:muslims-in-sri-lanka&catid=41:2012-04-26-01-10-40&Itemid=57

        • Ahmed

          The early Muslim settlements were set up, mainly, around ports on account of the nature of their trade. It is also assumed that many of the Arab traders may not have brought their womenfolk along with them when they settled in Ceylon. Hence they would have been compelled to marry the Sinhalese and Tamil women. The fact that a large number of Muslims in Sri Lanka speak the Tamil language can be attributed to the possibility that they were trading partners with the Tamils of South India and had to learn Tamil to successfully transact their business. The integration with the Muslims of Tamil Nadu, in South India, may have also contributed to this. Dewaraja says that when the Portuguese first appeared off the shores of Sri Lanka, the Muslims warned the king, sangha, nobles and the people of the potential threat to the country’s soveriegnty. When the Portuguese tried to gain a foothold in Colombo, the Muslims provided firearms, fought side by side with the Sinhalese and even used their influence with South Indian powers to get military asistance to Sinhalese rulers. Through the intervention of the Muslims, the Zamorin of Calicut sent three distinguished Moors of Cochin with forces to help Mayadunne (p 50).When the Dutch appeared and persecuted the Muslims in their coastal settlements, the Muslims ran to the Kandyan Kingdom. Senerat (1604-1635) and Rajasimha II (1635-1687) settled these Muslims in the Eastern coast. These people had contact with Indian muslims as arab trade was captured by the European invaders. These tamil muslims in india were the descendants of earlier Arab traders who had settled in South Indian ports and married local women. Thus Tamil and Malayalam came to be written in Arabic script, and was known as Arabic Tamil. The Koran was translated into Arabic Tamil. It was translated into Sinhala only recently. Since it was compulsory for Muslim children to read the Koran, they had to know Arabic Tamil. This partly explains why Muslims who have lived for centuries in wholly Sinhala speaking areas retained Arabic Tamil as their ‘mother tongue’. Generations of Sri Lankan Tamils went to theological institutions in Vellore to study Islamic learning. It has also been suggested that Muslims speak Tamil because Tamil was widely used in maritime commerce in the Indian Ocean.

          Above is the reason given by authors such as Tikiri Abeyasinghe , Lorna Dewaraja , etc

          I think above reason could be acceptable as I had seen my grandma reading books written in arbic-tamil, (Arabic mixed tamil words written in Arabic letters, which had come from south india) . Education influence the mother tongue, we can see that in present generation. Earlier generation in sri lanka had spoken Sinhala or Tamil and learned English for education. Their children started speaking mainly English as this had been used at home. How many Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim families now speaks only English.

          • Jayalath

            To Ahmed .
            Thank you for the clarification, I have to go ahead and find out wheather it is true . I have no idea ,when Portuguese arrive here we had that much Muslim community living here , as you have stated with the figures .however, it is astonishing .i will not Undermine your statement and i didnt attribute it in slanderous manner. it is very well explained.thank you .

  • Jayalath

    Dear, Anisha .

    I have lot of respect to you and your parents , because your parents have very well educated you to understand the things around us in the short time we live . You are very very brave to say so , and most people will appreciate it .you do not have to worry with how some are responded to your story , as any body could say any thing over it .

    But , the time is up now to move into the most important discussion in the world right now . You may wonder what is the most important discussion than arguing about the mythical religions . No , no , Anisha , not religion . Please do not waste your golden time to write about the religions any more .

    And , what is the discussion , what is the most important discussion should be ? To save the world for the future generation ! This is the challenge, this is the argument should be . Can the religions save the world for the future generation ? If the religion can , then why there are 1 billion people are starving around the world in this moment . ( according to un the figures ) why there are only left 4000 beautiful lions , why there are only left few thousand elephants ,and tigers ,leopards .why there are threats of global warming , why the ice mountains in the Antarctica are receding faster than Albert Einstein ‘ s speed of light ? Why the this much of floods and droughts ? Why our cultivatable lands become deserts ? Why the 7 billion human animals and their billion of money cannot stop natural Disaster ? Why, why ? Why 7 billion animals have failed to kill each other and yet not have a plan to control rising numbers of human animals ? Why , why ?

    Whythe only robbers of natural resource in the world are having a good life ? why the only Sri lankan politicians and their families robbed our beautiful mother land ? Why the few people in the world has robbed whole world ? Why we as Asian people not intelligent like western world ? Why none of us had brain to invent some thing to man kind when western world is sending people to moon and mars ? Why why ? Is it because we are killing the time around the temples , mosques, churches with a full time pray ?

    Last week I watched a documentary on BBC , which is about the earth core. It was said about the length of north pole to south pole which is 4000 miles long , and a geologist called Dr. bill in America , in south Dakot of deserted gold mine area of America , he went to a 12 miles journey down to the deep earth and examined the temperature and soil in there , and he said the tempareture at the centre of earth is could be about 4000 degrees which is equal to the heat of surface of sun .

    I gave you this details , you to imagine , where is the real stand of the world At this moment , so, Anisha , leave behind all these stupid arguments about the religions and widely open your eyes to understand the phenomenal world ., and teach them to others too.

    This is how the discussion should be , and This is how that we can conquer the world , , therefore, takes the discussion into the society,and discuss with friends and family , write to the papers ,write to other medias .

    I’m 46 years now and I have 2 boys who are schooling in Kandy ,and my dream is to teach them about the real life of us , not the delution or superstition , we should kicked out the myths for ever .My mail is [email protected] . If any one is interesting to discuss further more that we could .

    • sabbe laban

      Jayalath

      Oh! You gave your e-mail to Anisha! I feel jealous..

  • Lester

    Religion has little value in the 21st century. Whether you’re talking about saffron-clad hooligans, or muftis that issue fatwas on cartoonists, the degree is irrelevent. Furthermore, people don’t need religion to “get along”; the base of modern economic theory is that, ultimately, people will get along for selfish reasons, whether they realize it or not. And despite its faults, economic development – combined with the march of science – has done more to uplift the living standards of those on six continents, then any amount of fasting, chanting, bending, and bowing to invisible beings.

    • Leela

      Lester,
      You have conveniently missed out the insane murderous; I mean the the Franciscan and Dominican padres that wore miter like hats and burned millions of victims who didn’t agree with their belief at stake after infamous heresy trials.
      Leela

      • sabbe laban

        At least those “Franciscan and Dominican padres who wore miter like hats” have learned their lessons, and moved ahead and they no longer burn heretics at the stake! Yet, the orange robed terrorists haven’t stopped their street fights or the skull capped lunatics, issuing fatwas!

  • Ahmed
    • Happy Heathen

      Ahmed,

      Do you have any evidence of this Creator being a single entity?

      Could it be CREATORS (plural) as there are polytheistic believers like Hindus?

      If not, are you saying all polytheistic including Hindus are wrong?

      Do the non-believers go to hell?

      (no need for lengthy mambo-jumbo just simple yes and no)

      • sabbe laban

        Ahmed

        Thank you for the reply. In fact,(now we are debating here eh?) this is like the tv series “Highlander”, isn’t it!

        Well, first of all, people like Stephen Hawking stand out simply because they have (finally!)managed to out-grow the childhood indoctrination and brain washing, which is not an easy thing at all to do! Meanwhile some people who know science try to cherry-pick the similarities their ancient “holy book(s)” have with science and try their best to look ridiculous!

        How did you know what is written in your “holy book” is the “Truth”? Did it dawn upon you or is it because you were brain-washed from your childhood to be “God fearing” and accept your “holy book” as absolute truth? What about the other “holy books” of other religions? Don’t they have similar creation myths? Tell me difference between your creation story and the aboriginal creation story and how your version of this story is superior to all that? Don’t you see that these were the early attempts by our ancients to interpret the world?

        By the way, your question about the evolution of shark is not clear to me at all! To start with, sharks didn’t evolve from land mammals, right?(or do you think that they are mammals?) So sharks never had any of the “legs” that you are talking about!

        Finally, why we don’t have an extra pair of arms or another pair of eyes on the back of our heads? We would love to have a telescopic arm as well,(maybe other telescopic organs too!) Why don’t we have untra-sonic hearing or infra-red vision?(or an electro-megnetic sensor?) You would love to have those too! Why do we look mostly like other mammals in our basic structure? Does your ‘holy book’ give an adequate answer?

        As to what happens after death(whether we are treated nicely in heaven or burn in hell) is something that we both don’t know! Your guess is as good as mine in this regard! Therefore, how do you know that your “holy book” is right, Ahmed?

        • Ahmed

          sabbe laban
          I wonder how intelligent design based on science turns to be less important. Irony is when the same scientist believed in evolution with less scientific thoughts, they were appreciated. truth is People don’t go for the facts, they like to hear something which doesn’t jeopardize their way of life.
          Well, I know shark is not a mammal, mean time evolutionist claim its features evolve to live in water and survive , also they claim whale also evolved for the same reason. Please look at shark and a whale picture, if shark can have four flippers (horizontal fins), why during evolution whale lost its back legs. it can turn in to smaller flippers like shark’s , but it didn’t though it may helpful in water survival. If evolution is true all water living animals should try to get an identical shape as getting a best shape naturally is what evolution preach. In short God creates as he wish and evolution cannot select naturally different shapes as its try to give the best for a specie (eg:shark and whale features should be identical if both evolve to get the best shape in water). Any way more and enough evidence against evolution was presented and hope you had gone through those videos. (Thanks GV for posting it)
          Well, my belief is after some evaluation process. Identifying the intelligent design and identifying the designer. As I know well the limitation of science I looked at religions. I studied and I found almost all religion directing me to islam. In this process I didn’t rule out the integrity of the text either (eg: alteration and corruption of original message, this can be identified with contradiction) for example, considering bible was canonized more than 200 years after the Jesus death and omission of books, st.pauls influence and how other disciple of Jesus and st.paul differ (st paul was not a disciple of jesus during his life time), etc. with those we can conclude many things such as not in a single place jesus claimed himself as god, Jews were expecting three prophets at the time of Jesus (Elijah, messiah and the prophet), Jesus foretold about a person called comforter etc. these studied eliminated my contradiction.
          So by a process I concluded my belief and Its my choice. You can have your own pal. i never said you need to follow mine. What I claimed is I will not change mine for the sake of others and I need the freedom to follow what I believe in MY country. I hope I am done here. Have a good time. Bye

      • Ahmed

        @Heathen
        Sorry to say this, your problem is preconceives and doesn’t like to analyse to change your preconceives, that’s the reason I didn’t write a reply for any of your comments. As you asked about Hinduism, perhaps you don’t know the fact that there is a side of Hinduism preaching monotheism. As you have asked a short reply, you better read the book “Vedic Monotheism” by Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy

        you may ask then why so many gods in Hinduism, my understanding is may be earlier scriptures were misinterpreted by people. For example, we believe God is the creator, sustainer and destroyer; in Hinduism the same were attributed to different entities (Brahma, Vishnu, siva) and people tried to give each a physical appearance. Why Hinduism having both monotheistic and polytheistic ideas need to be clarified by a Hindu and not by me.

        If you really interested read this
        http://www.islamawareness.net/Hinduism/hindu.html

        My simple understanding is, if there are more than one independent gods, as they are independent there should be conflict. If there is no conflict and their thoughts are synchronized then it’s a single entity and it cannot be called more than one. Certainly creator cannot be numbered like creation. Perhaps you don’t know the concept of god in islam. all i can say; for you your way and for me mine.

        • Happy Heathen

          Ahmed
          11/16/2012 • 10:58 am

          1. I have no preconceived notions, funny it is coming from a believer….

          2. Hinduism is just an example and there are plenty of polytheistic religions and belief systems.
          Furthermore without having a shred of evidence to prove the existence of a creator , you have the audacity to say that Hindus misinterpreted the scriptures!!!! It epitomizes the problem very well – you choose a particular religion and say that everything else is wrong. Could this misinterpretation be applied to Islam as well? I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything in Hinduisms, my question was simple – Do you think polytheism is wrong?

          3. “My simple understanding is, if there are more than one independent gods, as they are independent there should be conflict.”
          What a suspicious argument!!!!So you don’t know whether there is a ONE creator or TWO or MANY

          4.Do non-believer’s go to hell? (haven’t answered that)

          • sabbe laban

            Ahmed

            To end this plainly ridiculous thread, I must congratulate you for being a believer! As you say in your post addressed to me, you won’t change your view whatever the proof to the contrary, the same accusation you level at Happy Heathen! Good for you!

            After reading your wonderful argument on sharks, I wondered for a moment as to why I can’t reach out and scratch my own back!

            Btw, you too live a life as the book says and hope you’ll be well looked after in heaven! I would consider writing on your e-mail, provided that I can find a way to keep the ‘martyrs’ from carrying out their ‘divine duty’ on me!

        • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

          The debate that is going on here is just plain ridiculous so I don’t feel like joining, but I’d like to point out that if the universe intelligently designed, polytheism is more likely to be true than monotheism. All you have to do is just look at nature, and see that conflict is indeed there.

          So god created rabbits. He also created foxes. Rabbits are designed to not get killed by foxes. They have sharp hearing. They can run fast and so on. But the foxes are also designed to hunt rabbits. They have an acute sense of smell. They have great hearing. They too can run fast.

          If I’m designing a toaster oven, I wouldn’t do my best trying to prevent electricity from flowing through the copper wires. If monotheism is true, then god is hell bent on creating a toaster oven that works, but also doesn’t work.

          It is more likely that rabbits and foxes were created by two different gods, who are competing with each other. At least that explains the apparent conflicts like rabbits and foxes.

          • Ahmed

            Heathen, sabbe labban and sharanga

            Chose to believe or not to believe in short believing something exist or not exist. so both are BELIEFS. If I have reasons to believe, that’s my choice and you all can have reasons or may not have real reasons not to believe, that’s not my problem. If a religion says if you don’t believe and end up in hell and if you believe such claims don’t carry anything why should you worry about it? I will not change my belief as I have clear understanding and a process to arrive to such conclusion. Its not like the same position possessed by a person without any kind of analysis. Fox and rabbits are there in the environments for long despite of such differences and food chain will not prevail without such differences in creations. such differences in creatures helps to fertile and sustain the environment, in short sun’s energy is utilized well. This is the design I’m talking about. When the concepts are challenged it may sound ridiculous despite of the facts in it.

            Have a nice time :)

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com Sharanga

            @Ahamed

            Chose to believe or not to believe in short believing something exist or not exist. so both are BELIEFS.

            What? Not believing something is also a belief? Like abstinence is a sex position?

            ***

            Fox and rabbits are there in the environments for long despite of such differences and food chain will not prevail without such differences in creations.

            Wait. Are you telling me that Rube Goldberg is god? H…S….

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear Ahmed;

            Why the God created non-believers of him like Saban, Happy Heathen and sharanga? He could have fixed all of them as believers? Why he created people going against him?

            Thanks!

          • Gamarala

            Ahmed,

            Choosing to believe in Santa and not choosing to believe in Santa are both beliefs. If an adult believes in Santa though, there are suitable institutions to help them. Who will help those who believe in gods?

          • Gamarala

            Ahmed,

            Let me put this to you in very simple terms. It has never been established convincingly that a single god exists, never mind the many thousands that people have believed in throughout history. Your claim is, not only do you know with certainty that a particular god exists, you also know that god’s mind, including such mundane pablum as his demand that you abstain from eating pork, and the sexual positions he finds tolerable.

            In a sane world, it would be reasonable to expect that the claimant be institutionalised. But as the saying goes – “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion”.

          • Ahmed

            gamarala,
            I am sure nobody here taken their time to get the real picture. There is no reason to believe in Santa or unicorn as it didn’t given us any clue regarding his/its existence. The intelligent design in nature given us the clue to conclude the existence of a designer. Hope everyone went through the above given videos. Ok. I’ll paste it here again.

            first
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo

            second
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD0N2tiodlk&feature=related

            third
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7F9gkFNi4&feature=related

            Dear yapa,
            god created human with free will, that’s the reason unbelievers exist. Guidance from god to understand the facts will come only to those who are really interested in truth and searching for facts. People use fussy logic for their own advantage and know well that their philosophy is victim of Infinite regression

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy

            For all here
            Wish you all the best in future endeavors :)

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear Ahmed;

            “god created human with free will, that’s the reason unbelievers exist.”

            True, true, but I am asking “why”. Why did he do that unprecedented thing?

            That was my question, not whether he did or not.

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear Ahmed;

            BTW, contrary to his general rule why the God created the devil (Satan) with a fixed will towards bad, without giving him a free will?

            In the first place why the god created Satan at all? What was his purpose?

            Thanks!

          • Gamarala

            Ahmed,

            “People use fussy logic for their own advantage and know well that their philosophy is victim of Infinite regression”

            Fussy? I’m not one to fuss, but to solve the problem of an infinite regress, you propose an “uncaused cause”. Can you even think of a better oxymoron?

            Not stopping there, you go on to infer that the uncaused cause is a God.

            Not stopping there, you go on to declare that Muslims alone are in communion with said God, and that the God has relayed his dietary preferences to you.

            The mind boggles.

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear Ahmed;

            The best example for infinite regression is the God!

            Thanks!

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @yapa

            Since you yourself are a believer in an equally false religion, which is completely against evolution, completely against the current mainstream cosmological understanding that the universe is only 15 billion years old, and has a ridiculous idea about morality which is built with no understanding of is/ought problem and hence end up saying using alcohol is immoral, don’t you think it is a little unfair for you to mock the obviously problems of Ahamed’s religion?

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Why dear sharanga, you want to own Ahmed solely for you? Ha! Ha!!

            I believe things that can be substantiated with reasons and nothing else, I think that you know very well by experience. Even “great traditions” do not go unquestioned by me, you have that experience no. Sharanga, I think you are writing here with preconceived prejudice. We have two separate battle grounds, shall we finish them first, why you want to change the grounds? Grounvies readers may watch our “friendly battle” here.

            http://discourssions.wordpress.com/

            http://brainoil.wordpress.com/

            Thanks!

          • Off the Cuff

            Sharanga,

            You have raised many points but a supporting argument is lacking.

            Could you please state facts that support and prove each of the assertions made in you post of 11/21/2012 • 6:42 am addressed to Yapa?

          • http://brainoil.wirdpress.com sharanga

            @off the cuff

            1) Hume’s Law is as thus

            x is D
            Therefore, x is good.

            For this conclusion that x is good to be true, D should also be true. But nowhere D is proven to be good. Rather the proposition that D is good is taken as a hidden premises. So the conclusion x is good is not proven.

            Take Buddhism. What is the Buddhist argument for saying killing is bad? It looks like follows:

            Killing ruins you.
            Therefore, killing is bad.

            For this to be true, you must first prove that ruining yourself is bad. Buddhism doesn’t prove that. But rather, it takes it as a given. (Please don’t ask me yapa’s kind of ridiculous question whether I don’t think I shouldn’t ruin myself)

            Or the argument could be as follows.

            Killing hurts other people.
            Therefore, killing is bad.

            For the conclusion to be true, you must first prove that hurting other people is bad. Here, it hasn’t been done. (Again, please don’t ask me whether I think hurting people isn’t bad)

            No matter what you try you can’t go from descriptive statements to prescriptive statements. There’s no logical flow there. This is why it’s called the is/ought problem.

            If you disagree, please present the logical argument that Buddhism presents that overcomes the is/ought problem.

            2) Buddhism is agaist evolution, and to science in general. The reason is, the philosophy behind science is reductionistic materialism, while the philosophy behind Buddhism (and all other religions) is non-reductionistic non-materialism.

            Let me explain. A human is made from atoms (again, don’t make yapa’s kind of mistake of thinking that there are more fundamental things than atoms and that is relevant to this discussion). So if you take all atoms out of a human body, there will be nothing left. This is the reductionistic materialist view, which is the philosophy behind science.

            According to Buddhism however, even if you remove every single atom from a human, there will still be sonething left. This is the mind (don’t make the kind of mistake yapa would make by saying I don’t capture everything when I simply say mind. the important thing here is the view that a human is more than flesh and blood). According to the Buddhist view, the mind is non-material. This is why we are unable to detect the mind through physical activities (like scientific experiments).

            The problem with this view is that it just plain doesn’t make any sense. What exactly is meant by non-material? There are two possibilities:

            i. Is a cause, but no effect – this means that non-material things can cause material things to behave in particular way, but it won’t be affected by them. Buddhism cannot take this view because that would mean killing someone won’t affect your mind.

            ii. Is an effect, but not a cause- this means that the behaviour of non-material things can be altered by material things, but non-material things won’t be able to do that to material things. Buddhism can’t take this view either because it would mean that when you kill someone, it wasn’t because your mind thought to kill.

            At this point, someone like yapa would say that non-material things are both causes and effects. Indeed this is the only position that Buddhism can take. But the problem with this view is that if non-material things act the same way material things act, why are you calling those things non-material? You can call them material.

            At this point someone can say even though non-material things act the same way material things do, they are not material because they don’t have the properties material things have, llike mass and volume and energy. The problem with this is obvious. The equations that describes aroms’ behaviour, do it perfectly by taking only material things into account. So what do those non-material, yet acting like material things are doing in this model? When you can perfectly describe an atoms behaviour using your equations made based on materialistic assumptions, what place so those extra things have in this model.

            The problem extends to evolution as follows. Earliest life was just a self replicating entity. It wasn’t even a cell. So it really didn’t have any thoughts. But this thing evolved into more complex things. So at what point exactly did they start developing non-materialistic minds? Note that evolution is only possible due to the ability of atoms to cone together to form complex structures. Atoms can form molecules, and it is they that develop into cells, tissues and organs. But there is no evidence that those non-material things (the concept itself confusing), whatever they are, have the ability to do any if that. So if there ever were non-material minds(again, the concept itself is confusing), they must have come out of the blue. So there must have been a point where there were two parents without minds, and a child with a mind. This can never happen according to evolution. In fact if this can happen, evolution is false.

            Now suppose that some how, just some how(never mind the lolgical contradictions it would create) non-material things are also capable of becoming complex things simple things, it would mean there were half-minds. Those minds would be half developed minds. But this just doesn’t sit well with Buddhist thought. According to Buddhism, we are capable dying as a monkey, being born the next life as human. But if our ancestors had half minds, monkeys must also have half minds. Now you must develop a new theory as to how half minds suddenly become proper minds.

            3) Why the 15 billion years estimate conflicts with Buddhism is obvious. But then there are readers like yapa too so I spell it out. Buddhism talks about a “samsara” much longer than that. Buddha tried to become Buddha for a “saraasankya kalpa lakshayak”. That’s a really big number.

          • sabbe laban

            Sharanga

            When Ahmed was UNABLE to answer yours and yapa’s questions, you seem to have taken on yapa!(and Off The Cuff too wants to digress by declaring war on sharanga!)

            This must be what Ahmed too wanted, and he may be thinking that his God has finally saved him from the “infidels”!

          • sabbe laban

            Ahmed

            Are you UNABLE to answer yapa’s question on “Satan”? Is “God” a sadist to set people against one other, and select “good people”?

          • Wellwisher

            Dear yapa

            Logic behind the philosophy is the one suffering from infinite regression, to an extent some religion such as Mormonism is victim of this but Islamic definition for god is not. Before you read further please try to understand the reference to god as “he” and “we” done at which Arabic language’s context. Ahmed has already posted some links regarding this and I hope you had already gone through it.

            Almost all religion tries to project god within human character or to an extent within the materialistic physical world except Islam. Islam believes god is something beyond our comprehension but exists. it clearly differentiate creator from creation. In Islam who created the creator is an absurd question just like to whom is the bachelor married? (Those who ask who created god must answer first “what is time”)

            Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Whatever comes to your mind regarding physical characteristics or attributes befitting mortals, Allah is far Exalted above that, and that does not express the real concept of Allah.”

            The question came from the pagans of Mecca who, in their myopic understanding, assumed that Allah was like the idols they worshipped. This is why they demanded: “Give us the genealogy of your Lord.” They wanted to know the origin of Allah, from whence He derived; or alternatively, from what substance He was made, like the stone, wood and clay of their idols.

            Then Allah commanded His Messenger by revealing the four verses of S?rah al-Ikhl?s:
            Say: He is Allah, the One and Only, Allah the eternally absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.

            By revealing these verses in this context, Allah makes it clear that we take our beliefs from Him. Allah is the one who teaches us about Himself, through His revelations to His Messenger. It is not for our minds and our intellects to concoct beliefs about Allah. Though our minds are able to reach a number of sound conclusions about Allah, it is not possible for the mind to successfully do so on its own, independently of Allah’s guidance.

            This is why Allah says: “And thus did We reveal to you an inspired book by Our command. You did not know what the Book was, nor what the faith was, but We made it a light, guiding thereby whomever We please of Our servants.”

            Otherwise, the mind will get carried away in the most obstinate and convoluted of philosophical discourses. Allah knew all along that philosophy would lead some people astray to the point of denying the distinction between creator and creation.

            And it is with the idea of Allah’s uniqueness that S?rah al-Ikhl?s concludes: “And there is nothing at all like Him.” [S?rah al-Ikhl?s: 4]
            Some clarification to your posts under Islamic belief. Devil is part of another creation with free will called jinn. Jinns are creation with free will and devil (satan) is one among them. satan’s jealousy over human race made us to be in an imperfect dimension call earth. This life is about getting that perfect dimension.

            The evidence against god cannot be understood with philosophical questioning such as can a god create a stone which he can’t carry? Can god create another god? Etc. wills this question disprove the intelligent design which leads to a designer? Identifying the designer with correct definition will not lead to infinite regression. It’s a problem of some Theistic religion which define god just like a creation and non Theistic religion which doesn’t explain anything at all.

            Hope it help.

          • http://brainoil.wirdpress.com sharanga

            @sabbe laban

            If Ahamed thinks that, let him. He already has weirder beliefs. I don’t consider myself as a part of a group. So I have no reason to take anyone’s side

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            “Take Buddhism. What is the Buddhist argument for saying killing is bad? It looks like follows:

            Killing ruins you.
            Therefore, killing is bad.

            For this to be true, you must first prove that ruining yourself is bad. Buddhism doesn’t prove that. But rather, it takes it as a given. (Please don’t ask me yapa’s kind of ridiculous question whether I don’t think I shouldn’t ruin myself)”

            BOOKWORM SYNDROME!

            Inability to understand simple things without killing thousands of philosophers and millions of books!

            All the wise ministers and courtiers could not realize that the emperor wad naked until a small lad hanging on to his mother’s hand ridiculed the emperors breathing manhood in the open air.

            Ha! Ha!!

            Here is another “biggie”, of the emperor.

            The emperor says “Mathematics is material”, I asked him to prove it according to the definition of “matter” (things which have mass and a volume). I am expecting him to tell me the mass and volume of Pythagoras Theorem.

            Just like the devil who learnt a lesson from the Gamamahage, he is still trying to straighten the Gamamahage’s hair. Ha! Ha!!

            What an assertive man who wanted to conquer the world with materialism! But still straightening the hair. Vanity goes before fall.

            http://discourssions.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/sammuthi-sathya-paramartha-sathya-referent-athma-and-soul-part-1-a-bit-more-about-referent/comment-page-1/#comment-92

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            sharanga and All;

            I think the crux of sharanga’s argument is give by his following statement.

            “2) Buddhism is agaist evolution, and to science in general. The reason is, the philosophy behind science is reductionistic materialism, while the philosophy behind Buddhism (and all other religions) is non-reductionistic non-materialism.”

            I don’t know whether Buddhism is against evolution,however, it is true “Evolution” as taught in Biology is not found in Buddhism. No two ideologies will be same, else they cannot survive as two but should become one. In this sense I know “Evolution” is not a Buddhist doctrine, however, I don’t know how Buddhism is against it. I hope sharanga will explain to me and to all of us.

            Leaving aside the big sounding terms, the difference sharanga says between Buddhism (A) and the Ideology he he adores (B) is the non agreement of them on an issue:

            According to (B): the universe (reality) is nothing but material. ..(1)

            According to (A): the universe consists of both material and non material things. ..(2)

            This dispute is no more a dispute if somebody can show that there exists something non material in the universe and above statement (1) becomes null and void.

            I think all agree up to this point.

            …………………..

            This is the definition for matter which the term material derived from.

            “Matter is generally considered to be a substance (often a particle) that has rest mass and (usually) also volume. The volume is determined by the three-dimensional space it occupies, while the mass is defined by the usual ways that mass is measured (see the article on mass). Matter is also a general term for the substance of which all observable physical objects consist.[1][2]”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

            So, any thing proved to be of material, it is necessary to show that it has a “mass” and a “volume”.

            Otherwise, it is not material.
            If there is no way to prove that something has no mass and a volume, it is obvious in that case it should be taken as non material.

            I think up to this point it is clear to everybody.

            ………………..

            Now, for example take Mathematics. No one would say Mathematics does not exist, even sharanga accepts this fact.

            “You say:
            That means you accept the existence of Mathematics in the universe, may be according to your version not in the same way that rocks exist, however Mathematics exists, right? (yapa’s question)

            This is your great insight? Where in hell did you ever get the idea that you have reason to doubt that I think mathematics exists? This is even stupider than your coconuts falling towards where your foot is blogpost. Maybe you can write another blogpost saying that I doubt the existence of maths. (sharanga’s aswer)”

            http://discourssions.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/sammuthi-sathya-paramartha-sathya-referent-athma-and-soul-part-1-a-bit-more-about-referent/comment-page-1/#comment-82

            …………..

            Now,my question is, “Is Mathematics material?”

            To explain the question a bit more, if Mathematics is material, it must have a mass and a volume, does Mathematics has a mass and a volume?
            ………………

            If somebody can show Mathematics has volume and a mass, then it is material. I posed the question to sharanga, still he is ti give a direct answer.

            If there is no volume and mass for Mathematics, then it is non material and hence non material existence is proved. That is statement (2) is correct and statement (1) is wrong.

            There is no reason to go around mulberry bush to find the answer for this simple dispute between “non-reductionistic non-materialism Buddhism and reductionistic materialism: the pet of sharanga.

            Will go for the acid test.

            Is there a mass and a volume for Mathematics?

            Otherwise,”non-reductionistic non-materialism” will win over “reductionistic materialism”.

            The floor is open to all.

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear sharanga;

            “Now suppose that some how, just some how(never mind the lolgical contradictions it would create) non-material things are also capable of becoming complex things simple things, it would mean there were half-minds. Those minds would be half developed minds. But this just doesn’t sit well with Buddhist thought. According to Buddhism, we are capable dying as a monkey, being born the next life as human. But if our ancestors had half minds, monkeys must also have half minds. Now you must develop a new theory as to how half minds suddenly become proper minds.”

            This must be the way how sharanga was born Ha! Ha!!(there seems no any other reasonable way he could know this), but not what Buddhism says about it.

            You are bashing a straw man!

            Thanks!

          • sabbe laban

            Well Wisher

            “Hope it helped”-not at all!

            You have merely quoted from your book and say that it is the absolute truth!

            How do you know that your book is right?

            Ahmed failed to answer the questions regarding an “intelligent design” of the universe and so did you! As you say, God created “Satan” and gave him “free will”!Why was that? If “Satan” was jealous of the mankind, the ultimate responsibility of it falls on his creator i.e. God, who would have known it beforehand, as he is supposed to be “omniscent”! Couldn’t ‘God’ have done better without “Satan”? On the other hand, if “God” has no control over “Satan”, he can’t be “God”! Just like as if there was no “God”-the things in the universe would continue to happen without him! So, why a “God”, then, Wellwisher?

          • Off the Cuff

            Sharanga,

            “Take Buddhism. What is the Buddhist argument for saying killing is bad? It looks like follows:
            Killing ruins you. Therefore, killing is bad”

            Hmm .. how would you or science for that matter define “bad” and “good”

            Buddhism tells you the consequences of and action. It does not prevent you taking that action.

            “Let me explain. A human is made from atoms ……………….So if you take all atoms out of a human body, there will be nothing left. This is the reductionistic materialist view, which is the philosophy behind science.
            According to Buddhism however, even if you remove every single atom from a human, there will still be sonething left. This is the mind”

            The corpse of a freshly dead person has no mind even though EVERY atom the person had immediately before death remains. So you need not go so far as removing every atom, just explain why the person is considered dead? What are you referring to as “mind”? What is Brain Death?

            “According to the Buddhist view, the mind is non-material. This is why we are unable to detect the mind through physical activities (like scientific experiments)”

            Your explanation for the inability to detect the mind by science is flawed.
            You have ignored the possibility that immaturity of science could be the culprit.

            Before DNA was discovered in the 1980s there was no way that paternity could be established as a certainty. Could science’s weakness be used to say that the mother was promiscuous and the child a bastard?

            Science is still in it’s infancy when dealing with mind matters.

            Observations are limited by the senses. What you and I observe with our five senses cannot be observed by another living creature with a lesser number of senses or senses of lesser acuity or vice versa. A bat has no difficulty catching it’s food and negotiating space though it cannot “see” like a human. A viper has an additional sense (IR sensor) that can detect heat. A dog has an acute sense of smell but low vision compared to a human. A person blind to the colour red will see it as a shade of grey. Hence though he may say that red does not exist it wont be true.

            The perception of the universe is different from species to species and person to person

            Hence your arguments are built on fallacies.

            “The problem extends to evolution as follows. Earliest life was just a self replicating entity. It wasn’t even a cell. So it really didn’t have any thoughts”

            You have taken that as a given. How do you know?

            “Why the 15 billion years estimate conflicts with Buddhism is obvious. “

            What has escaped your attention is the word “Estimate”

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            For the benefit of the readers who do not know the “Gamamahage’s story mentioned in my post of 11/22/2012 • 8:42 am, I think I should tell the story. I think it is good to have some enjoyment once in a while keeping serious matters aside for a while. It is good for our health and on the other hand I like telling stories. The story go as follows.

            Once here was a devil who had a peculiar state of affairs. That is this peculiar devil cannot stay without doing any work. He needs always to do some work otherwise he goes mad. One Gamarala, who had a lot of work at his paddy field, chena and at home happened to got the information about this devil while he was browsing the web. He went to meet the devil and brought him home.

            Gamarala asked the devil to plough the paddy field, it was done no sooner than it was said. The chena was cultivated, cattle was fed, all the cooking, all sort of cleaning and almost every work used to be done by Gamarala and Gamamamhage are now being done by the devil and the old couple is now happily living like a newly wedded couple.

            However, one day, the devil came to the Gamamaraa and told him that all the work assigned to him by Gamamrala and Gamamahage were over and he could not bear the laziness. If Gamamarala is unable to provide him with some work, the devil said he would eat Gamarala alive.

            However, Gamarala found some excuse and went to the Gamamahage and reported the story with a trembling heart. Gamammahage, smiled slightly and said ” don’t worry, I will look after him, send him here”. Relieved with his dear wife’s consoling words Gamarala ordered the devil to meet his honourable wife, and get some work. The devil went like a devil to meet Gamamahage.

            After sometime, as there was no any news from Gamamahage, gGamarala feared her wife would have devoured alive by the work hungry devil and rushed to where Gamamamahage was, when he reported the event. To his astonishment, Gamamamhage was doing some embroidery work whistling a tune of a popular song, and also he notice that the devil was seated on the ground and doing some subtle work, immensely concentrating on it. Relieved Gamarala asked for the cause from Gamamamahage, and what has really happened was Gamamamahage has picked a curly hair from a particular place of her body and assigned the devil to straighten the thing.

            The devil is still engaged in that particular work. Will the emperor differ from the devil. We will wait and see.

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear Gamarala;

            My belief is not your common belief, it is not the most popular one, is that the problem, Eh?

            Thanks!

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @off the cuff,

            Buddhism tells you the consequences of and action. It does not prevent you taking that action.

            In other words, Buddhism doesn’t have a moral philosophy. Buddhism doesn’t tell you to avoid killing because it is right, in a moral sense. It does so only because it is in your self-interest.

            Now you can immediately see the problem with this. If religion has any point, it is that it tells you what’s right and what’s wrong. Since Buddhism doesn’t have a moral philosophy to decide right and what’s wrong, it can only tell you what’s good for you and what’s not.

            But there are times when killing is indeed in your self-interest. Suppose you love your country very much, so it is in your self-interest to do so. You go around killing enemies. You will sure go to hell. But you will protect your country.

            So that would mean the Hela Urumaya is totally justified, as Buddhists act only on their self-interest. In this case, it was in their self-interest to protect the country.

            Does that seem like the Buddhist? I don’t think so. But since Buddhism doesn’t have a moral philosophy, that’s exactly where it leads.

            ***

            Of course, science doesn’t give answers to moral questions. But science isn’t a religion, hence not expected to answer moral questions.

            ****

            The corpse of a freshly dead person has no mind even though EVERY atom the person had immediately before death remains.

            This is the non-material view. You think when a person dies, his mind leaves the body. Mind and Body are separate entities, according to this view.

            Any view that holds this position, should answer the questions I raised earlier.

            1.If you describe non-material things as things that can be both causes and effects (the only view Buddhism can have), it immediately begs the question why you’re calling them non-material if they act the same way material things act?

            2. Regardless of the first question, if those non-material things actually exist, why exactly physics equations are capable of describing the universe with such precision without those non-material things?

            3. At what point of evolution did this non-material thing come up to being? Since as far as we know, non-material things (if they exist at all) are not capable of creating complex structures like cells, Minds must have come out suddenly in full form. So was there a point where the parents had no minds, but the child had?

            You say: Science is still in it’s infancy when dealing with mind matters.

            Do you realize that you sound very much like Ahamed? When science is against your favoured beliefs, you simply call science is not developed enough. When science confirms your own beliefs, you use it to attack other’s beliefs.

            What has escaped your attention is the word “Estimate”

            Again, do you see how very much like Ahamed you sound. Evolution is just a theory!!!!

            The fact of the matter is, current scientific knowledge suggests that there is nothing more to a human than the atoms that make a human being. There’s no non-material Mind thingy that is separate from the body. This is actually obvious when brain damage can make you forget things.

            Psychopaths have under-developed frontal lobes. This is said to be one of the reasons that they are psychopaths, since frontal lobe is needed to feel empathy and remorse. So basically, you can forcibly take a healthy, moral human being, damage his frontal lobe and make him into a psychopath. If this person then goes ahead and kills someone, does this count as bad karma? More importantly, how is this even possible if mind is non-material?

            The view that science presents is really that brain(and whatever else that is also made of atoms), is the mind itself. Hence instead of saying “I have a brain”, you must rather say “The brain has itself”.

            **
            You have taken that as a given. How do you know

            Do you believe viruses can think? The earliest life was even more primitive than viruses. Trees are much more alive than viruses or bacteria. Do you believe trees can think? Do you believe your table can think? I don’t think you do. But how do you know?

            ***

            The perception of the universe is different from species to species and person to person.

            I never denied that. What’s the relevance?

            P.S. Yapa, you don’t exist from this moment on wards. Take it as a compliment.

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear sharanga;

            I really knew that you would not answer my post of 11/22/2012 • 11:22 am. Your contention and will is not to have any non material existence, hence you don’t want to proceed in anyway you would be contradicted, otherwise, I don’t think even a moron you frequently like to remember would not understand that simple direct question. If anything to be martial it must have a mass and a volume, if you claim Maths is material, you must be able to substantiate the claim by showing maths has a mass and a volume. Even a moron can understand but it is still distant to you.

            I must tell you your ideology, materialism, is a dead ideology. Really it had no any philosophy, but what did through out the history was just to oppose the idea that the reality is consist of both material and non material things. It was adamant that the reality was consist only of matter, that can be perceived through five senses. Other than just denials of the other philosophies, it has nothing concrete to prove its stance. But even you look carefully at the concepts in Newtonian science which gave some back bone to Materialism, you will find that materialism is contradicted.

            The Newtonian Science’s idea of the universe is that it consists of bodies(matter) moving in the space along the flow of time under the influence of forces. In the description of the universe it talks of “space”, “matter”, “time” and “forces”. I think you accept these entities exist in the physical universe, Newton used these with mathematics to derive formulas to phenomena of the physical universe.

            Out of those four entities, other than “matter”, do you think the other three entities as material? Do you say space, time and force as defined in Newtonian Mechanics are of material.

            I think according to the Newtonian Mechanics, three out of four entities that make universe are non material.

            Tell me your idea.

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Addition…………

            Material means “made out of matter”, do you say space, time, force (and Mathematics as well)are made out of matter?

            Without splitting hairs please start from the definitions and fundamental and achieve your end.

            I say, physical universe described in the Newtonian Mechanics is not totally material. Newtonian Universe is a combination of material and non material entities.

            (Attention of Saban is also drawn to these two posts, at least as an observer, if not as a participant.)

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Please see the volatility of matter in Modern Science!

            “…….There is no place in the new kind of Physics both for field and matter, for field is the only reality. So here we see Einstein claiming the field or space formally known as ether and treated as such in his definition….space is like a crucible where varying intensity in space creates the illusion of physical matter. …………..”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=702yrRAzbY0&feature=relmfu

            Rip Van Winkles are talking of the old hamlets in the village!

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            (Please post here, not above)

            These are the kind of cosmological principles of Modern Science (taken as absolute truths) taken as the base to question the other ideologies. The base is slippery, but the “Science believers” still mocking at others thinking their base is the absolute truth.

            Big Bang never happened, Part1, 2, 3,………

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&feature=relmfu

            Modern scientists are not assertive of their theories, but activists do not know that they are naked. They have no idea what is happening in the field of modern science today.

            Thanks!

          • wellwisher

            Sabbe labban

            Ahmed pointed out with real scientific evidences which directs towards the need for a designer (please spend two hours to watch those videos). Understanding science with observable fact is something to do with intelligent. People may or may not convince based on their level of understanding.

            How do I know book is right? Well, its with a comparable study which I had written down earlier (see below pls)

            Once the freewill is given to man or jinn, they are responsible for their action. Free will is the choice to do as per the will. This choice has given with the book. Machine should run as per the catalog and if not it’s the fault of the operator and not the designer. You are operating your life.

            “Just like as if there was no “God”-the things in the universe would continue to happen without him”

            Intelligent design disproves your statement.

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear sharanga and All;

            Validity of Materialism has been comprehensively disproved in both Newtonian Mechanics and Modern Physics by the acceptance of the existence of space, time, and force or space-time and force which non-material in the universe. The foundation of Materialism is that the universe and all its contents are made out of matter and matter alone.

            Really other than this assertion about the matter it had no arguments to explain the phenomena of the universe but relied on findings of Science to substantiate its stance. However, I think the very temple that was taken for prayers by the Materialism has fallen on its head. Science itself has disproved materialism.

            I don’t think ardent advocate of Materialism, who wanted to defeat all the other ideologies for the benefit of mankind in empathy will any more be here to depend materialism. When ships sink rats will not love any more their floating mansions.

            However, even though the people raise questions against other ideologies while holding bankrupt ideologies, it is necessary answer them to clear the mud from the ideologies badly treated by bankrupts.
            Here is such a question, raised by our friend sharanga against Buddhism.

            “3) Why the 15 billion years estimate conflicts with Buddhism is obvious. But then there are readers like yapa too so I spell it out. Buddhism talks about a “samsara” much longer than that. Buddha tried to become Buddha for a “saraasankya kalpa lakshayak”. That’s a really big number.”

            It seems that sharanga has raised this question based on his (blind) belief on Big Bang Theory, of the origin of the universe. However, there are growing speculations in the circles of physicists that Big Bang Theory is not consistent with the modern observational data of the universe. It seems the beginning suggested in the Big bang theory for the universe is creating continuously increasingly problems to the theory itself. Rip Van Winkles do not these facts as just believed in old hamlet of the village but sleeping without any sense to the changes taken place in the modern development of knowledge. The alternative suggested by the modern physicists to the dying Big Bang Theory is the Plasma Theory, which says the universe is is existing forever without having a beginning. In the first pace why anybody should think that everything should have a beginning?

            According to the new plasma theory “samsara” and “saraasankya kalpa lakshayak” are justified more than the Big Bang’s figure of the 15 billion years of its estimate.

            I think the theory of Buddhist Cosmology is the Crunch Theory,
            which also refuses to give a beginning to the universe. Rip Van Winkles know only what others taught to them in their primary schools, believed as gospel truths. They neither know what happened during their sleep or what happened before they were born into this miserable world.

            I know for certain, for most of the people Science is a fashionable religion, to believe in faith.

            Thanks!

          • Off the Cuff

            Sharanga,

            You say “Do you realize that you sound very much like Ahamed? When science is against your favoured beliefs, you simply call science is not developed enough. When science confirms your own beliefs, you use it to attack other’s beliefs”

            I thought that you sounded like him because you think science is like God, infallible, omniscient and omnipotent. But science like everything else is impermanent and proven to be fallible.
            Impermanence is a fundamental truth in Buddhist Philosophy.

            I gave you a direct example of a truth that science was incapable of proving till the 1980s. You could not prove who your father was before DNA. Do you realise what that can imply?

            Did you doubt your mother when she said your father was your actual biological father because ONLY she knew for sure? Science could not prove it one way or another, remember. Did you ever doubt her based on the inability of science to confirm what you believed in? Did you ever think that you were illegitimate? Science could not establish the truth simply because it was not mature enough before 1980 not because your mother was lying.

            Your argument above is based on the belief that Science is infallible.
            It is a puerile argument as I have just proved it’s immaturity in the medical field.

            Science is immature in many fields and it is fallible.

            Newtonian Science that was THE SCIENCE in the old days has been superseded. Neuroscience is one field of science that is immature. Investigative tools capable of observing the brain in action such as the MRI is of recent origin. Acupuncture is unexplainable by science but is accepted by the WHO as a treatment capable of turning an unborn baby in the breach position to the head down position for normal delivery.

            It is unbelievable that a few pricks on the skin of the pregnant woman can induce the foetus to move inside her womb. But the fact is, it is true and science is baffled as to why.

            Your explanation for the inability to detect the mind by science is flawed. You have ignored the possibility that immaturity of science could be the culprit.

            That immaturity, is a proven fact, in many fields of science.

            “This is the non-material view. You think when a person dies, his mind leaves the body. Mind and Body are separate entities, according to this view.”

            Did I say anything about the mind leaving the body?
            I said The corpse of a freshly dead person has no mind even though EVERY atom the person had immediately before death remains. So you need not go so far as removing every atom, just explain why the person is considered dead? What are you referring to as “mind”? What is Brain Death?

            I said it has no mind. Ha haa are you contradicting me?
            You were laboriously removing atoms, so I eliminated the need to do that by taking the example of a fresh corpse where the body was intact but the mind was extinct.

            “Psychopaths have under-developed frontal lobes. This is said to be one of the reasons that they are psychopaths, since frontal lobe is needed to feel empathy and remorse. So basically, you can forcibly take a healthy, moral human being, damage his frontal lobe and make him into a psychopath. If this person then goes ahead and kills someone, does this count as bad karma? More importantly, how is this even possible if mind is non-material?”

            Sharanga the above is ample proof that you are ignorant of the Buddhist concept of Karma (good or bad). Karma simply means action in Pali. An act becomes good or bad due to intent. If intent does not exist the act will carry no weight for the future.

            You say “Of course, science doesn’t give answers to moral questions. But science isn’t a religion, hence not expected to answer moral questions”

            By your own admission, Science has not taught you any morals.
            Does that mean you have no Morals since you are guided only by science?
            Are you Immoral?
            Do you see every women and every man in your life as a possible sexual partner? If not, what makes you differentiate good from bad, moral from immoral?

            Re my statement ..
            The perception of the universe is different from species to species and person to person. You say
            “I never denied that. What’s the relevance?”
            Your world view is limited by your senses and hence you cannot be certain what the truth is since you perceive it with less senses or less acute senses than someone or something else posses.

            I was hoping that you would have the intellectual maturity to discuss Buddhism without descending in to politics or Hela Urumaya or personalities. Which is why I ignored your several references to Yapa who has check mated you regarding the existence of non material things in a supposedly material only universe (in the earlier post ). Apparently you cannot make an argument without personalities since you have brought Ahmed also in to your writings this time.

            “Do you believe viruses can think? The earliest life was even more primitive than viruses. Trees are much more alive than viruses or bacteria. Do you believe trees can think? Do you believe your table can think? I don’t think you do. But how do you know?”

            Are you basing your arguments on a belief?
            I asked how you knew.

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @off the cuff

            I’ll try to make this my last response to you on this thread. The fact that you think Yapa check-mated me about non-materialism turns an alarm on. It’s one thing to think non-materialism is true. It’s quite another thing to think Yapa made a convincing argument for it. I see no merit in a prolonged argument.
            **
            Science is not infallible. If you read my blog, you’d know that I don’t think it is infallible.

            The thing about science is that it is falsifiable. In other words, it is testable. This is a quality that no other system of knowledge have. Science has a mechanism to eliminate wrong ideas. Othet systems of knowledge just call themselves unfalsifiable and pat themselves in the back for being so.

            Whatever the current scientific theory is, it is the one that is supported by current known evidence. Given the current evidence, you have to believe the current theory. If you think the current theory is wrong, you need to present evidence.

            The fundamental question of rationality is what do you think you know, and how do you think you know it. You can’t simply say the current scientific theory of mind is incorrect because science is immature. You need to present evidence that contradicts the current theory. Otherwise you’re just utterring baseless nonsense.

            The worst part of it is that people like you and Ahamed are selective when you deny scientific theories. You are fine with them when they support your views. You say they are immature when they contradict your views, without evidence, because currently known evidence always support the current theory.

            The premise isn’t science is infallible. The premise is, given the currently known evidence, the current scientific theory is true. Anything that contradicts it without presenting new evidence, instead saying science is immature sort of things, is just baseless nonsense.

            ***
            About DNA. It doesn’t matter whether DNA is invented or not. If you want truth, you have to rely on evidence, and stop utterring nonsense that are not based on evidence. Before DNA we had to rely on whatever evidence available to us. Even after DNA, we still have to rely on what evidence available to us. You can’t make statements like “Science says you are my parent, but you are not. Science is just immature”.

            ***
            Having all the atoms is not enough to be alive. They need to be arranged in a certain way. Brain death is irreversible structural change in the brain. Once that happens, you stop thinking. There’s no mind separate from the brain. If you want to dispute this, you need to present evidence that suggests people go on thinking about sports cars even after their brains die.

            ***
            Psychopath thing. I’m simply pointing out that Buddhism’s simplistic view about free will delusional. We don’t have the kind of free will Buddhism think we have.

            Modify a man’s brain and make him a psychopath. He’ll have intent to kill and he will indeed kill. But he has these bad intentions only because what you did to him. So basically you can condemn a man to eternal hell by modifying his brain.

            Similarly, you can bypass karma laws. Modify a man’s brain so that he thinks other humans are not sentient. So when he kills, it will be like cutting trees. He has no intention to kill.

            Buddhism thinks we are responsible for our decisions, but this sort of questions raises doubts about how much responsibility we can actually take.

            ***
            My morality? You have Yapa’s knack for missing the point by 2000 light years.

            I have morality and so do you. But neither of us derive it from Buddhism or science. Buddhism, as I pointed earlier, does not overcome is/ought problem.

            What we really do is taking the statement “hurting others is bad” as a premise and building on that. This premise is not proven. We just take it as a given.

            The question isn’t whether I have morality, the question is whether anyone can derive any morality from Buddhism. That is, can anyone derive ought statements from Buddhism. You just can’t.

            ***
            Perceptions. Of course I don’t have the ability perceive everything. The question is, do you have a sense organ I don’t have? For example, do you have something on your belly that detects the universal laws that Yapa talks about? If not, stop pretending you know anything about life after death anymore than I do. You can’t make statements about things you can’t know.

            ***
            There are two kinds of beliefs. There are those that are based on evidence and will change in light of new evidence, and those that are not based on evidence and are immune to evidence. I believe viruses don’t think because thinking requires a brain. You kill the brain and you stop thinking. Viruses don’t have brains, so believe they don’t think. If you dispute this, present evidence that you can think even without a brain. If you can’t do that, please go on doing what you’re currently doing: talking to trees because you think they think, even though science is too immature to know that.

          • Neo scientist

            Dear yapa,

            I think you are trying to cook as per your taste. you are pointing at others that they are not updating their knowledge but you also try to present something which not really a modern development. Plasma cosmology was proposed in 1965 and the latest book on this was published last on 1991 by Eric J. Lerner, called “The Big Bang Never Happened” (which in fact opposing origin of universe by bigbang but not demanding universe not had a origin at all) . There are many developments when it comes to cosmological studies from then and still big bang is considered as more acceptable model. Also don’t confuse with plasma physics with plasma cosmology.

            Also you try to keep your faith on both on crunch theory and plasma cosmology. Unfortunately, crunch theory is part of ekpyrotic universe which talks about the beginning (by bigbang) and end (with big crunch) though no observable facts exist to validate big crunch. On the other hand plasma cosmology includes a Strong Cosmological Principle which assumes that the universe is isotropic in time as well as in space. Matter is explicitly assumed to have always existed, or at least that it formed at a time so far in the past as to be forever beyond humanity’s empirical methods of investigation. You can’t have both chilli and ice cream to justify your taste. If you accept one other one goes out. If you read carefully even plasma cosmology not rejecting the origin of universe but it claims such cannot be investigate with empirical methods.

            To update with latest on why we should think there was a origin for universe; it had been mathematically proven universe had a beginning, of course considering these cosmological models including the steady state models.

            http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

            http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

            I hope you know the rule of thumb, i.e a model should support by mathematics to be true.

            Whatever the model you take we are interested in our solar system than origin of universe as so far only in earth life is known, if not your philosophy must say there are other places for living if your philosophy to be intact. It is an observable fact with other stars that our sun had an origin and will come to an end. Now this is the place intelligent design taking place. If sun is forming again our home like earth should form and life should remain with all intelligent design factors. ( please see the videos ahmad had posted) , Again karma itself required intelligent cause if not what decides good deeds will be rewarded with good birth. So just like naturalist idea of Darwinism, even Buddhism lacking in evidence when it comes to intelligent design with observable facts and explaining karma without a super natural cause. With this sense, creationist got an upper hand.

          • Off the Cuff

            Sharanga,

            “If you read my blog, you’d know that I don’t think it is infallible”

            I read GV and my responses are based on what is presented to readers of GV. What you write elsewhere has no relevance here (to think otherwise is presumptuous).

            Now that you have accepted Science is fallible you should be more careful in using science to contest areas of knowledge that science is yet in it’s infancy. Neuroscience is an area where science is in it’s infancy. If you think otherwise establish it.

            You have avoided answering why Science cannot explain Acupuncture’s ability to turn a Foetus inside the mother’s womb. Yet this is a verifiable fact not withstanding the current scientific knowledge.

            “Science has a mechanism to eliminate wrong ideas”

            So how do you use this mechanism to eliminate things that science does not understand?

            “It doesn’t matter whether DNA is invented or not. If you want truth, you have to rely on evidence, and stop utterring nonsense that are not based on evidence. Before DNA we had to rely on whatever evidence available to us. Even after DNA, we still have to rely on what evidence available to us.”

            Sharanga you are losing it.
            DNA was not invented.
            It was discovered.
            It existed as long as life existed.
            But if some sage spoke about it before 1980’s people like you would have ridiculed him saying there is no such thing as DNA based on the ignorance of science. The same ignorance that you are basing your arguments now.

            “You can’t make statements like “Science says you are my parent, but you are not. Science is just immature”

            Sharanga you are writing gibberish.
            I did not make that silly statement. You did
            Please don’t project your immaturity on your opponent just because you cannot meet the argument.

            What I said was you could not prove who your “Father” was, based on Science before DNA was discovered. Maternity needed no scientific proof as you were physically given birth to by your mother. Paternity could not be proved as the sperm which fertilised the ovum had no physical or observable or definite scientific evidence even as recent as the 1970’s. The inability of science to establish paternity with the then current scientific knowledge did not mean that the whole population was illegitimate.

            “Having all the atoms is not enough to be alive. They need to be arranged in a certain way”

            Are you pontificating?
            Please provide scientific evidence of this “certain way”

            “Brain death is irreversible structural change in the brain. Once that happens, you stop thinking”

            But this person is still alive.
            Unable to think but still alive?
            This person has all the atoms intact and still arranged in this still mysterious “certain way” that you refer to?

            “There’s no mind separate from the brain. If you want to dispute this, you need to present evidence that suggests people go on thinking about sports cars even after their brains die”

            Of course there is no mind separate from the brain. Are you that naïve not to realise that this was what I was trying to elicit from you when I framed all those questions? You had this silly notion of a mind moving out of a body that showed how ignorant you are of Buddhist philosophy.

            “Similarly, you can bypass karma laws. Modify a man’s brain so that he thinks other humans are not sentient. So when he kills, it will be like cutting trees. He has no intention to kill.”

            You do not have an inkling of what you are writing about.
            Intent is the essence.
            Yes it may be possible to modify a man’s brain (though you have not produced evidence as usual). If that could be done and the mind is completely overcome in such a way the intent to kill is removed totally that person will not be fulfilling all conditions that will make it an intentional killing. Have you proved anything?
            Where does the bypass happen?

            “Buddhism thinks we are responsible for our decisions, but this sort of questions raises doubts about how much responsibility we can actually take.”

            No Buddhism STATES that we are responsible for our wilful actions. It is these wilful actions that brings a consequence, not God or any other enforcer. You have doubts because you have no understanding of the concepts.

            “I have morality and so do you. But neither of us derive it from Buddhism or science. Buddhism, as I pointed earlier, does not overcome is/ought problem”

            My question was designed to drive home the point that you know what good and bad is. Else you would behave as animals do. You have been asking for proof of good and bad when you yourself cannot define it.

            The basis of Buddhism is not what you have identified.
            It is based on four truths
            the existence of suffering, the reason for suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path to the cessation of suffering.

            Hence there is no is/ought problem that you have imagined.

            You are shown the path. You could take it or leave it. There is no compulsion.

            “Perceptions. Of course I don’t have the ability perceive everything. The question is, do you have a sense organ I don’t have? For example, do you have something on your belly that detects the universal laws that Yapa talks about?”
            Apparently you do not have the ability even to perceive what was written. No wonder you have to regularly descend to referring to Ahmed, Yapa etc.

            “If not, stop pretending you know anything about life after death anymore than I do. You can’t make statements about things you can’t know”

            Great wisdom even though you have been pontificating about life after death all along. As for me, I am still learning.

            “If you can’t do that, please go on doing what you’re currently doing: talking to trees because you think they think, even though science is too immature to know that”

            How do you know what I think?
            Are you Telepathic or practising Voodoo?
            Or is it that immaturity of science is compounded by your own, as evidenced by the incoherent arguments and name throwing.

            “There are two kinds of beliefs. There are those that are based on evidence and will change in light of new evidence, ……”

            Meaning that the original belief was wrong?
            Why? Was the original evidence half baked?
            How could such a belief be used as a standard to judge others with?

            Do you talk to trees?
            What do they say?
            I don’t know, as I don’t talk to them.

          • Neo scientist

            @sharanga
            I think you didn’t get properly what ahmed was telling and quoting him out of context. In his writing I see he is up to real scientific evidences. In his view ID is more scientific than evolution. He is with a clear idea how to differentiate proven concepts and mere theories under yardstick of science.

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @neo scienitist

            No the last comment was addressed to off the cuff who wants to selectively dismiss scientific claims that contradicts his faith saying science is immature.

            Ahamed on the other hand selectively dismiss scientific claims that contradict his faith believing that those scientific claims are baseless pseudoscientific claims, which means that 99% of scientists are actually pseudoscientists.

            Both views are pathetically hopeless.

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @off the cuff

            I wasn’t going to respond. But I’m not going to discuss anything related to religion ever again with you or Yapa, so this’ll be a closing statement.

            1. Even if a science is at its infancy, you still have to believe whatever it says because that’s all the real knowledge you have. At any particular point of time, scientific knowledge is all real knowledge you have. Everything else is mere speculation or gibberish.

            I don’t know particularly about acupuncture thing. But if what you are saying is true, and if it contradicts current scientific knowledge, we modify science. Because in this case, we have new evidence.

            Until you have similar evidence to suggest there is re-birthing mind, you can shut up about it.

            2. Science’s mechanism to understand things that it doesn’t yet understand, is to understand them. Until science proves a re-birthing mind, you’d do well to shut up about it.

            3. If someone claimed there is such a thing called DNA, I’d ask him to prove it through experiment. I’m perfectly right to make that demand. You on the other hand would just believe in DNA without such evidence, along with a host of other nonsense, like you can get psychic powers by modifying them.

            4. You are displaying your amazing ability to miss the point by 2000 light years. I wrote pretty specifically that at every point in time, you need to use whatever evidence available to you. Scientific evidence is given precedence. But in the absence of those you take rational evidence. What you don’t do is make up nonsense when current science contradicts you. For example, you can’t say your parent is not your parent even though DNA testing says just that saying DNA science is at its infancy. You have to wait for real proof. In a similar vein, you can’t come up with a re-birthing mind that does not reduce to atoms, which would contradict current science, saying the science is immature.

            5. Am I pontificating? No. Modern science is pretty certain that if you beat a man to pulp, he would not be alive even though all the atoms are there.

            6. Is the person still alive? No. Once the brain stops functioning irreversibly, that’s a goodbye.

            7. There is no mind separate from the brain? That’s what I said, not you. You seemed to think that even the first life form on earth, which didn’t have a brain, also had a mind.

            But Buddhism requires a mind that is separate from the brain. Otherwise, how can there be any continuity between one life to another?

            8. How does the bypass happen? You can drink alcohol. That’ll be a sin. But you won’t be responsible for anything you do afterwards, putting the blame on chemical imbalances just like the psychopath’s case.

            9. I can’t define good and bad in philosophical terms because metaphysically speaking, there no good or bad, no right or wrong. Buddhism implies otherwise though it can’t prove it. There’s all this talk about how a proper Buddhist should live.

            10. Neither you nor me have the ability to perceive what’s after death. The difference is, I don’t pretend I know but you do. I say life after death is unlikely because there’s no evidence. You on the other hand not only think there is a life after death, you know there’s a life cycle, and the mechanism with which it works. That’s pompous speculation.

            The rest of your comment is not worth a response. Bye.

        • Gamarala

          Yapa,

          You’re kind of a sweet guy, but deluded nevertheless, unlike your mentor Nalin De Silva, who is just deluded, period. Until you develop something called “intellectual integrity and rigour”, and stop trying to twist the facts to fit your misbegotten world view, discussing anything with you is a fruitless affair. Still, I suppose there is some perverse fun to be had, plumbing the depths of human self deception and experiencing intellectual rigor mortis with you, Ahmed, Off the cuff and a few others ;-)

          • Off the Cuff

            You seem to have written your own intellectual Death Certificate with the demonstrated inability to argue a point without recourse to name throwing of unrelated outsiders. Ha ha haa.

  • dingiri

    Clearly, Yapa and Ahmed are made for each other :-)

  • Happy Heathen

    Wellwisher
    11/22/2012 • 3:56 am

    More gibberish……

    3 simple questions again;

    “Identifying the designer with correct definition will not lead to infinite regression. It’s a problem of some Theistic religion which define god just like a creation and non Theistic religion which doesn’t explain anything at all.”

    1. How do you know that it is ONE CREATOR?

    2. Are you saying all other religions are wrong – if not why did you chose Islam out of all the fairy tales and imaginary friends?

    3. Do non-believers go to hell – if so how do you know that?

    • dingiri

      Basically, what Well wisher is saying is that one needs blind faith to believe in his dogma. Just like every other religion. If he wasnt born to Moslem parents he would have been a Yapa or an Bible basher.

      • wellwisher

        you could be true with the condition that If I don’t learn anything with an open mind. If I had learned just as now I did, then I would have been converted to Islam. Islam is not a property of anyone and a Muslim is not a name that comes with the birth right. Anyone can be a Muslim upon accepting Islam isn’t? Everyone should carry the burden of their own. You carry yours and I’ll carry mine.

    • wellwisher

      @Heathen

      1. How do you know that it is ONE CREATOR?

      By logic if god exists he has to be without limit, i.e not limited by time and space in the material world, if limited, it will raise the problem who created god? Hence by default something limited is not a creator. By defining something, I give it borders. If for example I define an apple as a sweet, round fruit that is green (or red), then when I find a long purple fruit, I know that it can’t be an apple. An apple is limited to be round and red or green. That is its definition. also I can place numbers on them. God can’t be defined with limited terms, because by defining God you are saying that there’s something God can’t be; but this could not be true, because God is unlimited to be eternal. That’s why there can be only one God. Because if you don’t have a define limit, then there is nothing outside it. There can be no “other”. An example: two neighboring countries can only be called two countries when there is a border in between them. But if a country has no borders, if there is no defined place where it ends and another country begins, how can you say that there are two countries? God has no limits, so how can there be more than one god? Where would one god end and one begin if there is no dividing line between them? The act of creation is the act of making borders and drawing definitions: this is an apple and not a banana; this is land and this is sea. Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn’t have a limited definition. That’s what makes Him God. And that’s why there can only be one. Here “him” is used as Object Pronoun and “he” as subject pronoun for god because there is no pronouns were defined for god in English, in Arabic “He” is used for everything other than “she”.

      So designer behind the intelligent design need to be one and if more than one it can’t be eternal as it falls in to materialistic limits. ONLY Islam defines this designer in a way can be considered as eternal absolute.

      2. Are you saying all other religions are wrong – if not why did you chose Islam out of all the fairy tales and imaginary friends?

      If you study other religion properly it will lead to Islam. The Qur’an explains that God (Allah) had previously instructed people how to live through the Prophets of old, but this original message had become corrupted by human intervention. For example, according to the Qur’an Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus (all of whom are regarded as Prophets), had each proclaimed the true message of Islam, but that divisions and human interests had watered down their original message to such an extent that it had become lost to people. Islam should not be regarded as a new religion, but a (final) call for people to turn back to the truth they had previously been taught. People turn religion to their will is obvious. Could you please point one word of Jesus (puh) in bible that says “worship me” or Buddha’s request to make an idol and worship or respect him. Don’t you find mixed idea of monotheism and polytheism in Hinduism? This shows man always amended the religion for his convenient. Right and good are two words in meaning. Right religion must come from the designer and it will define what is good and bad.

      3. Do non-believers go to hell – if so how do you know that?

      If design is understood and the designer’s message is identified then to looked at the message. Yes according to the message non-believers go to hell.

      I hope this is what you had expected from me. More gibberish isn’t?
      Everything is nothing is more gibberish than this :)))))))

      • Happy Heathen

        wellwisher
        11/23/2012 • 3:10 am

        1. NO it doesn’t explain anything!!!!! You just wrote more gibberish on what you THOUGHT might be the TRUTH without any convincing evidence.

        2. This I find highly offensive and imperious to say that all other religions are under ISLAM!!! wow you’ve got some guts there mate!!!! specially without a single concrete evidence.
        YES the Abrahamic religions share lot in common as both Christianity and Islam are shameless plagiarized versions of Judaism.
        However, if you compare them with Vedic religions you’ll find there are 100 different conflicts which I don’t have time or the space to elucidate. For examples both Jains and Buddhists don’t believe in a creator so how do you reconcile that? They also believe in re-incarnation and concepts like Ahimsa. So according to your Dogma they all go to hell!!! Now Jains and Buddhists won’t like that!

        JUST BECAUSE ISLAM IS THE LATEST FAIRY TALE (with due respect to Scientology) IT DOESN’T MAKE IT THE ONE TRUE RELIGION!!!

        3. How do you know that non-believers go to hell? (that was my original question btw)
        I’d rather go to hell than heaven in any case because I can meet interesting people like Gandhi, Che, Marx, Bakunin, Laozi, Chomsky, Chattopadhyaya…well the list goes on compared to Hitler, Bush and Bin Laden…..who are all in heaven……

        • wellwisher

          Heathen
          Reasoning and analyzing in the light of science and logic is what caters intelligent being. Anyone can say anything such as “not proven anything, etc” by neglecting the facts.

          A= intelligent design exist (scientific idea derived by observable facts)

          B= a designer should exist (logically derived from A)

          C= this designer should be eternal, that is, not had beginning or end, if not this will lead to infinite regression (a condition to be applied for B to be true)

          D= for this designer to be eternal it has to be absolute, if not it falls in to the limits of time and space (a condition to be applied for C to be true)

          E=Islam defines the designer as eternal absolute hence satisfying A, B, C and D

          F=other theistic religions directs towards Islam (a comparative religious study)

          Hence, Islam is true!

          Now as you are a heathen or pagan, you need to bring your argument to prove I am wrong and you are right :)

          —-
          Now for you to conclude Christianity derived from Judaism and Islam derived from Judaism and Christianity you should present concrete evidence. Old Testament and Talmud talks about prophets that will come in the future and also talks about a prophet that will come in the last day call “Shiloh” . in New Testament Jesus telling about a person that will come after him call “Comforter”. So how do you know Christianity and Islam was derived and not revealed?
          If you read them properly you will find how the real message of Jesus was modified by St.Paul such that god as trinity and Jesus as god, etc. for this you need real comparative religious study knowledge. Now if you come to non Abrahamic theistic c and non theistic religion, well they suffer from infinite regression just like normal philosophy.
          Every religion claims their preaching is path to salvation. Now if some Jains and Buddhists won’t like what I said then it has proved that they are not confident about their belief system. If a Buddhist or a Hindu is so sure about Buddha’s or verdict teaching why they should worry about Islamic stand on non believers, that is if not believe in Allah and his final prophet, then they will go to hell? For your information according to Islam, Judaism and Christianity also faced content alteration in their holy text by human. So a Jews or Christian will not be considered as believers, so people will go to hell and heaven is not the way you had prescribed. In fact a person secretly believed and submitting also considered as Muslims despite of his none Muslim name. Also a person with a Muslim name but secretly not believing god and disobeying his command will be considered as non believer. In short God is the judge to say who is believer or non believer. Not you and me

          • Happy Heathen

            Wellwisher

            More gibberish….

            1.

            A= intelligent design exist (scientific idea derived by observable facts)

            B= a designer should exist (logically derived from A)

            A= not proven conclusively – can you disprove or prove the existent of celestial teacup or flying spaghetti monster?

            B= even A is proven beyond doubt B doesn’t means there is ONE CREATOR.

            Therefore your argument is inherently flawed. PERIOD. (please no more of this Creationist BS)

            2. So without any shred of evidence (Refer 1.) you have blissfully proclaimed that that ISLAM IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION.

            3. you have not answered the question, perhaps let’s try once again.
            HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT NON-BELIEVERS GO TO HELL? Has anyone seen hell? I’ve seen North Korea and a slaughterhouse in Indonesia!

            Couple of new ones to conclude this ridiculous thread….

            4. What purpose does religion serve other than life beyond death?

            5. If your imaginary god send another delusional prophet who preaches a different fairytale would you believe that?
            Perhaps I’ll simplify it further: if someone conclusively convinced you that some other Jeebus is the last prophet would you believe that?

            6. If someone proved to you convincingly that the god (or gods) doesn’t exist, would you go on pillaging, raping, sodomizing, murdering people? and start wearing a condom so the world population could be reduced to sustainable levels?

          • wellwisher

            1 &2 your inability to grasp will not shatter the facts ?
            3it is in the order, identify the message and look in to it. If say so its true.
            4. Moral values will be restored if properly followed. Unlike materialistic idea fittest service and do atrocities all around the world.
            5. Do you have concrete evidence to call it imaginary, the day your pump stopped may be you can figure out :). No there are no more prophets. So this question doesn’t carry any value
            6. Sertainly that’s what materialist and those who under the same idea but having a religious identity do now. Fittest survives…

        • sabbe laban

          Well, Sikhism which was founded after Islam too believes in one God! Irrespective of wheather Guru Nanak copied from Islam or not, Sikhism becomes the latest version, Wellwisher! Anyway it seems to be a better religion with no animal sacrifices in Halaal method, prescribed by ‘God’!

          Are you going to convert to Sikhism and accept it as the latest version of “God’s word”?

          • wellwisher

            If the text are clear that Mohamed is the last will that leave space anything after. So it requires in depth study. Anyone can manipulate.

          • sabbe laban

            Wellwisher

            So, you go back to your ‘book’ to see whether the book was right? This must be what you call, “open minded”!

        • wellwisher

          PS
          I respect Buddha as a philosopher; he did his best to bring down the caste system that prevailed in that society. But I am not sure whether all his teaching was properly recorded in the history without any modification to his original teaching. I know well about the bible and the way it was canonized around 300 years after death of Jesus. But I am not sure how to assess the integrity of Buddha’s teaching. May be yapa can enlighten us how Tripi?aka was recorded and canonized etc

      • dingiri

        Wellwisher,

        “but that divisions and human interests had watered down their original message to such an extent that it had become lost to people.”

        But hasnt that happened to Islam too? Can you tell us what is the correct strand of the faith which Allah truly endorses? Shia, Sunni, Bhora, Ismaili, Wahabi, Salafi, Sufi, Alawite or Twelvers?

        • wellwisher

          Not really, as the original text is intact. Anyone studying properly can identify the truth. That’s the reason independent study is required. All this sects exist because they fail to get the facts from the source that already intact. An open minded person can still get the truth. However if source itself corrupted means where the reader will go?

          • sabbe laban

            Wellwisher

            Do you have any historical records to say WHEN that “uncorrupt source” was written down, after it was “apparently delivered” by God? Only you have this special knowledge about this source?

  • sabbe laban

    Yapa

    As we too have debated on numerous previous occasions, sharanga’s argument boils down to thus:

    “Killing hurts other people.
    Therefore, killing is bad.
    For the conclusion to be true, you must first prove that hurting other people is bad. Here, it hasn’t been done.”

    As I remember, you agreed on a previous occasion that the above premise is purely a ‘moral law’ which ancient phiosophers like Buddha and Mahavira thought would lead to “good or bad consequences” i.e. karmic effects.

    And,I have pointed out before, that there is no such “moral law” in the universe; if there is one, there should be some “authority”-like Ahmed’s Allah(Peace Be Upon Him)- who sees the difference between Yapa(Peace Be Upon Him)killing an ant and Yapa(Peace Be Upon Him) observing sil and meditating!

    As I told before the universe doesn’t care!

    Therefore you can’t prove that hurting others is bad-and that there is such a universal law which recognizes it as bad!

    Anyway, I like the way you have written your response!

    • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

      I think “Killing is bad” isn’t just another moral law, like “Eating non halal food is bad” or “Going into temples with hats on is bad”. It is not a universal law, if “universal” is taken to mean related to the physical universe. However, the term “universal” has different meanings and for example in Mathematics “universal set” doesn’t mean to have that particular meaning you refer.If the term “universal” means this second meaning, “killing is bad” can be taken as a “universal law”, or if one wants can name as a “universal moral law”.

      In “Set Theory”, “a Universal Set” is the set of all elements under consideration (and all other sets are subsets of the universal set.) For example “even integers between one and twenty five” is a universal set with the elements of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24. I think in the broader sense this is the meaning of term “universal”, that is everything under consideration (in a given context). I think “killing is bad” includes every element under consideration in it not leaving a single element (being)left out of it.

      Here the elements under consideration are the “elements that can be killed”, hence the elements should be beings, as any other thing cannot be killed (as per the definition of Buddhism), and if all such elements are included in the set(law),it is a universal law. Buddhism doesn’t eave a single being outside the law, doesn’t name killing any single being as not bad. It says killing (any being/all the beings) is bad. Hence it is a law applicable to the whole elements under consideration, and hence a universal law.

      You say as “physical universe doesn’t care about killing” it is not a universal law. What is your special reason to chose the criterion that “will of the physical universe is the thumb rule, a law to be universal”? (What is your special allegiance to physical universe?Ha! Ha!!, Puhul hora karen daene”, Ha! Ha!!)Why not the will of another universal set? Why not the will of the all elements under consideration? If the will of the all the elements under consideration is considered as the universal set, as per “sabbe thasanthi dandassa, sabbe bayanthi machchuno”, the above law represents the will of all the elements under consideration and hence a universal law.

      Do you think that particular universal set doesn’t care about killing?

      That “particular universe” cares about it, no being is like to be killed, hence the whole universe of beings care about killing. Hence, no doubt it is a universal law in the broadest meaning of the term:universal.

      Further one can also argue that concern of the particular law is about good and bad, hence in that sense one can call it a moral law, as well. However, it is a universal law as pointed out before as it does not leave out a single element from its concerns/law, contrast to the moral laws of “Eating non halal food is bad” or “Going into temples with hats on is bad”, which leave many elements outside the sets .

      In this context one can call “killing is bad” moral law as well, however, in its broadest form of the meaning it is a universal law. Agree?

      Thanks!

      • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

        The above post is addressed to my dear friend Saban.

        • sabbe laban

          No Sir! I don’t agree!

          If there is a universal moral law, “killing is bad” the same universe wouldn’t have food chains which maintains beings by making them kill other beings!

          “Killing is bad” is a human law, which we developed after achieving a higher mental capacity to show emotions like kindness. Surely, Buddha and Mahavira were kind persons, but what they say-and what you say- clearly lacks proof!

          To monitor this higher form of moral law, we need a higher authority,(like Ahmed’s God), don’t we?

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @sabbe laban

            You are vastly overestimating Yapa’s intelligence. There’s really no point in debating him. Ahamed seems like an intelligent person who refuse to face evidence because it is against his faith. Yapa on the other hand is someone who thinks he can win a philosophical argument by writing this:

            http://discourssions.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/did-the-coconut-fall/

            Note: I don’t officially recognize his existence.

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear sharanga;

            “Note: I don’t officially recognize his existence.”

            I think it is good for your intellectual health!

            However, do you still say, space, time and force are material?

            Don’t you see Materialism is a dead goose now?

            Thanks!

          • Off the Cuff

            Sabbe,

            Is the desire to live generally universal?

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @the person who doesn’t exist

            Oh dear, were you seriously thinking that when a someone in the 21st century calls himself a materialist, he means that he believes what materialists believed 500 years ago.

            For future reference, when someone calls himself a materialist, what he really means is that he’s a physicalist. You’d know this if you bothered to read at least the Wikipedia page on materialism.

          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            I think it is good for your intellectual health!

            Couldn’t agree more.

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear sharanga;

            “For future reference, when someone calls himself a materialist, what he really means is that he’s a physicalist. You’d know this if you bothered to read at least the Wikipedia page on materialism.”

            Contrary to your earlier stance now you are believing in evolving (changing) definitions?

            Materialist means physicist?

            But physicists believe the existence of non material entities, space, time and forces unlike dud materialists.

            How come non believers in non material things and believers (of non material things) be the same?

            It seems you have no sense of simple logic.

            You cannot give life back to your dead goose.

            Thanks!

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa
          • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

            @yapa

            Materialist doesn’t believe physicist. Jeez. I said meterialist in 21st century means physicalist. Can’t believe I though you were worth debating.

        • Off the Cuff

          Well argued Yapa.

          • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

            Dear Off the Cuff/Saban;

            It seems that again Saban and many others think, they believe only provable things. However, Saban accepted once that even Science starts form unproved assumptions (even laws) to build up its knowledge.

            In the past debate I asked Saban, why the Newton’s Laws of Motion are so:
            1.Why a particle moves alone a straight line at a constant velocity or stay stationary, unless a external force is acted upon? 2. Why the rate of change of momentum of a particle is proportionate to the force acting on it, and why those physical quantities are in the same direction? 3. Why every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

            The whole Mechanic(Newtonian) is based on there principles, but even Newton does not know why they are true.

            If somebody demands proofs for every thing Science will become a zero knowledge system.

            I think many things we will have to take as it is, may be with intuition, which has no recognition in Science. However, really if science does not believe/rely on intuition, just like all other knowledge systems science will become a non entity. All the knowledge systems, including science are based on a set of axioms. No system prove axioms.

            So, I think demanding logical proof for “killing id bad” as a true statement is irrelevant, but I think even Saban’s intuition would convince/suggest to him that “killing is bad” is a true statement. Otherwise, Saban will have to accept that killing him by his son or daughter as not immoral and correct.

            I don’t think Saban’s conscience will allow him to think so. I think morality, emotions etc. may well be lying outside the ream of logic, especially outside the “Middle excluded Two Valued Logic” which is the base of logical knowledge systems. There exist ample possibility to exist non logical but true knowledge systems. I showed and example for such a case in the past, however, even Saban, didn’t care much about it. I wrote the story of a person who can prepare the horoscope of a person, after talking with him for some time. I personally experienced this fact, but how can logicians explain this matter. What I have to repeat in here is Hamlet’s advice to him friend Horatio.

            “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your all philosophy.”

            Thanks!

          • Jony

            In the “didthe coconut fall?” discussion sharanga is right, yapa really messed up with the definition of gravity (which leads to center of the object) and relative velocity (which is taken from an observer point of view; well an American can’t observe a coconut falling in sri lanka from America, lol)

          • sabbe laban

            Off the Cuff

            “Is the desire to live generally universal?”

            If it is “generally” universal, the desire to kill and eat is also “generally” universal!

      • wellwisher

        Dear yapa

        How do you define killing plants? Is it comes under universal law or not?

        Latest discoveries giving different insights about plats

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-112942/Plants-talk-say-scientists.html

        http://phys.org/news/2012-07-tel-aviv-university.html

        http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201204034491/research/talking-plants

        With these discoveries don’t you think the universal law should be changed to “killing for the need is good and anything above the limit is bad.”

        With this understanding don’t you think universal laws are changed to…

        Consuming plant for food is good but wasting is bad.
        Hunting for food is good but for fun is bad.
        Killing the murderer to serve the justice is good but killing the innocent is bad.

        • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

          Dear wellwisher;

          “With these discoveries don’t you think the universal law should be changed to “killing for the need is good and anything above the limit is bad.””

          Do you think your amended law will be still universal, if the law is imposed by the other animals towards the humans?

          If they also take the law as killing(humans)for the need is good and anything above the limit is bad, you think it is still alright?

          You might say its god’s wish to eat animal flesh by humans, but not vice versa. But an animal yesterday told me that according to their holy teaching, eating human flesh by animals is their God’s wish.

          How can I know whose god is right?

          Thanks!

          • wellwisher

            Dear yapa
            Didn’t that animal told you that there is something call food chain in the nature. If killing is bad in all level (as per your life definition excluding plants and bacteria) according to karma is there any possibility of getting a better life in the next birth by those animals which are carnivorous? Is there any valid method to conclude plants are feeling less than animal when it comes to killing? I am really worried that plants didn’t talk to you.

    • dingiri

      Yapas, Labans and Welwishers,

      Why is killing bad?
      Because it hurts the thing you are killing?
      What is worse Killing a human or killing a bacteria (e.g. with antibiorics)?
      If Killing humans is worse we need to recognise a hierarchy of demerits of killing.
      Killing your children
      Killing your spouse
      Killing a stranger
      Killing another primate. (Chimpanzee Monkey etc)
      Killing another mamal
      Killing a reptile
      Killing an insect.
      Killing a worm
      Killing an amoeba
      Killing a bacteria
      Killing a virus.

      What it clear is that we find killing things that are taxonomically closer to us more abhorent. The reason for this is that humans have developed the quality empathy. It is also found in other communal creatures although obviously to a lesser extent, their brains being less developed than ours. The evolutionary reason for the development of empathy is due to our increased chance of survival if we acted co-orperatively.

      Communities where the members shared an empathy for each other were more successfull in coorporating to bring down large animals like mamoths for their food during the stone age. Later, communities that coorporated were able to build irrigation works and cultivate more land. But communities with little empathy where individuals thought it ok to grab another’s food or kill another for his possesions grew smaller due to the internecine violence and eventually dissapeared or got pushed out by better organised groups.

      So consequently empathy has had a direct influence on the expanding human population. If not for it we wont be arguing here.

      However as the population has increased to now cover almost all the world’s landmass, land, water and energy is running out, a new dynamic is taking shape. There soon will not be enough resources to support the 7+ billion population. Therefore I believe the population bubble is also soon going to pop. Just like the economic bubble. Who will remain and who will perish will aslo be determined by evolution. Societies are going to fracture along race and religious lines and start fighting among themselves. The fittest ones with the best weapons will (or might) survive. The rest will perish.

      So as you see.. as far as the planet is concerned there is no Good and Bad. Only Natural Selection where the fittest will survive. Being a Good Person or Bad person is just a personal choice with absolutely no cosmic implications beyond your death. You are not going to be punished in your next birth (even if there is a next birth). If no memory or sense of self is transferred to the “re-incarnation” it might as well be another person. So Karma were it to exist would be like commiting a crime and somebody else being punished for it.

      • http://brainoil.wordpress.com sharanga

        @dingiri

        Great comment. However I must also mention that according to Steven Pinker’s research suggests that over time, we have actually become more peaceful. Still there’s lot of violence, but when you compare that with what we had 10,000 years ago, we have become more peaceful.

        But our weapons have become more powerful. So it is likely that our weapons (nukes, weaponized viruses, nanotech), or a high energy physics experiment, may have an effect similar to one asteroid had on dinosaurs. We really can become the first species on earth to bring about its own extinction.

      • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

        Dear dingiri;

        Except for the following part, I think I can agree with your post.

        “Being a Good Person or Bad person is just a personal choice with absolutely no cosmic implications beyond your death. You are not going to be punished in your next birth (even if there is a next birth). If no memory or sense of self is transferred to the “re-incarnation” it might as well be another person. So Karma were it to exist would be like commiting a crime and somebody else being punished for it.”

        Above part doesn’t seem to be a logical implication, or not supported by evidence.

        Thanks!

      • wellwisher

        Well, this is the final outcome of Darwinism. Fittest survives, so there is nothing call good and bad, justice, etc. infact this is the real danger behind materialism and its acceptance in the socity.

        • sabbe laban

          Welwisher

          Then how come the crime rates are very much low is secular Western countries like Sweeden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands? Are they deterred by religion? They don’t cut the hands and legs of criminals, do they? They don’t even have the death penalty!

          • wellwisher

            Because still they didn’t face scarcity of resources. If the same divide and policy of western imperialism applied to these countries then you can see the outcome. They may be secular when it comes to politics. This doesn’t mean they don’t have any personal beliefs in religion.

          • sabbe laban

            Wellwisher

            I agree! Religion is the tribal way of desciplining people!

  • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

    Dear All;

    I DECLARE COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLETE DEFEAT OF MATERIALISM FOR THE FIST TIME IN THE WHOLE HISTORY WITH MY POSTS PUBLISHED AT http://groundviews.org/2012/10/31/why-religious-intolerance-makes-me-mad/#comment-49558 AND AT
    http://groundviews.org/2012/10/31/why-religious-intolerance-makes-me-mad/#comment-49560

    In those two posts I proved that physical universe described in the Newtonian Mechanics is not totally material. Newtonian Universe is a combination of material and non material entities.

    This proof does not change for the Modern Physics’s description of the physical world as well. Only difference in its view compared to the Newtonian Mechanics’ description is that the Modern Physics believes,space and time as a single entity know as “space-time” and energy is a form of mass as per Einstein’s equation E= mc2.

    I would like to write a descriptive article on my blog soon.

    The popular misconception that Science supports the ideology of materialism is now proved to be the opposite of it. Really science comprehensively and completely disproves materialism.

    Thanks!

  • sabbe laban

    ??????

    Why sudden outburst, Sir?

    Please be kind enough to post your answer under my previous post!

    • http://discourssions.wordpress.com yapa

      The out burst is against the materialistic philosopher who wanted to conquer the world defeating the other philosophies, not against you. I accept you have a point in your last post, regarding moral laws. I will have to think a little bit more about it.

      However, what is your opinion about my disproving of materialism?

      Thanks!

  • http://www.groundviews.org Groundviews

    Dear all,

    This post will close for comments on Monday, 26th November 2012. Please submit your closing arguments.

    Thank you,

    GV

  • Gamarala

    For my closing post, I’d like to respond to wellwisher’s misapprehensions, although a mainstream scientific text would probably do a better job.

    “A= intelligent design exist (scientific idea derived by observable facts)”

    Arbitration assertion. Intelligence existing is not the same as “design” existing. It is demonstrable that simple cellular automata for example, can give rise to what looks like “design”, when none is present. Furthermore, intelligent design must explain unintelligent design as well, like the existence of vestigial organs, the miserable existence of countless animals who die daily so wastefully and in such great agony etc. etc. Therefore, first premise is flawed.

    “B= a designer should exist (logically derived from A)”

    Assertion “A” is flawed, but even if we say it’s true, assertion B is unwarranted. It has been shown, that complexity and design can be built up through evolution. Since an alternative explanation exists (backed by mountains of evidence to boot), assertion B is also flawed.

    “C= this designer should be eternal, that is, not had beginning or end, if not this will lead to infinite regression (a condition to be applied for B to be true)”

    Assertion C is unwarranted. If the designer can be eternal, the universe can also be eternal, saving a step.

    “D= for this designer to be eternal it has to be absolute, if not it falls in to the limits of time and space (a condition to be applied for C to be true)”

    Arbitrary assertion. There is no basis on which one can say that any initial cause must be intelligent because it fails to explain its own intelligence. To explain a mystery, you posit an even greater mystery, an “uncaused cause” – an oxymoron.

    “E=Islam defines the designer as eternal absolute hence satisfying A, B, C and D”

    Even if all of the above were true, a passing, similarity in a book to some arbitrary sentence, doesn’t render the whole of the book’s content true. For example, Newton was “right” about his laws of motion (under certain conditions), but that doesn’t mean he was right in his belief in alchemy. Similarly, even if we were to accept that an eternal god exists (mere assertions and nonsense), it still doesn’t show why God would sit around judging pork eaters and stoning adulterers. All religions try to use this trick, by claiming one or two sentences in the book to be true, and then jumping to the claim that the whole book is true – a clear, illogical leap of faith.

    “F=other theistic religions directs towards Islam (a comparative religious study)”

    Nonsense directing to nonsense is still nonsense.

    Conclusion: It’s easily demonstrated that each and every one of your assertions are flawed, and that even if any one of them were true, not a single one necessarily follows from the other.

    Finally, a parting thought about Darwinism. Darwinism is descriptive, not prescriptive. What that means is, it describes how the world works (the description), but it doesn’t suggest that this is how we should live (the prescription). See the is/ought problem so nicely explained by Sharanga.

  • Observer

    It’s obvious from above discussion that let them be naturalist, Buddhist or Muslim, people have their own set of belief. Imposing laws or destroying worship places will not change their stand and leaders of a country must think of developing a country leaving space to individual beliefs and treat them equally in front of law which is made fair to all. this is the only way forward and any other way will lead to Chaos