Re: Faith
by surendra kumar on Sep 20, 2010 02:58 PM
pl dont think like a fool, your kith and kins are the one who are going to blame in their generations to come for the blunders made by this generation.pl think its our earth and our environment the we are spoiling in the name of festival, why cant all try to do it in a environmental friendly??? its we its all of us are going to get punished for our mistakes , dont forget dear, be carefull / kindfull / respectfull to the mother earth and nature
I see your post in two parts. The first part argues that "scientific" deduction can prove that life was accidentally created. Then the "cell" somehow started "feeling" and then necessity drove it to mutate and you know the rest of the story. For me its only as plausible as a merc benz orbiting Uranus. But having said that, I absolutely agree that everyone has the right to their opinion.
While I agree that rational deduction must play an important role in understanding the world within and without, there is a point where one can only rely on faith. For e.g. if you say everything can be proved by laws of nature then the question arises who created laws of nature ? And if it is God then who created God, so on and so forth.
Re: @ Maximus Meridius
by Maximus Meridius on Sep 19, 2010 11:33 AM
Damn rediff probably censored my earlier post. Dunno why, but I'm guessing too many references to God. Can't retype the whole thing again: Quick clarification: Abiogenesis, which hypothesizes the creation of life from inanimate elements is exactly that: a hypothesis. It doesn't have much evidence as yet to support it.
Evolution only explains speciation: Formation of complex species from simple ones. This has considerable evidence in its support. In other words, it doesn't explain where that simple life form came from. It's the best scientific explanation we have for life being the way it is. G'day!
Re: How amazin
by RAJU S on Sep 21, 2010 03:27 AM
i totally agree to your view. If you see Yamuna river in Delhi it is a 'nala'. All because of the industrial waste mixed and never been treated before mixing into the river. River is polluted to the max extend. But we talk about stop making idols in plastic and restricting the people throw the holy flowers into the river. It is really stupid thing to see a high grill gates in the side of the yamuna bridges to stop the flowers to throw inside the river. But you see a mile away millions of gallons of industrial pollution mixed and no one is worried about that. that is why India is still like this. no long term goals.!!
It is more of a tradition it is not a mandatory thing to do ... if growing population combined with tradition is creating issues then we must findout ways to resolve this.
We are not bind by any arebian book to do a particular act .. for us purpose matters not the tradition or procedure.
The whole world eats meat. Most people in India eat meat too. It does not contribute to pollution. This is the normal way of life for almost everyone in this world. And we do not drink bI00d, its prohibited.
Re: @ZD
by Maximus Meridius on Sep 18, 2010 11:45 PM
@X: Actually, meat does contribute to global warming. It takes 5X as much fossil fuel to get the same amount of calories from an animal than a plant. It's simply a matter of efficiency: Animals eat a lot of grass, and only a small percentage goes into their muscles. The rest is burnt off as heat, movement, and so forth. Furthermore, fertile land that can be used to grow plants is diverted to growing food for animals. Animals, especially cows release Methane and in developed countries like the USA, it's a significant source of greenhouse gasses. In India, we let these animals graze in National Parks, reducing the food for prey animals like deer, which in turn affects the Carnivores: Tigers, Leopards and such.
As far as the whole world eats meat argument goes, that's a pretty lame argument. If the whole world believed the sky is a real, physical object, it doesn't make it true. The correctness of things is not determined by what people believe. The truth is verifiable, independent of human perception/opinion.
Re: Re: @ZD
by X on Sep 19, 2010 07:25 AM
While your argument has shades of truth, its still tends to miss the bigger picture. Cattles if not eaten will multiply and cause all the problems that you have listed. I was recently reading a report from australia where thousands of wild camels are wrecking havoc on the farms. And to solve this problem they have decided to export camel meat.
Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by Maximus Meridius on Sep 19, 2010 07:48 AM
I am an occasional meat eater (it's tasty) but the truth is, there wouldn't be so many cattle, fowl and goats out there if we didn't eat as many. In the 19-20th century, especially the West but increasingly India as well have invented industrial scale animal husbandry. Animals are bred on a massive scale and fed with antibiotics to keep losses down. Mass production brings prices down, which increases consumption, driving up production, increasing the output even further... a vicious cycle. The fact is, most of these cows wouldn't be around if we didn't milk them or feed them for food. It is the market that drives production up, and the market that will bring it down. If consumption of meat drops, the industrial scale meat production will also drop. Nobody will pay for a non-performing asset. Some cows will probably starve to death, but in the absence of a market, in the long run, production will stall.
It's a question of need vs want. We don't need meat. We have other alternatives. We want meat.
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by X on Sep 19, 2010 07:59 AM
I must cautiously agree with your assertions but cattle life if left uncontrolled can have unforeseen consequences. Again I am all for banning meat if it can be decisively proven in the real world (not in lab) that its beneficial for humanity.
Re: Re: @ZD
by X on Sep 19, 2010 07:32 AM
And humans have been eating meat since the time immemorial. Its a natural way of life. Even the H scriptures show their most revered gods eating meat. Throwing objects made up of PoP along with toxic paint in the rivers that provide water to vegetation whereby poisoning the who eco system is not only criminal but absolutely inhuman.
Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by Maximus Meridius on Sep 19, 2010 08:01 AM
Meat was indeed a part of the diet of early hunter-gatherer humans. Around 6000 years ago or so, in what is now Iraq, humans first invented farming. It was a risk-free proposition, as opposed to chasing buffalo and risking getting mauled. And, you could build civilizations. Since then, meat has been an increasingly small part of our diet, and largely a rich food, for special occasions. Steak, for example was considered a rich food because only they could afford it. The poor ate pasta and veggies. As noted earlier, mass production brought the price of meat down, resulting in a huge increase in meat consumption in the west, in the last century. The results are there to see: humans who are fatter than the cows they eat. We are opportunistic feeders: we'll eat anything to survive. Meat and poultry industry does cause ecological damage, and is a huge source of greenhouse gasses. The conditions in which the animals are raised are inhuman and criminal (that includes the milk industry as well).
Idols of PoP and toxic paint are also ecologically damaging. Same problem: Mass production means that clay idols are too slow to make, and hence PoP. The solution is the same as the meat problem -- moderation or outright elimination-- but religion is the opiate of the masses.
Re: Re: @ZD
by X on Sep 18, 2010 10:13 PM
Well because I feel good when I see how my faith has enabled me to talk decently while your faith has failed you.
Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by JGN on Sep 18, 2010 10:31 PM
Your faith is nothing but stupidiiity. There is no life hereafter. Nothing survives death. The funfilled Paradiiise existed only in the fertile imagination of some sur-realistic visionaries. The poor fellow could not think of any thing other than those available (W1neWomenWaterFruitsEtc) even in the Paradiiiise!!
Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by JGN on Sep 18, 2010 10:30 PM
Your faith is nothing but stupidiiity. There is no life hereafter. Nothing survives death. The funfilled Paradiiise existed only in the fertile imagination of some sur-realistic visionaries. The poor fellow could not think of any thing other than those available (W1neWomenWaterFruitsEtc) even in the Paradiiiise!!
Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by JGN on Sep 18, 2010 10:29 PM
Your faith is nothing but stupidiiity. There is no life hereafter. Nothing survives death. The funfilled Paradiiise existed only in the fertile imagination of some sur-realistic visionaries. The poor fellow could not think of any thing other than those available (W1neWomenWaterFruitsEtc) even in the Paradiiiise!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by X on Sep 18, 2010 10:41 PM
I have not seen life after death, neither have you. So you cannot claim that my faith is wrong. You have the right to claiming that there is no life after death or that life was created by an "accident" etc etc, but thats all based in your faith, not on scientific deduction. How can you then have an holier than thou attitude ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by Maximus Meridius on Sep 18, 2010 11:31 PM
Technically: it is incumbent on the faithful to demonstrate their claims (burden of proof). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that there is life after death, a supreme being and so forth, it is reasonable to assume that they are false, until proven otherwise. Does that mean it is impossible that these claims are true? Of course not. Merely unlikely. For example, I cannot prove that it is impossible that there is a Mercedes-benz orbitting Uranus. I haven't seen it, and no star-gazer has. So, unless someone brings forth compelling evidence of the Benz in orbit, it's reasonable to conclude that there is no Benz in orbit. Obviously, anything is possible: nobody has shown that no humans can be in two places at the same time, no human can fly and so forth. The question is, is it plausible? Proof positive exists only in Math and Logic, and they don't mean anything unless you can validate it with reality. For everything else, hypotheses are only proven by showing direct, conclusive evidence. (Not by proving the converse of the argument. Often, that's impossible).
Summary: Religions may be right, but equally can be completely wrong. The evidence (or complete lack of it) make the latter the more plausible argument.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by X on Sep 19, 2010 07:20 AM
onus probandi, the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. And as far as this message board goes the charges are constantly laid, often in the most derogatory manner by the members of a certain community. Now I dont mind the abusive language because I do not expect any better from that group. But when they lay charges, the onus lies with them to prove their charges.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by Maximus Meridius on Sep 19, 2010 07:38 AM
@X: Agreed. Rediff boards are often full of crap. However, it's important to distinguish between opinions and libel. JGN's claims about your faith (presumably Islam) is his opinion, and he has a right to it. Even if he's wrong. Libel is more personal... if he called you a fraud or whatever, you have a right to be aggrieved. Nor are personal threats.
I was reacting to your specific comment "You have the right to claiming that there is no life after death or that life was created by an "accident" etc etc, but thats all based in your faith, not on scientific deduction". In fact, it is based on scientific deduction: it has not been scientifically shown that there is an afterlife, special creation and such, so scientifically, it's safe to say that this is almost surely false.
There are many things we don't know. We certainly don't know where we came from, why we are here, how life began and such. Your faith, and that of others, are just opinions. And you have a right to them. It doesn't make it true to others (even if it is true in your mind) unless you can back it up with incontrovertible data. That was all. I wasn't making any other point.
Re: Re: Re: @ZD
by JGN on Sep 18, 2010 10:29 PM
Your faith is nothing but stupidiiity. There is no life hereafter. Nothing survives death. The funfilled Paradiiise existed only in the fertile imagination of some sur-realistic visionaries. The poor fellow could not think of any thing other than those available (W1neWomenWaterFruitsEtc) even in the Paradiiiise!!
