Banner Advertiser

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling



I study cosmo-theology with an effort to explain the growth of religions.  I never dismissed the big bang theory, also known as the alpha-beta-gamma theory based on the names of it's founders Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow.  If we try to accommodate the many Universe concept with the Big Bang, questions do arise about each universe being formed separately, or all of them simultaneously.  The riddle of big bang simply gets multiplied by the multiple big bang theory.  The mighty Universe is indeed elusive of analysis.  Those primitive men, called messiahs by their stupid followers, tried to make others believe that they had a hotline with some form of creator God.  As Lawrence of Arabia observed in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom, "Each individual nomad had his revealed religion".  Some of them couldn't trace his camel lost in the desert, yet told others that they communicated with the God hidden somewhere in the infinitely bigger Universe.

I am yet to be convinced that the CERN Scientists have found the 'God particle', Higg's Boson.  What came first?  I would vote for the hen.  In the biological tree, the egg does not evolve, the hen does.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Dr. Das,

 

The cosmology and religion are intertwined; understanding of these two subjects could be within our intellectual ability, but will always be elusive to us due to the limitation of our physical ability.

 

Dr. Das, the most recent 'proton-crusher' experiment at CERN was a simulated mini-big-bang experiment.

 

David Miller, a professor of physics at Purdue University and part of the multinational team of scientists on the Higgs project. He said the following after the discovery of Higgs boson: "We're the only species that can ask the question, 'Why?' and also has the tools to answer it," Miller said. "Any person can go out at night and look at the stars in the sky and wonder what place we have in the universe. We're a tiny speck, but it appears that from our little planet we can not only understand our whole universe, we can understand its evolution from the big bang."

 

Therefore, if David Miller still believes in the big-bang theory, who am I to dismiss it. This mini-big-bang simulation experiment was a step in the right direction. Many scientists were afraid that this experiment could create a Frankenstein called 'black-hole' which could gobble up the earth. A big-bang could create trillions of particles, but the puzzle was how those particles coalesce to form matters. The Higgs boson discovery was the missing piece of that puzzle.

 

Also, the way I would address the existence of multiple universes is this - if one universe can be created by a big-bang, multiple universes can be created by multiple big-bangs.

 

The bottom line is – we don't know, for sure, what really happened, and what really exists up there. Recently, astrophysicists have identified about 400 new earth-like planets. Only problem is - they are some light-years away from us. How will we know more about those planets, when can't even visit our nearest planet? This is how limited we are.

 

Then again, I am not an astrophysicist; so I could be wrong. I am still struggling with the question – what comes first - the Chicken or the Egg.

 

Thank you.

 

Jiten Roy


--- On Wed, 7/25/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 10:15 PM


 
Even the Big Bang Theory may not be true.  It is not compatible with the multiple Universe theory, the latest scientific genesis story I heard is that the Universe we live in might have been created as a result of perturbation caused by the proximity of two other Universes.  Isn't it like the birth of another animal in the family?

Most primitive religions discarded the idea of God(s) having a role in the creation of the Universe.  The Greeks , for example, believed that the Goddess of wisdom went to explore the nature of the absolutely unknowable God and conceived Yaldabaoth, a demiurge with the head of a lion, tail of a serpent, and temperament of a devil.  It is he who created the Universe.  The Hindu equivalent of the demiurge is Vishkarma.  The biblical Genesis stories are imperfect as much as other stories, the variation is only in degree.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dr. Das, the big-bang theory may be old, but it explains events I was discussing.

 

As for the blaspheme issue: let me borrow the quote from Shah Deeldar:

 

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

--- On Tue, 7/24/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 9:38 PM


 
Dr. Roy, even the big bang theory is outdated long ago.  In cosmology, a theory is created every six months.  All those disciples of Moses, Jews, Christians and Moslems who believe that the Universe was created in six days should first explain what days they are talking about.  Isn't a day the time required for the earth to complete a spin, or apparently the time taken by the Sun to circle around the earth?

So the Genesis story falls apart right away.  Let Mr. Rahman be in peace with his revealed stories of the Holy Quran, let him be happy with the Islamic version of Ariyan heresy that Allah created the Universe with advice and instruction from Nur Muhammad.  It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

You are right initially some power was needed to get the process going. That was the big-bang, the instigating force behind all these. This power did not create Mother Nature; it happened long after the big-bang through many evolutionary cycles.

 

You probably will admit that God is not a human, because – in order to be 'omnipresent,' God has to possess infinite dimension, which Mother Nature has. Almightiness of Mother Nature is demonstrated during the thunderous lightning in the storm or during hurricanes or earthquakes. When religious scripture says God is 'forgiving,' it refers to the same nature, that accepts everyone indiscriminately (good, bad, religious, non-religious, and, yes, atheists). What it means is - we are too insignificant in the eye of the omnipresent, almighty, and all-forgiving God.

 

Unfortunately - most people, educated and uneducated alike, envision God as a human-like object, and that's where we go wrong. Following that notion, people do all sorts of crazy things to please Him.  They do things assuming - God has eyes, and He will see what the heck they are doing; they talk to him, hoping - He has ears, and He will listen to and understand what they are asking for in their weird languages. Even people sacrifice their lives, assuming - God is noticing and He will reward them in the after-life. The whole thing is out of whack and crazy. What they forget is – we are insignificant creatures in the wide universe.

 
Therefore, religious scriptures may be correct, but our interpretations may be all wrong.

 

Jiten Roy



--- On Tue, 7/24/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 5:06 AM


 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 


>>>>>>>>>>> Member Roy, I do know who created "Mother nature". I was making a comment about it. The chicken or egg don't fall from the sky on their own. Some power had to start the cycle at one point of time.

Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?


>>>>>>>>>> Again I am not asking anything. Simply offering an alternative view to the topic. I am comfortable with my findings and it does not contradict with what modern science accepts. Sharing a little here. ...

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'   So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.   
(The Noble Quran, 41:11-12)"

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 
(The Noble Quran, 21:30)"


Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena.


>>>>>>>>> They are natural phenomena. However at some point of time, some power had to get the process going. For example: just because you need a cell phone, your Nokia does not come up "Naturally". Someone had to think of it, design it and produce it. Once it is produced, it works according to some set "Programs". Similarly ever mother nature has some "Rules" and it works according to the design.


If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma,


>>>>>>>>>> I can only speak for myself here. I did not "Go back to the Qur'an" as part of some "Blind faith". I have provided many references to establish/support my point of view. My views may have some religious leaning but my methodology is as secular and scientific as you can get.


The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories


>>>>>>>>>> I think the sources and references have to be visited before you accept it or reject it. There are world known scientists who work on these issues and they don't go by blind faith. Since our "Mother nature" theory is also a "faith based" phenomenon, I guess the Qur'an based explanation made more sense to me (personal opinion!).

I respect your point of views and your freedom to pick what sounds right to you. Thank you for taking part in the discussion.


Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 7:04 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
Q. Rahman: "I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature".
 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 
 
According to scientific explanation - Universe was created out of an explosion. Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?  I would say it's an accident; nobody creates accident; it just happens. 
 
Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena. They happen under right condition. Thinking about this – Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate Scientist, Columbia University, mentioned to one of his students, Stanley L. Miller, to organize an experiment to procreate these natural phenomena. They set up a container with right mixture of gases (to represent early stages of the earth's surface) and subjected them to an artificial electric spark to simulate lightening. In a week, little red liquid started to form. They analyzed it, and found that it contains amino acids, the building blocks of the organic life-form (DNA). Thus, it is believed that life begun in shallow pools on the earth's surface, known as organic soup.
If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma, the creator. Actually, it is up to the aptitude of each individual to believe in any of these stories. The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories. Hence, I will stick to the scientific explanations, until further plausible explanation comes along.  Thank you.
Jiten Roy
 
I know - this scientific explanation is not convincing to you; so you have referred to the Quran.  

--- On Mon, 7/23/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012, 8:43 AM

 
How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?


>>>>>>>> Absolutely. No one can deny mother nature. I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature". Your cell phone did not make itself, it needed a maker (RIM, Apple, Nokia, Samsung...etc). Similarly the wonderful nature we see around us needed a "Maker" as well. A chapter in the Qur'an talks about it. It consistently ask readers the question, " Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"

Indeed our Maker gave us so many gifts.

Shalom!




-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:05 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
Religion was once a shuva-sanskar (positive reform) for the primitive societies, not any more. With the advent of the scientific and psychological advancement and understanding, the role of religion in the society is diminished. This is because - many of those good religious virtues are already adopted as norms in the society.  What's left to be adopted is the anti-modernity ku-sanskar (negative reform). Religionists are constantly fighting with pro-modernity forces to implement those anti-modernity ku-sanskars. As a result, religion has been a drag for the advancement of the modern societies now.
 
Now, as far as atheists are concerned - they are still fighting the conceptual battle over the existence of God, which is leading them to many psychological and conceptual conflicts. How can I deny something that is unknown? To me, it's a needless battle. God exists only in our concept. I am sure most people, except religionists, will agree that - all living-beings are the offspring of the Mother Nature. Spiritual songs of Rabindra Nath Tagore are all devoted to the Mother Nature. That was his conceptual God, I believe. Your conceptual God lives in your aptitude and imagination. How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Tue, 7/17/12, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 8:41 AM

 
Yours may be one of some possible explanations. I still remember what Bani Basu, a novelist from West Bengal and wife of a Buddhist scholar, has written in the introduction of her "semi-historical" novel "Maitrya Jatak": "Dharma is a shuva sanskar". This "sanskar" (can we trnslate it into "superstition"? Probably not.) is the result of religious beliefs of thosands of years of our forefathers. To this has been added the strong religious environment the atheist is living in. It's foundation in our subconscious mind is so splod that even a "confirmed" atheist fails to escape it completely. And this manifests itself in an atheist's love for devotional or spiritual songs of  Rabindranath and others.  
 
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so? "

Very interesting observation!
Here is my two cents:
No matter how much we know about the nature and its laws, it will still be a mystery for us for many millions years to come. We will never be able to attain the absolute knowledge that we might need to predict a future incident like a plane crash in the sky or say, us facing certain deaths on certain dates. That insecurity might be a factor why we still do not mind to sing the hallelujah hymn to yield that undefined mysterious power to a greater power than ours own? 
-SD   
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
1.Use of drug has been an integral part of the culture of many secretive and semi-secretive cults. The "sati" had sometimes to be drugged to persuade her to walk onto the burning pyre of her dead husband. I have seen smoking of "ganja" by people (male) of all ages during the religious event called "trinather mela". In urban religious practices of Hinduism, this (smoking ganja) has been greatly marginalized or probably has vanished. Many Hindu sadhus cannot do without it. Drug opens spiritual window for the truth seeker. In my young life I have seen disciples (fans) sitting around the master (male or female) to get engaged in profound spiritual talks while smoking ganja.  
2. There has always been uses of the religion by the exploiters as the opiate of the masses. But it has other uses too. Think about a typical Indian Hindu mother with little education and who was born 80 years ago. Religion has taught her to completely devote herself to the service of her husband. This is exploitative part. On the other hand religion gives her God or gods and goddesses to be worshiped for piety and spiritual and mystical experiences and pleasure as well. Also observance of religious rituals is a part of her daily routine. Obviously fear factor is a motive force behind her religious behavior. But what about the 100-year old educated and highly religious father who sees same one God in every god and goddess and who has no belief in hell or heaven or in piety? Yes, at the times of hardships and distress he prays and tears roll down his cheeks while he is praying. Here religion provides him with a drug free comfort. Here I see a great utility of religion in the personal life of a believer. When he is in total despair, he completely submits himself to God.   
3. There is hardly any one who chose his own religion. He already has it by default and it is now his duty to practice it believing that it is a great thing and he should be proud of it. While practicing it and knowing more and more about it questions may however arise in his inquiring mind. 
4. Being proud of one's own religion and considering the same as the best one is typical of the educated and socially and politically conscious class. Common toiling and economically struggling people do not have time to engage in such a luxury. Even he has hardly any time to observe all the recommended rituals. 
5. Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so?                        
 

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind!"  In reality, the psychedelic drugs had a great role in the development and propagation of religions.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
"Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people."
I call it the last resort to belong to a huge cult. I would rather look at it from a Freudian angle. It is far easier to become a religious man than a true knowledge gatherer. It brings pride to people who have nothing else to proud of! Why would a criminal be interested in converting to born again in something after five consecutive murders? What would be a better choice for him/her? Learning more about how celestial objects are faithfully orbiting around other stars and planets? Or, take a new religious attire and demand respect from others? No doubt, the later sounds far easier! Look, my words are harsh but that is what I feel about religions. If anybody thinks that the God being on their side, I say, keep dreaming on brothers and sisters. To me, it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind! No more and no less! -SD  

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
People believe in many things; not all those beliefs are revealed to others. We all have our own prejudices/superstitions. Exposing one's prejudices is like exposing one's 'stupidities.' As a result, people rarely talk about them. How do you express that you believe in something that does not exist? Is it a sign of smartness or what?
Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people. So  they feel the need to show their religiosity to others in their religious attires and/or appearances to stir up otherwise nonexistent resentment and hatred. There is no end in sight to end these types of cultural disturbance in our societies.
 
Jiten Roy --- On Fri, 7/13/12, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2012, 9:53 AM

 
How you feel about your own faith and belief is not anybody's concern unless you impose your values and standard on others. To me, it is more important to see whether a belief takes people to the dark ages or enlightenment of a verifiable truth. I can tolerate your belief but may not respect your belief. If you are a free thinker, that should be totally OK with you as I would follow the same rule.
-SD 
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem.
>>>>>>>> I agree. Actually arrogance is bad for all people. It eats up best qualities from our personalities. However, if you ask me about my faith and how I feel about it, you should be able to tolerate my "Opinion" on MY faith matters. I have seen people have some preconceived notions about religious people and often go with it. Having tolerance and rejecting/reducing arrogance are "Best practices" for any peaceful communities. No matter if you want to view it from religious point of view or secular point of view. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 6:47 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Only thing I can add here is that the people, who are truly spiritual and never stop asking questions about our origin and our relation to the universe should not have any problem with little critic.  If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem. But. that is not happening in practice and hence, they do deserve critic now and then. Any belief should be challenged now and then before it gets transformed as an universal truth. The next thing you will find that people will be demanding the religiously adjusted science in the public schools. Who would want that? How would reach to the next frontier with such compromised science?
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
I have thought about the question also - as to why people get offended by the criticism of their religions; why can't they leave it to God.  This is what I found.
People are interested in religion not only for the eternal rewards, but - also they are also interested in the brand name of the clan. Religion is no different from other commercial commodity. It needs to be sold for continued expansion, and criticism is not good for the business, and also for the reputation of the clan.  As a result, people cannot wait for God's punishment.
Now, the tolerance level of criticism varies from followers to followers. Some followers may care more about eternal rewards than expansionism. They will have more tolerance to criticism. Some followers could be totally indifferent of criticism. It's a matter of priority.
Having said that, I have to recognize that, while protecting the brand name is discouraged in some religions, it is mandatory in others. 
Jiten Roy --- On Tue, 7/3/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2012, 4:36 PM

 
Along with making a little correction in my post below, let me put forth my thoughts on one of the terms that I have used.
                                                                                                                   
Abusing Religion:
 
From time to time, many religious people accuse non-religious people and people of other religions of abusing their religion. Example: if someone were to open up the Bible and criticize something in it, he/she would be accused by some Christians of abusing their religion. I said "some" (as opposed to "many") for Christians, because I believe this group has progressed significantly for a lot of them to ignore such criticisms.
 
However, let us try some logic. What can be more abuse for God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages) than the so-called believers to think that He is not almighty, and that He needs help from them? What can be more doubting of God's power than thinking that He needs humans to fight for Him (or for His religion) in this world?
 
The way I see it, if someone actually insulted God or His messenger, a true believer could feel pity for the insulter. Because, according to the belief, the insult was against the most powerful, and the insulter might have invited big trouble for himself/herself in the form of punishment from God. If God knew best, the believer would have no business prescribing a punishment for the insulter. The most civilized and caring action for the believer would be to pray to God to change the insulter's mind, the power of which God certainly has according to his/her true belief.
 
The bottom line is, if religion was really for believing in the almighty God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages), as opposed to forming/maintaining/expanding a clan, there should be no reason for humans to fight, or to hate, for maintaining or promoting it.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
=================================================
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Indeed, I believe most of us in this forum are opposed to religion-peddling, as Ms. Majid wrote. As I wrote before, there is no point in opening up religious books for criticism, even when that might look scholarly.
 
I am opposed to the use, misuse and abuse of religions, all of which have caused a lot of division, hatred and injustice in the world. While I do not follow any religion, I am not unwilling to do something just because if was found in a religious book. In other words, I am perfectly OK to implement in my life anything that is good in the Koran, for example.
 
To me, all religious books are part of my history. None of them are "my religion" or "someone else's religion." I am open to follow anything good in any book. I have no animosity toward any religion. For me, no religion needs to have cadres of defenders.
 
However, I am certainly for discarding anything bad in any book. And I am unwilling to dig for contexts by which a seemingly bad teaching can be interpreted to be OK or good. Nor do I have time for overly-brainwashed 'scholars', who try to sustain and promote nonsense in what they think is 'their religion'.
 
The bottom line is, we should fight division, hatred and injustice that are promoted via use, misuse and abuse or religions.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
====================================
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
There is a gray area between religion itself and the way it is used by vested interest groups. In a God fearing society it is unproductive and sometimes catastrophic to bluntly criticize a religion. It antagonizes common people and the reactionary forces get an excuse to pull them on their own side. But can a society really progress without pointing out the weaknesses in a religion? Obviously, No. But if we do so, religious feelings of the believers cannot but be hurt. It is a dilemma indeed. When Dipa Mehta shows in her film "Water" the quote from Gandhi and Manusanhita side by side, the Hindutvabadis do not like it. But we come to know that Gandhi did not endorse all of sage Manu's sacred pronouncements.
 
======================================
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
                  Do we all agree, on this one point, that we are all opposed to religion-peddling? I fervently hope that the answer is: YES.                 If so, then it is our solemn duty to understand the matter of 'religion-peddling'.                          In this business of religion -peddling it is the 'peddling' part that should command our attention.  And that requires certain in-depth and close attention to politics. Religion is a very powerful cultural artifice, and since both politics and religion deal with a community of people, there has been a mix of the two from time immemorial.  But we are constantly talking about religion-related  social symptoms, and mis-diagnosing them as 'religion'.  Why? There are several reasons.  One, mental laziness.  It takes a lot more patience and astute observation to do a political analysis. It needs historical information.              Throughout the 16th century in Europe , for instance, the Catholic Church was fighting an intense political battle with the breaking up of the Church.  The execution of the Nolan Magus and poet, Giordano Bruno, who was not a scientist or mathematician like Nicholas Copernicus, and the persecution of astronomer Galileo, a couple of decades later are indicative of the Church's political authority under severe pressure.  It is silly to cite this as the paradigmatic 'science v. religion' struggle.  It is a singular historical event within the context of Europe .               Both Dawkins and Hitchens are being totally dishonest in their discussions against religion. Dawkins is addressing the Creationists exclusively, and Hitchens's arguments apply to the Jehadists only.  Neither has the courage and intelligence of Karen Armstrong who discards the construction of the binary opposition of 'science v. religion' and refuses any hierarchical positioning of the two branches of knowledge.               Two, critiquing religion is a mask for communalism.  More on that later.                               Farida Majid
 
==============================





__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling




Dr. Das,

 

The cosmology and religion are intertwined; understanding of these two subjects could be within our intellectual ability, but will always be elusive to us due to the limitation of our physical ability.

 

Dr. Das, the most recent 'proton-crusher' experiment at CERN was a simulated mini-big-bang experiment.

 

David Miller, a professor of physics at Purdue University and part of the multinational team of scientists on the Higgs project. He said the following after the discovery of Higgs boson: "We're the only species that can ask the question, 'Why?' and also has the tools to answer it," Miller said. "Any person can go out at night and look at the stars in the sky and wonder what place we have in the universe. We're a tiny speck, but it appears that from our little planet we can not only understand our whole universe, we can understand its evolution from the big bang."

 

Therefore, if David Miller still believes in the big-bang theory, who am I to dismiss it. This mini-big-bang simulation experiment was a step in the right direction. Many scientists were afraid that this experiment could create a Frankenstein called 'black-hole' which could gobble up the earth. A big-bang could create trillions of particles, but the puzzle was how those particles coalesce to form matters. The Higgs boson discovery was the missing piece of that puzzle.

 

Also, the way I would address the existence of multiple universes is this - if one universe can be created by a big-bang, multiple universes can be created by multiple big-bangs.

 

The bottom line is – we don't know, for sure, what really happened, and what really exists up there. Recently, astrophysicists have identified about 400 new earth-like planets. Only problem is - they are some light-years away from us. How will we know more about those planets, when can't even visit our nearest planet? This is how limited we are.

 

Then again, I am not an astrophysicist; so I could be wrong. I am still struggling with the question – what comes first - the Chicken or the Egg.

 

Thank you.

 

Jiten Roy
--- On Wed, 7/25/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:


From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 10:15 PM

 
Even the Big Bang Theory may not be true.  It is not compatible with the multiple Universe theory, the latest scientific genesis story I heard is that the Universe we live in might have been created as a result of perturbation caused by the proximity of two other Universes.  Isn't it like the birth of another animal in the family?

Most primitive religions discarded the idea of God(s) having a role in the creation of the Universe.  The Greeks , for example, believed that the Goddess of wisdom went to explore the nature of the absolutely unknowable God and conceived Yaldabaoth, a demiurge with the head of a lion, tail of a serpent, and temperament of a devil.  It is he who created the Universe.  The Hindu equivalent of the demiurge is Vishkarma.  The biblical Genesis stories are imperfect as much as other stories, the variation is only in degree.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Dr. Das, the big-bang theory may be old, but it explains events I was discussing.

 

As for the blaspheme issue: let me borrow the quote from Shah Deeldar:

 

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

--- On Tue, 7/24/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 9:38 PM


 
Dr. Roy, even the big bang theory is outdated long ago.  In cosmology, a theory is created every six months.  All those disciples of Moses, Jews, Christians and Moslems who believe that the Universe was created in six days should first explain what days they are talking about.  Isn't a day the time required for the earth to complete a spin, or apparently the time taken by the Sun to circle around the earth?

So the Genesis story falls apart right away.  Let Mr. Rahman be in peace with his revealed stories of the Holy Quran, let him be happy with the Islamic version of Ariyan heresy that Allah created the Universe with advice and instruction from Nur Muhammad.  It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

You are right initially some power was needed to get the process going. That was the big-bang, the instigating force behind all these. This power did not create Mother Nature; it happened long after the big-bang through many evolutionary cycles.

 

You probably will admit that God is not a human, because – in order to be 'omnipresent,' God has to possess infinite dimension, which Mother Nature has. Almightiness of Mother Nature is demonstrated during the thunderous lightning in the storm or during hurricanes or earthquakes. When religious scripture says God is 'forgiving,' it refers to the same nature, that accepts everyone indiscriminately (good, bad, religious, non-religious, and, yes, atheists). What it means is - we are too insignificant in the eye of the omnipresent, almighty, and all-forgiving God.

 

Unfortunately - most people, educated and uneducated alike, envision God as a human-like object, and that's where we go wrong. Following that notion, people do all sorts of crazy things to please Him.  They do things assuming - God has eyes, and He will see what the heck they are doing; they talk to him, hoping - He has ears, and He will listen to and understand what they are asking for in their weird languages. Even people sacrifice their lives, assuming - God is noticing and He will reward them in the after-life. The whole thing is out of whack and crazy. What they forget is – we are insignificant creatures in the wide universe.

 

Therefore, religious scriptures may be correct, but our interpretations may be all wrong.

 

Jiten Roy



--- On Tue, 7/24/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 5:06 AM


 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 


>>>>>>>>>>> Member Roy, I do know who created "Mother nature". I was making a comment about it. The chicken or egg don't fall from the sky on their own. Some power had to start the cycle at one point of time.

Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?


>>>>>>>>>> Again I am not asking anything. Simply offering an alternative view to the topic. I am comfortable with my findings and it does not contradict with what modern science accepts. Sharing a little here. ...

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'   So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.   
(The Noble Quran, 41:11-12)"

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 
(The Noble Quran, 21:30)"


Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena.


>>>>>>>>> They are natural phenomena. However at some point of time, some power had to get the process going. For example: just because you need a cell phone, your Nokia does not come up "Naturally". Someone had to think of it, design it and produce it. Once it is produced, it works according to some set "Programs". Similarly ever mother nature has some "Rules" and it works according to the design.


If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma,


>>>>>>>>>> I can only speak for myself here. I did not "Go back to the Qur'an" as part of some "Blind faith". I have provided many references to establish/support my point of view. My views may have some religious leaning but my methodology is as secular and scientific as you can get.


The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories


>>>>>>>>>> I think the sources and references have to be visited before you accept it or reject it. There are world known scientists who work on these issues and they don't go by blind faith. Since our "Mother nature" theory is also a "faith based" phenomenon, I guess the Qur'an based explanation made more sense to me (personal opinion!).

I respect your point of views and your freedom to pick what sounds right to you. Thank you for taking part in the discussion.


Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 7:04 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
Q. Rahman: "I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature".
 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 
 
According to scientific explanation - Universe was created out of an explosion. Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?  I would say it's an accident; nobody creates accident; it just happens. 
 
Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena. They happen under right condition. Thinking about this – Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate Scientist, Columbia University, mentioned to one of his students, Stanley L. Miller, to organize an experiment to procreate these natural phenomena. They set up a container with right mixture of gases (to represent early stages of the earth's surface) and subjected them to an artificial electric spark to simulate lightening. In a week, little red liquid started to form. They analyzed it, and found that it contains amino acids, the building blocks of the organic life-form (DNA). Thus, it is believed that life begun in shallow pools on the earth's surface, known as organic soup.
If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma, the creator. Actually, it is up to the aptitude of each individual to believe in any of these stories. The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories. Hence, I will stick to the scientific explanations, until further plausible explanation comes along.  Thank you.
Jiten Roy
 
I know - this scientific explanation is not convincing to you; so you have referred to the Quran.  

--- On Mon, 7/23/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012, 8:43 AM

 
How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?


>>>>>>>> Absolutely. No one can deny mother nature. I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature". Your cell phone did not make itself, it needed a maker (RIM, Apple, Nokia, Samsung...etc). Similarly the wonderful nature we see around us needed a "Maker" as well. A chapter in the Qur'an talks about it. It consistently ask readers the question, " Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"

Indeed our Maker gave us so many gifts.

Shalom!




-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:05 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
Religion was once a shuva-sanskar (positive reform) for the primitive societies, not any more. With the advent of the scientific and psychological advancement and understanding, the role of religion in the society is diminished. This is because - many of those good religious virtues are already adopted as norms in the society.  What's left to be adopted is the anti-modernity ku-sanskar (negative reform). Religionists are constantly fighting with pro-modernity forces to implement those anti-modernity ku-sanskars. As a result, religion has been a drag for the advancement of the modern societies now.
 
Now, as far as atheists are concerned - they are still fighting the conceptual battle over the existence of God, which is leading them to many psychological and conceptual conflicts. How can I deny something that is unknown? To me, it's a needless battle. God exists only in our concept. I am sure most people, except religionists, will agree that - all living-beings are the offspring of the Mother Nature. Spiritual songs of Rabindra Nath Tagore are all devoted to the Mother Nature. That was his conceptual God, I believe. Your conceptual God lives in your aptitude and imagination. How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?
 
Jiten Roy

--- On Tue, 7/17/12, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 8:41 AM

 
Yours may be one of some possible explanations. I still remember what Bani Basu, a novelist from West Bengal and wife of a Buddhist scholar, has written in the introduction of her "semi-historical" novel "Maitrya Jatak": "Dharma is a shuva sanskar". This "sanskar" (can we trnslate it into "superstition"? Probably not.) is the result of religious beliefs of thosands of years of our forefathers. To this has been added the strong religious environment the atheist is living in. It's foundation in our subconscious mind is so splod that even a "confirmed" atheist fails to escape it completely. And this manifests itself in an atheist's love for devotional or spiritual songs of  Rabindranath and others.  
 
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so? "

Very interesting observation!
Here is my two cents:
No matter how much we know about the nature and its laws, it will still be a mystery for us for many millions years to come. We will never be able to attain the absolute knowledge that we might need to predict a future incident like a plane crash in the sky or say, us facing certain deaths on certain dates. That insecurity might be a factor why we still do not mind to sing the hallelujah hymn to yield that undefined mysterious power to a greater power than ours own? 
-SD   
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
1.Use of drug has been an integral part of the culture of many secretive and semi-secretive cults. The "sati" had sometimes to be drugged to persuade her to walk onto the burning pyre of her dead husband. I have seen smoking of "ganja" by people (male) of all ages during the religious event called "trinather mela". In urban religious practices of Hinduism, this (smoking ganja) has been greatly marginalized or probably has vanished. Many Hindu sadhus cannot do without it. Drug opens spiritual window for the truth seeker. In my young life I have seen disciples (fans) sitting around the master (male or female) to get engaged in profound spiritual talks while smoking ganja.  
2. There has always been uses of the religion by the exploiters as the opiate of the masses. But it has other uses too. Think about a typical Indian Hindu mother with little education and who was born 80 years ago. Religion has taught her to completely devote herself to the service of her husband. This is exploitative part. On the other hand religion gives her God or gods and goddesses to be worshiped for piety and spiritual and mystical experiences and pleasure as well. Also observance of religious rituals is a part of her daily routine. Obviously fear factor is a motive force behind her religious behavior. But what about the 100-year old educated and highly religious father who sees same one God in every god and goddess and who has no belief in hell or heaven or in piety? Yes, at the times of hardships and distress he prays and tears roll down his cheeks while he is praying. Here religion provides him with a drug free comfort. Here I see a great utility of religion in the personal life of a believer. When he is in total despair, he completely submits himself to God.   
3. There is hardly any one who chose his own religion. He already has it by default and it is now his duty to practice it believing that it is a great thing and he should be proud of it. While practicing it and knowing more and more about it questions may however arise in his inquiring mind. 
4. Being proud of one's own religion and considering the same as the best one is typical of the educated and socially and politically conscious class. Common toiling and economically struggling people do not have time to engage in such a luxury. Even he has hardly any time to observe all the recommended rituals. 
5. Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so?                        
 

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind!"  In reality, the psychedelic drugs had a great role in the development and propagation of religions.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
"Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people."
I call it the last resort to belong to a huge cult. I would rather look at it from a Freudian angle. It is far easier to become a religious man than a true knowledge gatherer. It brings pride to people who have nothing else to proud of! Why would a criminal be interested in converting to born again in something after five consecutive murders? What would be a better choice for him/her? Learning more about how celestial objects are faithfully orbiting around other stars and planets? Or, take a new religious attire and demand respect from others? No doubt, the later sounds far easier! Look, my words are harsh but that is what I feel about religions. If anybody thinks that the God being on their side, I say, keep dreaming on brothers and sisters. To me, it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind! No more and no less! -SD  

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
People believe in many things; not all those beliefs are revealed to others. We all have our own prejudices/superstitions. Exposing one's prejudices is like exposing one's 'stupidities.' As a result, people rarely talk about them. How do you express that you believe in something that does not exist? Is it a sign of smartness or what?
Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people. So  they feel the need to show their religiosity to others in their religious attires and/or appearances to stir up otherwise nonexistent resentment and hatred. There is no end in sight to end these types of cultural disturbance in our societies.
 
Jiten Roy --- On Fri, 7/13/12, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2012, 9:53 AM

 
How you feel about your own faith and belief is not anybody's concern unless you impose your values and standard on others. To me, it is more important to see whether a belief takes people to the dark ages or enlightenment of a verifiable truth. I can tolerate your belief but may not respect your belief. If you are a free thinker, that should be totally OK with you as I would follow the same rule.
-SD 
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem.
>>>>>>>> I agree. Actually arrogance is bad for all people. It eats up best qualities from our personalities. However, if you ask me about my faith and how I feel about it, you should be able to tolerate my "Opinion" on MY faith matters. I have seen people have some preconceived notions about religious people and often go with it. Having tolerance and rejecting/reducing arrogance are "Best practices" for any peaceful communities. No matter if you want to view it from religious point of view or secular point of view. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 6:47 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Only thing I can add here is that the people, who are truly spiritual and never stop asking questions about our origin and our relation to the universe should not have any problem with little critic.  If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem. But. that is not happening in practice and hence, they do deserve critic now and then. Any belief should be challenged now and then before it gets transformed as an universal truth. The next thing you will find that people will be demanding the religiously adjusted science in the public schools. Who would want that? How would reach to the next frontier with such compromised science?
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
I have thought about the question also - as to why people get offended by the criticism of their religions; why can't they leave it to God.  This is what I found.
People are interested in religion not only for the eternal rewards, but - also they are also interested in the brand name of the clan. Religion is no different from other commercial commodity. It needs to be sold for continued expansion, and criticism is not good for the business, and also for the reputation of the clan.  As a result, people cannot wait for God's punishment.
Now, the tolerance level of criticism varies from followers to followers. Some followers may care more about eternal rewards than expansionism. They will have more tolerance to criticism. Some followers could be totally indifferent of criticism. It's a matter of priority.
Having said that, I have to recognize that, while protecting the brand name is discouraged in some religions, it is mandatory in others. 
Jiten Roy --- On Tue, 7/3/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2012, 4:36 PM

 
Along with making a little correction in my post below, let me put forth my thoughts on one of the terms that I have used.
                                                                                                                   
Abusing Religion:
 
From time to time, many religious people accuse non-religious people and people of other religions of abusing their religion. Example: if someone were to open up the Bible and criticize something in it, he/she would be accused by some Christians of abusing their religion. I said "some" (as opposed to "many") for Christians, because I believe this group has progressed significantly for a lot of them to ignore such criticisms.
 
However, let us try some logic. What can be more abuse for God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages) than the so-called believers to think that He is not almighty, and that He needs help from them? What can be more doubting of God's power than thinking that He needs humans to fight for Him (or for His religion) in this world?
 
The way I see it, if someone actually insulted God or His messenger, a true believer could feel pity for the insulter. Because, according to the belief, the insult was against the most powerful, and the insulter might have invited big trouble for himself/herself in the form of punishment from God. If God knew best, the believer would have no business prescribing a punishment for the insulter. The most civilized and caring action for the believer would be to pray to God to change the insulter's mind, the power of which God certainly has according to his/her true belief.
 
The bottom line is, if religion was really for believing in the almighty God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages), as opposed to forming/maintaining/expanding a clan, there should be no reason for humans to fight, or to hate, for maintaining or promoting it.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
=================================================
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Indeed, I believe most of us in this forum are opposed to religion-peddling, as Ms. Majid wrote. As I wrote before, there is no point in opening up religious books for criticism, even when that might look scholarly.
 
I am opposed to the use, misuse and abuse of religions, all of which have caused a lot of division, hatred and injustice in the world. While I do not follow any religion, I am not unwilling to do something just because if was found in a religious book. In other words, I am perfectly OK to implement in my life anything that is good in the Koran, for example.
 
To me, all religious books are part of my history. None of them are "my religion" or "someone else's religion." I am open to follow anything good in any book. I have no animosity toward any religion. For me, no religion needs to have cadres of defenders.
 
However, I am certainly for discarding anything bad in any book. And I am unwilling to dig for contexts by which a seemingly bad teaching can be interpreted to be OK or good. Nor do I have time for overly-brainwashed 'scholars', who try to sustain and promote nonsense in what they think is 'their religion'.
 
The bottom line is, we should fight division, hatred and injustice that are promoted via use, misuse and abuse or religions.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
====================================
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
There is a gray area between religion itself and the way it is used by vested interest groups. In a God fearing society it is unproductive and sometimes catastrophic to bluntly criticize a religion. It antagonizes common people and the reactionary forces get an excuse to pull them on their own side. But can a society really progress without pointing out the weaknesses in a religion? Obviously, No. But if we do so, religious feelings of the believers cannot but be hurt. It is a dilemma indeed. When Dipa Mehta shows in her film "Water" the quote from Gandhi and Manusanhita side by side, the Hindutvabadis do not like it. But we come to know that Gandhi did not endorse all of sage Manu's sacred pronouncements.
 
======================================
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
                  Do we all agree, on this one point, that we are all opposed to religion-peddling? I fervently hope that the answer is: YES.                 If so, then it is our solemn duty to understand the matter of 'religion-peddling'.                          In this business of religion -peddling it is the 'peddling' part that should command our attention.  And that requires certain in-depth and close attention to politics. Religion is a very powerful cultural artifice, and since both politics and religion deal with a community of people, there has been a mix of the two from time immemorial.  But we are constantly talking about religion-related  social symptoms, and mis-diagnosing them as 'religion'.  Why? There are several reasons.  One, mental laziness.  It takes a lot more patience and astute observation to do a political analysis. It needs historical information.              Throughout the 16th century in Europe , for instance, the Catholic Church was fighting an intense political battle with the breaking up of the Church.  The execution of the Nolan Magus and poet, Giordano Bruno, who was not a scientist or mathematician like Nicholas Copernicus, and the persecution of astronomer Galileo, a couple of decades later are indicative of the Church's political authority under severe pressure.  It is silly to cite this as the paradigmatic 'science v. religion' struggle.  It is a singular historical event within the context of Europe .               Both Dawkins and Hitchens are being totally dishonest in their discussions against religion. Dawkins is addressing the Creationists exclusively, and Hitchens's arguments apply to the Jehadists only.  Neither has the courage and intelligence of Karen Armstrong who discards the construction of the binary opposition of 'science v. religion' and refuses any hierarchical positioning of the two branches of knowledge.               Two, critiquing religion is a mask for communalism.  More on that later.                               Farida Majid
 
==============================




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___