☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Ashamed To Be Sikh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 136199" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p>Okay, now that im done my quiz. I'm going to start addressing the issues brought up in my absences <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>1) - Seeker9</p><p></p><p>Long story short: the bumblebee does not violate any laws of aerodynamics. A simple google search would reveal the fact that the concept you quoted is simply a myth. I'm going to start quoting another site that dealt with this issue:</p><p></p><p>"bumblebees cannot fly according to the laws of aerodynamics, or <a href="http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/%7Eben/zetie1.htm" target="_blank">so goes the myth</a>. This story, often invoked by people wanting to dismiss results of scientific reasoning, seems to go back to the 1930s, to students of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl" target="_blank">Ludwig Prandtl</a>, a pioneer of aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen in Germany"</p><p></p><p>If you want to know more about the origin of said myth and the explanation for why bumblebees dont violate any laws of aerodynamics, i suggest you click on the following link: <a href="http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/%7Eben/zetie1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm</a></p><p></p><p>First n foremost, the onus is not on the scientific community to provide evidence against the concept of god. Simply put, if there is no evidence "for" the concept of god, then science can safely disregard it. If the onus was always on science, imagine how convuluted the process would be. Imagine if einstein came on the scene, simply said "e=mc^2, now prove me wrong yellingsardarni" lol, it would take a much longer time to prove anything then, progress would not be made. The onus is on the person making the claim, in this case you guys. Otherwise i can similarily state "there is a teapot in interstellar space, somwhere between the earth and the moon, but it is too small to be seen by a telescope—now prove me wrong <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />". Do you really want to use an argument that can simultaneously justify the existance of sasquatch, the tooth fairy and santa claus? If so, by all means, i agree—god is exactly like those three. </p><p></p><p>Having said that, without using science but instead using logic (logic is a formal language, not unlike math, that can be used to verify the validity of an argument... for example, the statement "the car is either blue or not blue" is always true as there is no possibility beyond what is covered by the scope of the sentance; where as the sentance "the car is red and not red" is always false because no such possibility can exist—u can use similar laws of logic (mainly, proof by contradiction) to determine that god either doesnt exist or exists but serves no purpose). I really dont want to get into this debate though on this thread, as this has little to do with the topic lol. Perhaps another thread if anyone is game? </p><p></p><p>God is a great many things for me <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that knows, sees, feels, creates or etc. I much rather challenge your conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept of god is not one with which any of you will agree <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> because all of you believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity </p><p></p><p>From a biological point of view: i believe the concept of god is a evolutionary by-product that served a useful evolutionary purpose but just like the appendix, it has lost its use over time (and sometimes, just liek the appendix, it can do harm to us <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />). </p><p></p><p>From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> lol. </p><p></p><p>From a common-sense point of view: the concept of god and religion in general (along with cults and conspiracy theorists) are ways in which people try to substitute actual knowledge with nonsense to make themselves feel smart... lol i could go on, onto the next topic. </p><p></p><p>I actually didnt know what she meant by liberation but thanks for the clarification. And no, atheists do not believe in souls, ghosts or other supernatural phenomena. THe purpose of life for an atheist is w/e they make it out to be. There is no wrong answer to that question as far as im concerned. Your purpose in life could range from promoting equal rights to getting drunk 24/7. Human life is objectively, from the point of view of a hypothetical god, meaningless; but from a subjective perspective, the meaning of human life is w/e you make it to be. </p><p></p><p>As a side note, they say that biological immortality is only 30-50 years away. This poses a problem to many religions. What point does a heaven and hell serve, or reincarnation for that matter, if one can live forever if one wants to? Keep in mind, there are two naturally occuring examples of biological immortality (a certain type of jelly fish and an animal known as the hydra) both of those animals pose a fundamental problem to the idea of liberation and reincarnation. I'll be willing to go more indepth into biological immortality if one wants to bring up the topic with me. But as it stand right now, we've succeeded at increasing the lifespan of certain worms by 1000 percent <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> its only 30-50 years away folks <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. I look forward to seeing how sikhs will deal with biological immortality, is ur conviction in ur religion strong enough for you to reject the possibility of living forever? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>Are there morals? Yes there are</p><p>Is there a moral code? No there is not</p><p>Morals are relative and change depending on context, culture, etc. </p><p>Atheists dont believe in absolute moral codes (or moral laws if u will). The only laws we believe in are the laws of logic, math and science. That is not to say that atheists have no morals. We do. </p><p>However, we believe one can have morals without a god-like figure to attribute the morals to. Im reminded of euthephro's dillemma</p><p></p><p>" are morals good by the grace of god? Or are morals good because they are intrinsically good?"</p><p></p><p>If you suggest that morals are good only because god says this moral is good. Then the morals are largely arbritary. Meaning, if god willed it: he could have made murder a good moral value. It all goes according to his will, and his will is rather arbritary.</p><p></p><p>If morals are good because there is something intrinsically good about them—And thats why god chose them. Then there exists something (in this case the intrinsically good nature of morals) that is above the will of god. God cannot make an intrinsically good moral a bad one by simply willing it then.</p><p></p><p>Either which way, its a problem for the concept of god. Thats one of the reasons that we, as atheists, dont believe in god and why we believe morals are relative. Not to mention the fact that murder (the greatest sin, imo) can become totally justifiable depending on the context of the situation. </p><p></p><p>Interestingly enough, their is branch of science that occasionally deals with morals (game theory <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />). According to game theory the best rule is not "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but rather</p><p></p><p>"Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do untoyou."</p><p></p><p>I would suggest reading "The rules of the game" by Carl Sagan. Its an interesting essay from an atheist regarding morals/gametheory and famous religious morals from christ to ghandi <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy">Yeah, in america it is quite the opposite, your looked down upon for being an atheist. I live in canada tho where no one really looks down upon anyone <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> </span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy">Yes, most likely. But i dont view spirtuality as related to anything supernatural or religious. I believe an atheist can be spiritual and spiritualty in general is seperate from religiousness. Some of einsteins quotes (einsteins was an atheist himself) show a deep spiritual understanding/awe of nature and the universe</span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy">Most buddhist philosophies can be considered atheisitic imo. Seeing as buddhists dont believe in god right, yet they are vastly more spiritual on average then most every religious group (including sikhs). And they dont need a god to do it. So if they can do it, any atheist can—anybody, for that matter, can lol. I'm going to say buddhists are more similar to atheists/humanists in the general sense of the word then to sikhs <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> prove me wrong <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span>Yet sikhs consider the guru granth sahib to be the living embodiment of a guru right? I'm not wrong in saying that. In my opinion their is no difference between believing that a book is a guru, or a cracker is the body of christ, or that a rock is the residence of allah. I'm going to suggest that guru nanak dev ji disrespected their beliefs to illustrate a point. </p><p></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy">Thats all fine and dandy as long as you acknowledge that just like the thread, there is nothing intrinsically good or pure about the 5 k's. Can we agree on that? Because keeping the hair, metal bracelet and khanda does not physically make you a better person let alone a better sikh. It is essentially just as pointless as the piece of thread (and alot harder to maintain <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />). </span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy">That thread was full of stupid arguments. One member tried to prove me wrong by suggesting the joke that 1+1=window is a valid logical argument. That thread made me very frustrated, it was like i was talking to a bunch of kids. No offence. But i fail to see ANY good counter points to my argument in that thread. By all means, look it over, and copy paste any arguments you feel were valid and I will address them. But as far as I know, every argument was a joke or a farce. </span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy">BTW i did provide you with some sources, i said bertrand russel, george carlin, etc. Its up their, just read it again. </span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 136199, member: 5962"] Okay, now that im done my quiz. I'm going to start addressing the issues brought up in my absences :P 1) - Seeker9 Long story short: the bumblebee does not violate any laws of aerodynamics. A simple google search would reveal the fact that the concept you quoted is simply a myth. I'm going to start quoting another site that dealt with this issue: "bumblebees cannot fly according to the laws of aerodynamics, or [URL="http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/%7Eben/zetie1.htm"]so goes the myth[/URL]. This story, often invoked by people wanting to dismiss results of scientific reasoning, seems to go back to the 1930s, to students of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl"]Ludwig Prandtl[/url], a pioneer of aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen in Germany" If you want to know more about the origin of said myth and the explanation for why bumblebees dont violate any laws of aerodynamics, i suggest you click on the following link: [URL="http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/%7Eben/zetie1.htm"]http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm[/URL] First n foremost, the onus is not on the scientific community to provide evidence against the concept of god. Simply put, if there is no evidence "for" the concept of god, then science can safely disregard it. If the onus was always on science, imagine how convuluted the process would be. Imagine if einstein came on the scene, simply said "e=mc^2, now prove me wrong yellingsardarni" lol, it would take a much longer time to prove anything then, progress would not be made. The onus is on the person making the claim, in this case you guys. Otherwise i can similarily state "there is a teapot in interstellar space, somwhere between the earth and the moon, but it is too small to be seen by a telescope—now prove me wrong :)". Do you really want to use an argument that can simultaneously justify the existance of sasquatch, the tooth fairy and santa claus? If so, by all means, i agree—god is exactly like those three. Having said that, without using science but instead using logic (logic is a formal language, not unlike math, that can be used to verify the validity of an argument... for example, the statement "the car is either blue or not blue" is always true as there is no possibility beyond what is covered by the scope of the sentance; where as the sentance "the car is red and not red" is always false because no such possibility can exist—u can use similar laws of logic (mainly, proof by contradiction) to determine that god either doesnt exist or exists but serves no purpose). I really dont want to get into this debate though on this thread, as this has little to do with the topic lol. Perhaps another thread if anyone is game? God is a great many things for me :P. But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that knows, sees, feels, creates or etc. I much rather challenge your conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept of god is not one with which any of you will agree :P because all of you believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity From a biological point of view: i believe the concept of god is a evolutionary by-product that served a useful evolutionary purpose but just like the appendix, it has lost its use over time (and sometimes, just liek the appendix, it can do harm to us :P). From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent :) lol. From a common-sense point of view: the concept of god and religion in general (along with cults and conspiracy theorists) are ways in which people try to substitute actual knowledge with nonsense to make themselves feel smart... lol i could go on, onto the next topic. I actually didnt know what she meant by liberation but thanks for the clarification. And no, atheists do not believe in souls, ghosts or other supernatural phenomena. THe purpose of life for an atheist is w/e they make it out to be. There is no wrong answer to that question as far as im concerned. Your purpose in life could range from promoting equal rights to getting drunk 24/7. Human life is objectively, from the point of view of a hypothetical god, meaningless; but from a subjective perspective, the meaning of human life is w/e you make it to be. As a side note, they say that biological immortality is only 30-50 years away. This poses a problem to many religions. What point does a heaven and hell serve, or reincarnation for that matter, if one can live forever if one wants to? Keep in mind, there are two naturally occuring examples of biological immortality (a certain type of jelly fish and an animal known as the hydra) both of those animals pose a fundamental problem to the idea of liberation and reincarnation. I'll be willing to go more indepth into biological immortality if one wants to bring up the topic with me. But as it stand right now, we've succeeded at increasing the lifespan of certain worms by 1000 percent :) its only 30-50 years away folks :P. I look forward to seeing how sikhs will deal with biological immortality, is ur conviction in ur religion strong enough for you to reject the possibility of living forever? :P Are there morals? Yes there are Is there a moral code? No there is not Morals are relative and change depending on context, culture, etc. Atheists dont believe in absolute moral codes (or moral laws if u will). The only laws we believe in are the laws of logic, math and science. That is not to say that atheists have no morals. We do. However, we believe one can have morals without a god-like figure to attribute the morals to. Im reminded of euthephro's dillemma " are morals good by the grace of god? Or are morals good because they are intrinsically good?" If you suggest that morals are good only because god says this moral is good. Then the morals are largely arbritary. Meaning, if god willed it: he could have made murder a good moral value. It all goes according to his will, and his will is rather arbritary. If morals are good because there is something intrinsically good about them—And thats why god chose them. Then there exists something (in this case the intrinsically good nature of morals) that is above the will of god. God cannot make an intrinsically good moral a bad one by simply willing it then. Either which way, its a problem for the concept of god. Thats one of the reasons that we, as atheists, dont believe in god and why we believe morals are relative. Not to mention the fact that murder (the greatest sin, imo) can become totally justifiable depending on the context of the situation. Interestingly enough, their is branch of science that occasionally deals with morals (game theory :P). According to game theory the best rule is not "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but rather "Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do untoyou." I would suggest reading "The rules of the game" by Carl Sagan. Its an interesting essay from an atheist regarding morals/gametheory and famous religious morals from christ to ghandi :) [COLOR=Navy] Yeah, in america it is quite the opposite, your looked down upon for being an atheist. I live in canada tho where no one really looks down upon anyone :P [/COLOR][COLOR=Navy] Yes, most likely. But i dont view spirtuality as related to anything supernatural or religious. I believe an atheist can be spiritual and spiritualty in general is seperate from religiousness. Some of einsteins quotes (einsteins was an atheist himself) show a deep spiritual understanding/awe of nature and the universe [/COLOR][COLOR=Navy] Most buddhist philosophies can be considered atheisitic imo. Seeing as buddhists dont believe in god right, yet they are vastly more spiritual on average then most every religious group (including sikhs). And they dont need a god to do it. So if they can do it, any atheist can—anybody, for that matter, can lol. I'm going to say buddhists are more similar to atheists/humanists in the general sense of the word then to sikhs :) prove me wrong :P [/COLOR][COLOR=Navy][/COLOR]Yet sikhs consider the guru granth sahib to be the living embodiment of a guru right? I'm not wrong in saying that. In my opinion their is no difference between believing that a book is a guru, or a cracker is the body of christ, or that a rock is the residence of allah. I'm going to suggest that guru nanak dev ji disrespected their beliefs to illustrate a point. [COLOR=Navy] Thats all fine and dandy as long as you acknowledge that just like the thread, there is nothing intrinsically good or pure about the 5 k's. Can we agree on that? Because keeping the hair, metal bracelet and khanda does not physically make you a better person let alone a better sikh. It is essentially just as pointless as the piece of thread (and alot harder to maintain :P). [/COLOR][COLOR=Navy] That thread was full of stupid arguments. One member tried to prove me wrong by suggesting the joke that 1+1=window is a valid logical argument. That thread made me very frustrated, it was like i was talking to a bunch of kids. No offence. But i fail to see ANY good counter points to my argument in that thread. By all means, look it over, and copy paste any arguments you feel were valid and I will address them. But as far as I know, every argument was a joke or a farce. BTW i did provide you with some sources, i said bertrand russel, george carlin, etc. Its up their, just read it again. [/COLOR][COLOR=Navy] [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Ashamed To Be Sikh
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top