Sikh Way Of Life

[gurvinder singh 551]

Sikh way of life,
Sikhism is the only way of life in this Kaliyug to save one from the evil clutches of Maya!!!, Maya is nothing but one of the siblings of the Kaliyug !!! Guru Nanak has warned Kaliyug to save Gurumukhs from its clutches. One who follows Guru’s instructions is saved from the Maya !!!, Maya distracts , create doubts in our minds, unstable our way of thinking, causes all of us to cheat others just to make more money !!!,Only Gurbani can save human being from the evil powers of Kaliyug !!!
Regards,

 

[Archived_Member16]

What is Maya?

Sikhism does not accept the conventional meaning of Maya-as illusion. The world is not Maya; it is a creation of God and as such, an abode of the Truthful One, or rather a Temple of Divinity. According to Sikhism Maya epitomises the principle duality. It is this duality which makes one forget the Lord and attracts the man to wealth, beauty, power, or scholarship.

The root of Maya is egoism, the assertion of the self. It is this which separates a man from his divine self. By such fetters, man binds himself to his family and to worldly possessions. Maya is a trap for the soul.

Maya may also take on a more subtle form as self-importance or self-complacency. It may form different patterns like intellectual pride, family attachement, pleasure-seeking and money-grabbing. It plays an important part in daily life.

The Guru by his grace gives the antidote for Maya. It is "The Name" of God, which works the spell. With it Maya is brought under control and so no longer haresses the disciple.

The residue of Maya accumulates through many births. It sticks to the individual like glue. It produces an inbuilt sense of isolation which causes man to forget his own divine essence. The individual's soul will realize, sooner or later, that a Supreme soul lives within. This becomes a spiritual awakening which will secure liberation from passion and desire. This liberation comes through self-control and the practice of virtuous living. It is the association with the Guru and the company of holy men that facilitates this realization of man's divine origin.

The evil effects of 'Maya' take longer to eradicate. Along with self-effort, the Guru grace is necessary. Guru Nanak says: "The true Guru has revealed the One to me. I have destroyed duality and can now recognize Him, through the Guru's word". Between man and God is a wall of ignorance, once this is removed, man may realize his kinship with Divinity.

source: http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/mansukh/054.htm

 

[Sinister]

Hello,

"It is this duality which makes one forget the Lord and attracts the man to wealth, beauty, power, or scholarship". (Soul_Jyot)

- I see very little wrong in being attracted to scholarship. In fact the interface through which we communicate now is a product of scholarship and remarkable engineering. To be completely engrossed in scholarship and have complete faith in science may be an arrogant approach to life but in the 21st century it has become the entity which ensures our survival.

"How wrong it is to consider what man cannot obtain from knowledge that it can obtain from the divine" (freudian)
or
"The God's help those who help themselves"



This subject has already been discussed in a thread I started called "Sikhi and Capitalism".

here is my input from "Sikhi and Capitalism":




I guess "common sense" is the knee-jerk answer to all problems, except it is inadequate of a conclusion considering us Sikhs are very much empiricists and practioners. Common sense is not an innate property but something that is at all times learnt. Common sense is in all regards Knowledge of the performance of a task.

and somehow i doubt we can build and irrigate 1000 acre farms from mere innate common sense?

A MOTIVATION MUST BE PRESENT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN SURVIVAL!!!!

And so again I ask;
What force should motivate us as Sikhs to sustain ourselves for physical survival if it is not maya (lust for material goods)?.....

example:

1) I get hungary and my stomach lets out a rumble
2) My first recourse is not to pray to God for food or for that matter result to my common senses
3) My first recourse is to lust for food (maya). The lust brings about awareness (arousal), change in the bodily state and then MOTIVATION.
4) The Motivation activates the so called "common senses" (knowledge of how to attain food)
5) I activate all my motor systems
6) I eat!
7) My lust is satisfied, but only temporarily.

refer to Robert C Solomon "as-if loop" of emotion/sensation.

Scientific Proof: Mice injected with Obestatin (a hormone that supresses the region of the brain that has gastrin receptor (a hormone that initiates hunger sensation)) refuse to eat and die becasue of a lack of motivation to feed. The mice have not forgotten how to eat they just dont eat because they beleive they are full!

Humanity is not sustained only upon common sense but also motivation and lust. Unless Motivation/Lust are a part of the vague term of "COMMON SENSE"

A question so simple yet at the same time so complex?
I have been reading Gurbaani and trying to figure this one out on my own but have not come across anything....most of the stuff i have come across is distinctly a negative portrait of maya (aka lust).
Although Maya it seems is the the duality of humanity : It is responsible for both misery and sustenance!

why is sikhism so against it, is what is so baffling!

And I find it hard to beleive that a human does not have a "lust" for survival
All my arguments are further expressed by Robert C. Solomon in a paper of psychology : "From emotions and Choice" (a good read)
The Mice experiments are also true being performed by leading endocrinologist of our time there are a couple of leading papers on obestatin (their thinking on using it to shave the fat off Americans...hehe).

It seems that the more sceince develops the more we become materialistic and the more Religion loses ground and authority. Especially when we have discoveries in the neurological sciences.

I will try to read more Religious texts but I need somewhere to start and much more clarification!

 

[spnadmin]

What is Maya?

It feels good to read something that opens our eyes and hastens our understanding. Once again, Soul_Jyot has helped us understand a difficult problem without scolding and moral nagging.
Sikhism does not accept the conventional meaning of Maya-as illusion. The world is not Maya; it is a creation of God and as such, an abode of the Truthful One, or rather a Temple of Divinity. According to Sikhism Maya epitomises the principle duality. It is this duality which makes one forget the Lord and attracts the man to wealth, beauty, power, or scholarship. What is in the world is God's creation and is good. Maya, is not an evil presence. It is a negative process. We fall under the influence of this process when we are attracted to a negative force that isolates us from God, who is All that is True and All that is Good.


The root of Maya is egoism, the assertion of the self. It is this which separates a man from his divine self. By such fetters, man binds himself to his family and to worldly possessions. Maya is a trap for the soul.
When we compulsively assert the self, which is a psychological construction and has no reality in and of itself, we are rehearsing false assumptions that in time ingrain a false truth. This false truth is a prison for the soul.

Maya may also take on a more subtle form as self-importance or self-complacency. It may form different patterns like intellectual pride, family attachement, pleasure-seeking and money-grabbing. It plays an important part in daily life. None of these patterns are wrong in themselves. What is wrong is the false belief that we can take pride or be content in having achieved intellect, family, pleasure and wealth. The false patterns of belief - Maya - lead to despair, disillusionment, spiritual isolation, and ultimately to evil.

The Guru by his grace gives the antidote for Maya. It is "The Name" of God, which works the spell. With it Maya is brought under control and so no longer haresses the disciple.

The residue of Maya accumulates through many births. It sticks to the individual like glue. It produces an inbuilt sense of isolation which causes man to forget his own divine essence. The individual's soul will realize, sooner or later, that a Supreme soul lives within. This becomes a spiritual awakening which will secure liberation from passion and desire. This liberation comes through self-control and the practice of virtuous living. It is the association with the Guru and the company of holy men that facilitates this realization of man's divine origin.

The evil effects of 'Maya' take longer to eradicate. The process of Maya has been ingrained over many individual lifetimes, worlds, and generations. It is buried deep in the psyche of humans. Along with self-effort, the Guru grace is necessary. Guru Nanak says: "The true Guru has revealed the One to me. I have destroyed duality and can now recognize Him, through the Guru's word". Between man and God is a wall of ignorance, once this is removed, man may realize his kinship with Divinity. There is an even deeper and more ancient need of the human soul and that is the need to overcome spiritual isolation and loneliness through union with the Divine. So as we pray, then we are liberated from this prison of our own invention.

source: Gateway to Sikhism : Sikhism FAQs:What is Maya?

This all it is. Nothing about despising the creativity and intellect of humankind. These were also in the plans of the Architect. This is a very simple message about finding the way home.

 

[kds1980]

It seems that the more sceince develops the more we become materialistic and the more Religion loses ground and authority. Especially when we have discoveries in the neurological sciences.

The society that become's more materialistic will eventually destroy itself.just take alook at what is happening in european countries.the birth rate of many european countries is quite low which is not even sufficent for a society to survive as a result they need more and more immigrants on the other hand birth rate of many muslim countries is quite high
according to 1 un report european countries need 700 million immigrants between 1995
to 2050 and eventuall y in 150 to 200 years europe will become asian or black.so the society that adopted material culture will cease to exist.

Also material goods put enormous pressure on natural resources which is disastrous for earth.so in any way materialistic society is distastrous.

 

[Sinister]

The society that become's more materialistic will eventually destroy itself.

Interesting concept but the assertion is erroneous when examined closely. Demographics are quite independent of culture and more in line with Malthusian economics and what demographers now refer to as population momentum.

just take alook at what is happening in european countries.the birth rate of many european countries is quite low which is not even sufficent for a society to survive as a result they need more and more immigrants on the other hand birth rate of many muslim countries is quite high

High Birth rate inversely has a negative effect on the environment. Every country has a boom bust period in population growth. The population boom in India is the result of economic prosperity rather than religious influence. All countries experience rapid population growth when their economies modernize and their health-care systems modernize. It happened in Britain (Victorian era), France (Napoleonic Era), US (1920’s then again in the 50’s), now its India’s turn.
according to 1 un report european countries need 700 million immigrants between 1995
to 2050 and eventuall y in 150 to 200 years europe will become asian or black.so the society that adopted material culture will cease to exist.

You are confusing Materialism with Consumptionism. There are countries who are Materialists but who do not have a distinct consumptionist culture. Take the Mighty Indian neighbor China. It has a distinct population growth while being a relatively materialistic/atheist/(Maoist) society. Religion has very little influence in population dynamics. The Muslim populations in countries such as Turkey >1%, Iran 0.3% (extremely religious society), Kazakhstan 0.5%, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, UAE, Yemen, Kuweit and Qatar are relatively low (most of their population growth is from bringing Pakistani workers from abroad to help in construction projects). Most of the Muslim population growth is occurring in Africa (largely because of the modernization of medicine within these regions and with the help of militia’s).

Also material goods put enormous pressure on natural resources which is disastrous for earth.so in any way materialistic society is distastrous.

This argument has remarkably betrayed itself… just a paragraph ago you said that materialist societies are declining in population whereas religious societies with High birth rates are rapidly increasing in population.
Which has a greater effect on the environment? … An increasing population to my account!
Thus, according to your environmental interpretation religion should be bad because it leads to an increase in population (thus leading to the need in more farm land and more materials to sustain the high population).

What you fail to mention is that all populations go through periods of boom and bust until they find an equilibrium (a point where they become sustainable, some populations like to oscillate).

The fact is that atheistic/materialistic European countries are the leaders when it comes to conservation and sustainability. It is projected that Denmark will produce 50% of its energy from wind by the end of 2015 (wind energy currently accounts for 20% of their total production capacity). France currently produces more than 50% of its power from nuclear sources. And the list goes on. The Netherlands is also taking a strong sustainable conservation route. Whereas some of “Religious India’s” conservation laws go back to the days of British Raj.

Sikhism cannot help us “conserve” energy. Especially when you drive your 8 cyclinder trucks back and forth from the Gurdawara. Actually Punjab is one of the most energy intensive states...it has become a giant farmland without a forest in site. The concept of conservation is alien and Punjab boasts one of the most ridiculous consumption cultures in India (starting with the members of the Akaali Dal). So whatever the Sikh message is or was; is not even a worthy a talking point in this day of “enlightenment”. Materialism is permanent and it can hardly be classified as “Kaliyug”.


Conclusion: Materialism and Religiosity have very little influence if any with population dynamics. There are larger economic factors at play when citizens think of reproduction.
Materialism and Consumption culture are entirely different (I do solemnly believe that you can have the latter without the former).

A society that is materialistic will eventually SUSTAIN itself (not destroy itself). The constant development of more efficient, productive and sustainable devices will ensure us that this age of “Kaliyug” will last forever. Whereas the religious right will sit on their behinds moping and begging for a “Savior” or “Fakir” to take them into the afterlife and bring about the end of days while at the same time enjoying the fruits of materialism that they so solemnly and hypocritically critique.


Toodles

 

[kds1980]

dear sinister

your conclusion is quite wrong.i am member of faithfreedom.org and these types of debates do occur time to time.majority of people from europe (even atheists) do beleive that european society is slowly dying while it is unanimously accepted that islam is the fastest growing religion due to its high birth rate.

High Birth rate inversely has a negative effect on the environment. Every country has a boom bust period in population growth. The population boom in India is the result of economic prosperity rather than religious influence. All countries experience rapid population growth when their economies modernize and their health-care systems modernize. It happened in Britain (Victorian era), France (Napoleonic Era), US (1920’s then again in the 50’s), now its India’s turn.

indian population growth has nothing to do with economic prosperity.india was always over populated.in 1991 when india faced huge economic crisis even then india' population was 800million.the economic boom in india is recent phenomina.

As far as other countries when they was rapid population growth happened were quite christian.there were no feminist movements.their family structure was quite intact.but today everything has broken down.so their is no way we should look at history.

You are confusing Materialism with Consumptionism. There are countries who are Materialists but who do not have a distinct consumptionist culture. Take the Mighty Indian neighbor China. It has a distinct population growth while being a relatively materialistic/atheist/(Maoist) society. Religion has very little influence in population dynamics. The Muslim populations in countries such as Turkey >1%, Iran 0.3% (extremely religious society), Kazakhstan 0.5%, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, UAE, Yemen, Kuweit and Qatar are relatively low (most of their population growth is from bringing Pakistani workers from abroad to help in construction projects). Most of the Muslim population growth is occurring in Africa (largely because of the modernization of medicine within these regions and with the help of militia’s).

i am refferring to western materialistic culture where a person runs for more and more materialistic pleasure.i don't know whether you call it consumptionism or materialism.as far as china is concerned again china was
overpopulated before mao.on the issu of religion please google and check what is the muslim birth rate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe's Muslim Street

More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also please check yopur facts on countries like iran,uae

Iran - Population
The sharp increase in the population growth rate from 2.7 percent to nearly 3.6 percent per year between 1976 and 1986 appeared to be related to the Revolution in 1979.

International Market Research - The UAE’s Population is Rapidly Growing and the Elderly population records the highest Growth Rate in the World

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and muslim population is not only growing in africa but all over the world
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims to be the fastest growing religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islam

Data for Islam reveal that the growing number of Muslims is due primarily to the higher than average birth-rates and consequent population growths of Muslim countries and communities.
In 2006, countries with a Muslim majority had an average population growth rate of 1.8% per year (when weighted by percentage Muslim and population size).[7] This compares with a world population growth rate of 1.12% per year.[8]
According to the "Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life", Islam is already the fastest-growing religion in Europe. Driven by immigration and high birthrates, the number of Muslims on the continent has tripled in the last 30 years. Most demographers forecast a similar or even higher rate of growth in the coming decades.[9]
According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the World Christian Database as of 2007 estimated the six fastest growing religions of the world to be Islam (1.84%), the Bahá'í Faith (1.7%), Sikhism (1.62%), Jainism (1.57%), Hinduism (1.52%), and Christianity (1.32%), [10].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This argument has remarkably betrayed itself… just a paragraph ago you said that materialist societies are declining in population whereas religious societies with High birth rates are rapidly increasing in population.
Which has a greater effect on the environment? … An increasing population to my account!
Thus, according to your environmental interpretation religion should be bad because it leads to an increase in population (thus leading to the need in more farm land and more materials to sustain the high population)

i am not at all saying that rapidly increasing population is good for environment but it is not as dangerous as western materialistic culture.America and europe with 15% of world population
consume more than 50% of energy whereas asia with more than 50% of population consume around 25% of energy so which is more dangerous

What you fail to mention is that all populations go through periods of boom and bust until they find an equilibrium (a point where they become sustainable, some populations like to oscillate).

Again you are looking at history.earlier when european countries faced population explosion
then europeans went to other continents and captured it and settled their.now most of the countries have closed their borders so don't look at history

The fact is that atheistic/materialistic European countries are the leaders when it comes to conservation and sustainability. It is projected that Denmark will produce 50% of its energy from wind by the end of 2015 (wind energy currently accounts for 20% of their total production capacity). France currently produces more than 50% of its power from nuclear sources. And the list goes on. The Netherlands is also taking a strong sustainable conservation route. Whereas some of “Religious India’s” conservation laws go back to the days of British Raj.

energy conservation by these countries is just like"after eating 900 mice cat is going to hajj"
Usa the largest consumer of energy is still not taking any steps to conserve energy.other european countries are also so much addicted to non renewable energy that they very well know that they can't survive without energy that's why they are now taking steps.btw i read that nuclear energy production is also not environment friendly is it true?

 

[kds1980]

Will the number of Atheists & Agnostics grow?

Atheist Decline in Recent Past and Near Future
In the last few decades atheists and others who are radically anti-religious have been a rapidly declining percentage of world population. They are now 2.5% of world population. Agnostics and those who are indifferent to religion are also a somewhat more slowly declining percentage of the world's population, they are now 11.5%.

There are two factors. First, the end of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the loss of faith in communism elsewhere, particularly China. Atheists and non-religious people are overwhelmingly concentrated in communist countries. About two thirds of the world's atheist population is in China.

Second, religious people have far higher birth rates.

For the future the low birth rates among the more radical atheists and anti-religious people, and the agnostic and religiously indifferent will tend to lower their percentage in the population.

There also maybe a vast decrease in the atheist and non-religious population as communism continues to lose its grip in China.

Does this mean that the percentage of the world's population that is not religious must decrease. Probably in the short run, but not necessarily over the longer run.

 

[Sinister]

Lets focus the debate to 2 examples Iran and China.

Lets go over a quick fact check.

China:

After the Second World War and the Maoist revolution China saw some of the greatest population increases in its history. Now how is it that an atheistic/Mao society such as China maintained such a high population growth? Well in excess of 3% (if one were to study its history). Or how did a stalinistic USSR explain their population growth during a radical marxist revolution?
Answer --modernization of their healthcare (brought about by communism) and as a result of strong family planning initiatives, promoted by the communistic government.

China:
1950: 550 million
2007: 1.4 billion

The population has almost TRIPLED since the Maoist revolution! (in a period of 50 years!)

Materialistic society’s (note: when I say materialistic I mean atheistic NOT consumerism or consumptionism cultures as the United States) do not “self destruct”.

Note: the assertion that Materialism leads to Consumer culture is also rather false and naïve to assert. Consumerism is largely an American phenomenon (a country which is also very deeply religious).

I’ll let you in on a little secret: This new conservation movement that is emerging is initially an atheist/communistic movement. With the fall of the Soviet Union we saw communists run to conservation groups such as Green-Peace/friends of the earth, etc. to carry out there anti-corporate agenda’s. This infiltration (if one chooses to use such strong words) was even admitted by one of the founders of Green peace who initially resigned his position.


indian population growth has nothing to do with economic prosperity.india was always over populated.in 1991 when india faced huge economic crisis even then india' population was 800million.the economic boom in india is recent phenomina. (kds_1980)
This statement is true! but I think you overlooked what I said initially in my post...Population growth is the direct result of the modernization of healthcare, agriculture and production economy (not religion).

India was rapidly changing within this period. It is known as “India’s Green revolution” (grain production with the help artificial selection , later with GE technology was introduced….ever heard of GOLDEN RICE?) India’s grain production dramatically increased during the 60’s, 70’s 80’s and 90’s with the help of new and improved farming equipment (The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center was also established). At the same time India’s Medical system expanded and infant mortality declined with the introduction of new vaccines and medicines. This led to the increase in population regardles of periods of economic boom and bust.


Any demographer will tell you that religious culture plays a very minute role in controlling population. It is mostly based upon emerging technologies.


Now lets look at Iran:

The population growth rate for Iran is Currently 0.66% (lower than that of Canada/America/Britain). Why does one of the most fanatical religious theocracy’s in modern history have such a low population growth? --Family planning coupled with economic Bust.

Now lets examine your statement with more scrutiny:
Iran - Population
The sharp increase in the population growth rate from 2.7 percent to nearly 3.6 percent per year between 1976 and 1986 appeared to be related to the Revolution in 1979. (kds_1980)


Well it is not all about the revolution. If you look at the history of Iran you will also notice that the revolution brought with it something the Iranians hadn’t experienced before…an era of war with IRAQ. The Iran-Iraq war was in full blows from a period of 1980 to 1988…peace treaties were signed in 1988. Now anybody who knows the sinews of war knows that it requires a tremendous human effort. Now if you recall the explosive population growth of Germany during early phases of World War 2 you can understand exactly why the Iranians abandoned the fertility control policy. (it was done for entirely materialistic/propagandist reasons, perhaps to win the war…not so much because of religion)

So why isn’t the population increasing now? Considering Iran is still very much a stringent Islamic theocracy? Low oil exports and sanctions against the country have taken their toll on the growing population. Also they have reinstated their fertility control policies. No modernization means, no growth!

Good models fit the data. To say that religion is the chief factor that influences demographics is not correct. It is the rise of modern economies/production tools, it is improvement of health care, it is the availability of food and then finally cultural factors/state policies that play a role in determining population growth.

Why is the Islamic faith growing? Well simple ….OIL (the black gold that gives rise to all modern expansion)! Along with the modernization of medicine in Islamic countries (largely Africa). This expansion was long overdue and has little to do with the Islamic faith. The availability of energy almost ensures the expansion of a population especially when the world is experiencing peak oil syndrome. Look at Venezuela, Western Canada, areas of distinct expansion because of desirable resources.


Now…Whether the atheist population is declining or not is entirely irrelevant (to me). Considering religion is a very personal choice. Many atheists like to “stay in the closet” in fear of persecution by others (and yes it does occur more often than you think). But there is no direct evidence that this population is shrinking? Google; Empty Pew-Syndrome and you can read anything opposite of what you just stated.

 

[kds1980]

Dear sinister

First of all let me clarify that i am not at all saying that religion is only factor that affect population
other factors like economy ,food production,healthcare etc do play a very important role.And my defination of materialistic means a person who runs for more and more material.he could be atheist
or following some religion.but as atheisism don't have any spirituality so obviously chances are they will run for more and more material.

China:

After the Second World War and the Maoist revolution China saw some of the greatest population increases in its history. Now how is it that an atheistic/Mao society such as China maintained such a high population growth? Well in excess of 3% (if one were to study its history). Or how did a stalinistic USSR explain their population growth during a radical marxist revolution?
Answer --modernization of their healthcare (brought about by communism) and as a result of strong family planning initiatives, promoted by the communistic government.

China:
1950: 550 million
2007: 1.4 billion

The population has almost TRIPLED since the Maoist revolution! (in a period of 50 years!)

Materialistic society’s (note: when I say materialistic I mean atheistic NOT consumerism or consumptionism cultures as the United States) do not “self destruct”.

Note: the assertion that Materialism leads to Consumer culture is also rather false and naïve to assert. Consumerism is largely an American phenomenon (a country which is also very deeply religious).

I’ll let you in on a little secret: This new conservation movement that is emerging is initially an atheist/communistic movement. With the fall of the Soviet Union we saw communists run to conservation groups such as Green-Peace/friends of the earth, etc. to carry out there anti-corporate agenda’s. This infiltration (if one chooses to use such strong words) was even admitted by one of the founders of Green peace who initially resigned his position.

actually sinister you are taking the example of communist countries.communist countries are famous for their human right voilations.there is no freedom or free will.the government just decide whether a country needs population growth or population control.Just take alook at how soviet did this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, were given equal rights before the law, women were granted sexual equality under matrimonial law, inheritance of property was abolished, and abortion was legalized.[1]


During Joseph Stalin's rule, the trend toward strengthening the family continued. In 1936 the government began to award payments to women with large families and made abortions and divorces more difficult to obtain. In 1942 it subjected single persons and childless married persons to additional taxes. In 1944 only registered marriages were recognized to be legal, and divorce became subject to the court's discretion. In the same year, the government began to award medals to women who gave birth to five or more children and took upon itself the support of illegitimate children.[1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So communist countries cannot be taken as example.Also the take over of china by mao does not mean
that the chinese society immidieately left the religion.just because the government was atheist.

Now lets look at Iran:

The population growth rate for Iran is Currently 0.66% (lower than that of Canada/America/Britain). Why does one of the most fanatical religious theocracy’s in modern history have such a low population growth? --Family planning coupled with economic Bust.

according to following site population growth of iran is
is 1.10%
Population Growth Rate - GlobalHealthFacts.org

As i earlier said other factors do play an important role may be other factors are responsible here.

Why is the Islamic faith growing? Well simple ….OIL (the black gold that gives rise to all modern expansion)! Along with the modernization of medicine in Islamic countries (largely Africa). This expansion was long overdue and has little to do with the Islamic faith. The availability of energy almost ensures the expansion of a population especially when the world is experiencing peak oil syndrome. Look at Venezuela, Western Canada, areas of distinct expansion because of desirable resources.

here you are wrong .not all muslim countries have oil jsut take a look at population growth of some of muslim countries with largest population.

Population Growth Rate - GlobalHealthFacts.org

pakistan -2.09
bangladesh2.09%
indonasia 1.41%
malayasia 1.78%
afghanistan 2.67

I simply don't understand what oil has to do of population growth of these countries

even in india at the time of partition muslim population was 8% but now it is around14%.If religion does not play any role then how the population of muslims in grown by 60-70%.Population growth of muslims is one of key agenda of rss because they are afraid that at this rate muslims will become majority in india 1 day.

 

[kds1980]

Google; Empty Pew-Syndrome and you can read anything opposite of what you just stated.
__________________

Here i completely agree with you but it is not only google.You can read the opposite views of anything for example one a day a science school says that chocalates are good for health but after some days another science school says that chocalate are bad for health.

what i said are not completely my views these are the views of some of intellectuals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia Times Online :: Asian News, Business and Economy.

Death by secularism: Some statistical evidence
By Spengler

Infertility is killing off the secular world, a number of writers have observed, including Phillip Longman, whose 1994 book The Empty
Cradle I reviewed last year. [1] In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine. Secular western Europe will lose 4% to 12% of its population, while the population of the churchgoing United States continues to grow. Is secularism at fault? The numbers do not suggest otherwise.

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality, I have argue in the past. [2] In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxy{censored}, for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Ohmyrus50810.htm

To begin with, secularism promotes a more short term and hedonistic attitude towards life. Since secular people have little faith in God or an after life, the tendency is for them to adopt the attitude of “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”. Of course, not all secular people are like that. But in general, secularism promotes such attitudes.

Their time horizon is therefore their own lifetime. Religious people on the other hand are more long term. Their eyes are on eternity. If you go to Europe , you will come across many Cathedrals that took centuries to build. For example, Cologne Cathedral took more than 300 years to complete. (1)

Why did the Medieval Christians start a project that none of them would live to see its completion? The answer is that they look to the hereafter. Their desire was to please God and go to heaven. They say that faith can move mountains. Here a mountain of stone was literally moved to build the great Cathedrals of Europe.

But what of the secular people in now post-Christian Europe ? What are the economic consequences of people whose time frame is simply the rest of their lives?

For a start, they (in general) want to enjoy their lives to the hilt. For some, this could mean early retirement with loss of still productive workers to the economy. For others, it could mean fewer or no children for children means responsibility and a tax on their resources which could be used to indulge themselves. Statistics from America have shown that regular church goers tend to have more children than those that seldom or don't attend church. (2)

When interviewed, 47% of people who attend church weekly say that the ideal family size is three or more children, compared to only 27% of those who seldom attend church.

This implies a correlation between religious faith and the birth rate which of course has economic consequences. I can detect two reasons for this. Firstly, all religions tend to assign gender roles. Women are seen to be primarily as homemakers with men the head of the household. Thus those women with higher religiosity tends to have more children because they are more ready to accept that child caring is an important part of their lives. Women who give higher priority tend to have less children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure there are opposite views of these intellectuals but these theories are coming
because one of the bitter truth is europe is slowly dying.Don't beleive me then read the following link

Europe, East and West, wrestles with falling birthrates - Europe - International Herald Tribune

 

[spnadmin]

Kds1980 ji

The research you did to find the relevant demographic information is really impressive. How long did it take you to do this. Data is always taken more seriously than annecdotes and public policy speeches, even when the data have obvious limitations, because you can go back to a source, critique and evaluate it. Something concrete to debate and discuss.

This is the kind of information that is good to keep on file. To follow up from time to time. Thanks for doing this.

Stay in Chardi Kala

 

[kds1980]

Kds1980 ji

The research you did to find the relevant demographic information is really impressive. How long did it take you to do this. Data is always taken more seriously than annecdotes and public policy speeches, even when the data have obvious limitations, because you can go back to a source, critique and evaluate it. Something concrete to debate and discuss.

This is the kind of information that is good to keep on file. To follow up from time to time. Thanks for doing this.

Stay in Chardi Kala

AAd002 ji

i am, also member faithfreedom.org an anti islam and anti religion site and debates on these subjects do occur from time to time and people do regularly post these types of researches.so whenever i found any good research i just save it on my computer.

 

[Sinister]

religion is not the prime mover of population growth as you originally stated.

"The society that become's more materialistic will eventually destroy itself."
ill have to disagree with that as as well. I think that this assumption is a significant over-simplification of a much larger picture.

And as for the popualtion growth rate of Iran I would have to disagree with you again.
here is my source...its provided by the CIA (american intelligeance agency)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#People

Im not a communist myself (a liberal at best) but the examples of communist countries was simply to counter your claims that materialistic countries fail. Which is not the case at all if one examines even a shread of historical evidence.

"During Joseph Stalin's rule, the trend toward strengthening the family continued. In 1936 the government began to award payments to women with large families and made abortions and divorces more difficult to obtain."

well look at any non 3rd world democracy. These countries also give heavy incentives for child reproduction. come to Canada/netherlands and services like childcare, Highschool, colleges, health care are virtually tax deductable and FREE!, straight from the taxpayers pocket into the hands of new parents! so again this comes under family planning policy. It is not only communist countries that provide incentives for childbirth or child control. Other countries literally give away cash as well (wheter it works or not is an entirely different story...again tied with economics and modernization)

Also note: I higly doubt Maoist China had any incentives for child-birth. yet the population still expanded and continues to expand under the banner of athiesm.

However I did not hear your input about the Green Revolution? How much do you think technology has a role in population increase rather than religion?

thus I will repost this to show your dual message:
"indian population growth has nothing to do with economic prosperity."

after a few posts you stated:

"First of all let me clarify that i am not at all saying that religion is only factor that affect population"

well thats a radical change in tone I might add! upon closer expection; economic factors have almost everything to do with population growth!

thus I will reitrate:
Population growth is the direct result of the modernization of healthcare, agriculture and production/economy expansion (not so much religion).


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Aside from this I find your conclusions rather prejudiced and a little discriminatory (which is a fair assumption considering you yourself profess to being a memeber of an anti-islamic site).

"i am, also member faithfreedom.org an anti islam and anti religion site and debates on these subjects do occur from time to time and people do regularly post these types of researches."

Oh I think that would look lovely on your resume. :{;o:

Let me show you a little more assumptions and prejudices you hold:

"but as atheisism don't have any spirituality so obviously chances are they will run for more and more material."

Yes atheists are the mindless inferior drones that are prone to run after material wealth without any morality and regard for the environment (or human life). Could your propagandic talk and prejudices become any more "sinister"? (i think you deserve my screen-name)

"but as atheisism don't have any spirituality so obviously chances are they will run for more and more material."

To say that atheist's are more prone to run after material wealth is the same as an atheist trying to say: "Sikhs are more prone to cause violent crime because they carry a dagger" (kirpan). (prejudices do not hold truths)

I believe it was Karl Marx who said "everyone according to his ability and everyone according to his need" (which is a mindset that is far from a drone... and which far from a mindless consumption machine). Many Atheists don't put material wealth on a pedestal and the majority cherish the world in which they live in. For you to say that an atheist is more likely to run after materials, i find hillarious. Considering its always religious leaders that are bloating in misplaced money funds.

Also consider many members of the conservation teams (who are out protecting this planet) are athiests.

I guess people like Noam chomsky, Francis Crick, Marie Currie, Richard Dawkins, Daniell Dennett, Thomas Edisson, Stephan Gould, Stephen Picker, Karl Popper, Carl Sagan, James Watson, E. O Wilson (trust me, I can keep listing renowed atheists all day) were all after money and material wealth?
these were people who dedicated their lives to the advancement in science/culture.

or how about Warren Buffett (donated his entire family fortune; 30 billion dollars) or Bill gates who has his own private chairty foundation. Are these people mindless, unsympathetic, atheist drones as well?

and for you to say that atheistic societies "fail" while religious society's "thrive" is equally absurd and prejudiced in nature.

there is hardly any fact or truth to this argument.

 

[kds1980]

dear sinister

Before continuing our debate just answer 1 of my simple question that if religion has nothing to do with population then why percentage wise muslim population incresed in india and why hindu population decreased
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organiser - Content

The following points emerge from the above Table:

Hindu share of population in the total population went down from 84.4 per cent in 1951 to 80.46 per cent in 2001

The annual rate of decrease in the share of Hindu population was 0.091

The Muslim share of population in the total population had gone up to 15.06 per cent in 2001 from 10.43 per cent in 1951

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now some people say that economic status of muslims in india is low that's why there population increased but if we compare it with dalits then dalit population at that time was around 15% and it is still around 15%.Econiomic status of dalits and muslims in india is not much different

Also FFI.ORG apart from being an anti muslim site is also a hardcore atheist site.majority
of its members hate all religions.Why should they publish biased views against athiest society.

 

[kds1980]

Here is another research for you sinister which proves my point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


German Joys: Why Germany has a Low Birth Rate
Why Germany has a Low Birth Rate

Germany's birth rate is too low to sustain its current population levels, and this is going to cause increasing problems for it. The new Minister for Families, Ursula von der Leyen, a woman who has seven children herself, thinks the answer is to shower yet more money (German) on Germans who have children, this time in the form of more tax breaks and "parent-money," which adds to the "child-money" Germans already get. Her proposals, as well as her person, are controversial, for reasons I won't get into.

The Allensbach institute, on of the principal public-opinion research institutes in Germany, recently asked Germans of child-bearing age why they aren't having children. Here are some of the reasons (German):
A child would be too much of a financial burden (47%)
I'm still too young for that (47%)
My career plans would be hard to fulfill with a child (37%)
I haven't yet found the right partner (28%)
I want to have the maximum amount of freedom, not to have to limit myself (27%)
I have many interests that would be hard to reconcile with having a child (27%)
Children are hard to raise; I am not sure I have the strength and nerves for that (27%)
I want to be as independent as possible (26%)
I would then have less time for friends (19%)
I don't know if my relationship will stay together (17%)
I or my partner would be at a career disadvantage if we had a child (16%)

Not a very reassuring picture because, as the Institute points out, there is not much the government can do about a lot of these things. Of course, the government can reduce the financial burden yet further, and try to make it easier to integrate career and family. However, it's hard to see how.

I don't think people see having a child as a financial burden because the government doesn't give them enough money. Germany, like most European nations, showers parents with tax breaks and subsidies, but still has a much lower birth rate than countries -- such as the United States -- that give parents more limited financial help.

The reason singles think children are too expensive is because of the underlying economic malaise and feelings of insecurity. That is, even after the government bonuses and tax breaks, people think they don't make enough money or have enough job security to start a family. As for the career issue, I hear this from many women, and there's probably something to it. But there are already relatively good legal protections in Germany for women who get pregnant on the job, and the main ways of significantly strenghthening these protections -- such as tough anti-discrimination laws -- would be controversial.

The research I've read indicates that people are more likely to have children when they are bound into tight family structures, strongly religious, and have an optimistic, forward-looking attitude toward their lives and their societies. In most countries, people know well that having children means huge career sacrifices and costs tons of time and money, but they do it anyway (whether because of social expectations or strong drives), without expecting any reward from the government. That's why I can't see how tinkering around the edges of German government policy is going to accomplish much; it cannot change these broad cultural factors.