Shiv, Once again, I'm glad to see your sexist, misogynist, low IQ and completely bullshit comments on a well-researched piece.
Once again, just because it contrasts with your equally bullshit theories of Ram Rajya and Ye Olde English Way Of Life:) Good to have you here, man :-) M On 05-Oct-2014 11:03 pm, "SS" <cybers...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 15:59 +0530, Shenoy N wrote: > > FWIW: The problem with deciding to follow one part of religion because > > it > > makes sense and jettisoning another because it doesn't is that the > > follower > > comes up against the very reasonable question - if parts of it are > > silly, > > is it really divine at all? and soon concludes in the negative. That > > leaves > > with only the everything-is-literally-true people whose tribe seems to > > be > > increasing not so much because their numbers are swelling as because > > the > > more rational guys are choosing not to believe in any of it at all. > > And > > politics being what it is, the loonies are always the first to be > > heard. > > Yes. But this is the religionists viewpoint of the uncomfortable > questions that religion faces. > > How about science? How come no one is asking science uncomfortable > questions about why science finds it OK to discard morality, or not > question the discarding of morality without having a clue about why and > where morality came from. And no. Religion did not bring in morality. > The very same concepts of morality pre-date the religions and exist > outside religion. > > For example, look at this article > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/beyond-marriage.html?_r=0 > > The author (an economist, I think, certainly not a biologist of priest) > starts by saying: > > > MARRIAGE is disappearing. More than 40 percent of new mothers are > > unmarried. > > > > > Later she says: > > > Can marriage be restored as the standard way to raise children? As > > much as we might welcome a revival, I doubt that it will happen. The > > genie is out of the bottle. > > This statement brought a contemptuous smile on my face because the woman > is bluffing. This is a classic example of GIGO by an ignoramus who is > accustomed to bluffing her way through and does not require to meet the > standards that a scientist is supposed to reach. > > For anything to be declared as impossible, one must first try and > understand why something happens and then decide whether it is > impossible or not. For example - 150 years ago, flying was thought to be > impossible while people were experimenting with "perpetual motion > machines". Physics teaches us that perpetual motion without the input of > energy is impossible, but heavier than air objects flying is possible. > > But what about marriage? Why have marriages existed before anyone can > remember? Why have marriages been known from before many religions? If > you do not know why marriages were thought necessary in human society > for over 3000 years of recorded history, how on earth can the concept of > marriage be simply dismissed? This is no better than alchemists trying > to make gold from base metals. > > And this is the 21st century? > > shiv > > > > >
