Gods,Religions,Morals…strange trinity...

       I don’t remember the name but a well known thinker once said “If there is no God, I can do anything.” That seems quite palatable for all the proponents of the existence of the God. Why one should be good or generous if there is not any God, not any one who can give you reward for your virtues or sins. We try to be (at least some of us) good or virtuous because we fear God, like a person in general won’t rob anyone because he fears Policemen or laws. Same is the case for most of the believers in God. So discipline and goodness doesn’t come from within but comes from the fear to be punished by GOD. Such is the base of all the religions without a single exception, “FEAR”. Why should atheists have morals and be kind, generous or good because he doesn’t believe in GOD (and by the same reason it is widely believed that atheists are immoral)? The reasons are many I present the soundest one. As we have learned in those boring school text books that man is a”social animal”. Right from the birth a child is constantly in the warmth of society, throughout his childhood, throughout his adolescence he remains in the safety sphere of society where no one can come and kill him, no one can come and eat him. This factors are not seen in animals they kill each other, they eat the flesh of their own siblings because they have one and only thing to consider, ‘survival’, whereas humans do not need to worry about his survival because that is assured by the society and that’s the essence of human society. So if a person is alive till he dies without ferocious efforts like animals, it implicitly mean that he is obliged to the society for the vaccination he had been given, for the cerelac he had been fed with. And also, nothing comes free in this world. Here applies a simple business rule “give something in order to get something”. In order to savour fruits of that society you also have to maintain that society very well by not robbing others, by not killing others, by not eating others, by supporting others and that’s the precise definition of the morals for atheists. So whosoever said the sentence quoted at the beginning of the article is dead wrong.

        (comparing morals defined by religons over the morals defined by individual on basis of reason)Now the concept has taken 180 degree turn. First in case of GOD based morals it is fear that convinces people that they should be good, in second case it is also the fear. But there is a vital difference, in the former case the GOD is a third party who decides the morals but in the latter case it is a person itself who decides individually or the entire society collectively, what the morals are. Don’t both the cases give the same result? No there is a fatal flaw in the former case(wherein we consider the god as a regulatory element), which is that the concept of GOD is not intuitive, a child learn that concept eventually from the parents(or rather say religion), parents (or religion) may teach the wrong definition of the GOD and his rules ( so is the case when it was believed that a widow has to be burnt alive with the corpse of his dead husband otherwise GOD would get angry or in case of Islam one must not portray GOD otherwise he would punish) and the child even after growing mature can’t change those wrong definitions because it is based on the wisdom of a few persons who died thousands years ago and not on the wisdom of the contemporary men who are according to Charles Darwin far more intelligent and sensible. Whereas the morals based on reasons can be changed eventually and can not be wrong as often as it would have been in the GOD’s case. Morals or ethics based on the GOD(or religion) is unchanging, static but the morals deducted from reasons may be changed when need be(like drinking may be immoral in east as it is addictive but in the west with freezing cold drinking it must be moral). Religion and morals can not be considered synonyms instead they are often contradictory.


"It is very beautiful over there!" -Thomas Alva Edison (considered to have been told by him in his last days)

Terrorism

Rs.1.5/- lac as reward per perpetrator * 10 perpetrator= Rs.15/- lac Rs.
250$ per 1000 bullets.
Approximately 200$ for satellite phone.
Approximately 200$ for gps system.
500$ to acquire an AK-47.

        By summing up above expenses and adding other major expenses like traveling, hand grenades, expenses in search of the candidates and rigorous trainings of them would according to me make the staggering total of more than 1 Crore Rs. Terrorism comes at a cost, deadly cost because the people around from your community can’t get their daily food and you worry about the people geographically far away from you whom you have never seen whom you have never talked to. How stupid people can be?


        They (terrorists or rather say the masterminds behind them) used this amount just for a single attack on Mumbai in order to kill people. By killing people as they justify it, they are being benefactors for their fellow Muslim brothers in India who according to them are being suppressed, killed and executed from 1992 Babari Breakdown to 2002 Godhra Carnage and from Palestine to Kashmir. And I almost certainly believe that a large portion of Indian underdeveloped Muslims or the victims of Godhra Carnage believe in so called jihad in order to teach their suppressors( majority Hindu or in a global view everyone except Muslims) a lesson. Correct that the entire India is learning her lessons the hardest way but hold it!! Hold it!! My question is, are those terrorists who call themselves the true worshipers of faith really being beneficent to their brothers? No certainly not..because if they were to do good to so called suppressed Muslims, they could have opened new madressas, new orphanages, new old age homes or other activities which would give an effect far immediate than the other options. They could have used this money to rebuild the houses of Muslims who lost their homes in Godhra Carnage. And who knows how many hundreds of crores of money have already been wasted in fostering of terrorism which would have alternatively been utilized in more sophisticated and fruitful way. But call it inanity of them or the eloquences of mullahs that some Indian Muslim would continue to entertain them.

"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." - Bertrand Russell