Root cause of Hindu Muslim division

[fsayed]

@fsayed quote me any single muslim ruler (except Akbar, who later embraced deen-E-ilahi) in indian subcontinentcwho didn't vandalised temples and converted people... even rajiya, tried vandalising kashi vishwanath temple, and the lion tipu who converted 30000 nairs, killed women and child with equal brutality... Even Akbar just used the alternate way instead of forced one

Bahadur shah Zaffar happy now

 

[Indian_Devil]

Worst straw man ever!!

Yeah right, just because your highness says so.Looks like you need to brush up your knowledge about atheism in the first place - it's not a belief system that it can be shot down by terming it as illogical, it's a simple stand that there are no evidence to suggest the existent of a god or anything supernatural for that matter......................, and that it's the theists who needs to bring forward the evidence since they are the ones making the positive claims here!!Don't know about you but i for one can see nothing illogical in here!!

Theism is based on beleive, and it cant be felt by others unless they start believing... universe or life is a mystery science is unable to explain correctly, (and NO, big bang theory or multiverse theory cant explain everything)
according to me atheists are confused and atheism is incorrect connotation in use, since no "Atheist" can prove that god is not present... agnostics are better than atheists.
and no science and scientific method is still not able to solve natural mysteries including the life, universe, time etc etc

Bahadur shah Zaffar happy now

Bahadur shah jafar II, he was somewhat tolerate he even appealed to fellow Muslims to stop consuming beef and unite with Hindus to fight against british,

BUT he was powerless, he Appealed, not Ordered or Sanctioned... so he cant be counted.. though I like this couplet written by him about his motherland (as in Islam, religion is more important than country and motherland, but he defied it, thats why i love it...)

"Kitna Badnaseeb hai Jafar dafan ke liye,
Do gaj jameen bhi na mil saki Ko-E-Yaar me"

 

[A_Poster]

Worst straw man ever!!

Probably if you had based you beliefs on logic and reason ,rather than on bluster, you would never have made such a momentous error.

Yeah right, just because your highness says so.Looks like you need to brush up your knowledge about atheism in the first place - it's not a belief system that it can be shot down by terming it as illogical, it's a simple stand that there are no evidence to suggest the existent of a god or anything supernatural for that matter......................, and that it's the theists who needs to bring forward the evidence since they are the ones making the positive claims here!!Don't know about you but i for one can see nothing illogical in here!!

Yes, you highness is correct in this matter, and has much deeper knowledge of belief systems than most lay people. Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion ,traditional or non-traditional. The belief of Atheism lies in the fact that "God does not exist" which is impossible to prove philosophically and logically ,or say as difficult to prove that "God does exist".

And no, Scientific methods does not work in proving and disproving existence of God. Induction (of Hume) is a critique of over-reliance on scientific methods; and proving or disproving any extra-sensory entity based solely on sensory knowledge is a baloney. It is western corollary of "Blind man and Elephant" tale of Paramhansa.

Every criticism ,every shortcoming of argument that you could bring forth for disproving existence of god, could be turned around to disprove disproving of existence of God.



And btw, Scientific progress never killed religion. It is consumerism and rise of professional Psycho-therepy services which killed religion by making clergy redundant.

 

[Indian_Devil]

Dara shikoh?

As already answered, he was not an emperor. Because of his liberal views and connections with Sikhs, he was butchered mercilessly by his own brother, EMPEROR Aurangjeb...

 

[dadeechi]

There may be historical rifts but today Hindus and Muslims get along very well within India. In fact India has excellent relations with Muslim majority nations from North Africa, GCC, Persian Gulf, Central Asia, South & South East Asia.

The only exception being Pakistan which has adopted policies that oppose the idea of India for its own survival.

It would be grave mistake for someone to translate India vs Pakistan rivalry as Hindus vs Muslims.

Pakistan always loved to do that to obtain support of Muslim majority nations for its policies but have always miserably failed in those endeavors.

 

[khujliwal]

And what is the root cause of "muslim - everyone else" division?

 

[fsayed]

Theism is based on beleive, and it cant be felt by others unless they start believing... universe or life is a mystery science is unable to explain correctly, (and NO, big bang theory or multiverse theory cant explain everything)
according to me atheists are confused and atheism is incorrect connotation in use, since no "Atheist" can prove that god is not present... agnostics are better than atheists.
and no science and scientific method is still not able to solve natural mysteries including the life, universe, time etc etc


Bahadur shah jafar II, he was somewhat tolerate he even appealed to fellow Muslims to stop consuming beef and unite with Hindus to fight against british,

BUT he was powerless, he Appealed, not Ordered or Sanctioned... so he cant be counted.. though I like this couplet written by him about his motherland (as in Islam, religion is more important than country and motherland, but he defied it, thats why i love it...)

"Kitna Badnaseeb hai Jafar dafan ke liye,
Do gaj jameen bhi na mil saki Ko-E-Yaar me"

[[UC News]
http://headline.uodoo.com/story/258...entry=browser&entry1=shareback&entry2=widget] is good,have a look at it!

 

[Holmes2]

Hindus and Muslims have different beliefs. Hindus believe in rebirth and reincarnation. They have different cultures also. Pakistan is also a cause behind Hindu - Muslim division. Sadly many indian Muslims support Pakistan.

Also Islam teaches to hate Hinduism. Muslim rulers have looted and enslaved Hindus. Media have also played a big role in this division.

 

[Omega007]

Theism is based on beleive, and it cant be felt by others unless they start believing...

Oh that's something I never heard before!!Very well then, since you have got such a hard on about mindlessly believing any random shiit without having to care for even a shred of evidence, then would you believe me that I've got shoes to sell that can make you taller or shorter whenever you wish for it..................but the catch is, you will only get to experience it after you make the payment??Not good enough, here's a even better deal for ya, I've got a briefcase to sell, you see, it's no ordinary briefcase but a ultra futuristic, straight outta sci-fi borderline magic briefcase, which can double up as a giant fuckking bayblade with razor sharp fucking blades that can cut through 10 meter solid blocks of DU and comes with auto tracking to a missile launcher to a mini gun and a whole 663 other different types of weapons at your will but again, the catch remains the same - you will get a demo only after you make a payment of 2 billion USDs (which of course, is non refundable) to my bank account!!Wanna take the ride??How bout you start practising what you preach by keeping your money where your mouth (or your belief in this case) is ??

universe or life is a mystery science is unable to explain correctly, (and NO, big bang theory or multiverse theory cant explain everything)

So cliche.................and so fuckking boring!!Really, by now you people should have realised that babbling this same shit over and over and over again (and again after that) wouldn't make it a fact!!Sure, science can not explain everything, yet but that doesn't make your stance wrt the existence of a supernatural deity anymore sustainable!!
What you are doing here is simply dabbling in the same age-old 'Gods of gap' shiit!!The ones before you did the same thing!!Like, oh we can't explain sun set or sun rise with logic, so therefore God!!And then when science did prove that it is in fact just a natural phenomena and can indeed be explained by simple logic, then at first they just tried to promptly shot it down by uttering their usual bs and then when that became unsustainable, they said, 'oh no no no no no, may be it ain't the handiwork of god but you can't explain eclipse or tides, so therefore god!!' And as that shiit got proved wrong too, you people again shifted the goal posts and then it was the same thing all over again with even more no nos and this and that!!And shitt's been the same for time immemorial.This god hypothesis shiit has been brought up and then thoroughly debunked so many times over and over again, that your god is now reduced to mere inconsistencies in our knowledge base, and his existence,his domain itself has been reduced to mere gaps and narrow fissures in our knowledge base!!Frankly speaking, that's a rather dangerous and precarious position to be in, I mean the more we keep finding out new things the shallower those gaps and fissures gonna get and eventually, your god or whatever will get crushed to nonexistence as the gaps get filled up completely!!It's not a matter of if but a matter of when!!Our time has already begun and we already outnumber the Hindus as a group of people with scores of erstwhile religious folks kicking their faiths in the @rses and flocking to our club in droves, swelling our ranks by leaps and bounds!!Buckle up and brace yourself m8, interesting times ahead, muhahahaha!!

according to me atheists are confused

Well, that's just your opinion and you do know what they say about having an opinion, don't ya partner??

and atheism is incorrect connotation in use, since no "Atheist" can prove that god is not present...

Is that so??Well let me make one thing aptly clear to you m8, atheists do not need to prove SHIIT!!Clearly you do not know the @sshole from piehole to bellybutton of what you're talking about!!No atheist worth his/her salt has ever made any claim that "god doesn't exist'!!No one, not a fuckking one of them has ever made such a claim.Instead, our stance is rather state forward, that there is no evidence what so ever to prove the existence of a god or anything supernatural for that matter, and therefore it's illogical for people to dabble in such shiit!!And as we don't make any positive claims, we need not prove shiit to anyone!!In fact, it's you people who actually needs to come up with all the evidence since you are the ones making a positive claim here, the claim that 'god exists'!!Surprise surprise, your argument doesn't work in the real world!!You been sleeping for far too long now kid, wakey wakey!!Wake up and smell the coffee now, add some muffins if you must, cause in the real world (unlike in your lalalala dream land of fairy tales) it's the one making the positive claim who needs to bear the burden of proof!!too bad, so sad!!

agnostics are better than atheists.

Why??Because they are less scathing of your bs??Or is it because they are so easy to shut off by hard gesturing and strong words??You know what I think about them??You know what they really are- they are just like us atheists,just like us with one big difference!!They are closet atheists, too afraid to come forward with their identities and confront the society as real human beings!!They are just a bunch of selfish people with no self esteem, just sit on the fence and watch their 'atheist brethren' (their words not mine, hence the quotation marks) bearing the burnt and do nothing about it..............nor they can do, they just don't have the stomach.

and no science and scientific method is still not able to solve natural mysteries including the life, universe, time etc etc

Read up on the works of Oparin and Haldane, study some real science books for a change.

Probably if you had based you beliefs on logic and reason ,rather than on bluster, you would never have made such a momentous error.

Ahhh..........I'm afraid you're confusing me with your highness here, cause the only one dabbling in worthless bluster here, is you and not me!!

Yes, you highness is correct in this matter,

Yeah, as much correct as much his piehole is the same as his @rsehole!! It's your highness by the way, just saying.

and has much deeper knowledge of belief systems than most lay people.

Apparently, so deep that he has himself fallen into that gorge and the resulting brain trauma has reduced him to his present mental state!!

Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion ,traditional or non-traditional. The belief of Atheism lies in the fact that "God does not exist" which is impossible to prove philosophically and logically ,or say as difficult to prove that "God does exist".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh I beg your pardon but
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok sorry, I'm sober now, but wait, no
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ok Ok, now I'm really sober, but my belly is still aching from the laughter!!Don't get me wrong but do you happen to be a or at least considering to take the profession of a stand up comedian??I mean you will make a fortune in that line of business...................seriously, I kid you not!!
Ok, here is the thing, you know nothing about atheism, PERIOD!!No two way around it m8!!Your line of thinking is pretty consistent with that off all the others I've had the fortune of coming across and it stems from inadequate understanding of what's atheism is all about!!Atheism is lack of belief!!Our stance is very much simple - 'that there is no evidence what so ever to prove that the god or anything supernatural actually exists, none.So therefore, there is no sense in trying to answering something from that point of view and instead, we should try scientific method the unlock the mysteries of nature and so far, it has been highly successful to that point where your god has become reduced to duel in mere gaps!!
And saying atheism is also a belief is as true as saying something for example like, "abstinence is a sex position" or "not collecting stamps (or whatever) is also a hobby", like "bald is also a hair color", like "not playing cricket is also a game" or shiit like that!!And i know where you're coming from - you are coming from that basic mistake all of you people tend to make.That you equal the position of 'not believing in the existence of god' with the position of "believing no god exists"!!But it could not have been further from the truth!!It's like saying, just because one doesn't believe that there are an even number of stars in the universe,therefore one must believe that there are an odd number of stars in the universe!!It really sounds that much illogical and absurd and hilarious when you people utter things like this.
You know the problem with you people - everything is like a binary choice to you, every damn thing there is!!For you, it's either black or white, in the meanwhile, you remain wilfully ignorant of the fact that, there is in fact a grey area in between, in fact if there are virtually an infinite shades of greys lying there!!

And no, Scientific methods does not work in proving and disproving existence of God.

Proves my point, isn't it??That there ain't no proof of the existence of god what so ever!!

Induction (of Hume) is a critique of over-reliance on scientific methods; and proving or disproving any extra-sensory entity based solely on sensory knowledge is a baloney.

Philosophy ain't really my cup of tea.I'm a man of science and cold, hard logic and I'll take them over philosophy any day.

It is western corollary of "Blind man and Elephant" tale of Paramhansa.

I've heard that story countless times, I'm an Indian after all!!But unfortunately, there arises a lot of problems when you try to use this metaphor on the context of religions and its relation with reality!!Let me break them out to you point by point.Ok, here is -
Number 1. This view runs into logical contradictions. All the religions can be wrong. But, because of the varied truth claims, they cannot all be right. What about the exclusive claims of each religion? Take for instance the three major, monotheistic religions and their view of Jesus. In Islam, Jesus is merely a prophet. In Judaism, Jesus is a false prophet. In Christianity, Jesus is a prophet who is actually God incarnate. They cannot all possibly be true. Some might persist and say that they’re true for that person but not for another. Does this not make truth relative? No one thinks 2+2=4 is only true for them.

Number 2. The example never really adds anything to the discussion about the relationship between religion and truth. Which part does each religion get right? What parts of the varied worldviews are true and which ones are false? The genius is in the details and there are none in the above example.

Number 3. In what ways are the blind folks and religions similar? An analogy is only strong if there are sufficient relevant similarities and a paucity of relevant dissimilarities. It would seem to me that they are quite dissimilar. Are people blind? Is religion a shot in the dark? How does the person giving the analogy have his eyes opened? What about the Christian doctrine of revelation? Are all people essentially “searching” for God? How is God like an elephant? Do the people have enough evidence to say anything meaningful concerning the nature of God? What counts as a religion? Is a religion a living organism like the blind man?

Number 4. The analogy is fraught with assumptions. First, the example assumes that all are equally blind. All religions are on equal footing despite the veracity of the claims made by each one. But, this is most certainly false. A religion built upon the facts of history that is logically coherent as well as existentially viable is in another ontological category than one without those features. Second, the example is one-sided. There is one person who isn’t blind. The tolerant pluralist has had his eyes opened. In the end, the pluralist is arrogant and his pluralism reduces itself to a form of exclusivism.

Number 5. Does the analogy presuppose the reality that it is arguing for? “All religions tell a part of the truth but not the whole truth as evidence by the fact that all religions say something about the truth but none are holistically true. They’re describing truth from their perspective.” It would seem that this example is begging the question. Begging the question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim.

Number 6. Last but not least - an elephant is still a real thing, which can be heard,seen,felt,tasted and smelt!!Elephant is a thing that duels in the same plane of existence as we do but the same can't be said about god!!There is no evidence for his existence what so ever.And therefore, it's not really prudent to use this metaphor on the relation between god and religions and the perception of reality!!
And it still doesn't bring forward any evidence in support of your stance what so ever, so this is moot anyway.

Now let me give you a metaphor of my own.You see, between two of us you and I that is, we are like two random dudes who have been blind folded and then set inside a dark room with the instruction of looking for a black cat in there, which isn't really there.See, there is not that much of a difference between the two of us,except for one - that being you managed to find that cat where as I'm still looking for it!!Get it??

Every criticism ,every shortcoming of argument that you could bring forth for disproving existence of god, could be turned around to disprove disproving of existence of God.

I (or any fellow atheist/free thinker/none/humanists/sceptic or whatever the way one would like to address oneself for that matter) don't have to do anything to disprove the existence of your god, since you guys are yet to bring any evidence in support of your stance!!Heck, forget about evidence, you do not even present any logical arguments in support of your tall claims!!So there no question of disproving something that is not even standing on a firm ground of logic!!Don't you know how things work in the real world, m8??

And btw, Scientific progress never killed religion. It is consumerism and rise of professional Psycho-therepy services which killed religion by making clergy redundant.

By that logic, religion should have been wiped clean out of countries like Saudi Arab or USA yet they continue to remain two of the most religious nations on the face of the earth!!

 

[livingdead]

the reason is mostly historical... although many tribes invaded, very few actually tried to destroy symbols of hindu religion( temples specifically)... I am talking about why hindus hate muslims.... about why muslims hate hindus... there are plenty of possible reasons but I would let a muslim to tell us.

 

[Indian_Devil]

about your first para (I am on mobile, cant quote long phrases)...
society is divided in three segments. . . theosophocal (where every natural phenomena was new to humans and hence were termed as godly, second stage is metaphysical where we started observing, third stage (current one) is positivistic or scientific stage in which we have explained most of the phenomenons... BUT the main problem with science is that it only explains HOW something is happening bu not WHY... eg. 'gravitation' how? we know. what we know but why we dont know...
science was always there.. be it discovery of fire, or nuclear bomb.. ..but it always was unable to explain WHY?
here comes the religion... ... and until there is a void of information due to lack of science Religion will always be there to fill the blank..and since this universe (whether god made or not) is out of human capabilities ... so whether you like it or not... Religion will always exist side by side of human race.. yes but it will be slowly attenuating...
@Omega007

your second para, -
you didn't answered my questions.. I expected answer and not question...
about the discoveries, yes they were first denied but were later accepted by all... it was not religion which prevented it but superstition... and my friend there is a large gaping hole between religion and superstition... those people had wrong notion of religion just as you have wrong notion of science...

third para -
the same argument goes against the atheism too. . . but since religion is pre eatablished, its atheism which has to prove. . .
and what do you want to convey when you say you are larger in number than hindus? threatening? are you gonna force them too to change their credo?? poor hindus...

your fifth para -
again its not the theist who have to prove anything, they are not forcing their belief on atheists ( at least not on hinduism, in hinduism you can question anything about religion, thats what i like about it)...
its atheists who are claiming and want to influence theists... when new things were discovered, discoverers first had to prove themselves in councils of science... so you will have to prove your point scientifically if you want to prove others wrong...

your sixth point is pretty weak.. .. ..
perhaps you do not understand difference between a hypothesis and an empirically tested theory..
the hyothesis you are talking about is more of a philosophy than science Oparin-haldane hypothesis is not pirically verified through sxientific method .. ..

topics like life, soul are out of reach for science. . .
its because science is empirical in nature.. . that is , it can only verify something which is tangible. . . so

and yes agnostics are better than atheist, at least they never claim to be omniscient. . . they believe what is tested and verified scientifically.. . .. and yeah they never vituperate others for contrary beliefs

 

[Kathin_Singh]

The major division is due to the fact that some if not all Muslims believe that Hindu Gods are false gods.If Hindu worships them,he will go to hell even though Hindu accepts Allah as true god .To a Hindu, Allah is a different name of Ishwar(Nirankar Brahma).

Gandhi has followed "Ishwar Allah tero naam,sabko sanmati de bhagwaan". Still vast section of then Indian muslims called him a religious figure .This sentiment later led to creation of Pakistan.

 

[takeiteasy]

the reason is mostly historical... although many tribes invaded, very few actually tried to destroy symbols of hindu religion( temples specifically)... I am talking about why hindus hate muslims.... about why muslims hate hindus... there are plenty of possible reasons but I would let a muslim to tell us.

Communism can mellow down Muslims and Hindus and some amount of communist ideologies should be encouraged in a country like India.

 

[Omega007]

about your first para (I am on mobile, cant quote long phrases)...

No problemo.

society is divided in three segments. . . theosophocal (where every natural phenomena was new to humans and hence were termed as godly, second stage is metaphysical where we started observing, third stage (current one) is positivistic or scientific stage in which we have explained most of the phenomenons... BUT the main problem with science is that it only explains HOW something is happening bu not WHY... eg. 'gravitation' how? we know. what we know but why we dont know...

So you admit that none of things that are taught by the religions are actually based upon solid grounds made of logic and peer-review-able evidence??
Now, coming to your points,the Why part is not the realm of science but that of philosophy!!Science doesn't concern itself with that question, rather it concerns itself with 'What', 'Hwen' and 'How'.As to why does gravity exist, it's a pretty much nonsensical one to begin with, which science doesn't even bother about!!The question which science bothers itself with is, "how gravity or anything for that matter, works" and, we have got quite a few different models to describe that, the question is rather very well explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity. It models gravitation as arising out of the curvature of space-time , described by Einstein's field equations. which can be surmised as “Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move.” Now, I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.In a layman's terms,
According to general relativity every unit of spacetime has an energy/mass density that creates a field. For massive objects the energy/mass density warps the spacetime field around it creating a "sink" or a depression that other objects fall into, like a bowling ball on a bedspread creating a dip in the middle that causes other objects to roll inward. The gravitational field is like a non-polar electromagnetic field that attracts with a aggregate neutral charge (mass) as opposed to a polar magnetic charge (positive or negative). The aggregation of non-polar charge in mass is why gravitation is stronger across large distances while magnetic fields are more limited to polar attraction at close distances. At long distances (like from earth to the sun) the magnetic attraction between objects is neutral because of an aggregate of positive and negative forces within the field cancelling each other out, but the gravitational attraction remains the same regardless of polarity.
Coming back to the question , "why gravity exists", well, the answer to that is
It exists because this is the way nature is !
Now while debating about science, you gotta keep one crucial thing in your mind that, Physics works by observing and experimenting with the nature , then physical models/theories are constructed to explain these results . The models constructed are applicable to a variety of instances and could even predict unseen phenomena . But even then , they are just an approximate model of the reality and nothing more . So we cannot know the exact reason of the existence of various phenomena in nature but can only observe and apprehend through the physical models used by us.
Now I admit, The gravitational force is the least understood of the four fundamental forces , we do not entirely understand as to 'how', or 'why' it works.This is what the String Theory is working on, to unify relativity and quantum physics to seek an answer to this mind-blowing question, It has been hypothesised that there are mass less, charge less particles called Gravitons which are responsible for the Gravitational Force, but it's yet to be proven and hence has to be taken with scepticism.
But that doesn't provide any proof for the existence of a god or any supernatural being, none that will hold in any courtroom at least.

science was always there.. be it discovery of fire, or nuclear bomb.. ..but it always was unable to explain WHY?

Simply because science doesn't dabble in 'Why' but in what and how...................it's that simple!!The moment you ask why, you simply exit the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy and theology, and unfortunately for me, I don't know nothing about the former and the later doesn't interest me a bit!!
here comes the religion... ... and until there is a void of information due to lack of science Religion will always be there to fill the blank..and since this universe (whether god made or not) is out of human capabilities ... so whether you like it or not... Religion will always exist side by side of human race.. yes but it will be slowly attenuating...

your second para, -
you didn't answered my questions.. I expected answer and not question...

Sorry but I didn't see any question, what was your question again??

about the discoveries, yes they were first denied but were later accepted by all... it was not religion which prevented it but superstition... and my friend there is a large gaping hole between religion and superstition..

You can't really separate religions from superstitions since the same superstitions form the very bedrock of every religion there is and there has been!!

those people had wrong notion of religion just as you have wrong notion of science...

See, this is the problem with you people, you guys are just too damn opinionated for having a meaningful discussion with.How do you know that I've the wrong notion of science especially when, it's quite clear you are not even well versed with the subject and different terminologies involved??Like how you mixed up atheists with anti-theists, it'd be instantly visible to anyone having a even remote sketchy knowledge about the subject topic.

third para -
the same argument goes against the atheism too. . .

No it does not!!Just because you suffer from an apparent case of comprehension disability, doesn't change the fact on the ground, I'm really sorry to say this.

but since religion is pre eatablished, its atheism which has to prove. . .

That doesn't even make any sense!!Why should atheists need to prove anything when we do not even make any positive claim??It's you people who are making the positive claim that your god does exist and therefore, you are the ones who oughtta bring the evidence!!We are just asking a question!!Clearly your understandings about the concept of burden of proof is hopelessly inadequate to even put it gently!!Can't blame us for that.

and what do you want to convey when you say you are larger in number than hindus? threatening? are you gonna force them too to change their credo?? poor hindus...

I expected that, really, I didn't expect you to draw any different conclusions from that one, you guys are just way too predictable.Now if you really want to know, then I didn't really mean that!!instead, what i really did mean to say was that it took this phenomena of recent surge of heathenism or 'neoatheism' as many has come to name it, is essentially a recent phenomena, not much more than just two decades!!Yet it has left behind one of the oldest religion there is in terms of numbers, numbers which took your religions millenniums to achieve!!

And now that you have said about force conversion or so, I just hope we don't end up indulging in something like that.After all, coming from a group of people which takes immense pride in their supposed intellectual and moral superiority over their religious counterparts (and for good reasons I believe), I would never want them to waste all that away!!After all, it stands against the very idea of individual freedom of expression we atheists stand for and which many of us take so much pride in!!But then again, we have been and still are persecuted,oppressed,bitten and killed in one way or the other for thousands of years and you know what they say about payback and we all being essentially human beings, with the same crude emotions and urges hidden inside the deepest corners of our minds, no matter how much we as a group try and refuse the fact!!I just hope we never do that, not for the sake of the religious folks but for the sake of the very idea we stand for and take so much pride in!!

Communism can mellow down Muslims and Hindus and some amount of communist ideologies should be encouraged in a country like India.

Except for their rather fuckked up economic policies, if they have any policies at all!!

 

[Clutch]

Question would be the cause of growing division between Muslims and rest of world.

Oil, Israel, corruption, and Internal strife (sectarianism)