Monday, August 11, 2014
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Monday, August 4, 2014
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Have you ever wondered why the animal kingdom has no GOD? Do you see lions or crows worshiping a supreme power (of their own)? Human beings have far superior brains and are thus capable of creatively defining ideas that otherwise have no back-up evidence.
The concept of an all powerful leader (God) must have been born from the time human beings started living in communes. Every group of human beings has a leader who is powerful and who enjoys special perquisites in return of protecting the clan. Members of the group look up to the leader to provide succour and offer him goodies to seek his benevolence and shape their destiny. The concept of God is obviously inspired from this social behaviour of human beings. This innate need was channeled into what now appears to us as formal religion with its unique "life after death" idea associated with the structure of rewards and punishments. What a massive delusion?
There is an argument that says that even if God is a virtual concept, it does give solace to millions who otherwise would not know how to lessen their sufferings and dream of a happier future. According to the placebo effect you can link any effect with any cause and get a success rate of about 15% so why not allow these 15% (at least) to take advantage of this delusion in stead of educating them about the futility of expecting continuous benefits from religion? Doesn't this sound like a doctor administering anesthesia to a patient who has broken his leg so that the latter does not feel the pain?
There is however one great positive that cannot be taken away from religions - they generate un paralleled commerce benefiting so many individuals. If religions somehow vanished from face of the earth, bankruptcies would increase.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
 Reebok fined for misleading butt-enhancers
 Divorcees can retain surnames
Under Article 21, it has now been confirmed that the wife has a fundamental right to use her post marriage name / surname, even after divorce. Many Indian women use joint surnames after marriage - so a Nilima Deshpande after marriage to a "Deshmukh" becomes Nilima Deshpande-Deshmukh. Now imagine she gets a divorce and retains her married surname and then marries a "Pathak". Does she now become Nilima Deshpande-Deshmukh-Pathak? What happens in South India where there is no surname. Does Vyjantimala Govindrajan after divorce and marriage to Veerraghavan become VGV. Thank God Elizabeth Taylor was not born in India - after six marriages, her name would have been .... well you get the point ...In India it is popular to change the first name of the wife so Nilima Deshpande could become Sujata Deshpande-Deshmukh and after the divorce maybe Rakhi Deshpande-Deshmukh-Pathak. I think this is an excellent system to completely cover up your earlier identity. I have always been wanting to know if the law allows a husband to acquire the surname of his wife??
 Aga Khan the spiritual leader of Ismaili Muslims pays divorce settlement of US$ 80 million (400 crore Rs)
It has always surprised me why Aga Khan has never married any woman from amongst his own sect - the above mentioned divorce was with a German Princess and it was his second divorce. I fail to see any spirituality in all this - do you??
 Mexico about to create law that allows 2-years contract marriages.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Though it didn’t strike me then, the best definition of GOD that I ever came across was in my sixth class text - book of Moral Science. It challenged the readers to think of any object that came to their mind. It then asked us to find out how that object came into existence. If, for example, you thought of “chair” as the initial object then “wood” would be the answer. The author then asked us to continue this exercise of going backward to find the cause of each effect. Thus ‘wood’ came from the ‘tree’ and the ‘tree’ from the ‘seed’ and so on. It then went on to define GOD as that “effect” which has no “cause” (the uncaused cause). This backward regression argument sounds so incomplete today - if there is indeed an omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (present everywhere) GOD, there has to be an even more powerful creator of such a GOD. Where is HE or SHE?
Any discussion on GOD usually gets caught in the controversy of whether GOD exists. I am going to skirt that issue because to my mind, it is of no consequence. For the believers, the question is superfluous and for the rest it is a pointless exercise because no one from the other camp is listening. Let us agree that this idea of a powerful CREATOR OF EVERYTHING seems to give solace to many. Like a wag once said, “atheists do not know whom to thank when something good happens to them, inexplicably”.
I have never been able to get cogent answers to some of these mind benders!
Why do GODs have to be married?
In Hindu mythology Vishnu has a Laxmi, Shankar has a Parvati, Ram has a Sita. Now marriages are socio-legal sanctions required by us humans to procreate. Why on earth would GODs require these? “Marrying GODs” is therefore a distinctly "human" idea.
Do GODs require “job descriptions” to manage their subjects?
Bramha creates, Vishnu preserves, Shiva disposes, Ganesha looks after all cerebral matters, Yama is the funeral director and so on and we are further told that they never transgress into the others domain. Don’t you see the human touch to this division of labour? Was it necessary for GOD to have so many assistants (or his own facets) if he was all powerful or is it that a human author created this organizational structure out of his or her own experience of how things are run on earth?
Why are even GODS, male chauvinists?
One can understand humans being male chauvinists but why GODs? Can they be unfair to half their creations (females)? While wives of all GODs are depicted as home-makers, (though they possess tremendous mystical powers) the GODs themselves go out and do the “mans work”. Barring a few exceptions (like Maa Kali) all godesses are made out to possess womanly qualities of love, softness & compassion. Please note that amongst human beings too there are a few exceptions like the Rani Laxmibai of
Why should GODs have their favourite eatables?
Time and again we are told that GODs are ethereal. How can they then have any bodily needs like hunger or sleep (in many temples, the resident GOD sleeps in the afternoon and devotees are denied darshan during those hours)? The system wherein a particular GOD likes a particular eatable seems to have been created with other motives in mind – so clearly “human”. Let us extend the logic a little further - with crores of devotees feeding all GODs so many sweets (as prasad) shouldn't all of them have got diabetes by now?
Why are GODs so fallible?
Hindu mythology is replete with examples of GODs granting a boon to even a villain who chose to pray hard with the sole and evil intention of getting that boon to trouble his fellow beings on earth. Are GODs so gullible that they could not see through the intention of this kind of devotee? Or is it the human authors’ wish to propogate the message that even sinners can pray and expect salvation, which has prompted such a picture to be painted? It seems so stage - managed, like a Hindi film.
The more you think about all this, dear readers, the more you will get convinced that GODs must indeed have been “created” by a human being. Otherwise, why would have so many qualities specific to humans, got attributed to GOD? There is no doubt whatsoever that this is the most popular creation of the human mind – in fact the best to date. The concept would not have survived the test of time, otherwise.