Power of mind

[Arnab]

Originally posted by Orpheus
HAHAHA!! actually "alpha" homesapiens are spotted by their body and looks.. not by a chunk of fat in the head!!

The mind is far more powerful than the body. Humans can control other humans' thoughts and perceptions with the works of their mind.

For example, Muhammad was the alpha male because he was clever/intelligent enough to create an entire religion from scratch. Billions of followers/beta-males STILL follow the ideological system, he created hundreds of years ago, because he is one of those ultimate masters of mass manipulation. It was the brilliance of his mind, not his body.

Edited on, March 24, 2005, 9:51 PM GMT, by chinaman.
Reason: This thread has been splitted from Fun Stuff with Bangla >>

Disclaimer by Arnab: As mentioned above, I didn't START this thread. The title "Power of Mind" is also not given by me. This thread was split by a moderator. If you have any question regarding the "title" of the thread, or why I started this thread, it's not my business. I did not intend to start a new thread.

Edited on, March 26, 2005, 6:52 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[Orpheus]

Oh yeah no doubt on the power of mind over body. I was referring to the fact that alpha male gets all the women of the group. It goes somewhat for us too - the leader will get a lot of them. But

Suppose you have brains and razabq has body and beauty - he will get more female than you. You will end up raising his kids

I probably sound like I am joking and making these things up.... these are actually well studied cases. Lemme write a bit more.

Females are a fascinating creatures. Suppose you have brain and with that you built an empire - you have so much resources. Women would want that for their child. But at the same time you are ugly as hell - a woman don't want that for her children. So what a woman to do?

She will mate with razabq (because he looks good and has athletic body) and marry you. That's one of the reason they have hidden ovulation actually.. but more on that later if discussion go that way

So to sum it up...... You are ugly!!


Edited on, March 23, 2005, 6:27 PM GMT, by Orpheus.

[nihi]

Originally posted by Arnab
create an entire religion from scratch.

you don't mean absolutely "from scratch"

[Orpheus]

Ofcourse not from scratch. It is God's words.

[Arnab]

But Orpheus, you are forgetting the mind's abilty to seduce. When I am talking about intelligence, I am not talking about making money or showing off intellectual prowess.

I am talking about the mind' ability to create illusions in other people's minds. You can be mad ugly by any standard, but if you know how to make women fall in love with you, all you will hear from them about you is how handsome you are. They will change their entire belief system on what beauty is just because of your mental hold on them. They will come back to you over and over again.

Having a good body is a plus. But having a good, functioning mind is a prereq.

****

And where did you get that Muhammad was good looking? May be he was ugly as hell with his weird, ugly unibrow (yuck!). But it didn't matter. It was his proclamation that he was the chosen one that ultimately mattered. Everything else followed from there. Hell, Muhammad's weird theatrics didn't even sit well with the Meccans at first. He was disliked to the point that he was banished. Like a true coward, or an opportunist if you see it from another angle, he went to Medina where his religious tricks worked.

[Orpheus]

I deleted my Muhammad portion of the post. But in the Quran, Muhammad is described.. as being very beautiful..

[Arnab]

Originally posted by Orpheus
I deleted my Muhammad portion of the post. But in the Quran, Muhammad is described.. as being very beautiful..

Really? Where?

If that is true, then the man was the biggest seducer of all. If God, the ultimate creator, says you are beautiful, then you must be beautiful. What an ingenious seduction method. Hallucinatory, out-of-the-world crazy, but it certainly worked.

[Orpheus]

I am gonna look for the reference some other time.. If Nafis read this, I am sure eh will pull it out. An artist here actually drew Muhammad's face reading the description which stirred a lot of emotion from the Muslim Community.

anyways... if ther is no GOD, certainly he was a gennius. Now me go to sleep or try to finish this stupid;lahslfdkha;hfdsl;kafdjhjfd;lksa!

[Tintin]

I hope mb444 comes this way

[mwrkhan]

me too:embaressed:

[RazabQ]

Guys,

It's one thing to have the freedom of expression to slur the prophet of a major faith. It might be tasteless, it might offend the sensibilities of many of the board members - I know it does mine - but I guess in a democracy you have the right to act insensitively so as to assert a self-perceived sense of intellectual superiority.

I, therefore, have no personal beef with the aforementioned act of questionable judgement. But, when you start baiting people and instigating fights with those who Choose to BELIEVE, then that's just being puerile and I must call you out for that. Please desist.

[mona]

Originally posted by Arnab

the mind' ability to create illusions in other people's minds.

Exactly. Let's walk down your alley: A man makes a woman fall in love with him because of his 'beautiful mind' or whatever, which for once in her life, engages and entertains her. She adores him and all her waking hours are spent worshipping the god that he is, right? So by being with her, the man is spending all his energy and beautiful thinking to satisfy and please her instead of enjoy the wonderful being that she is. Sounds like the man's missing out! Thus the woman is having a ball while allowing the man to believe that he has the power, just so he has enough self-assurance to keep his brain actually functioning. As always, you are precisely on the dot, people sure do have the ability to create an illusion in other peoples' minds!

[Arnab]

Oh no! I have awakened the little sister.

I don't think anybody is losing out, Mona. It's not a battle where one party wins and the other one loses.

Let's just say that an able man seduces a woman. Just like an able woman seduces a man. It's mental foreplay. Both party needs to massage each other's minds by creating illusions. Foreplay doesn't work one way.


Edited on, March 24, 2005, 5:04 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[Arnab]

Originally posted by razabq
It's one thing to have the freedom of expression to slur the prophet of a major faith. It might be tasteless, it might offend the sensibilities of many of the board members - I know it does mine - but I guess in a democracy you have the right to act insensitively so as to assert a self-perceived sense of intellectual superiority.

This raises some very interesting questions. Are non-relgious people allowed to have "sensibilities" as well? Would a religious person be acting "insensitively" if he were to talk about his faith, an act that could be deemed highly offending to the non-religious person? Is "sensibility" something only for the religious people?

I mean there's no way to reconcile this other than not talking about it at all. Beacause most non-religious people think that religious people/people of faith are mentally handicapped, at least partially. Non-religious people don't hate the religious people, they treat them with the same respect as we all do when it comes to the physically handicapped.

I think it's a pretty good analogy, except that people don't really "choose" to be physically handicapped. And even if we allow the possibility that they sometimes do that (I don't know, some may whimsically choose to saw off their legs), they probably won't go that far to say "How dare you mock a lengra like me? I CHOSE to saw off my own legs. Now carry me on your back and don't mention to me of my own stupidity. I am very sensitive."

Edited on, March 24, 2005, 5:53 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[RazabQ]

Originally posted by Arnab
This raises some very interesting questions. Are non-relgious people allowed to have "sensibilities" as well? Would a religious person be acting "insensitively" if he were to talk about his faith, an act that could be deemed highly offending to the non-religious person? Is "sensibility" something only for the religious people?

Of course non-religious people have the right to sensibilities. I for one supported the move to strike referral to deity removed from the USA oath of allegiance. And I _do_ try not to flaunt my faith around those who I know have chosen to become apostates or were raised as agnostics.

Originally posted by Arnab
I mean there's no way to reconcile this other than not talking about it at all. Beacause most non-religious people think that religious people/people of faith are mentally handicapped, at least partially. Non-religious people don't hate the religious people, they treat them with the same respect as we all do when it comes to the physically handicapped.

You've hit the nail on the head in the 1st part. I _have_ noticed this intellectual condescension on part of secularists. Why? A leap of faith does not insitute stupidity or lack of intellect. Without digging up the hole "Bible, Quraan & Science" topic, many a rational, intelligent person (your scientists, academics, etc) have maintained their faith. Ratiional thinking and faith are NOT mutually exlcusive. By adopting this "religious people are handicapped" line of thinking, one is guilty of the same intellectual fascism as the fundamendatlists we all - and rightly so - condemn.

Edited on, March 24, 2005, 7:12 PM GMT, by razabq.

[Arnab]

I don't want to speak on behalf of ALL non-religious people. And I am an atheist first, "secularist" second simply because religion still exists in society. So I guess I will speak on behalf of people who think like me.

Again, going back to my analogy of physical handicap, we do not show "physical condescension" or act "fascist" when we do things with our hands in front of a person who has no hands (more so if he "chose" to cut his own hands off voluntarily). The use of the word "condescension" here makes no sense to me or people like me.

"Many a rational, intelligent person (your scientists, academics, etc) have maintained their faith." True. And many more, including probably a big proportion of philosophers who actually think about this stuff, haven't, because it made no rational sense to them. To accuse them of "fascism" or "fundamentalism" is probably wrong.

I could similarly accuse as fascists/fundamentalists those people who seemingly have somehow managed to make "irrational faith and rational thinking" work together and think they are at some superior moral ground for accomplishing that. I could call them the fascist fence-straddlers bent on the fundamental ideology of fence-straddling. But I won't. Because this kinf of labeling makes no sense to me.


Edited on, March 24, 2005, 7:27 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[RazabQ]

there is a clear line between using one's hands in front of a physically handicapped person and flaunting it. Are you sure,when you go on dissing the prophet for a major faith and in a rather vulgar manner too, that you are NOT flaunting it my friend? As for the rest of your comments, "montobbo nisprayajan".

[al]

I guess, there is no point in arguing with someone who would abuse his/her freedom of expression rights making fun of a prophet of a major religion. Don't you think, all these energy could be better spent in a worthy cause that could benefit humanity rather than creating divisions



Edited on, March 24, 2005, 8:16 PM GMT, by al.

[Arnab]

Originally posted by razabq
there is a clear line between using one's hands in front of a physically handicapped person and flaunting it. Are you sure,when you go on dissing the prophet for a major faith and in a rather vulgar manner too, that you are NOT flaunting it my friend?

Exactly how "clear" is the line between flaunting and not flaunting? Exactly what constitutes "dissing the prophet" and "not dissing the prophet"? I don't think there is any such thing.

Let's look at the subject of prophets from an atheist perspective without any prejudice or dissing mindset whatsoever. What would an atheist think about the "prophets" if he believes that there is no God? That they were very intelligent mythmakers, just like Majid in lal shalu. It seems that an atheist cannot possibly make any statements about what he thinks of prophets without those statements being perceived by religious people as "diss" of the prophets. It's impossible. Because an atheist believes the prophets/sadhus/etc. are fake, or at best were people who brainwashed themselves. On the other hand the religious person holds the same prophet in very high esteem, for whatever irrational "reason". There is no chance of reconciliation here.

[Arnab]

Originally posted by al
I guess, there is no point in arguing with someone who would abuse his/her freedom of expression rights making fun of a prophet of a major religion. Don't you think, all these energy could be better spent in a worthy cause that could benefit humanity rather than creating divisions
Edited on, March 24, 2005, 8:16 PM GMT, by al.

Well, I haven't heard of any atheist or a band of atheists in history engaging in meaningless, bloody wars and killing millions of people in the name of atheism. There is no "Jihad" or "Crusade" in atheism.

But such examples from the side of religion is so well-documented that it isn't even worth mentioning.

Rational atheism creates divisions in a world ALREADY divided, battered, and abused to the extreme by irrational followers of faith-based religions?

Sweet irony.

[nihi]

Originally posted by al
I guess, there is no point in arguing with someone who would abuse his/her freedom of expression rights making fun of a prophet of a major religion. ...
Edited on, March 24, 2005, 8:16 PM GMT, by al.

so there is a point in arguing with someone who would abuse his/her freedom of expression rights making fun of a prophet of a minor religion?

[al]

i guess there is no ending of twisting and turning of words according to ones likes and dislikes. its your thread. relax and get a life. i am outta here

[Arnab]

Aw come on al, don't shy away. I don't think people are being overly confrontational in this thread (yet) or acting "un-relaxed". Think of it as a mild mental exercise on a variety of things, including what you really mean by a word when you say it. Shying away is the easy way out. I for one enjoy this kind of mentally stimulating discussions; they sharpen my brain and make me more conscious/knowledgable about what I really believe.

Edited on, March 24, 2005, 9:15 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[nihi]

Originally posted by al
i guess there is no ending of twisting and turning of words according to ones likes and dislikes. its your thread. relax and get a life. i am outta here

had no intention to twist or turn words... been noticing people pleading for 'major religion', 'major faith', 'ideas of pluralism' etc... was just wondering whether they are really trying to justify 'things' on the basis of sheer majority, or just innocently and unknowingly abusing some otherwise meaningful phrases. If the latter is not true then I find the situation rather bleak, and see no reason to relax.

[Beamer]

Let me jump in if I may. I agree that most of the histories wars and bloodshed from eons ago to now has been fought primarily beacuse of religion. No way of avoiding that fact. Jihads, Crusades, Inquisition, Pogroms etc..had a definite mark of religiosity imprinted on it. Now, secularists share equal blame as well. Most of the wars of modern times had been waged by secular nations ( though covert religious/ethnic passion/disdain may have run amock in their thinking ). America, Germany to name a few. About atheists not waging wars or spilling bloods is not an entirely ture statement. Soviet communism was athiest by nature. They surpressed and persecuted people of faith within their territorial boundary. And yes, they have spilled a lot of blood in Gulags of Siberia.. Also, in order to spread their band of revolution, many countries of the world that came within their sphere of influenece, spillled a lot of blood within their respective countries as documentated by many civil wars that took place.