On PK

PK is a typical Rajkumar Hirani film - A mix of comedy with some romance thrown in , a preachy message - well shot , reasonably acted and decent music.
The movie is worth a watch - but I'm still disappointed. It's paradoxical that one can watch a brainless movie and come out happy (golmaal 3?) since expectations are non-existent but a good movie that doesn't match expectations feels worse or a movie that could have been so much better - if only they had let me(joking) direct and write parts of it, feels that much worse
The movie is similar in theme to Oh My God - Both these movies are against organized religion and the organizers while still supporting a theistic view. The irony of course , is that they don't seem to realize that they are in fact promoting one version of religion (a personal monotheistic one with one benevolent God) while making the pointed criticism of why are there so many religions? And why would any God want this confusion. But they don't seem to realize that it applies to their view too.
I first had an idea to write a book about this based on what I vaguely remember what Sagan had said in one of his books and I paraphrase - In our grand universe - the earth is a pale blue dot , the distinctions of religion or countries are too small. So an Alien who would observe us , our customs , what would he think especially when it came to religion. (not exactly original I guess?)
But I never went ahead with that idea - and this is in a nutshell , the story of PK. There is also a romance track that we shall ignore.

Over time there have been similar things - People seriously consider the question of "If Aliens exist are they saved by Jesus's sacrifice? Or would they have their own version of Jesus" - If you think thats crazy consider that various noted religious leaders have considered the questions of "Do pets go to heaven? How about babies? Unbaptized babies? Is there an intermediate stage between Death and Hell?" - There are answers of course - religion always has answers - but ponder how these leaders have arrived at the answers!
John Loftus' outsider test for religion also ponders a similar theme.
I guess my main complaint is that the satire is not biting enough and is needlessly diluted by the romantic plot + alien thrown in. Also an unnecessary bomb blast. While this maybe the "oh a bollywood movie needs this to be successful" - but many movies are successful in bollywood these days and they arent typical bollywood movies. I also think this tackles the easy, obvious problems in religion. It doesn't deal with the core things that make religion problematic - i.e. How do you verify the truth of a truth claim , given that humans are imperfect and everything we "know" is ultimately something we believe we know. And while the movie alluded to it , it didnt really drive home - Why is there evil in the world? And why wouldnt a God do something about it (or if there is a reason why would we think this God is good?)

Anti-scientific beliefs

http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2014/04/here-we-go-again.html
Since I have voluntarily sworn off commenting here , but because an itch must be scratched ...

The question is why are we fine with some beliefs that are not scientific in nature (batman is the greatest character ever!) v/s other beliefs (Catholicism is true!) when no one claims a scientific basis for those other belies - other than we " aesthetically don't like religion"

So lets take subjective beliefs - No one claims they are objective - my likes dont match your likes so I might find something to be the best and you dont - There isn't a logical problem there - we all agree.

But what about religious beliefs? Why do we object to religious beliefs or demand evidence? Because some , not all , religious beliefs aren't subjective.
Does God exist? (S)He either exists or doesnt - but it cannot be that (S)he exists for you and not for me.
Did God reincarnate himself as his child and then sacrifice himself to himself in some grand scheme ? Well he either did or didnt - it cannot be true for you and false for me.
Did God found a church and must we now follow that Church ? Either he did or he didnt - it cannot be true for you or false for me

Science does not claim to evaluate the best fictional creation - but it does claim to investigate how the universe began. So a claim that Batman is the best character ever isn't anti-science , but a claim that God created the universe , is  - there isnt any evidence to it.

To be sure there might be subjective religious beliefs like religion made me a better person ? perhaps it did and perhaps it made someone else worse - we can react to religion differently so that part is subjective - but whenever Religion is making a fact based claim? Well you need some science there - if you still believe firmly , without evidence , then that is an anti-science attitude.

You cannot handwave a factual claim and say well its not a scientific claim and then use that to be shielded from criticism.

Unbelievable

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-freedman/washington-state-case-stu_b_5037035.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Brilliant!

Source The Golden Rule

Irony meter goes SPROING

Ive always believed that one common characteristic of religious fundamentalists is that they dont have a sense of humor.
They probably cant recognize irony either.

http://biologos.org/blog/doing-battle-with-jerry-coynes-army-of-straw-men/

a. Cherry picking: the act of choosing examples, as if they were typical, ignoring equally valid examples that contradict your position.

Now if you have ever spoken to any religious (even moderate) people , you should know that Cherry Pickers are more likely to be religious. You can give example after example. When a non believer points out bad stuff , its rarely to say that your religion is uniformly bad , but to prove that your religion can't really be a source of morality. To prove that your religion can't be a book of peace. To prove that your God can't really be a loving one. You'll note that some bad stuff found in a religious book is enough to disprove any of the above and no amount of equally valid quotes disproves that position.

False analogy: making an error in the substance of an argument—the content of your analogy—even though its structure seems acceptable.

Apply it your article!

Hasty generalization: when you use a few inadequate examples and then generalize about the whole.

Irony meter close to SPROING

Because Coyne’s arguments are so universal I want to address some of them in my next blog series

If we want to engage the conversation, then we need to put some effort into understanding the issues. And the New Atheists rarely do that. Dawkins is the most famous offender

This series of blogs will address the army of straw men with which Jerry Coyne and the other New Atheist generals wage their war on religion.

A few inadequate examples like Coyne and Dawkins are enough to generalize all New Atheists!

Spotlight fallacy: This is a specific form of hasty generalization that occurs when we assume that all the examples are like the most famous ones getting media attention.

See above.

SPROING!!!

Believe nothing

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your reason and your own common sense." - Buddha
How many religions can claim to preach/practice this?

Science, Religion, Morals, Curiosity etc.

I blame Sam Harris for kicking off a topic regarding science and morals. A generally observed viewpoint is that Science makes no comment about morals. It can tell you how to make a nuclear bomb but cant really tell you whether to use it or not. Science does not provide a framework to evaluate moral right or wrong. Sam Harris thinks otherwise, that there are some calls that science can make. And takes some non controversial and some controversial examples related to human wellbeing (which I suppose he equates to morally right). Other people like Sean Carroll weigh in , a debate ensues and some insults are flung , some apologies are made. I'm not sure what the answer to the question is , but one thing is certain, if Science can't make a call, ever, (as Carroll implies), then probably no one can. Religious people and scientific accomodationists love to step in here and say morals can be determined by religion, but history shows that religion can be trusted to almost always make the wrong call. In any case while religion may put forth a claim of what it deems moral, there is really no way to verify , nor can you really evaluate competing and contradictory claims made by different religions. If you could do this , then the principles you would use would have to be scientific and then you are back to where you started, science can evaluate morals. If science can't evaluate then we can only say we think, what we assume but we would never *know*. The only way forward would be consensus, and again we can see from history this doesn't really work. While a lot of people may believe that discriminating against gay people is morally wrong, the *consensus*, read majority, don't hold that view, just as erstwhile majorities didn't hold the view that slavery is wrong or imperialism is wrong.

Which leads us into one of the major difference between a religious person and a scientifically oriented person, the scientifically oriented person always wants to know. The religious person not so much. Take for e.g. The question "Does prayer work?". A scientific person would already have experiments in his head about how to verify. You would want double blind tests to eliminate placebos. You'd try out various types of prayer and by various people. The religious person on the other hand doesn't really want to know, he wants to have his beliefs reinforced. He'll either state that you cannot determine the answer to this question scientifically. Or in the rare cases that he does agree , he will wait till the results are in. If the tests show that prayer does work (perhaps in some limited circumstances) we'll be told I told you so. If it doesn't work , then we will have a list of excuses why the dragon in the garage cant be verified. Even worse , it is the scientific person who is accused of being close minded. Whereas clearly if the data did show that prayer works , repeatedly, using independent experiments, then the point would have to be conceded. On the other hand the religious person never accepts that prayer doesn't work. What's interesting that though people claim they believe in prayer , all their actions indicate that they don't really. You might pray that you get a job, but rarely does everyone think that if you pray there shouldn't be unemployment , the prayer will be answered. While people may pray for a particular sick person to be healed, they don't pray that there should be no sickness (or atleast they don't expect it to be answered). It looks like they believe God can only perform small miracles, not major ones. Cure a blind person, sure , just pray. Cure blindness for all? Uhh no that can't be done - God can't solve all our problems, or Humans are responsible for suffering or where there is happiness there must be sadness etc etc, but evidently all those excuses don't apply while you are dealing with a small miracle that might have happened anyway. It looks dishonest and I wonder if people who give explanations like the above , really , really believe what they say or is it just whats the harm attitude? (possibly quite a bit)

Blasphemy

Some blasphemous quotes here
What is interesting to note in the 'blasphemous quotes' is the religious figures who have made blasphemous comments about other religions (including the leading lights of the two major religions).

Whence evil

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/an-old-debate.html

Sigh.
Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus

Andrew can talk as much as he wishes about paradoxes, suffering being a part of fallen creation, or of recognizing one's mortality, but I doubt he has an answer to Epicurus.

Argumentum Ad Populum

As someone who has been asked on multiple occasions whether I think I'm smarter than all the religious folks out there, this is hilarious
(From Jesus And Mo)

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.

An interesting question

came across an interesting post along with comments
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/i_get_email_40.php#comments
Note that while most religious people say they want to have a discussion what they mean is Let me try to convince you , but there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind.
But before I attempt to answer the question , lets draw some boundaries. Does God exist is a different question than Does the God of my religion exist. The former is a difficult question to answer. To paraphrase Carl Sagan , it all depends on what you mean by God, if for e.g. God is love then of course God exists. The latter God of religion is an easier question to answer because we do have a definition of the God and some of his or her properties. The God of religion also makes some in theory testable assertions. The God of religion also makes some demands of us , so it is easier to examine them. Of course some religions make this harder than others. Its easier to analyze Judaism, Christianity or Islam because there are fixed doctrines. Its more difficult to analyze Hindusim or Buddhism because the doctrines aren't that fixed. Don't believe in Vishnu? Thats ok, you can still call yourself a Hindu. Don't like Shiva? Worship Kali and your fine.
Back to Nikki's question and comments. various posters in the comments have all pointed out the contradictions, the inaccuracies , the errors and the problems in religion. So I wont reiterate those here, Ill just look at the things that don't seem to be covered

She makes a common request , Why should I not believe? - Thats the wrong question (People don't need a reason to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Bertrand Russel's Flying teapot analogy proving that the onus is on the believer. The question is why should you believe? What benefits do you get.?
Lets take a look at the common answers to the what benefits does religion provide? (And Ill look at only the positive reasons , not the You'll go to hell if you don't follow my religions instructions, which are really so pathetic that I can only shake my head)
a. It either provides a set of rules or a set of guidelines that help me determine what's right and whats wrong.
b. It makes me a better person
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet


a. Religion provides us a set of guidelines and rules to determine right from wrong
Suppose Religion has a guideline that after consideration you find feels wrong. What should you do? Its clear that most of us would follow what our brain decides is the right thing. In which case how is religion any different from Aesop's fables
b. It makes me a better person
If the religion is conclusively proven false(somehow) then do you lose the betterness?
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet
Well other social tools exist, the social bit that religion promotes is normally divisive. Meet people like you, be with people like you, marry people like you, let your children play with children whose parents are like you. I'm not sure how this is a positive.

The things God could do...

All religion (well almost all of them) involve God interfering umm interacting with humans in some form or the other. All religion also uniformly assert God is good and cares about you.
So note the video below applies to all religion's not just the one its targetted to.


I wonder how the religious justify a loving , caring God

100

(Not a sequel to Frank Miller's book)
And so a landmark post, which was meant to represent a new writing beginning. This blog originated as a way to write (based on Neil Gaiman's recommendation that the first thing any budding writer should do is actuall write) anything, so that I could see what I liked and disliked about my own writing. If I read the earlier posts , I find them much funnier than the latter ones (or atleast attempt to be funny). I see that most of time is spent writing about
a. Books especially Comics
b. Religion
c. Sports
d. Politics.
So a summary of what has been so far
Books! The only place where we get to see dialogue like
Monk : Seek not revenge, Seek the Buddha instead
Fox : the monk told me to seek the Buddha instead of vengeance
Dream King: That is good advice. Vengeance is a never ending path. And..?
Fox : I shall seek the Buddha....But first, I shall seek revenge!
And she does ofcourse.
Though in someways there are fewer good books and a lot more mediocre ones than what I remember. Perhaps I have read all the great ones already.
And there is no thrill of the hunt. When we had no money and had to raid the various raddi shops, a single book gave a lot of happiness (and rereads). But now when I can afford most books, the thrill of the search is gone , as are the rereads. There was a time I knew the number and cover of every comic I had, and now I cant remember which friend has my books.
But there is hope, I've introduced Lucifer to a new comics reader, which thrilled me.

Religion
I think the headline of my blog sums this up
while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
Ive often been asked (by the same person) why I dwell so much on religion if I dislike it so. And the answer has always been because it affects me!. And among the major problems faced by society , religion is probably in the top 10.
Perhaps the thing that irritates me the most about religion is the hypocrisy. (e.g. oh our religion teaches us to be humble, but you'll are all wrong only my religion is correct, or oh you need religion to tell you what is moral, you disbelievers are immoral, and the followers of my religion who are immoral, well they aren't real followers,or oh look at that religion , its so funny , how could people believe in something so stupid, oh my religion? all of the funny unbelievable things are miracles. or oh look at all the violent stuff in that religion? the violent stuff in my religion? thats only descriptive/thats a metaphor/ dont take everything literally or...) That was meant to be one example.
Its also that some conclusions are inescapable. If your religious God is Good(any commonly accepted definition of good), and is capable of making a difference or a change and chooses not to (and we know from all the religious tomes that he is capable of making differences) , then he can't be Good. Whenever Im told of how some God actually healed the sick, Im reminded of a comment, So you have this omnipotent God, who can cure, actually cure people with a touch but chooses to do so only to a select few people, how good could he be?
Any road (thanks Robbo) to conclude with an anecdote
When Captain Sullenberger was asked whether he prayed during the Hudson river landing,he said something to the effect of "I was busy taking care of the plane. I was pretty sure that the passengers were taking care of the praying."

Sports
Being in a country obsessed more with the show then with the sport and with one of the absolute worst sports in the history of mankind, has dampened the enthusiasm for sports. Oh for the days of watching cricket and a little english premier league football, some golf, some NBA, and look there's even a kabbadi match, some tennis, some hockey .. sigh.. Im down to why the heck does cricinfo not refresh faster! how about some AJAX,you useless developer!!!

Politics
The only thing that leaves a worse taste in your mouth than religion (hey we aren't discussing my cooking so it doesnt count). It's sad to see that American politicians are as bad and in some cases worse than their Indian counterparts. If I ever approve of the death penalty, it will be because some politician is on trial.

A religious anecdote

From A History of God
There is a story that in Auschwitz(during the Holocaust) a group of jews enacted out a trial, accusing God of cruelty and betrayal. They found no consolation in the normal explanations of pain and suffering. They found no extenuating circumstances for God and so they found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The Rabbi pronounced the verdict, then looked up and said the trial was over : It was time for the evening prayer.
I wonder what would differ in the lessons people(religious v/s non religious) would learn from this anecdote.

Doing the right thing

I like testing out my morality / ethics against current issues (especially because one of the arguments for religion is that we get our morality from it - though someone like me would rephrase it as 'inspite of' instead of from).
So take the case of the Texas polygamist sect where supposedly children (especially female) are taught from their birth to obey without questioning, are told polygamy is right, and are told that their chief function in life is to breed. They are provided no alternatives, they are kept cut off from the rest of the world and indeed probably aren't aware that there are other ways to live one's life. When they are old enough they are married off, in some cases to an old @#%#$%$ with a handful of wives.
Claiming that some of the girls were underage when they were married and indeed pregnant , the Texas state has taken the children into custody. Their parents argue that they treat the children well, that they should be allowed to live their lives as per their beliefs and that the girls are given the choice and can reject any prospective partner.
It is however no choice at all as the children have been bought up to believe that they will go to hell for disobeying their parents, that there is nothing wrong in being the n'th wife of someone and breeding as much as you can. They aren't shown alternate views and they aren't allowed to see the world to find out for themselves. As every religion knows , the best way to get children to follow your footsteps is to teach it to them from a very young age where belief in the parents authority is absolute and the difficult questions are less. Once the religion becomes a habit , the child doesn't question it as is evident from the grown women of the sect vehemently defending their way of life even when the people most disadvantaged are themselves. Its similar to the Indian women being in the forefront of those against the girl child. Once you have been brainwashed , the beliefs come naturally and it is what you will practise on your own children
It is also probably true that separating the older children from their parents may have serious psychological repercussions on the children.
On the face of it this is a simple moral decision, the parents should be in jail and the children taken care. But this causes a problem, 'When is it OK for the state to interfere with how a parent brings up a child'. When a child is subjected to physical abuse? Certainly. Easy enough to prove and easy enough to convict. But psychological damage? Who knows? If we say in this case that the teachings are too extreme for children to be subjected to it where do we draw the line?
People like Richard Dawkin and Christopher Hitchens already believe that teaching a child about religion constitutes some sort of abuse . They are referring to stating that a child will burn in hell if he sin's but the view is still extreme enough and is not right other. Parents do have the right to teach their children their views. Is it then only question of how extreme the views are? Is the polygamist sect any different say from a Muslim parent teaching his child that if they leave Islam they should be put to death?
I think the problem is not in the views themselves but in the fact that the children are kept from discovering other ways of thinking. The parents are welcome to believe what they want and they can tell their children what they believe but they should not be able to prevent their children from seeing the world, seeing what else is there, from reading. The girls should be able to interact with other girls and women who can tell them that if polygamy is fine , why not polyandry? That women do achieve a lot in this world and their sole purpose in life is not breeding.
The exclusion of other views and other people is evident even in the not so extreme religions. Marriage is preferably within your own religion. Schools are created for followers of a religion only. Public places of prayer to hang out with 'like minded' people. Youth groups for .. you guessed it 'like minded' people.
The more I think of it , the more I'm convinced , our tendencies to hang out with people who believe the same things we do, or are from the same country as we are from, or speak the same language, or have the same skin color is one of the biggest ill's that our society faces and it this that we must prevent.
And we come down to what is the right thing to do in this case? Any child who has been made to marry at a young age , the husband and parent's should be put in jail. The parent's are free to teach their children anything , but they should not be able to raise them in seclusion. The children should have access to all the information that a normal child has and is appropriate for his age. Any parent preventing or actively hindering his child from doing so should be reprimanded / punished.

The Best of Science

I came across http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7432173082287948210&q=zaytuna
and since I have read Sam Harris "Letters..." and will probably read The God delusion sometime, I can't help but comment on it.
Note Yusuf Hamza is articulate and seems reasonably intelligent, but his argument that the anti - religion/God books compare the Best of Science with the worst of Religion is a childish argument.
Science is a tool neither good nor bad , it depends on the who uses it. However the principles on which science is based, are sound. The principles of scientific curiosity, verification by experimentation, continuous evaluation of results by peers, having to give up beliefs which are proven wrong (e.g. the sun revolves round the earth), continuous improvement, no 100% absolute certainty - 'you might be wrong tomorrow attitudes', are all good and can be followed even in other aspects of life.
Religion too can be used for good or bad depending on who uses it. But the principles on which religion is based? well some are definitely bad. i.e. belief without evidence (or at least insufficient evidence - Carl Sagan's said extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence), the absolute certainty in the rightness of itself, the attitude of we the followers are superior/better/more favored than those who don't follow, are all principles which are bad and which would cause trouble if followed in any other aspect of life. We don't have an Indian science and an American Science and we certainly don't believe that those who understand e=mc^2 are superior to those who don't.
So the Best of Religion is certainly way inferior to the Best of Science. And the worst of science? quite simply it's the worst of humanity. But the worst of religion is not restricted to the worst of humanity as it does quite well(!) by itself.
Yusuf says the wars of the 20Th century were caused by fascism, nationalism and communism (unlike the wars of yesteryear's). Leaving aside the numerous conflicts in which religion has played a part, I'm not sure what he intends to prove by this. Certainly I find it hard to differentiate between a rabid nationalist and a religious fundamentalist (We are superior, We can go to war and kill people who are not like us, Even though our birth (and hence in most cases our nationality and religion) is a random chance event we believe we are better than the others and this was our destiny, The other's are always spoiling our way of life , we need some way to stop them, Every one of 'us' is better than one of 'them', We need to stick together with other's like us - Each of this statement can be made by the nationalist of the fundamentalist.). Religion , like nationalism or regionalism, or race, or gender is just one more way humans use to separate 'us' and 'them'. We can look around and see how useful these classifications are for humanity as a whole

Speaking of religions that should be banned , the fundamentalist break away Mormon sect certainly should. The only thing is that, nothing is going to bring back the lost innocence of the children, though I hope I'm wrong.
The discussion though did bring up a point in favor of polygamy. Most rational people are against polygamy. However we (yes I consider myself rational) would also be against any form of legislative action against say single people who sleep around with multiple partner's though we may frown at it. So here's the problem with having the above two attitudes. What we are essentially saying is that its OK for someone to sleep around with multiple partners, its OK for them to have kids, its OK for them to dump their partners and kids (OK in the sense that we wouldn't say put them in prison!) but as soon as that someone decides to marry his/her partners and give some sort of legal protection to them , we say put him/her in prison! Clearly we are hypocrites.
I'm just wondering which is the lesser of the two evils . I'd probably choose giving legal protection should be given to anyone with or without marriage.
Speaking of which I wonder if any religion other than Hinduism has a No Comments against polyandry(my only evidence for this is the Mahabharata - a tale in which we firmly believe you can find all the sin's humans can commit)? Certainly the Abrahamanic religions with their skewed definitions of Adultery wouldn't approve !

Evolution

Its quite funny reading the Intelligent Design folk's. Evolution cant explain some thing which clearly show a designer (to them). They do however stop short of saying who the Designer is. And then they wonder why people laugh at them. Here are my reasons.
a. Who is the designer. God(and which one?)? Aliens? Our descendants from the future? Fairies? Our duplicates from a parallel world? To be taken seriously the Intelligent design theory would have to make some guesses (including how to verify the guess) about the designer and his motivations. The utter hypocrisy where they stop short of saying the designer is the god of the religion I happen to believe in causes them to be the subject of much ridicule.
b. Who designed the designer? if he always existed or himself evolved then why is it so difficult to believe life evolved.
c. Why did so many species become extinct (even without man's interfering). Was some of the design flawed?
d. Why call it 'Intelligent ' design. Except for our brains, a lot of the other bits of human is not very intelligent. Why wouldn't you have designed man (who is made in god's own image after all) as someone who could tolerate extreme temperatures, be the fastest, strongest species? Why have human's vulnerable to most sickness? Why have two kidneys (when humans can get by with one) but only one heart and one brain? Why have the universe and then have humanity needing to breathe so that we cannot (without a lot of help) explore it? We seem to be as well designed as early version's of MS DOS!. Call it somewhat workable barely intelligent design if you will (we are talkign about an omnipotent designer so I assume the designer could have made us more efficient if the designer wanted that).

Belief

Reading The Miracle Detective, I wondered , if someone appeared before you and said he/she was God(or related to God), what would it take for you to be convinced?
Lets assume that any act (e.g. turning night into day, blossoming flowers in winter, levitation, teleportation) etc are performed by said entity at a snap of a finger. Would you believe?
And then I wonder suppose there is a devout Hare Rama Hare Krishna type who believes say Krishna is the only true god and also believes lets say the Bhagwad Gita as the literal word of Krishna. If the entity appears to him, says Yes I am Krishna , But the Bhagwad Gita are not my words , my teachings are actually closer to whatever Buddha(Or Christ or Mohammed) taught. Would the devout person believe? or would he think he is being hoodwinked by an Asur?
What if the entity says, yes the Bhagwad Gita are actually my(God's) words but Im not krishna Im actually Buddha(Or Christ or Mohammed) would the devout person believe? or would he think he is being hoodwinked?
And what if the entity says sorry , you chose the wrong gods neither the philosophy nor the god you believe in are correct. Would the devout person believe?
Note that any miraculous activity can be performed by said entity without any problem.
In most cases I think we'd only believe if the entity said exactly what we believed in before we encountered the entity.
I guess Mark Millar touched upon this topic in Chosen , before he chose the ending for shock value (oh what a book it would have been if Millar had chosen(pun) a different ending).

On Religion

I have been undertaking a particularly unpleasant task the past few days. Ive been reading various discussions that people have undertaken on topics that have been kicked off , directly or indirectly by Robert Spencer. See for example the discussions related to his books on Amazon or his website. Some have reviewed his book(s) unfavorably with a memorable line 'My God is better than your Allah nyah, nyah, nyah'.
Rather than commenting on the comments which truth be told leave a bad taste(by both sides), there are some general observations that can be made.
Religious right wing characters generally have no sense of humour. I wonder if this also implies that having a good sense of humour means a person wont be deeply religious.
The quality of debate on any controversial topic is extremely poor. Most indulge in ad hominem attacks. There will always be some people who believe that saying the same thing multiple times makes it true.

A question that bothers me about religion is whether it should be judged by what it preaches or whether it is to be judged by what is practised by it's followers. Earlier I believed that it is obvious that it is the latter. But what if the practice is not ascribed to religion?
e.g. If a person says he bombs a place for his religion is his religion to blame?
If a person says he bombs a country A because his country B is threatened by A and not for his religion , is his religion to blame?
What if the religion tacitly approves of acts of war ?
(If you believe that this religion is a euphemism for Islam, you haven't read the Bhagwad Gita or the Old Testament)
If I think about it, I believe that the problem is not with only due to religion. When a person gives up the right to think for himself, and lets other's choose his path for him, it has always caused problems. Someone will probably point out that the people doing the choosing are thinking for themselves and they cause the problem too. Perhaps , but if some leader say's kill those bunch of people who differ from us in X ways, and a mob goes ahead and kills them, who does the blame lie with more? The leader or the mob?
I'd currently go with the mob.
And religion does tell you that it will do the thinking for you. It will lay down the guidelines for you to follow. It will determine the right and wrong. It is perfect, absolute and the only way. There is no doubt, only faith, doubt is a sin.
History suggests that religion or atleast the followers of religion have caused many problems. History also suggests that man atleast is not smart enough to learn lessons from it.
.....
There was a time when i bought books that would be considered controversial , and usually i agreed with the views that the book promoted before i bought the book. Then i thought, what's the point , i already agree with the book. (e.g. Buying a Michael Moore book). Then i bought books which endorsed a point of view that I didnt agree with. but now I've decided , I shall not sacrifice any of my money on royalties to people who clearly dont deserve it (Ann Coulter , Im talking about you!). I almost bought Robert Spencer's book Why Christianity is a Religion of Peace and Islam isn't, till I saw Ann Coulter singing it's praises. The book was kept back in it's shelf.
Oh and does it matter if the religion is peaceful but the people who practise it aren't?