Šta je duša?

Rasprave o vjerskim temama.

Moderator: Bloo



fenjer
Posts: 126
Joined: 22/03/2005 01:43

#77

Post by fenjer » 08/06/2007 01:50

Pojmovi "ruh" i "nefs"

U Kur’anu čitamo:

“I duše i Onoga Koji je stvori. Pa je nadahnu: zlo njeno i bogobojaznost njenu. Uspjeo je ko ju očisti, a izgubljen je ko ju na stranputicu odvede.”(Sunce, 7.-10.)

Najkraće rečeno, “ruh” na našemu jeziku odnosno po staroslavenskome korijenu prevodi se sa “duh” i označava nestvoreni dio, čovjeku dat izravno od Allaha, nešto od Allaha:

“Pa kada ga ujednačim i u njega udahnem od Svoga ruha učinite mu sedždu.” (Hidžr, 29.)

S druge strane, “nefs” smo mi, naše jastvo, svijest o nama, ovo što piše, govori, to sam ja, moja duša.

Kada se osobi primakne smrt, duh biva “skupljen”, uzet, a duša kuša smrt. Tako u hadisu kojega prenosi Ummu Seleme, a bilježi Muslim, hazreti pejgamber Muhammed, alejhisselam, kaže:

Kada se duh uzima pogled ga prati.”

To je kada gledamo nekoga pâr sekundi prije smrti vidimo da je pogled uperio u nešto a mi ne vidimo šta. No, iako gleda više ne reagira. Duh (život) ga je napustio.

A potom dolazi smrt koju duša te osobe, tj. ta osoba mora kušati, kako se veli u Kur’anu:

Svaka duša kušat će smrt, potom ćete se Nama vratiti.”
(Pauk, 57.)

Tumačeći kakvi sve možemo biti, tesavvuf govori o sedam vrstâ duše, sedam naših stanjâ:

nefsul emmâra (duša sklona zlu),
nefsul-levvâma (duša koja sebe kori),
nefsul mutmeinna (smirena duša),
nefsul mulhimma (nadahnuta duša),
nefsur-râdijja (zadovoljna duša),
nefsul merdijja (duša s kojom je dragi Bog zadovoljan) i
nefsul kâmila (potpuna duša) ili nefsus-sâfijja (čista duša).


O ruhu u Kur’anu čitamo:

“Pitaju te za ruh. Reci: ‘Ruh je od naredbe (emra) Gospodara moga a vama nije dato od znanja izuzev malo.’ ”(Noćno putovanje, 85.)

Kada je Ebu Besîr upitao ili hazreti Hasana ili hazreti Husejina, šta je to duh (ruh), bî mu rečeno: “To je ono što se nalazi u životinjama i ljudima.” On upita: “A šta je to?” Odgovori mu se: “Ono je iz melekutskoga (anđeoskoga) svijeta, ono je od snage (kudreta).”

Hazreti imâm Džâfer-i Sadik, jedan od učitelja hazreti Ebu Hanîfe, o odnosu ruha i tijela kaže da se ruh ne miješa sa tijelom već ga tijelo obujmljuje (obuhvata).

A o odnosu ruha i krvi kaže da je ruh elemenat odnosno sastavni dio krvi. Krv daje tijelu svježinu i boju a kada se zgruša, ruh i tijelo se rastave. (Mîzânul hikma, tom III, str. 1128.)

U istome dijelu spominje se da je hazreti Alija ovako protumačio stanja vjesnikâ i poslanikâ. Allah uzvišeni podario im je pet vrstâ ruhova:

duh svétosti (ruhul kudus),
duh vjere (Ruhul îmân),
duh snage (ruhul kuvva),
duh strastvenosti(ruhuš-šehva) i
duh tijela (ruhul beden).

Po predaji od hazreti Džâfer-i Sâdika, njihova značenja su slijedeća:

- ojačao ih je ruhom svétosti (“Spomeni blagodati Moje prema tebi i prema materi tvojoj kad te ojačah ruhom svétosti.” 5:110) time spoznaju stvari,

- ojačao ih je ruhom vjere (“To vas je šejtan plašio pristalicama svojim, pa se ne bojte njih već se bojte Mene, ako ste vjernici.” 3:175), pa Ga se istinski boje,

- ojačao ih je ruhom snage (“ ‘A zašto nisi rekao kada si ušao: Mašallah, nema preinake niti ima snage osim s Allahom.’ ” 18:39), pa su Mu njime pokorni,

- ojačao ih je ruhom strastvenosti (“Mi zaštitnici smo vaši na Svijetu dunjalučkom i na Ahiretu. U njemu je ono što duše vaše žele, u njemu je šta god da zaželite.” 41:31), pa strastveno Gospodara uzvišenoga slušaju a klone se neposluha,

- podario im je umetnuti ruh (duh tijela) kojim ljudi dolaze na Ovaj svijet i kojim s njega odlaze.




Duh i Dusa

autor: Dr. Mustafa Mahmud


U svakodnevnom govoru uvijek mijesamo pojmove dusa i duh (nefs ve ruh). Tako naprimjer kazemo za nekog da mu je duh izisao, ili da duh toga i toga cezne za necim, da mu se duh muci ili da je duh smiren. Svi ovi izrazi su pogresno upotrebljeni, jer to su stanja koja se odnose na dusu, a ne na duh. Jer, dusa je ta koja prilikom smrtnog izdisanja napusta tijelo. U Qur'anu meleki (andjeli) u casu umiranja kazu prestupnicima: "Spasite se sada kao mozete! Od sada cete neizdrzivom kaznom biti kaznjeni." (El-En'am, 93)
Dusa je ta koja kusa smrt, a ne duh: "Svako zivo bice (nefsun) okusit ce smrt." (El-Enbijja, 35)
Dusa kusa smrt, ali ne umire. Kusanje smrti je put njenog napustanja fizickog tijela. Dusa postoji jos prije rodjenja. Ona je prisutna tokom cijelog ovosvjetskog zivota i ostaje vjecna i poslije smrti. O postojanju dusa prije rodjenja njihovih vlasnika Allah kaze: da je stvorio potomstvo iz kicmi oceva prije njihovog radjanja i zatrazio da posvjedoce da je On njihov Gospodar, da se ne bi niko pravdao da je nevjernik zato sto je i njegov otac bio nevjernik. "I kad je Gospodar tvoj iz kicmi sinova Ademovih izveo potomstvo njihovo i zatrazio od njih da posvjedoce protiv sebe: Zar ja nisam Gospodar vas? oni su odgovorili : Jesi, mi svjedocimo." (El-Araf, 172)

Tako su duse, prije nastanjenja tijela, rodjenjem, postojale i niko ne moze da se opravda da je nevjernik, zato sto mu je otac bio takav. (Ebu Irfan:-Naravno, osobe koje su umrle kao nevjernici a do njih nije dospjela Bozija Objava, bilo putem direktnog kontakta s Bozijim vjerovjesnikom ili njegovim predstavnikom ili bar Bozijom Knjigom, nece biti kaznjene paklom posto je pakao za one koji su odbili vjeru kada im se predocila. Sto se tice njihova ulaska u raj tu ima neke nesuglasice medju Islamskim ucenjacima. Jedno misljenje je da ce oni uci u raj poslije cekanja na el-'arafu,dok je drugo da ce oni biti kusani na Sudnjem Danu pa ako prodju test ici ce u raj a ako ne ici ce u pakao. Postoji, naime, i trece misljenje od velikog Islamskog ucenjaka i evlije Imam Rabbanija Ahmeda Sirhindija (kuddise sirruh), po kojem ce takve osobe poslije obracuna biti ponistene tj. izgubit ce egzistenciju. On obrazlaze to time da za raj dusa mora umrijeti sa imanom, a za pakao dusa mora odbiti predocenu vjeru. Posto osobe koje umru bez kontakta sa jednim od predstavnika Bozije Objave, nisu odbile vjeru a nisu ni imale iman, stoga ne mogu ici ni u raj ni u pakao, nego ostaje samo treca solucija koja je ponistenje kao u slucaju zivotinja. Opet, Allah najbolje zna o ovom predmetu.)

Svaka dusa je imala svoj poseban (odvojen) susret sa Gospodarom. Na taj nacin je Bozanska istina ustaljena u nasoj dusi. Duh nema pohlepu, zelju, ne srdi se, ne dosadjuje se, ne muci se, ne dozivljava padove koji se mogu pripisati dusi a ne duhu.Qur'an kaze:
"I dusa njegova navede ga da ubije brata svoga, pa ga on ubi." (el-Maide, 30)
"Mi stvaramo covjeka i znamo sta mu sve dusa njegova haje." (Kaf, 16)
"I dusa i Onoga koji ih stvori, pa im put dobra i put zla shvatljivim ucini." (es-Sems, 7-8.)
"U dusama vasim je ponikla zla misao, rece on i ja se necu jaditi, od Allaha ja trazim pomoc protiv ovoga sto vi iznosite." (Jusuf, 18.)
"I kad im se bilo stisnulo u dusama njihovim i kad su vidjeli da nema utocista od Allaha nego samo u Njega." (et-Tewba, 118.)
"Allah hoce da ih njima kazni na ovom svijetu da im duse dotuze i da skoncaju kao nevjernici." (et-Tewba, 55)
"Vjeru Ibrahimovu izbjegava samo onaj koji ne drzi do sebe." (el-Bekara, 130)
"A oni koji sebe cuvaju lakomosti, oni ce sigurno uspjeti." (el-Hasr, 9)
Ta ljudi (duse) su stvoreni (e) lakomi (e)." (en-Nisa, 128.)
"Ja ne pravdam sebe, ta dusa je sklona zlu." (Jusuf, 53)

Dusa je u Qur'anu optuzena za lakomost, sklona je zlu, ohola je. Dusi je pripisan i uspon i pad. Dusi je moguce da se ocisti i da napreduje, te je opisana kao zadovoljavajuca, zadovoljna, smirena, nadahnuta:
"A ti, o duso smirena, vrati se Gospodaru svome zadovoljna, a i On tobom zadovoljan, pa udji medju robove Moje i udj u Dzennet Mo
j!" (el-Fedzr, 27-30)

Sto se duha tice, on se u Qur'anu uvijek pominje u superlativu, visem stupnju svetosti, cistoce i pocasti. Duhu se ne pripisuje stanje mucenja, lakomosti, ceznje, zudnje niti ciscenje kao ni uzdizanje i padanje, kao sto se ne spominje napustanje tijela, niti duh kusa smrt, ne pripisuje se covjeku, vec samo Allahu.
Allah Mudri kaze za Merjemu casnu: "Mi smo njoj Naseg duha poslali (meleka Dzibrila) i on joj se prikazao u liku savrseno stvorenog muskarca." (Merjem, 17)
A o Ademu (alejhi selam) u Qur'anu stoji: "I kad mu dam lik i u njega udahnem Svoj Duh, vi mu se poklonite." (el-Hidzr, 29)
Allah Silni kaze: Moj Duh (Ruh), a ne kaze: duh Adema (alejhi selam).

Nas Gospodar uvijek samo Sebi pripisuje Duh:

"Njima je On u srca njihova (Duhom Svojim) vjerovanje usadio." (el-Mudzadela, 22)
Allah Mudri o Qur'anu i Njegovoj objavi Poslaniku Muhammedu (sallallahu alejhi ve sellem) kaze:"Na takav nacin Mi i tebi objavljujemo ono sto ti se objavljuje." (es-Sura, 52)

Ovdje Allah Mudri duhom naziva Qur'anski govor:

"Onome Najuzvisenijem, koji svemirom vlada, koji salje Objavu, rijeci Svoje - kome hoce od robova Svojih da upozori na Dan susreta medjusobnog." (Gafir, 15)
"On salje meleke s Objavom, po volji Svojoj onim robovima Svojim kojima hoce. Opominjite da nema boga osim Mene i bojte Me se!" (en-Nahl, 2)
Duh je ovdje Bozanska Rijec i Bozanska Zapovijed. Duh se uvijek pripisuje Allahu u stalnom je pokretu i na duh se ne mogu primjeniti ljudska stanja niti ljudski atributi, a pogotovu ne moze biti predmet zelje, simpatije, htijenja ili pak mucenja. Zbog toga se duh i opisuje uzvisenim atributima. Qur'an kaze o Dzibrilu (alejhi selam):

"On je Ruhul Quddus (Sveti Duh) er-Ruhul Emin (Povjerljivi Duh) a o 'Isa (alejhi selam) kaze: "Svoju Rijec dao je Merjemi."

Dusa se uvijek pripisuje svome vlasniku:

"Sreca koja ti se dogodi od Allaha je a nesrecu koja te zadesi sam si zasluzio." (en-Nisa, 79)
"Onaj koji ide Pravim Putem, od toga ce sam on koristi imati." (el-Isra, 15)
"I stislo im se u dusama njihovim." (et-Tewba, 118)
"Ja ne pravdam sebe, ta dusa je sklona zlu." (Jusuf, 53)
"Tako je u mojoj dusi ponikla zla misao." (Ta-Ha, 96)
"A oni koji svoju dusu sacuvaju lakomosti, oni ce sigurno uspjeti." (el-Hasr, 9)
"Vjeru Ibrahimovu izbjegavaju samo oni koji ne drze do sebe." (el-Bekara, 130)
A onda kada se dusa pripise Allahu, u tom slucaju je to Allahovo Bice:

"Allah vas podsjeca na Sebe." (Ali Imran, 28.)

To je Allah, koji nema Sebi ravnog. Njemu nista nije slicno. Pogresno je da poredimo Allahovu Dusu prema svojim dusama. Allahova Dusa je tajna koju mi ne mozemo dokuciti.

Isa (alejhi selam) kaze svom Gospodaru: "Ti znas sta je u mojoj dusi a ja ne znam sta Ti znas." (el-Maide, 116)

Bozija Dusa se ne moze usporediti s ljudskom dusom, osim po obliku rijeci. Ona je nesto drugo, "Niko nije kao On." (es-Sura, 11) "I niko Mu ravan nije." (el-Ihlas, 4) A sad se postavlja pitanje koliko svaki od nas ima udjela u duhu? I sta podrazumjevamao kada kazemo da posjedujemo duh i tijelo? Zatim, kakav je odnos nase duse sa duhom i tijelom? Nas udio u duhu je udahnuce koje Qur'an pominje u poglavlju gdje se govori o postanku Adema (alejhi selam): "Stvoricu covjeka od ilovace, pa kad mu savrsen oblik dam i Svoj duh u njega udahnem, vi mu se poklonite!" (Sad, 71-72)

Ono sto se desilo stvaranjem, uoblicavanjem i udahnjivanjem u lik Adema (alejhi selam), to se sve ponavlja unutar materice stvaranja svakog od nas. Svakom od nas se daje savrsen oblik, vrsi se uoblicavanje, zatim Bozansko udahnuce u momentu kada tkiva za to budu spremna i kad se plod pripremi da to prihvati. To se desava u trecem mjesecu zivota ploda u materici. Tim stvorenje prelazi iz jednog stanja u drugo. O ovim etapama Allah kaze: "Pa onda kap sjemena ugruskom ucinimo, zatim od ugruska grudu mesa, pa od grude mesa kosti napravimo, a onda kosti mesom zaodijemo i poslije ga, kao drugo stvorenje ozivimo pa neka je uzvisen Allah, Najljepsi Stvoritelj." (el-Mu'minun, 14-15)
Kod udahnuca kaze se: ".., kao drugo stvorenje ozivimo - pa neka je uzvisen Allah, Najljepsi Stvoritelj.", a to je ukazivanje na savrsenost, kada gruda mesa zaodijevena kostima Allahovim Dahom ozivi. To je moguce samo Allahu, Najljepsem Stvoritelju.

U drugom ajetu o pitanju udahnuca u plod nakon sto mu je dat savrsen oblik stoji: "A potomstvo njegvo stvara od kapi tekucine, zatim mu savrseno udove uoblici i zivot mu udahne i On vam sluh, vid i pamet daje." (es-Sedzda, 8-9)
Iz ovoga slijedi da je sluh, vid i razum plod udahnjivanja i da pomocu ovih osobenosti covjek prelazi iz jenog stanja u drugo, s jednog nivoa na drugi, "poslije ga, kao drugo stvorenje, ozivimo, pa neka je uzvisen - Najljepsi Stvoritelj." Dakle, nas udio u duhu je udahnjivanje i svako od nas primi onoliko koliko je za to spreman. Zahvaljujuci ovom udahnjivanju mi posjedujemo mastu, savjest, vrijednost i uzore. Tijelo i duh u nama nalici na tlo stvarnosti i nebo uzora.

Veza nase duse sa duhom i tijelom lici na odnos koji postoji izmedju zeljezne cestice i dvospolnog magnetskog polja.
Dusa je u stalnom stanju polarizacije. Ona je ili u stanju privlacenja i padanja u tijelo, u ilovacu instikata i pohlepa, ili pak uzdizanju ka duhu, ka nebu uzora, vrijednosti, Bozanskoga morala. To se desava dusi kada se oblikuje u duh sradjajuci se sa njim u ljepoti i cistoci. Cijeloga zivota dusa je u stalnom pokretu i kretanju izmedju duhovnog i tjelesnog pola. Ponekad njome preovladava njena vatrenost i ilovaca, a ponekad opet, njena cistoca i prozracnost.
Tijelo i duh su predmet ispita i iskusenja. Dusa se iskusava i ispituje ovim privlacnim snagama, da bi se otkrila njena tajna, njena stvarnost, da njeno zlo i dobro izadje na vidjelo.

Odavde spoznajemo da je stvarnost covjeka njegova dusa, da je dusa ta koja se radja, ponovno ozivljuje, podlijeze ispitima (odgovara za djela). Dusa je ta koja tuguje, zeli, cezne. Dok tijelo i duh su samo prostor, isto kao zemlja i nebesa u svom domenu, prostor kretanja u odnosu na covjeka da istakne svoje sposobnosti i nadarenosti. Kao sto je Allah dusi darovao i tijelo tako joj je poklonio i duh, zivi, radi i otkriva tajne tijela i njegove sadrzaje.
Na osnovu ovog znacenja, izraz "prizivanje duhova" je netacan. Duhovi se ne prizivaju, i nijedan duh nije u mogucnosti da bude prizvan, jer je on svjetlo koje se odnosi jedino na Allaha i Allah udahnjuje ovo svjetlo u nas da se njime osvjetlimo. Ova svjetlost pripada Allahu i Njemu se vraca "Inna lillahi ve inna ilejhi radzi'un." (el-Bekara, 156). Nemoguce je to prizvati ili odbaciti. Dakle, dusa je ta koja se priziva a ne duh; ako je uopste tacno da neki u svojim seansama prizivaju duse.... Jer duhove je nemoguce prizivati. Duse niko nije u mogucnosti prikupiti niti prizvati osim njihova Gospodara.
Nemoguce je da se dusa pretvori u duh. Jedino se moze uzdici, oblikovati i zdruziti sa duhom ukoliko je u stanju da se priblizi "svjetlom primjeru" (duhu koji je Allah udahnuo u covjeka).
Takodje je moguce da se dusa sroza i padne dotle da se oblikuje u satanu i pojednaci sa Iblisom u njegovoj vatri.
Dusa koja se ocisti, koja je nevina, moze da se srodi sa duhom. Takvu dusu Allah priblizava Svom prijestolju na Sudnjem Danu. Za tu dusu Allah kaze da ce biti "na mjestu u kome ce biti zadovoljna kod Vladara Svemoguceg". (el-Kamer, 55)

Ovakvom cistocom i uzvisenoscu dusa postaje "posvecena" i njeno je mjesto u Allahovoj blizini. Duse, koje svojom oholoscu i pakoscu dostizu satanski stupanj, jesu one za koje Allah kaze da ce na Sudnjem Danu "uistini oni ce toga Dana od milosti Gospodara svoga zaklonjeni biti". (el-Mutafifin, 15) Ovim ce biti mjesto zajedno sa paklenim dusama na dnu tame i pakla, dok duh, njegovo mjesto nije ni u Dzennetu (raju) niti u Dzehennemu (paklu), jer on je Allahova Svjetlost koja Njemu pripada.

Duhu se ne moze uputiti prigovor, niti kazna, niti nagrada. Duh je uzviseni primjer, kako to stoji u sljedecim ajetima Qur'ana:
"
Allah ima Svojstva najuzvisenija; On je Silan i Mudar." (en-Nahl, 60)

"On je Uzvisen i na nebesima i na Zemlji; Onje Silan i Mudar." (er-Rum, 27)

To je i Bozanski svijet koji svoju svetost i svjetlost pribavlja od Allaha.

"Pitaju te o duhu, reci sta je duh - samo Gospodar moj zna, a vama je dato samo malo znanja." (el-Isra, 85)
Last edited by fenjer on 08/06/2007 03:11, edited 1 time in total.

Sogan
Posts: 1423
Joined: 29/10/2006 02:46
Location: Centar za socijalnu skrb Kraljevine Svedske

#78

Post by Sogan » 08/06/2007 02:21

1. - Dusha je imaterijalni ali integralni dio ljudskog bica, eventualno povezan sa kemijskim reakcijama u tijelu sto ne znaci direktno i determinisan istima :D

2. - Dusha je srpsko zensko ime, obicno skracenica od Dushanka. U deminutivu Dushica ili Dushka. (ima onaj stih: "prvo pa mushko, nek se zove Dushko, kolo veze sitno, ime nije bitno" :D

3. - Majcina dushica, ljekovita biljka dobra za probavni sustav i oba bubrega :D

4. - "Gdje ce ti dusha!?" ukorna fraza sa kojom se cesto susrecem :D

User avatar
Biserna Skoljka
Posts: 472
Joined: 04/06/2007 14:26

#79

Post by Biserna Skoljka » 08/06/2007 10:17

X34 Hemel op aarde

de hele wereld moet er aan geloven
de hele wereld komt er aan te pas
gerechtigheid en liefde: mededogen
geweldloosheid en vrede in ons hart
we zaaien de hemel hier op aarde
de hemel kiemt hier en nu

de hele wereld moet er aan geloven
de hele wereld komt er aan te pas
gerechtigheid en liefde: mededogen
geweldloosheid en vrede in ons hart
we enten de hemel hier op aarde
de hemel groeit hier en nu

de hele wereld moet er aan geloven
de hele wereld komt er aan te pas
gerechtigheid en liefde: mededogen
geweldloosheid en vrede in ons hart
we plukken de hemel hier op aarde
de hemel bloeit hier en nu
************************************

Nebo na Zemlji


Citav svijet mora u to vjerovati ,
Citav svijet mora to saznati :
PRAVDA , LJUBAV , MILOST ,
NENASILJE i MIR u nasem srcu
Mi sijemo NEBO na ZEMLJI !

Citav svijet mora u to vjerovati ,
Citav svijet mora to saznati :
PRAVDA , LJUBAV , MILOST ,
NENASILJE i MIR u nasem srcu .
Mi beremo NEBO na ZEMLJI jer
NEBO cvjeta OVDJE I SAD !


Pjesma je svakako ljepsa kad se cita u svom izvornom obliku , na holandskom jeziku .Mislim da je IDEJA lijepa , prelijepa i vrijedna prijevoda .

seldzuk
Posts: 2823
Joined: 04/06/2007 18:51

#80

Post by seldzuk » 08/06/2007 16:28

Jedan citat:
MR. DARIO MILETIĆ
NEKA TI DUŠA BUDE KAO MORE

Volim svojim učenicima ispričati ovu priču:

" Neki se čovjek stalno osjećao pritisnut tegobama svagdašnjeg života, pa se potužio duhovnom učitelju:
- Ne mogu više! Život mi je postao nepodnošljiv!
Učitelj je uzeo malo pepela među prste i usuo ga u čašu vode. Dok se pepeo miješao s vodom reče:
- Ovo su tvoje tegobe. Voda je upila pepeo i potamnjela.
Učitelj je ponovo uzeo istu mjeru pepela i sasuo ga u more.
More nije potamnjelo, dapače, pepeo gotovo da nije ostavio nikakvog traga.
- Vidiš li? - upitao je učitelj svog začuđenog učenika -
- svakog dana moraš odlučiti hoćeš li biti kao čaša vode ili kao more."

seldzuk
Posts: 2823
Joined: 04/06/2007 18:51

#81

Post by seldzuk » 08/06/2007 16:42

Moderna psihologija duhovnu i duševnu stranu dobrim dijelom svodi na materijalno, tj. na fizičke, hemijske i elektro-procese u mozgu, nek me neko ispravi ako sam pogrešno napisao. U tome je suština njene ograničenosti. :idea:

ate
Posts: 162
Joined: 22/02/2007 14:15

#82

Post by ate » 08/06/2007 16:52

seldzuk wrote:Moderna psihologija duhovnu i duševnu stranu dobrim dijelom svodi na materijalno, tj. na fizičke, hemijske i elektro-procese u mozgu, nek me neko ispravi ako sam pogrešno napisao. U tome je suština njene ograničenosti. :idea:
sta mislis pod ogranicenoscu ?
ima li sta da je neograniceno ?
da li to "neograniceno" moze veci uticaj na psihu/dusu izvrsiti od "ogranicenog" ?

seldzuk
Posts: 2823
Joined: 04/06/2007 18:51

#83

Post by seldzuk » 08/06/2007 17:35

Mislim na ograničenost razumijevanja čovjeka.

User avatar
Biserna Skoljka
Posts: 472
Joined: 04/06/2007 14:26

#84

Post by Biserna Skoljka » 08/06/2007 21:04

fdg
Last edited by Biserna Skoljka on 02/08/2008 19:30, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Biserna Skoljka
Posts: 472
Joined: 04/06/2007 14:26

#85

Post by Biserna Skoljka » 08/06/2007 21:04

dmkwer
Last edited by Biserna Skoljka on 02/08/2008 18:59, edited 1 time in total.

andromedax
Posts: 26
Joined: 23/05/2007 20:31

#86

Post by andromedax » 09/06/2007 07:53

NIN wrote:
NIN wrote:
andromedax wrote:Pitanje za ove nase cafire. Ako vec ne vjerujete u dusu i u nista vise osim materijalnog svijeta ili takozvane opipljive materije po kojim se onda vi kriterijima vodite. Kako razlucujete izmedju dobrog i loseg? Ako ste vodjeni mozgom (materijalno) onda po nekoj logici bi trebalo da uvijek gledate samo svoju korist, bez obzira hoce li neko drugi biti povrijedjen ili ne. Je li to tacno i ako nije zasto nije ako ste vec materijalisti?
Posto bi bilo isuvise suludo ti objasnjavati etiku i moralne koncepte zivog bica mimo knjige u tebe, jedno kontra-pitanje:

Zasto se u kazeneno-popravnim institucijama nalaze pretezno PRAVOVJERNI i to u omjeru koji nije za zamemariti - njih PREKO* 90%!
* U kontekstu grafickog prikaza. (edit)
Vidim (citam) ignorantnost na ovo kontra-pitanje u kojem lezi kompletan odgovor na tvoje inicijalno pitanje. Pitas po kojim se moralnim konceptima vodi jedan ateista - u smislu abrahamskih religija - i zasniva svoju etiku u svim socijalnim interakcijama kroz svoj zivot. Namjerno ti postavljam kontra-pitanje da promislis i uvidis da moral kojeg ti smatras religijski univerzalnim nije nista do jedan prirodni koncept koji je tu milionima godina. Sto je jos poraznije po tvoje shvatanje morala je to da je OGROMNA vecina zatvorenika po kazneno-popravnim institucijama upravo RELIGIOZNA! Procenat nereligioznih individua u slicnim institucijama je zanemariv i, ako hoces jasniju sliku ovog odnosa, mozemo povuci paralelu izmedju nereligioznih individua u drustvu i u gore spomenutim institucijama - sto ultimativno dokazuje tezu da religiozni moral u vecini slucajeva fakticki inhibira PRIRODNE eticke koncepte!

Image
Nereligioznost zastupljena u drustvu

Image
Nereligioznost zastupljena u kazneno-popravnoj populaciji

Ne znam da li ces nesto vidjeti u ovom prikazu ali sam siguran da ga neces zaboraviti.

Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

"Note that atheists, being a large proportion of the population (about 8-10%?) are disproportionately less in prison populations (0.21%)."

Izvor: The Federal Bureau of Prisons

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics,
435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian. (bez i jednog jednon ateiste)

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate religious, carefully herded by chaplins.

In Joliet, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and
0 non-religious.

In one 29-state survey, Steiner found 15 unbelievers, Spirtualists,
Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates
.


Mislim da ovo i vise nego dovoljno govori o religioznoj moralnosti i nevjernickoj amoralnosti!

"MISSIONARIES ARE PERFECT NUISANCES AND LEAVE EVERY PLACE WORSE THAN THEY FOUND IT." - CHARLES DICKENS

Pozdrav...
Mislil da si propustio poentu ovde. Ja nisam nikog napadala niti opravdavala. Pitanje je vrlo jednostavni i ne treba mi knjiga primjera koji nemaju veze sa mojim pitanjem. Cemu sva ta generalizacija, u tvojoj sam poruci sve dobila osim odgovora. Ako nemas boljeg odgovara u svoje ime onda nemoj koristiti primjere drugih. To bi isto bilo ko da zatvoreniku sude sto je nekog silovao, a njegova je odbrana da je neko drugi ubio. Mi smo svi ljudi za sebe i vjernici i nevjernici. To sto neko drugi cini dobro ili lose nedaje nama nikakvo pravo ni na jedno ni na drugo. Svako svoje odgovara.

andromedax
Posts: 26
Joined: 23/05/2007 20:31

#87

Post by andromedax » 09/06/2007 07:57

Ja na sta ova tema izadje. Pa mogli ste Kur'an iskopirati i staviti da se procita. Dajte malo ljudi vlastitog misljenja dosta citata od po kilometra.

seldzuk
Posts: 2823
Joined: 04/06/2007 18:51

#88

Post by seldzuk » 09/06/2007 14:17

Duša čovjeka je kao primjer voćknjaka. Ako ga njeguješ, zaljevaš, okresuješ u proljeće, on daje plodove. Slatke i ukusne njegovom vlasniku i svakom koga taj vlasnik počasti.
Ako ga ne zaljevaš, ne okresuješ u proljeće, ne okopavaš i pustiš da podivlja, on postaje ruglo za oko, a njegovi plodovi neukusni i njegovom vlasniku i slučajnom prolazniku. Niko u njeg ne želi svraćati.
Primjer prvog su ugodni ljudi za razgovor, druženje, prijateljstvo....
A primjer drugih oni tome suprotni.
Da nam Bog da da bude što više ovih prvih i da što manje srećemo ove druge.
A Bog najbolje zna u čemu je dobro.

User avatar
Biserna Skoljka
Posts: 472
Joined: 04/06/2007 14:26

#89

Post by Biserna Skoljka » 11/06/2007 22:51

Ne vjerujem( nesto za moju dusu )

Ne vjerujem da zivot
nema nadu,
nadu da bude bolje.

Ne vjerujem da
zlo vlada.
Ne vjerujem da
je sve manje lijepote.

Zašto bih vjerovao
u bilo što loše
kada je dobro oko mene
i u meni.

Vjerujem da nisam sam,
u ovom vremenu.
Vjerujem da nas ima jos.

Jos ovakvih,još nas
koji živimo,
živimo za dobro, za dobro
i za lijepotu.


Sarafcina
Posts: 2260
Joined: 19/09/2005 00:59

#91

Post by Sarafcina » 12/06/2007 14:12

@NIN
ne vidim iz statistike kakvi su ljudi dosli u zatvor ;), a kamoli kakvi su bili u vrijeme dok su pocinili kriminal zbog kojeg su u zatvoru.

User avatar
danas
Posts: 18821
Joined: 11/03/2005 19:40
Location: 10th circle...

#92

Post by danas » 12/06/2007 14:18

ISSN: 1522-5658

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

A First Look

Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland

Introduction

[1] Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization occurred in western nations, the United States being the only significant exception (Bishop; Bruce; Gill et al.; Sommerville). If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge). A partial exception is given by Barro and McCleary, who correlated economic growth with rates of belief in the afterlife and church attendance in numerous nations (while Kasman and Reid [2004] commented that Europe does not appear to be suffering unduly from its secularization). It is surprising that a more systematic examination of the question has not been previously executed since the factors required to do so are in place. The twentieth century acted, for the first time in human history, as a vast Darwinian global societal experiment in which a wide variety of dramatically differing social-religious-political-economic systems competed with one another, with varying degrees of success. A quantitative cross-national analysis is feasible because a large body of survey and census data on rates of religiosity, secularization, and societal indicators has become available in the prosperous developed democracies including the United States.

[2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.

The Belief that Religiosity is Socially Beneficial

[3] As he helped initiate the American experiment Benjamin Franklin stated that “religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us benevolent, useful and beneficial to others” (Isaacson: 87-88). When the theory of biological evolution removed the need for a supernatural creator concerns immediately arose over the societal implications of widespread abandonment of faith (Desmond and Moore; Numbers). In 1880 the religious moralist Dostoyevsky penned the famous warning that “if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.” Even so, in Europe the issue has not been a driving focus of public and political dispute, especially since the world wars.

[4] Although its proponents often claim that anti-evolution creationism<1> is scientific, it has abjectly failed in the practical realms of mainstream science and hi-tech industry (Ayala et al.; Crews; Cziko; Dawkins, 1996, 1997; Dennett; Gould; Koza et al.; L. Lane; Miller; Paul and Cox; Shanks; Wise; Young and Edis). The continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator (Forrest and Gross; Numbers). The person most responsible for politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J. Bryan,<2> expressed relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible” (Numbers: 178).

[5] In the United States many conservative theists consider evolutionary science a leading contributor to social dysfunction because it is amoral or worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a moral creator (Colson and Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers; Pearcey; Schroeder). The original full title for the creationist Discovery Institute was the Discovery Institute for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a title still applied to a division), and the institute’s mission challenges “materialism on specifically scientific grounds” with the intent of reversing “some of materialism’s destructive cultural consequences.” The strategy for achieving these goals is the “wedge” strategy to insert intelligent design creationism into mainstream academe and subsequently destroy Darwinian science (Johnson; Forrest and Gross note this effort is far behind schedule). The Discovery Institute and the less conservative, even more lavishly funded pro-theistic Templeton Foundation fund research into the existence and positive societal influence of a creator (Harris et al.; Holden). In 2000 the Discovery Institute held a neocreationist seminar for members of Congress (Applegate). Politically and socially powerful conservatives have deliberately worked to elevate popular concerns over a field of scientific and industrial research to such a level that it qualifies as a major societal fear factor. The current House majority leader T. DeLay contends that high crime rates and tragedies like the Columbine assault will continue as long schools teach children “that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud” (DeLay and Dawson). Today’s leaders of the world’s largest Christian denomination, the Catholic Church, share a dim view of the social impact of evolution. In his inauguration speech, Benedict XVI lauded the benefits of belief in a creator and contended, “we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.” A leading church cleric and theologian (Schonborn) proclaimed that “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design” refutes the mindless creation of Darwinian natural selection (also Dean, Dean and Goodstein).

[6] Agreement with the hypothesis that popular religiosity is societally advantageous is not limited to those opposed to evolutionary science, or to conservatives. The basic thesis can be held by anyone who believes in a benign creator regardless of the proposed mode of creation, or the believer’s social-political worldview. In broad terms the hypothesis that popular religiosity is socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice, correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide, non-monogamous sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved physical health. Such faith-based, virtuous “cultures of life” are supposedly attainable if people believe that God created them for a special purpose, and follow the strict moral dictates imposed by religion. At one end of the spectrum are those who consider creator belief helpful but not necessarily critical to individuals and societies. At the other end the most ardent advocates consider persons and people inherently unruly and ungovernable unless they are strictly obedient to the creator (as per Barna; Colson and Pearcey; Johnson; Pearcey; Schroeder). Barro labels societal advantages that are associated with religiosity “spiritual capital,” an extension of Putman’s concept of “social capital.” The corresponding view that western secular materialism leads to “cultures of death” is the official opinion of the Papacy, which claims, “the proabortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected” (John Paul II). In the United States popular support for the cultural and moral superiority of theism is so extensive that popular disbelief in God ranks as another major societal fear factor.

[7] The media (Stepp) gave favorable coverage to a report that children are hardwired towards, and benefit from, accepting the existence of a divine creator on an epidemiological and neuro-scientific basis (Benson et al.). Also covered widely was a Federal report that the economic growth of nations positively responds to high rates of belief in hell and heaven.<3> Faith-based charities and education are promoted by the Bush administration<4> and religious allies and lobbies as effective means of addressing various social problems (Aronson; Goodstein). The conservative Family Research Council proclaims, “believing that God is the author of life, liberty and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free and stable society.” Towards the liberal end of the political spectrum presidential candidate Al Gore supported teaching both creationism and evolution, his running mate Joe Leiberman asserted that belief in a creator is instrumental to “secure the moral future of our nation, and raise the quality of life for all our people,” and presidential candidate John Kerry emphasized his religious values in the latter part of his campaign.

[8] With surveys showing a strong majority from conservative to liberal believing that religion is beneficial for society and for individuals, many Americans agree that their church-going nation is an exceptional, God blessed, “shining city on the hill” that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly skeptical world. But in the other developed democracies religiosity continues to decline precipitously and avowed atheists often win high office, even as clergies warn about adverse societal consequences if a revival of creator belief does not occur (Reid, 2001).

Procedures and Primary Data Sources

[9] Levels of religious and nonreligious belief and practice, and indicators of societal health and dysfunction, have been most extensively and reliably surveyed in the prosperous developed democracies (Figures 1-9). Similar data is often lacking for second and third world nations, or is less reliable. The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined. The approximately 800 million mostly middle class adults and children act as a massive epidemiological experiment that allows hypotheses that faith in a creator or disbelief in evolution improves or degrades societal conditions to be tested on an international scale. The extent of this data makes it potentially superior to results based on much smaller sample sizes. Data is from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter half of the decade, or the early 2000s.

[10] Data sources for rates of religious belief and practice as well as acceptance of evolution are the 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and 1998 Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration on social science surveys using standard methodologies that currently involves 38 nations. The last survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world European democracy. Results for western and eastern Germany are combined following the regions’ populations. England is generally Great Britain excluding Northern Ireland; Holland is all of the Netherlands. The results largely agree with national surveys on the same subjects; for example, both ISSP and Gallup indicate that absolute plus less certain believers in a higher power are about 90% of the U.S. population. The plots include Bible literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as absolute belief in a creator, in order to examine religiosity in terms of ardency, conservatism, and activities. Self-reported rates of religious attendance and practice may be significantly higher than actual rates (Marler and Hadaway), but the data is useful for relative comparisons, especially when it parallels results on religious belief. The high rates of church attendance reported for the Swiss appear anomalous compared to their modest levels of belief and prayer.

[11] Data on aspects of societal health and dysfunction are from a variety of well-documented sources including the UN Development Programme (2000). Homicide is the best indicator of societal violence because of the extremity of the act and its unique contribution to levels of societal fear, plus the relatively reliable nature of the data (Beeghley; Neapoletan). Youth suicide (WHO) was examined in order to avoid cultural issues related to age and terminal illness. Data on STDs, teen pregnancy and birth (Panchaud et al.; Singh and Darroch) were accepted only if the compilers concluded that they were not seriously underreported, except for the U.S. where under reporting does not exaggerate disparities with the other developed democracies because they would only close the gaps. Teen pregnancy was examined in a young age class in which marriage is infrequent. Abortion data (Panchaud et al.) was accepted only from those nations in which it is as approximately legal and available as in the U.S. In order to minimize age related factors, rates of dysfunction were plotted within youth cohorts when possible.

[12] Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.

Results

[13] Among the developed democracies absolute belief in God, attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold, and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW). Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the U.S.) are referred to below as secular developed democracies.

[14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.

[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6>

[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon et al.).

Discussion

[17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly.

[18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

Conclusion

[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

Figures (return)

Indicators of societal dysfunction and health as functions of percentage rates of theistic and non-theistic belief and practice in 17 first world developed democracies and one second world democracy. ISSP questions asked: I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it = absolutely believe in God; 2-3 times a month + once a week or more = attend religious services at least several times a month; several times a week - several times a day = pray at least several times a week; the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word = Bible literalists; human beings [have] developed from earlier species of animals = accept human evolution; I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is a way to find out + I don’t believe in God = agnostics and other atheists.




http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

seldzuk
Posts: 2823
Joined: 04/06/2007 18:51

#93

Post by seldzuk » 13/06/2007 01:31

Kakav je odnos modernog čovjeka prema njegovoj duhovnoj strani, dovoljno govori polaritet ideologija 20. stoljeća, sve zemlje su se dijelile na kapitalističke i socijalističke. Što znači po načinu organizacije i raspodjele materijalnih dobara. O duhovnom ni riječi, kao da i ne postoji. :roll:

luciferino
Posts: 1960
Joined: 18/08/2005 17:54

#94

Post by luciferino » 13/06/2007 08:41

seldzuk wrote:Kakav je odnos modernog čovjeka prema njegovoj duhovnoj strani, dovoljno govori polaritet ideologija 20. stoljeća, sve zemlje su se dijelile na kapitalističke i socijalističke. Što znači po načinu organizacije i raspodjele materijalnih dobara. O duhovnom ni riječi, kao da i ne postoji. :roll:
Zaboravio si Nesvrstane!
:D

ljljubavv
Posts: 44
Joined: 03/01/2007 17:29

#95

Post by ljljubavv » 16/07/2007 16:22

Mike Robinson: U osnovi, vi im samo želite reći da postoji duhovna dimenzija života?
Srila Prabhupada: Mi im prvenstveno želimo reći da niste tijelo, da je tijelo vaš prekrivač (vaša košulja i kaput) i da živite u tijelu.
Mike Robinson: Da, mislim da sam sada shvatio. Ako bismo mogli nastaviti - rekli ste da način na koji živimo utječe na naš život poslije smrti, da postoje zakoni prirode koji određuju naš idući život. Kako se odvija proces seljenja duše?
Srila Prabhupada: Proces je veoma suptilan. Duhovna duša je nevidljiva našim materijalnim očima. Atomske je veličine. Nakon uništenja grubog tijela, sačinjenog od čula, krvi, kostiju, masti itd., suptilno tijelo sačinjeno od uma, inteligencije i ega, nastavlja djelovati. Tako u trenutku smrti suptilno tijelo prenosi malu duhovnu dušu u drugo grubo tijelo. Proces se može usporediti sa zrakom koji prenosi miris. Nitko ne može vidjeti odakle dolazi miris ruže, ali mi znamo da je nošen zrakom. Ne možete vidjeti kako, ali se ipak zbiva. Slično tome, proces seljenja duše je veoma suptilan. U skladu sa stanjem uma u trenutku smrti, sićušna duhovna duša ulazi u maternicu majke sa sjemenom oca i potom razvija određenu vrstu tijela, koje daje majka. Može biti ljudsko biće, mačka, pas ili bilo što drugo.
Mike Robinson: Tvrdite li da smo prije ovog života bili nešto drugo?
Srila Prabhupada: Da.
Mike Robinson: I slijedećeg puta se vraćamo kao nešto drugo?
Srila Prabhupada: Da, jer ste vječni. U skladu s vašim djelovanjem, jednostavno mijenjate tijela. Zato trebate željeti saznati kako možete okončati taj proces i ostati u svom izvornom, duhovnom tijelu. To je svjesnost Krišne.
Mike Robinson: Razumijem. Dakle, ako postanem svjestan Krišne, ne izlažem se opasnosti da se ponovo rodim kao pas?
Srila Prabhupada: Ne. [obraća se bhakti] Nađi stih janma karma ca me divyam...
Učenik:

janma karma ca me divyam
evam yo vetti tattvatah
tyaktva deham punar janma
naiti mam eti so `rjuna


"Onaj tko poznaje transcendetalnu prirodu Moje pojave i djelatnosti, po napuštanju tijela se više ne rađa u materijalnom svijetu, već dostiže moje vječno prebivalište, o Arjuna." (Bg. 4.9)
Srila Prabhupada: Bog kaže: "Onaj tko Me spozna oslobađa se rađanja i umiranja." Ali Boga ne možemo spoznati materijalističkom spekulacijom. To nije moguće. Osoba se mora prvo uzdići na duhovni nivo. Tada dobiva inteligenciju potrebnu za razumijevanje Boga. Kad shvati Boga, više ne dobiva materijalno tijelo, već se vraća kući, Bogu. Živi vječno i ne mijenja tijelo.

FFK as Lucy01
Posts: 3349
Joined: 20/04/2005 17:57
Location: USA

#96

Post by FFK as Lucy01 » 16/07/2007 18:33

Kaze meni jednom jedna nena, kad sam joj rekla da dusha ne postoji: "a sta je ono sto izlazi iz usta, kad huknes po zimi" :shock: :D :D

rashomon
Posts: 1107
Joined: 15/01/2003 00:00
Location: "Bolestan; gostima pozdrav s poštovanjem!"

#97

Post by rashomon » 16/07/2007 19:12

NIN wrote:
NIN wrote:
andromedax wrote:Pitanje za ove nase cafire. Ako vec ne vjerujete u dusu i u nista vise osim materijalnog svijeta ili takozvane opipljive materije po kojim se onda vi kriterijima vodite. Kako razlucujete izmedju dobrog i loseg? Ako ste vodjeni mozgom (materijalno) onda po nekoj logici bi trebalo da uvijek gledate samo svoju korist, bez obzira hoce li neko drugi biti povrijedjen ili ne. Je li to tacno i ako nije zasto nije ako ste vec materijalisti?
Posto bi bilo isuvise suludo ti objasnjavati etiku i moralne koncepte zivog bica mimo knjige u tebe, jedno kontra-pitanje:

Zasto se u kazeneno-popravnim institucijama nalaze pretezno PRAVOVJERNI i to u omjeru koji nije za zamemariti - njih PREKO* 90%!
* U kontekstu grafickog prikaza. (edit)
Vidim (citam) ignorantnost na ovo kontra-pitanje u kojem lezi kompletan odgovor na tvoje inicijalno pitanje. Pitas po kojim se moralnim konceptima vodi jedan ateista - u smislu abrahamskih religija - i zasniva svoju etiku u svim socijalnim interakcijama kroz svoj zivot. Namjerno ti postavljam kontra-pitanje da promislis i uvidis da moral kojeg ti smatras religijski univerzalnim nije nista do jedan prirodni koncept koji je tu milionima godina. Sto je jos poraznije po tvoje shvatanje morala je to da je OGROMNA vecina zatvorenika po kazneno-popravnim institucijama upravo RELIGIOZNA! Procenat nereligioznih individua u slicnim institucijama je zanemariv i, ako hoces jasniju sliku ovog odnosa, mozemo povuci paralelu izmedju nereligioznih individua u drustvu i u gore spomenutim institucijama - sto ultimativno dokazuje tezu da religiozni moral u vecini slucajeva fakticki inhibira PRIRODNE eticke koncepte!

Image
Nereligioznost zastupljena u drustvu

Image
Nereligioznost zastupljena u kazneno-popravnoj populaciji

Ne znam da li ces nesto vidjeti u ovom prikazu ali sam siguran da ga neces zaboraviti.

Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

"Note that atheists, being a large proportion of the population (about 8-10%?) are disproportionately less in prison populations (0.21%)."

Izvor: The Federal Bureau of Prisons

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics,
435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian. (bez i jednog jednon ateiste)

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate religious, carefully herded by chaplins.

In Joliet, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and
0 non-religious.

In one 29-state survey, Steiner found 15 unbelievers, Spirtualists,
Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates
.


Mislim da ovo i vise nego dovoljno govori o religioznoj moralnosti i nevjernickoj amoralnosti!

"MISSIONARIES ARE PERFECT NUISANCES AND LEAVE EVERY PLACE WORSE THAN THEY FOUND IT." - CHARLES DICKENS

Pozdrav...
Zanimljivo pitanje.

Mislim da se radi o težem sociološkom konstruktu koji se ne da pojednostaviti tek tako da ga ti uzmeš kao argument koji govori nešto u ovoj diskusiji.

Institucija zatvora recimo je uvijek pod patronatom vladajuće, obrazovane, imućne elite koja ima tu moć da uspostavlja vrijednosti unutar jednog društva. Da se razumijemo, ne govorim o masonima i sličnim glupostima, već o onome što zovemo političarima, profesorima na univerzitetu, medijskim djelatnicima, korporativnim direktorima, itd.

Ako govoriš o zatvorima unutar USA, recimo, pogledaj procenat crnaca i latinosa koji su unutra, odnosno pogledaj socijalni status u koji su strpani svi ti ljudi, bez obzira na boju kože. Jasno, govorimo o dominantnim procentima, o kojima između ostaloga i ti govoriš. Uvijek će se naći izuzetak tu i tamo.

Dakle, jasno je da postoji jedan mali procenat bogatih UNUTRA, no ja ću se usuditi i provizorno reći da 95% populacije u zatvoru/zatvorima čine siromašni ljudi, tj. ljudi koji nisu bili u stanju priskrbiti sebi kvalitetno obrazovanje i posao koji će im omogućiti preživljavanje na osnovama na kojima počiva njihovo društvo.

Isto tako, na osnovu ličnog iskustva, tvrdim, da materijalno bogat čovjek nikada ne može biti pravi vjernik, a kao što svi znamo (opet jedan provizorni procenat, nije mi se dalo googlati, ako nađeš šta, molim te postavi...) od 80% siromašnih ljudi u ovom svijetu mislim da se 90% njih izražava vjernikom, ove ili one konfesije, svejedno.

Te "male stvari" koje ti nastojiš istaći kao afirmativne za ateizam, za mene su ustvari negativne.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8juwkgg ... ed&search=

rashomon
Posts: 1107
Joined: 15/01/2003 00:00
Location: "Bolestan; gostima pozdrav s poštovanjem!"

#98

Post by rashomon » 16/07/2007 19:34

http://www.prisons.org/racism.htm

Znam da sam pročitao, ne jednom već hiljade puta, i mislim da nema razloga sumnjati u ovakve podatke...Prvih par rečenica govori više nego dovoljno o socijalnom konstruktu kakav je zatvor kao institucija...
Almost two million people are behind prison and jail bars in the United States. 70% of the incarcerated population are people of color. The fastest growing group of prisoners is black women. Per capita the most numerous group are Native Americans.

forUMASH
Posts: 2181
Joined: 24/01/2006 04:12
Location: Razjedinjene Drzave BIH

#99

Post by forUMASH » 16/07/2007 20:02

Šta je duša?
.....ono sto ti na nos izadje dok se penjes na Dzokin toranj sa 25 kila vojne opreme na sebi..... :oops:

User avatar
pitt
Posts: 27106
Joined: 03/12/2002 00:00
Location: Steelers Nation

#100

Post by pitt » 16/07/2007 20:05

forUMASH wrote:
Šta je duša?
.....ono sto ti na nos izadje dok se penjes na Dzokin toranj sa 25 kila vojne opreme na sebi..... :oops:
patak........ali nije dacha? :D:D:D

Post Reply