geo

I would estimate that the majority of weddings taking place in gurdwaras worldwide are not between 2 sikhs. in many previous posts on this forum it has been stated that some girl or some boy is not a sikh judging by their appearance/actions/beliefs and that their name alone is not to be used to decide if they are sikh or not. therefore using this criteria and would say that few people are sikhs and therefore there are few sikh couples getting married compared to the majority of weddings in gurdwaras. i am assuming here that someone who cuts hair/doesnt wear a kara/drinks alcohol/smokes/takes drugs is not regarded as a sikh?

if people tell lies or over exaggerate things nowadays it leads to people questioning what was over exaggerated in the past. let the facts be told without bias and those deserving of glory will receive it. stories such as "americans want statue in white house" OR "nasa studies/consults guru granth sahib" are clearly over the top and do the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

its not just sikhs on the list, it is important to know the details behind such lists

i agree. there are so many unanswered questions. what is the basis for such a list? how was it compiled? what were the criteria? what are the credentials of the people compiling the list? is it an impartial list or is it partisan? i tried to find some information on the website which made the list, very little was available.

ive been looking into this billionairesaustralia website and cant find much info on it. as far as i can tell it is not a publication with a website, it is just a website and quite limited in its cross referencing searches on google. any further information would be appreciated.

it is untrue to state that afghanistan cant be conquered by americans/western powers. it can easily be conquered if they used their full powers and weapons at their disposal (there might not be much left worth conquering but thats a different story) clearly mistakes have been made and atrocities committed but the western powers have not used anywhere near the full power at their disposal. it is dishonest for anyone to make uneven comparisons to further their own cause/beliefs.

"killed tiger with bare hands" and "broke its jaw" this is unlikely and not universally accepted. other sources state that he used a shield and dagger. no offence meant.

you are correct that you call your mother "mum" and your father "dad" as i do aswell. but tax officials/police/judge/colleagues/friends/journalists dont call my father "dad" so if someone is not a sikh, is it wrong for them to refer to it as a "book"?

yes it is, as far as i know. i dont know much about it tho.

why are you shocked?

given that sikhs are not to refer to sggs as a book but instead a guru, how should other people refer to it? im meaning here radha soami people or christians/muslims/hindus or atheists? for example a journalist writingan article in english about the sikh religion, should he refer to it as a "sikh holy book"?

it is misleading to state that athiests have killed vast numbers of people or killed more people than people that believe in god. 1. there is a far greater ability to kill people in modern times than it was in the past, the point being that had religious wars had atomic weapons and missiles then many more people would have died. 2. there are more people these days, population growth has exploded. greater numbers of people in a fixed place is likely to lead to increased wars/fighting 3. not all religious kings/generals/leaders killed people because of their religion. some people just want to rule and have power and they will doing anything to achieve that 4. athiest leaders who have killed large numbers of people did not necessarily do so because they hate religious people and want to wipe them out, as with point 3 above, some people want to rule others and they dont care how they get to the top and they dont care who they kill. 5. following your logic would lead to statements like this: the men that killed the most number of people over the last 5000 years usually had moustaches therefore we need to condemn moustache sporting men the men that killed the most number of people over the last 5000 years usually had brown hair therefore we need to condemn brown haired men the men that killed the most number of people over the last 5000 years usually were men therefore we need to condemn all men we should all be careful before stereotyping whole groups of others, many people on here would be the first to complain when being grouped together with others eg. asians, indians, pakistanis, hindus, muslims

it is an insulting term, it is better to say mixed race as you did in your post above.

why are the yazidi people chosing not to convert to islam instead of death?

are you suggesting that weddings between 2 "sikhs" never break up? are you further suggesting that weddings between a "sikh" and a "non sikh" always break up?

there is not enough support and no international support. do you support the right of others to breakaway and form their independant nations? eg. scotland, cataluyna, texas, cornwall, shetland/orkney islands where does it all end?

yes they disagree and one might say that our way will increase your wealth by 3% per year or another might say our way will improve your health service. they DONT say unless you follow our way you are going to hell and we are going to heaven night night. to be continued tomorrow. my head hurts - maybe i should meditate

yes there are many failed religions as i mentioned earlier in my posts. no one worships zeus or Ra or apollo anymore. but at the time, there would have been many followers. in time there will be no followers of the current religions and either new ones will have taken their place or religion will have mostly died out. on the whole religious beliefs are decreasing world wide unfortunately they are not always being replaced by something positive.

democracy is an idea, there is nothing to dispute its existence. religions are doctrines with nothing to support their main objective - none of them provide any proof that god exists.

every religion that claims theirs is the only way. automatically rejecting other religions and by extension all other gods.

following on from this, it is widely accepted that communism is a failed idea. hardly anywhere in the world is communist now, cuba and north korea being the exceptions and they are not doing too well. im quite sure that their people would vote for democracy if they had the chance.

yes it would, it would be disputed that it is wrong or right. its existence would not be disputed. other religions dispute the existence of other types of god and be extension the relevance of other religions.

as i stated above there are different methods of democracy it is constantly evolving. there are different methods of voting (first past the post/ proportional representation) there are varying amounts of decisions made by a voted parliament vs referendums for everything. some are constitutional monarchies some are republics some are not properly democratic (votes are rigged,intimidation,bribes) english has been evolving as has virtually every language, new words are added, some are forgotten, slangs are invented, regional words and pronunciations. we would hardly recognise english as spoken when first invented. it has many influences taken from latin,spanish,french,german,italian. it is not a set of rules designed to govern your life - it is simply a language. your points lack validity. do you mean the evolution of many types of religion? (strictly speaking it would be birth or invention) or do you mean the evolution of the each religions, meaning the ways they have changed and adapted?

well someone earlier said that gurbani is the way to god, or perhaps naam is the way to god or enlightenment - well this would be hotly disputed by christians who believe the way to god is through jesus christ. sikhism states there is one god, hindus appear to have many gods and godesses (this may be disputed)

and there have evolved many different democratic ways and these are debated every second of every day at some point in the world or another. there is no one place that decrees what democracy is and how we all must follow the one true way. (although the americans like to try )