Sanatan Dharma - By a Spiritual Atheist

[A chauhan]

I do not believe in god that the religion states, that is supposed to have created the universe and who is supposed to mediate in mundane lives of living beings.

I have faith in the philosophy or rather ideology that gave birth to religion.

Confusing, isn't it?

Ok I got it. Religions have been created by humans and that's for sure.

I don't mean to answer on behalf of @arnabmit, but let's pretend for a moment you asked me the question.

I'd say that I have faith in destiny, nature, or the concept of karma, i.e. if you do good/bad, the results will be good/bad. Theism is about believing in the existence of G/god/s. Atheism is about not believing in the existence of G/god/s. Take for example the Buddhists. They do believe in the teachings of Buddha, but Buddha himself was silent on the existence of G/god/s, so the Buddhists today could be both theists or atheists, but all have faith in Buddhism, i.e. teachings of The Buddha.

My perception.

Nicely explained! though I believe that there is a creator force but I don't disagree with you.

 

[IBSA]

Well, I was educated with Western vision of things. So, what I conceive by spirituality, god, religion, etc. can don't correspond to what an Indian conceives, as well as Western atheism can not be exactly the same as Hindu atheism.

At first glance, atheism means for me a negative position, so an atheist can't to have Faith in anything. But if an atheist could believe in something, these would be that beliefs sustained by Humanism, Rationalism, Illuminism, Evolutionism, Positivism, Marxism, or another similar philosophies allows him to believe.

Because for a Western atheistic which is real in this world are People, Science and Technology. Only these forces could bring progress for humankind. Any other forces isn't possible for an Western atheistic to believe due to lack of proofs. This is what I believe as being a Western atheistic.

 

[tramp]

I don't mean to answer on behalf of @arnabmit, but let's pretend for a moment you asked me the question.

I'd say that I have faith in destiny, nature, or the concept of karma, i.e. if you do good/bad, the results will be good/bad. Theism is about believing in the existence of G/god/s. Atheism is about not believing in the existence of G/god/s. Take for example the Buddhists. They do believe in the teachings of Buddha, but Buddha himself was silent on the existence of G/god/s, so the Buddhists today could be both theists or atheists, but all have faith in Buddhism, i.e. teachings of The Buddha.

My perception.

Who defines good and bad? The priests? Isn't it a very subjective thing?
And if you believe in your destiny, how do you change that by your deeds? If you can change it, it is not your destiny, right? Or, whatever you achieve is your destiny!!

 

[arnabmit]

Only a neutral person who is not effected by the good/bad system/situation can decide what it is.

Good and Bad are the two faces of the same man (man->metaphor). Here the concept of Maya comes in which fundamentally is very similar to YingYang. Both are theories of non-absolution.

Ying Yang is everything. Everything is divided into good and bad. but the distinction is not absolute, hence the curved line. Good and Bad themselves are not absolutes, hence the contrasting dots which means every bad is good from some perspective and every good is bad from some perspective.

Maya goes on to say that whether it is good or bad is not for you to decide since as soon as you experience any situation, you are immediately biased towards it one way or the other, hence disqualified to judge it neutrally. Hence every aspect of the world which you experience is a virtual world based on your assumptions and perceptions.

My logic says that destiny is projective in nature. Same as a belief that someone other than me is controlling my life. That some God or devil is mediating in my mundane life and that of everyone around me.

I feel that Karma is real, Karma follows the laws of causality.

Who defines good and bad? The priests? Isn't it a very subjective thing?
And if you believe in your destiny, how do you change that by your deeds? If you can change it, it is not your destiny, right? Or, whatever you achieve is your destiny!!

 

[tramp]

Only a neutral person who is not effected by the good/bad system/situation can decide what it is.

Good and Bad are the two faces of the same man (man->metaphor). Here the concept of Maya comes in which fundamentally is very similar to YingYang. Both are theories of non-absolution.

Ying Yang is everything. Everything is divided into good and bad. but the distinction is not absolute, hence the curved line. Good and Bad themselves are not absolutes, hence the contrasting dots which means every bad is good from some perspective and every good is bad from some perspective.

Maya goes on to say that whether it is good or bad is not for you to decide since as soon as you experience any situation, you are immediately biased towards it one way or the other, hence disqualified to judge it neutrally. Hence every aspect of the world which you experience is a virtual world based on your assumptions and perceptions.

My logic says that destiny is projective in nature. Same as a belief that someone other than me is controlling my life. That some God or devil is mediating in my mundane life and that of everyone around me.

I feel that Karma is real, Karma follows the laws of causality.

There is nothing like a neutral person because every person is subjective. The problem is when you talk of good and bad, what is good for me may be bad for you. Is there something called universal good for all? Or universal bad for all?
Yes, perceptions guide our world... everything is as we perceive through our senses understood in the light of the knowledge of the situation we already possess. Thus our experience has a lot to do with our perception.
Karma as understood by Hindus transcends birth and I do not want to comment on that because I do not believe in cycles of rebirth. What I have found is Hindu religious teachers ascribe what they cannot explain immediately to something from an earlier life.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Well, I was educated with Western vision of things. So, what I conceive by spirituality, god, religion, etc. can don't correspond to what an Indian conceives, as well as Western atheism can not be exactly the same as Hindu atheism.

At first glance, atheism means for me a negative position, so an atheist can't to have Faith in anything. But if an atheist could believe in something, these would be that beliefs sustained by Humanism, Rationalism, Illuminism, Evolutionism, Positivism, Marxism, or another similar philosophies allows him to believe.

All humans are born atheists. A baby or a toddler does not pray to God, he is brought up in a culture that worships a certain God and hence he starts following it too. I think every person should believe what he wants to believe through his own life's experiences. Labelling children as "Christian", "Muslim" etc should be banned. A person should choose his or her faith after they turn 18 if they want to, or remain faithless.

Because for a Western atheistic which is real in this world are People, Science and Technology. Only these forces could bring progress for humankind. Any other forces isn't possible for an Western atheistic to believe due to lack of proofs. This is what I believe as being a Western atheistic.

I don't see why lack of faith in God has to necessarily mean lack of faith in everything else. There are people who believe in fate or astrology, yet not in God. You could also believe in fairies or unicorns without believing in God-in fact that's the case with all children until they are taught religious stuff.

There might also be people who do believe in a "God" but not the Abrahamic sort of "personal" God. Just one that created the universe and then went to sleep. That sort of God is not conducive to prayers or worship so why waste one's time thinking about him?

 

[civfanatic]

There is no such thing as a "spiritual" world. There is only the material world, and nothing else. The concept of "religion" and the "spiritual" world was created by early human beings due to their fear and awe of physical phenomena that they did not understand, such as thunderstorms, earthquakes, big cats, and death. But now, thanks to the marginalization of superstition and irrational religious dogmas, and the triumph of rationalism and modern science, we know that such things are simply part of the material world. Everything in the universe, without exception, is simply the result of physical interactions between matter and energy.

 

[IBSA]

All humans are born atheists. A baby or a toddler does not pray to God, he is brought up in a culture that worships a certain God and hence he starts following it too. I think every person should believe what he wants to believe through his own life's experiences. Labelling children as "Christian", "Muslim" etc should be banned. A person should choose his or her faith after they turn 18 if they want to, or remain faithless.

Agree.

God is not a innate belief. but a taught idea for children by their parents, relatives or other adults. Even Jesus Christ or Muhammad when born didn't believe in God.

I don't see why lack of faith in God has to necessarily mean lack of faith in everything else. There are people who believe in fate or astrology, yet not in God. You could also believe in fairies or unicorns without believing in God-in fact that's the case with all children until they are taught religious stuff.

There might also be people who do believe in a "God" but not the Abrahamic sort of "personal" God. Just one that created the universe and then went to sleep. That sort of God is not conducive to prayers or worship so why waste one's time thinking about him?

Fate is a common belief among religious system, so is is associated with Faith in God, mainly a God that holds all the universe.

Ghosts, unicorns, fairies, etc. tend to disappear along of time. Children don't believe in God, but also are unconcerned about their atheism. What i minds is an adult concerned atheist. For an concerned atheist isn't possible to believe in all that too.

 

[arnabmit]

That is the true curious thing... Today nobody can believe that such a person could exist who can see the world through truly neutral eyes. Why? because whenever we judge capability of another person, we use ourselves as the yardstick. Till we reached the moon we also did not believe that any man could do so, isn't it?

However, if a person can achieve what was previously thought unbelievable, of viewing the world through truly neutral eyes, after ages would he not be considered as a god?

As for belief in rebirth, I need proof that it happens, or I need proof that it does not happen. Till then I do not believe either way.

There is nothing like a neutral person because every person is subjective. The problem is when you talk of good and bad, what is good for me may be bad for you. Is there something called universal good for all? Or universal bad for all?
Yes, perceptions guide our world... everything is as we perceive through our senses understood in the light of the knowledge of the situation we already possess. Thus our experience has a lot to do with our perception.
Karma as understood by Hindus transcends birth and I do not want to comment on that because I do not believe in cycles of rebirth. What I have found is Hindu religious teachers ascribe what they cannot explain immediately to something from an earlier life.

 

[tramp]

That is the true curious thing... Today nobody can believe that such a person could exist who can see the world through truly neutral eyes. Why? because whenever we judge capability of another person, we use ourselves as the yardstick. Till we reached the moon we also did not believe that any man could do so, isn't it?

However, if a person can achieve what was previously thought unbelievable, of viewing the world through truly neutral eyes, after ages would he not be considered as a god?

As for belief in rebirth, I need proof that it happens, or I need proof that it does not happen. Till then I do not believe either way.

About reaching the moon part, humans believed it was achievable... that is why they strove towards it and achieved it!

It is a funny thing about human mind that it is always subjective, always understanding anything new in the light what it already knows, making the act of observation a subjective exercise.
If like you say somebody achieves total neutrality of observations, he/she would not be human, whatever else the phenomenon is designated as.
Belief in rebirths is a fundamental aspect of Hindu religion.... its not faith in a god, but belief that humans reach moksha through a series of births which are lived in accordance with certain principles. So without believing in this rebirths, you cannot be a Hindu. You can still be a Hindu without believing in an embodied god.

 

[arnabmit]

About reaching the moon part, humans believed it was achievable... that is why they strove towards it and achieved it!

It is a funny thing about human mind that it is always subjective, always understanding anything new in the light what it already knows, making the act of observation a subjective exercise.
If like you say somebody achieves total neutrality of observations, he/she would not be human, whatever else the phenomenon is designated as.

Again... because we believe that we cannot achieve this, does not mean there is/was/would be a person capable of attaining the same. If we measure greatness as ourselves as the yardstick, true greatness would definitely feel divine.

Belief in rebirths is a fundamental aspect of Hindu religion.... its not faith in a god, but belief that humans reach moksha through a series of births which are lived in accordance with certain principles. So without believing in this rebirths, you cannot be a Hindu. You can still be a Hindu without believing in an embodied god.

Hence I call myself an Atheist who has faith in the philosophies of Spirituality, and not Hindu.

 

[invinci]

Simple. There is not only one way to go to Mumbai..you can reach from anywhere.
Righteousness should be our Dharma.
We here always believed in Satchitanand..

 

[tramp]

Simple. There is not only one way to go to Mumbai..you can reach from anywhere.
Righteousness should be our Dharma.
We here always believed in Satchitanand..

The problem with that view is who would decide what is righteous? You might say it should be as per scriptures. Scriptures themselves are so confusing. Then you are asked to listen to a religious teacher. Most of them talk crap ... they want to propagate what they think is right, often defying common sense.
Basically, all religions began as a set of rules that helped the tribal communities to live in relative harmony. I mean they are not much different from the civics lessons we learn in lower classes... but then humans needed a purpose in life and it becomes difficult to convince somebody everything ends with his death.. thus the "spiritual" part of it.