The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

 

[LurkerBaba]

Didn't many Vaishnav saints call Shankaracharya a Buddhist in disguise?

And Shankara called the Mimansans as Buddhists in disguise

Interesting how all violent religions folk are brown

 

[The Messiah]

Interesting how all violent religions folk are brown

The atheist is black though

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

The atheist is black though

I guess most of the other colours are "taken" and using those could "offend sensibilities".
Besides that, its perhaps the most apt given that an atheist is an infidel,sinner,<choice adjectives> all rolled into one. The Black Sheep if you will.

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

And Shankara called the Mimansans as Buddhists in disguise

By the looks of it, "Buddhist" was the cuss word of choice back then, eh mate ?!?!

Interesting how all violent religions folk are brown

Just dealing with my own progressive and shining country here.

 

[jamesvaikom]

In India almost all lower caste hindus are atheists or agnostics because they get reservations for Govt. jobs irrespective of whether they believe in God or not. But only few upper caste hindus are atheists or agnostics because many of they work in temples or devaswom boards. Only few people from minority communities are atheists or agnostics because they need help from their religious leaders to get admission or jobs in aided schools or colleges owned by their community. Only few laities are protesting against church authorities in public. But that doesn't mean that they are with their community leaders. Church is against family planning. But most Catholics have only 1 or 2 children. So technically they don't support their community leaders. But political parties are not trying to attract them. Even left parties are trying to get support from their community leaders and not from atheists and agnostics of those communities.

 

[Singh]

@civfanatic Sikhism is a unique case as it is a mix of Dharmic and Abrahamic thought, which is reflected in its theology.

Can you please explain this ?

 

[p2prada]

Philosophy has separated "GOD" from "logic"

and argues that it is concept based on "Faith" and NOT 'Logic'!

I'm sorry, I could not help it. But that should close the case forever.

The only reason you follow a religion is because your daddy told you to follow it. Period. You cannot get out of it because you have been brainwashed into believing in it. Nothing else.

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic Sikhism is a unique case as it is a mix of Dharmic and Abrahamic thought, which is reflected in its theology.

Can you please explain this ?

Well, Sikhism is monotheistic, which shows Islamic/Abrahamic influence right? Honestly I don't know the intricacies of either religion.

 

[civfanatic]

So true, yet people still hold on to these false promises. Such is the ability of the human mind to delude itself.

 

[Singh]

Well, Sikhism is monotheistic, which shows Islamic/Abrahamic influence right? Honestly I don't know the intricacies of either religion.

The monotheistic God in Sikhism has no resemblance to the Islamic/Abrahamic God.

The very first words written in the Sikh scripture are Ek Onkar which means There is one God.
(Ek=One; Onkar (Ongkar/Omkar) = God. Om/Ong is the primordial word/sound used to describe the God in Dharmic religions; Kar = doer/form. )

Sikhism differs from other Dharmic practices, in that it believes in the supremacy of that one God over the other gods, and ergo believes in the futility of worshiping the lesser gods, the various rituals intended to please those gods. So no havans, yagyas, fasts, astrology, idol worship etc.

However, unlike Abrahmic religions we don't deny the existence of these gods, nor do we denounce them nor their devotees.

Edit: replaced doubt with deny

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

The very first words written in the Sikh scripture are Ek Onkar which means There is one God.
Sikhism differs from other Dharmic practices, in that it believes in the supremacy of that one God over the other gods, and ergo believes in the futility of worshiping the lesser gods, the various rituals intended to please those gods.

Then it would fall under monolatrism.

If you examine Sanatana Dharma in-depth, it would show up as monolatric in nature too:
Historically the major Hindu schools of worship namely Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism are also monolatric in nature, giving pride of place to their main deities only(Vishnu,Shiva, Shakti), but at the same time acknowledging "lesser gods" or "Devas" whose worship was not mandatory.
However, that's where the similarities will end, with Sanatana Dharma laying much more emphasis on rituals and rites as compared to Sikhi.

Not that any of this makes any difference to an Atheist.

 

[civfanatic]

The monotheistic God in Sikhism has no resemblance to the Islamic/Abrahamic God.

The very first words written in the Sikh scripture are Ek Onkar which means There is one God.
(Ek=One; Onkar (Ongkar/Omkar) = God. Om/Ong is the primordial word/sound used to describe the God in Dharmic religions; Kar = doer/form. )

Sikhism differs from other Dharmic practices, in that it believes in the supremacy of that one God over the other gods, and ergo believes in the futility of worshiping the lesser gods, the various rituals intended to please those gods. So no havans, yagyas, fasts, astrology, idol worship etc.

However, unlike Abrahmic religions we don't deny the existence of these gods, nor do we denounce them nor their devotees.

Edit: replaced doubt with deny

Thanks for the info. But is it correct to say that Sikhism shows a mix of Dharmic and Abrahamic influences?

 

[Singh]

Thanks for the info. But is it correct to say that Sikhism shows a mix of Dharmic and Abrahamic influences?

It has influences from other religions and thoughts. As is evident by inclusion of teachings from other religions and thoughts.
However, Sikhism is broadly part of the dharmic tradition. That is my point.

 

[Singh]

Then it would fall under monolatrism.

If you examine Sanatana Dharma in-depth, it would show up a monolatric in nature too:
Historically the major Hindu schools of worship namely Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism are also monolatric in nature, giving pride of place to their main deities only(Vishnu,Shiva, Shakti), but at the same time acknowledging "lesser gods" or "Devas" whose worship was not mandatory.
However, that's where the similarities will end, with Sanatana Dharma laying much more emphasis on rituals and rites as compared to Sikhi.

Not that any of this makes any difference to an Atheist.

Personally, I differentiate between Sanatan Dharma and Hinduism. Hinduism lays emphasis on rituals and rites etc. Sanatan Dharma is concerned with spiritual pursuit, it is not a way of life a la Hinduism or Islam.

 

[civfanatic]

It has influences from other religions and thoughts. As is evident by inclusion of teachings from other religions and thoughts.
However, Sikhism is broadly part of the dharmic tradition. That is my point.

Yes, it is still part of the broad 'Dharmic' tradition. But it is unique from both 'mainstream' Hinduism as well as heterodox sects like Buddhism and Jainsm. Maybe Sikhism deserves a separate category of its own.

 

[Singh]

Yes, it is still part of the broad 'Dharmic' tradition. But it is unique from both 'mainstream' Hinduism as well as heterodox sects like Buddhism and Jainsm. Maybe Sikhism deserves separate a category of its own.

Yes it does.
That is the argument made by many Sikh theologians when they are clubbed with Hinduism or as part of the broad Hindu family.
Being part of the dharmic tradition is considered by some to be an euphemism for being Hindus.

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

Being part of the dharmic tradition is considered by some to be an euphemism for being Hindus.

Agreed, Sikhi is quite different from other religions. It keeps the definition of god abstract as compared to Sanatana Dharma and stops short of the Abrahamic way of 'eliminating competing god concepts'.

Regardless of those facts, it too advocates faith in a "higher power".
So in keeping with what I outlined earlier; it too would appear similar to other religions in this aspect, "to an atheist".

 

[blank_quest]

I'm sorry, I could not help it. But that should close the case forever.

The only reason you follow a religion is because your daddy told you to follow it. Period. You cannot get out of it because you have been brainwashed into believing in it. Nothing else.

To make the fun "of" is the easiest thing I ever learned. But its better to make the fun "with" and thats what I call the man of desirable arguments. I can bile a load better arguments if you think that its "funny" to discuss Philosophy from an Academic perspective.

 

[p2prada]

There is nothing to discuss if you yourself came to the conclusion that religion and theism follows no logic.

This is the first time I have come across a discussion about God where logic need not be applied into believing it.

If philosophy can solve physics equations, the I am more than willing to believe in a God. Otherwise it is just an opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion.

You base your belief in faith. But there are three kinds of faith. One is where you believe in something due to your own experience with it. For eg: Your kid flunked a test the first time, he promises to study harder and he does too. You see it yourself. Then you have faith that he will clear his exam the next time, regardless of the result. This is the logical aspect of faith. Meaning the probability of this happening or not happening can be quantified.

The second kind of faith is where it is merely a theory or hypothesis. In physics, it is an "informed" opinion like big bang, string theory etc where the physicist has tried presenting acceptable facts, like behaviour of matter in quantifiable terms on earth and in space, in order to prove his concept is right. This currently cannot be quantified but there are certain patterns that can be observed in nature that can provide the results required, like the massive experiment with the LHC in CERN.

God comes into the third kind, uninformed opinion where the opinion is merely a belief created like how an author creates characters and a story for his book. It is an entirely baseless claim. Meaning no factual description was required in creating religion. There is nothing that we know of in nature that we can observe in order to conclusively prove or disprove it. We cannot even experiment with this notion. This type of faith is not quantifiable. Meaning there is no way of determining the probability of it being true or not. It's like asking to prove or disprove Superman. which is a human creation. There will be scientific beliefs, too, which exist in this third kind of faith. A belief in something that has little or no chance of existing.

The problem is theists are trying to club your definition of faith with the second kind instead of the third and then attempting to claim it is 100% true even though it is a baseless claim. Once the baseless claim has been made, theists are asking atheists to prove them wrong, when the onus clearly lies on part of the theists to prove it right. Even in the world of science, the people making the claims are expected to prove it right, not the other way round. But if you claimed there is no sense or logic in the concept of God, then it only ends up being funny.

Had your parents not explained to you about religion, then you wouldn't be following one now. You were born into a Hindu family (hypothetical) and hence you are Hindu, the same for Christian, Muslims etc. Have you ever seen a family where the parents are Hindu and the child is Christian? This is where religion starts and ends. You, just like your parents and their parents before them, are brainwashed into believing in a God.