Science definitely does not claim to know the answer, it looks for it by a process or heuristics called Science. I have Indian background and I am an atheist. I went to a religious school ran by Monks. But all that salvation and moksha, in the end is not backed up any evidence, it is someone's wishful thinking. True that a lot need to be known, but what we don't know, simply means we do not know. And Hinduism, monkey gods, elephant Gods? And these Gods hear prayers? Ridiculous.
@wbraddell2 Realize one thing. When you say "It manifests the personal God as a means of returning us to it." You are saying that "Brahman wishes to kill everyone, so it sends an assassin (Ishvara) to come kill us." If you kill a human they will "go back to the earth." Contrast this nonsense with Christianity that says we are born for a reason, to live eternally. Mystical experiences are valid-; non-experiential theories, such as spiritual death (oops, I mean oneness), are not.
@wbraddell2 Impersonal realities do not manifest anything personal. Impersonal and personal have eternally existed, and given contrast to each other. We are not meant to be an "it." We are persons. Persons can only arise from pre existing persons, no exception to this has ever been observed. Impersonal systems are law based, while a person has free will. You cannot make a free willed person from an impersonal reality.
That is why Yoga and meditation is such an integral part of Hindu and Buddhist practices. Prove what Krishna or Buddha did for themselves by achieving that knowledge of God for ourselves without Krishna or Buddha. Just like learning Newton's laws, we don't need to know about Newton or the details about him to understand his laws. If we lose the history of Newton and even his physics someone else can rediscover it because it is always there for us to discover and use. That is the Dharmic way.
As stated in previous post, Dharmic religions believe each human has the potential and even ability to meditate and download God's message, if you can call it that, by divine inspiration. Even if only one in a million or billion or more does this it, it is possible and should be strived for so the sole knowledge of God is not controlled by some institution that claims it received it from a saint or godman or son of god or whatever centuries ago. Should be achievable right now.
Thank you for this video. The clear distinction between the Dharmic (Indic) faiths and Abrahamic views is history centrism. The Dharmic religions are not solely dependent on a set of historical event to state this is our religion. While Abrahamic religions are like that. Even bigger difference is how the knowledge is transferred. Dharmic religions believe that everyone of us, through meditation can download the knowledge directly from God while Abrahamic religions rely on prophets from long ago.
Atheism is the denial of God's person. Believing that God is impersonal would still be atheism. Impersonal reality cannot really be denoted as "God," because it is just reality. Mysticism is a system of investigation that has arisen due to the people's search for a direct experience of God. However, mysticism is not a religion and it isn't meant to be a substitute for belief in a personal God. I myself am a mystic but also believe in a personal God.
@Anekantavad Words have no meaning if there are not set definitions. The definition of God is a person who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Hinduism isn't unified, there are various opinions that they have- you have impersonalists (following the Shankara view, or others) and you also have some that believe in various personal Gods, like Krishna -who HareKrishnas believe to be both personal and impersonal. An impersonal reality isn't compatible with the word "God."
@Anekantavad There is no need to force various things to conform to a set definition- "God" is a German world used to denote a personal God. Over time with the studies of various religions the term is forced onto other things which need not be misused in that way. An impersonal reality, or Brahman, need not be called "God." It can just be denoted as "reality." "God" is the name of the Judeo-Christian God.
@Anekantavad It is irrational to call anything impersonal "God," and is probably indicative of the fact that people feel the need to validate things to make it appear that they do have faith, but this is incorrect. Reality has various levels, or layers- but substances are not "a God," they are what they are, and most atheists recognize this so they never use the word "God" because it is just incorrect to do so.
@Anekantavad And that is precisely how a word would lose its meaning, when people try to tamper with things which need not be tampered with. The whole point of "God" is that He is real, not invented by a human. Defining anything as "God" that has no evidence of being from outside humanity is unneeded. An impersonal reality should not be forced to conform. You are trying to bring religious validity to something which is not religious.
@Anekantavad The problem is that people don't really understand the true meaning of the words they are talking about. Yoga, or any kind of mysticism is not a religion. A religion deals with God, or gods. Yoga is a way of investigating higher impersonal realities. It is something which is done to enrich us, not to give us a "God." There is no reason to change the definition of God. If you reject God you are an atheist, and have no religion, nor will you experience eternity of your person.
@Anekantavad "How do we avoid this?" We avoid it by not forcing our own beliefs onto words that have already been clearly defined. "God" and "Atheism" already have a context, and to obscure them due to the desire for legitimacy of one's own beliefs is an emotion-based, irrational move. An impersonal reality being called God is incorrect because "God" refers to a personal reality, just as "human" refers to a personal reality and if some day people decided to call monkeys humans it would be false.
@Anekantavad Of primary importance is the idea that He is our Father, a personal God who has revealed HimSelf to humanity through the prophets. The Yogis, as well as other mystics in the various traditions, have found contact with a presence that permeates our reality. Mystics who are atheists have samadhis and assume that this revelation of oneness is their destiny- that spiritual death is destiny- they assume these things, they don't know. They have no God and therefore, no eternal life.
@Anekantavad Of course they are, man is made to worship someone, in the absence of God one will simply be invented. They key is to look at how much evidence is present for each deity. A personal God can communicate with us, can reveal the truth. An impersonal God cannot. It is just that simple.
@Anekantavad The reason why we theists believe so strongly in God is that we have evidence. He has revealed HimSelf and told us who He is, we have not relied on our opinions and assumptions, that is the key. What evidence would you have that an impersonal reality is "God?" An impersonal reality cannot tell you what it really is, what it wills for you, and what your own destiny is, God can. Why would you settle for a "God" which is mindless and can offer no truth at all? Explain your viewpoint.
Interesting videos sir. You certainly have a pretty good idea about Hinduism. I was born a Hindu but was an atheist for much of my early life mainly because no one in my family could point me towards Hindu philosophical/spiritual literature. Their own knowledge and understanding was too shallow to make any impression on me. Then somehow I stumbled upon Vivekananda and from there discovered the massive amount and variety of Hindu literature that exists. Thanks for doing these videos,
Lots of forms of Hinduism include the creator god type. Including the massively popular Vishnu who created the multiverse. Also half of the things you mentioned are atheist religions and so the is nothing their for atheism to attack.
Budhha didn't believe in a god but belived in re-birth. I guess the definition of atheism should be expanded to mean lack of belief in anything supernatural (including rebirth) and not just god.
The main reasion way most atheist like my self do not talk about the easterner FAITH is becouse it not there up of tea. Most of the Athesit are christian atheist mean most of the Amercan Atheist come form most of the ABRAMIC FAITH .there for thy know vary littel about the fare east faith. A buddhist and Hinduism Atheist know more about there ex faith then a afthere Athesit in Amercia
Atheism vs Theism fad in English countries MUST put in context of Western environment it comes from. That is why it falls apart when it tries to criticize Vedism or Buddhism. I'm Asian Buddhist. To me Buddhist & Vedic theories of Parallel-Universes, Billion year old Planets, Geological Time, etc, was in fact same as Modern Scientific Physics of 20th century. But was invented 2500 years ago, so was Non-theism was expressed by analogies of supernatural beings that regular people could understand.
i too was hindu and now atheist. But I dont agree to your reason of leaving it. Many of my friends describe themselves as "hindu atheists. " I know that the current day practiced hinduism is corrupt and in conflict with science. But if you go to the earler scriptures and scholarly works, you wont find any such conflict ..at least in most subbranches of hinduism. You should read the wiki article on hindu philosphy. Kapil and Charvak were the prominent hindu atheists.
This is a really good point. If you look at the hindu philosophy article on wiki, you will find that 4 out of 9 schools were explicitly atheists. In fact except one, all were at least "non-religious" in modern terms.
There are many Gods and Deities within Hinduism and it can be easily proved that were based on same mythological lines as Jesus or Allah were. But the Hindu culture does NOT exclusively derive its religious and spiritual values from these Gods. Without Jesus and Allah, Xianity and Islam will cease to exist. However, same is NOT true about Hinduism. There is no single central belief in it.
Every epistemology (including science) is based on some sort of belief (axioms that need to be considered self-evident). For instance, I would LOVE to know why the gene is selfish. I am going to apply infinite regress to the answer by asking Why?Why? and Why? Eventually we would reach a point that one would have to take as true unprovably. I am agnostic on the creationism/evolution debate. But I just want to point out that atheists do NOT have any monopoly over absolute truth.
there is a theory, (and i'm sorry i forgot where i heard it), a theory none the less that the missing years of Jesus where spent in India or their abouts, so as to come into contact with Hinduism, which of course you know stems from the ancient Vedic civilization of the Indus Valley over 6,000 years ago. i always liked this theory as it seemed to fit the massive change in gods biblical tone. which is evident, so so evident when one flicks from Malachi to Matthew.
I agree with you about Dawkins. It is sad that some use his book as a background for everything they currently believe( or don't). This is why I have become more and more interested in just knowing what knowlegde can be known on the early history of Christianity and Judaism. Something that is incredibly interesting in it's own right.
I would suspect that Dawkins wouldn't show as much interest in Hinduism as others mainly because as of now there isn't much interaction between the eastern and western world ( something I suspect will be changing rapidly and very soon). I don't know about your claim that Hindu's would except all views of science> I realize that my biasness is coming into play here but I suspect that one can find fundamentalist Hindu's as well.
Needless to say I disagree that Dawkins and Hitchens just address the Abrahamic god(s). Their argument about religiously motivated violence does apply to Hindu nationalist violence just as well.
If you want people to speak to it, listen to Salman Rushdie, Arundathi Roy, perhaps add Taslima Nasrin. And you will find that Indian atheist critique is not somehow magical drastically different than abrahamic ones. And the persecution and violence isn't all that different either. M.F. Hussein?
I think basically all these big atheistic authors address your point explicitly. The only reason they attack the Abrahamic tradition of god is that this is the one that is trying to take science out of our schools. It is also the one that all of them grew up around and feel the most pressure from.
To argue against the eastern traditions is just as easy though. The religion makes an unsubstantiated claim about reality, the atheist points out its lack of evidence. Done.
It depends on the definition of atheism you are using. A commonly invoked term of atheism is weak atheism i.e. someone who does not claim that there is no god, but does not explicitly believe in a god as they have as of yet found no compelling reason or evidence to believe in one. By this definition agnostics are atheists. The other commonly invoked term is strong atheism, which is someone who asserts that there is no god.
@Cuoin So we've go a whole bunch of different atheisms out there ... probably as many as there are atheists. But that goes for any -ism, so why should atheists be held to a different standard?
@Anekantavad There are two types presumably. The definition ultimately entails a lack of belief. The fact that atheism is related to other "isms" by similarity of wording doesn't imply that every "ism" ought to be treated in the same way.
@Cuoin Every -ism is just that: an -ism. A phantom. A nonexistent ghost created not to scare little children, but to reassure grown adults. Without the human imagination there are no ghosts. Without the same faculty there are no -isms.
As for atheism, one has to decide what it is that is the subject of the lack of belief. If it is unclear what is being disbelieved, one may as well call an atheist an a-zforxianist, as both theism and zforxianism are equally devoid of meaning.
I believe part of the issue is that some of the religions you mention -- at the very least buddism -- are not THEISTIC in nature. They are a religion, sure, but they don't necessarily advocate the existence of any god to which one must be subservient, which is the primary objection of many atheists.
Presumably any argument against a monotheistic god could also be used for any of the Hindu gods as well, especially given they are portrayed (to my limited knowledge) as fallible.
@firefly4f4 This is why I said that people who insist that christianity or islam or any other monotheistic faith are easily debunked by their contradictions (usually to be found in their own literature) are essentially saying that only the fanatics or fundamentalists (who do indeed usually interpret their scriptures in an uncompromising way are the true representatives of their faiths, when they are quite demonstrably not. There are other ways to interpret the koran or bible than literally.
@Anekantavad 'So people say Hindus don't bother us so we don't care. People criticize us with stuff like human rights and stuff, man I've read about some sick stuff that happens in India and Africa. How about their human rights ?
Child marriage, 40% of the world's child marriages occurred in India. Child prostitution, '' Born into brothels'' was disturbing. People born into classes cause they apparently came out of Krishna's feet or something.
All in the biggest democracy in the world, I don't a lot a fuss being made about it.
@0Idskool I remember the seizure of the US hostages in Tehran in 1979, & I remember the impotent fury that seized the US at the time. To me, that was the 1st spark in the new "Cold War" that may be taking place between the west & the Islamic world, but relations were still on the whole healthy & cordial. 911 changed all that. The perps of 911 said they were Muslims acting as such, and that did it. To many in the west, Islam = evil itself, and that explains a lot of what you allude to.
As philosophies, Taoism, Buddhism and to a certain extent Hinduism, are hard for a "Dawkins" type atheist to tear apart. Of course, there are more "naive" forms of these philosophies also, and once these philosophies become religions with dogmas and actual blue skinned Gods and many-armed Bodhisattvas, then they are as easy to debunk as Christianity is. The Buddha never wanted a religion, or a priesthood who controlled it.
I don't care to make the distinction really except for educational purposes. Believe in unicorns for all I care but when you start sacrificing children to the gods to make your crops grow then we're going to have a problem.
Taoism and Buddhism began as philosophies then morphed into religions, often incorporating local cultural beliefs. Also, because of the emergence of Hinduism, Buddhism (around 200 b.c.) and Taoism (around 400 a.d.) took on much more of a religious tone. The Buddhism of Siddhartha and Taoism of Lao Tzu could best be described as agnostic concerning deistic worship. Now I have to sub to see where this is going : )
@deepashtray Yes indeed. I would definitely say that the Buddha was the ultimate agnostic, as demonstrated by his enigmatic smile whenever people asked him about gods or the metaphysical. But that doesn't stop his followers from worshipping all manner of gods, nor from essentially deifying the Buddha himself. IMO this is not a degeneration so much as it's an acceptance that people with different temperaments or mentalities deal with philosophy and the rest of it in different ways.
@Anekantavad I feel that as we are bound a little by the language we use as far as a 'religion' is 'theistic' we can be 'athiest' about it. As for non 'theistic' belief we can apply all the normal standards of proof to said beliefs.
@resonance10 Well, we can, but only up to a point. Philosophy isn't necessarily theistic, but as it deals with things like love, happiness, contentment, rage etc, the scientific tools we normally reach for aren't very useful at all.
@Anekantavad OK but i am talking about the 'beliefs' evoked by the 'non theistic religions'..ie claims by yogi's and guru's of 'supernatural' powers like materializing objects out of nothing or manifesting multiple bodies etc..which are commonly used to impress the gullible so they will join a sect or follow a guru. I appreciate the crux of your point ( i think! ) it would be useful to narrow down the question to specifics, because my impression is this could easily become a bit obtuse.
@deepashtray "Taoism and Buddhism began as philosophies then morphed into religions.." Common misconception, this was a ( well intentioned ) mistake made by early 'scholars' and 'romantic' types largely in the west. The motivation often being along the lines of ' western dogmatic religion vs eastern 'enlightenment' 'higher' philosophy that somehow 'degenerated' into 'religion'...well as far as Taoism is concerned anyway. For Buddhism what you say is somewhat closer.
@resonance10 I've heard more recent authors, like Stephen Batchelor, refer to these as philosophies. I can't argue with you though. Taoist and Buddhist monks seldom complain about whether they are practiced as a religion or philosophy, so I would be foolish to push the issue. For me as an atheist I derive a great deal out of them as philosophies. Thanks.
@deepashtray True enough, its fair to say as they have a lot more philosophy than dogma and I to enjoy that aspect :) I meant that they didn't ( taoism anyway ) start as 'philosophy' and 'become' religion. The only reason I mention it is because some people had a clear 'west' = 'bad' and 'east' = 'good' romantic view of these things and it is still somewhat prevalent today. I think that when it comes to eastern religion we do need a different mode of discourse about them. Cont'd..
The western Judeo/Christian lens is frankly incapable of encompassing them, and I think that an 'understanding' of Hinduism would be helpful in our attempts to frame a discourse about them. Eg what Anekantavad says about 'paradox' is interesting, as a Daoist priest told me that paradox is viewed as an opportunity/invitation to 'knowledge' similar to Zen Koans etc.. cheers yourself! :)
The thing that perceives, interprets and judges info received by our senses is the brain. We know which parts of the brain process what information. Memories are recreations of past events in our minds. Just because our understanding isn't complete doesn't mean we should leap to conclusions. It is only human vanity and wishful thinking that there must be something more, becasue our physical bodies are so obviously finite.
@AnApeLikeMe Fair enough. Now what is putting value or judging all that info received by the brain? For example, what is it that takes a series of vibrations which are channeled through the ear, converted into a series of impulses and turns the result into something called "music"? Where does a bunch of vibrations (or impulses really) get its "musicness" from?
@Anekantavad I know what you're getting at. These are complex hard to answer questions, but I don't think the answers are to be found in any religion. The only way we will find answers is through research now and in the future, not in readings of old ideas and philosophies.
@AnApeLikeMe Knowledge is to be found where it resides. Just because it falls under the heading "religion" doesn't mean it's invalidated by it. That's closed-mindedness, no?
@Anekantavad But when it comes to the workings of the human brain I'm more interested in listening to a neuroscientist than a religious scholar. Is that close minded? Should I give equal consideration to every possible theory, there isn't enough time in the day.
@AnApeLikeMe Specializing in one field needn't mean discounting all others. And a "religious scholar" has no more or less an understanding of consciousness or its relationship to the "external world" than a neuroscientist. The only way one can say that one is superior to another's is if one assumes that one day science will figure out something that "religion" hasn't, and that's faith.
the eastern conception of God is identical to the eastern conception of consciousness in classic scripture. that's a gross over simplification, but accurate enough here.
The reason Dawkins talks mainly about the abrahamic faiths is because in the west these are the dominant religions. There is a tendancy by some westerners to have a romantic view of eastern philosophy and religion becasue of it is so different to western religion. That there must be something to it. But they are merely cultural differences, they also have crude creation myths and superstition. There is nothing mystical about the Ganges, it is a river.
@Anekantavad I watched that video and I admit that they are more sophisticated and interesting ideas about the universe than stories in the bible, but what else? Does hinduism provide access to some devine truth. I don't think so. Hinduism has concepts such as an eternal soul and reincarnation which I reject, becasue there is no evidence for them.
@AnApeLikeMe Why do you reject an eternal soul, or reincarnation? First of all, eternity is forever, and a soul is a very ill-defined thing. Secondly, we don't know what consciousness is, where it comes from, how it gets linked to the physical body, nor where it goes after death. We have no clue. So unless we understand what we mean by all these concepts, it's difficult to discuss things like the reincarnation of the soul, isn't it?
@Anekantavad No one knows for sure what happens after death but all the evidence leads me to conclude that after brain activity ceases, I cease to be. I have no concept of me before I was born becasue I as an individual didn't exist. The atoms that make up my body will continue on in other living things but my consciousness will be no more. True we don't fully understand consciousness yet, but to say it is seperate from our physical bodies is going into the realsms of superstition.
@AnApeLikeMe "after brain activity ceases, I cease to be"
Fair enough. But you have to define what the "I" is, no? I mean strip away all the memories, experiences and all the rest, and there is still something: the thing that perceives, interprets, and judges all the info received by the senses. That's consciousness itself. Is that the "I" that dies, or is the "I" the consciousness + the memories, experiences, etc? Are they the same thing? If so, how? If not, how not?
Hmm, I may be mis-stating this, but I don't remember it being the job of atheists to refute or debunk a theist's claim. Rather, I remember the burden of proof being on one who makes claims. Religion is that claim, so far as I know.
@Anekantavad That is a very good question. I can't tell someone else what claims they make. I believe that if they (Someone making a positive claim) want a response on the part of another, they first must construct their case. I'm quite ignorant of Eastern Religion, to tell the truth, and the little bit of Hinduism I have seen is somewhat reminiscent of the Greek mythology.
another great point and vid:),i dont understand why certain atheists seem to praise these eastern religions sure their god concept maybe different to the Abrahamic one. but realistically its donimated by gurus preforming benny hinn style miracles the skeptics community in india i hear is doing good works to inform and educate people i.e telling people to go see a doctor instead of a "witch" doctor
I think a similar point was made by the author Guy P. Harrison when he said we shouldn't fall into the trap of cultural myopia by calling "it" "God", but always using "a god" or "gods". I think a more fruitful discussion is the one about "supernaturalism". I don't get the supernatural (what does the term even mean?) or the belief in it: "Asupernaturalism vs the East".
@wimsweden I agree. Inevitably one gets snarled up in words, and there is ample warning in the Hindu and Buddhist tradition against this. Words are tools, nothing more.
Caste system, deadly animals that you can't fight for your life and sacred cows that you can't eat in a place where hunger is a problem... Superstition is seldom without harm.
But anyway, if you actually LISTEN to those people you mentioned, you'll notice that it's not an equivocation that they mainly attack the abrahamic religions. It's a clear choice because they think they are the most dangerous those who most affect their own culture.
Superstition, you know? Like when you kill people and wait for the dawn, and if the sun goes out, it means that the killing was enough. And how does this relate to hinduism?... Well GEE, I don't know! Through a convoluted history of flawed thinking and lackadaisical discrimination between founded and unfounded claims?
@kaminarigaston So, Hinduism = "you kill people and wait for the dawn, and if the sun goes out, it means that the killing was enough". That's Hinduism, is it?
And what unfounded claims does Hindusim make? In fact, what claims does Hinduism make at all?
No, that's not hinduism, that's superstition. What claims does hinduism make? Since it's a melage of assorted traditions, none and a whole lot. Some dude named Ghandi for example claimed "The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection".
@kaminarigaston So how is one to come to grips and debate either for or against a faith that makes no claims and a whole lot of claims, and seems to thrive on its contradictions?
@kaminarigaston Would India's hunger problem won't get magically resolved if people start eating beef? Consider the fact that America is rich in land where cattle can be mass produced. In India cattle is needed to plough the fields which provides grain, that is nutrition. The dung is fertilizer and fuel, the milk is also nutritious. Cattle is more useful alive than dead under such a setup for the sake of nutrition. The idea of the sacred cow grew out from that tradition.
@kaminarigaston Now there are a lot of stray dogs in India. They can be captured and killed but they just seem to breed and feel the vacuum. I once floated the idea that we should get some Korean chefs to teach Indians how to cook dog. The poor and starving will have food and the stray problem is also solved. No one liked my idea and dogs are not even sacred.
What about indigenous African and Native belief systems? I'm so tired of Asian examples being the only counter-example people use when making this argument. *sighs*...
@cymonebreathe There's only so much one can study within the scope of a human lifetime, and Hinduism is more than enough for 100 lives. No offense meant to the San or the Anishinabe.
The oldest records of atheists are from India. wiki article "atheism in hinduism" can tell you more about that. also, you can google "progress of atheism in india"
@Anekantavad Yeah, religion is a fuzzy word indeedf, as is atheism nowadays. Believer and non-believer are the best terms to use, as some religious are not always believers and some non-believers doesn't consider themselves atheists. Things can get misunderstood quite a lot with those terms therefore.
@Censeo Quite. Often people reject something simply because it has the term "atheist" or "religion" attached to it, regardless of the content of the discussion. That's narrow-mindedness, however one defines it.
Good topic! Having spent my teens studying Eastern religions, it is also clear to me that most atheists assume that refuting the Abrahamic traditions entails refuting religion per se.
And when atheists do consider Oriental religions, too often, rather than approaching with a fresh objectivity, they import the same assumptions and vitriol they've developed for their native religion as if all religions are the same.
Such a-priori bias ensures glossing over important differences among religions.
@ITZBIZBUZ Debating religion is something just about any Hindu is willing to do. Showing deliberate and calculated offense will tuen anyone off, regardless of what is being discussed.
@Anekantavad, and an interesting feature of Indic religions is that their adherents scramble to argue that their faith, from its ancient texts, is consistent with modern scientific findings. You can find many books on how ancient Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist models of reality jibe with contemporary cosmology and physics.
Quite the opposite of how so many Bible believers have reacted to science over the last few centuries, trying to deny science. Suggests better flexibility in Oriental traditions.
And here's clear evidence of belief flexibility in Buddhism: watch?v=rQ_zIEFHz3I
That video from Emory University about teaching science to Buddhist monks and nuns observes at 3:05: "These monks and nuns are even willing to toss out a long-held belief of the Buddhist faith if modern science proves it wrong."
That shows remarkable belief adaptability among Buddhist monks and nuns, the most likely to be prone to inflexible dogmatism. This certainly shows something very unique about Buddhism.
@iamgoddard Hinduism has no definitive "canon", nor does Buddhism or even Jainism. This sometimes gets them dismissed as unintelligible or meaningless, but it also makes them much more flexible and adaptable.
The simple answer (as an Atheist) is that I don't. I have no issue with them, unless they start using force and passing laws which affect me. THAT is why Atheists "go after" Christians. They attempt to enforce their lifestyle upon us.
@Anekantavad Even a belief that gods don't exist (rather than only lack of belief) isn't requiring absolute certainty, and certainly doesn't require a conviction that this is important to make other people also have as their position.
Like the Aberhamic faiths, the ones you mention have preasts for whom there is a conflict of intrest . They must tayler the message toward a biger stripend, that goes some way to explaneing how castraited boy prostatuites at the golden temple can be a " good thing". So if I thought That if I could not be an atheist Iwould have to be a diest or primativest.
@clawdfrawg You'll find all kinds of superstition, abuse and insanity in Hinduism. You'll also find mind-blowing speculations and philosophie. Like reality itself, Hinduism is equal parts beauty and filth.
@Anekantavad I Like that answer plain, simple,yet the kind of thing that neads to be stated once in while. Just the same I had hoped you would adress the point that once you have a preist who makes a living at it, he whould be working against his own intrest to favor truth werever you find it. So to sum it up the more organized a faith the less likley it has an opinion that is not clouded by there own motives.
We really just attack claims. Especially if they try and push it on us. There are parts of eastern religion I will disagree with, but since they aren't being pushy with it except for the very extreme, we don't really care that much. Most of us have been raised with or around Abraham faiths in the west, so that's the definition of god that everyone here knows. I consider myself a philosophical Buddhist and Taoist but I'm still an atheist.
@Anekantavad I can't say I see a problem. There is theoretical and applied philosophy just like there is theoretical and applied science. Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism are either applied philosophies or religions depending on what you believe about them and how much of the supernatural is involved, Hinduism has many schools of thought and even had an atheist school of thought. There are as many "denominations" of these as there is Christianity. They range from all extremes as well.
For my self I believe that it can be some God like beings, but we can't prove that it is. But I don't believe that there is a single Abrahamic creator-God. If Gods exists they are not supernatural just natural but in a realm of realety that we for the time being can't measure and understand. But just coz we can't understand it doesn’t mean that it don't exist. Just a thought from me. Regards and have a skilful life. Pinge
@Anekantavad Many times when I follow the debate it seams like it's more about what the doctrines claim that God is not really if a God is possible or not
@ITZBIZBUZ The problem with Hinduism and Buddhism is that they use so much deliberate paradox that it is difficult to find an idea out there to debunk. And yet they point to something ... an existence or "reality" that is far beyond what our normal sensory apparatus are capable of picking up on, except in rapid flashes.
@Anekantavad From what I can understand, these belief systems (thinker toys I think) are instruments to broaden your mind towards possibilities you have not considered. Their purpose seems to be to keep people broadminded at all times. However, if one deliberately chooses to be narrow minded, then even these beliefs may not suffice. So it has its limits. And once limits are reached superstitions creep in. By the 18th and 19th century, Indian society was certainly in a state of decay.
@Anekantavad On the other hands Dawkins says it is not a good idea to be broad minded enough to let your brains drop out. But if you are broadminded, you are also receptive to tools that allow you to discriminate between good and bad ideas. Which means bad ideas once entered can be go into the trash bin of your mind.
I have always enjoyed this debate with Hindus, although i realise it is mostly futile. The great thing about Hinduism, as i understand it, is that its set of stories are like the first chapters of a play that current believers are currently all playing their own tiny part in now. Atheism even has its place there, see Astika and Carvaka schools.
The point is that they are just stories, we are still just monkies and we are all spinning through space on a lump of disinterested rock.
@gabiotta I agree that atheism and Hinduism are not necessarily at loggerheads. The only conflict I would see is that a "philosophical" or adept or advanced Hindu (if s/he even used the term "Hindu" anymore) would see "atheist" as too narrow a philosophy to encapsulate the totality of existence.
I would have thought anybody who wasn't being fed through a tube would think "atheist" as too narrow a philosophy to encapsulate the totality of existence. That does not mean that there is any validity it whatever stories that they've made up to explain whatever they don't understand about reality.
Ane-I find myself grappling a bit with this too. I guess I would be considered a "Naturalistic Pagan", following some practices of the Celtic/Germanic Pagans (Wheel of the Year-I live in a pastoral area of the US where the seasons are depended on) and some Native American tradition (Ojibway medicine wheel-very similar to the Wheel of the Year), which is very earth based but looks beyond the material. BTW, I dont believe in heaven or gods/goddesses/magic.
@skeletonmom This is why I have always wanted to do a video on (my conception of) female spirituality. It's quite a different thing from the uber-masculine abrahamic faiths, and Hinduism is IMO one of the strongest survivals of the pre-abrahamic "pagan" or syncretic religions that give equal weight to male and female spirituality - although adamantly insisting that they are ultimately two seperate (yet complimentary) things.
I'll deal with this in another video in this series.
Dont know if you have any information about the Indigenous (First Nations) Peoples of the Americas spiritual practices but a video mentioning them would be interesting. They are "western", but their genetic ancestry is from the east due to the migrations from other continents to the new world. Not out of the realm of possibility that they took some of those old beliefs with them in their oral history.
@skeletonmom - Darn character limit. Oral spiritual history that changes with the needs of the people and its community, as opposed to a written, fixed spiritual history is an interesting topic, too. Although, its more fagile-and can be wiped away with genocide.
Atheists don't HAVE TO attack any religion unless one considers stating "I don't believe in that" as an attack.
The Abrahamic religions claim over 50% of the world population, with other religions being scattered mostly over non-English speaking countries.
Outspoken atheism on the internet seems to have started as a response against discrimination, not an attack and steamrolled from there into what it is today.
If a Hindus started posting more videos, you'd see more of a focus on them.
@robtbo I do know the language. So I can tell. They do a good job of debunking charlatans playing magic tricks on unsuspecting illeterates. But they do not usually mount philosophical attacks. It is difficult, if not impossible. There is no single coherent text. There is no to do list. There is no central dogma. Besides you can address superstitions and social evils without debunking any important doctrines. In fact that is the most effective ways to address them. So what is there to debunk?
@82abhilash I figured there was a good probability that was going on. India seems to be an interesting mix of cultures colliding as the country expands. I don't know much of the political climate or discrimination that occurs, but from what little I've read, the religion seems to be very free-form.
Personally, I don't seek to debunk religion, but promote unifying philosophies. People will always have differences in belief. Coexistence seems a more reasonable goal.
@robtbo If you believe your way of life is superior to all others, then co-existence is just a means of buying time until you are strong enough to destroy people who lives are 'inferior'. Such ideologies need to be debunked. There are threads of such thoughts within Hinduism too, thought they are not too prominent. I take the time to debunk them too. The Hare Krishnas for example are definitely supremacists. But they have become less troublesome these days. In the 1970s they where a nuisance.
@82abhilash Religions almost necessitate the concept of a superior lifestyle. If it results in acting out against others, they're dangerous. It's important to let it be known that the rest of humanity won't tolerate it, even if it requires an "enemy of my enemy" tactic within the affected (inflicted) region.
Without saying circumstances won't ever call for action, I have faith that the role of religion will diminish in favor of practicality until only the "loonies" remain amongst a majority.
@robtbo Not necessarily. In Hinduism people who practice their faith in variance with yours and even contrary to your understanding is often times legitimized under the notion of 'since people are different, truth is revealed to them differently'. Superiority complex not necessary. That is necessary all when religion becomes an instrument for totalitarianism. Can that happen with Hinduism? I do not know. But I know that before the Islamic invasions, wars in India where not religiously motivated.
@82abhilash Considering the generally tolerant attitude, I wouldn't consider the religion worth opposing except on a local level, to prevent discrimination where it arises. Beliefs that are harmless amount to little more than opinion.
Trying to spread a belief through dishonesty, ignorance or exploiting ignorance does merit attention, but if such a religion makes an individual feel complete, I'd consider it more a negative thing to try to debunk it.
@robtbo There is a saying, 'If you can make people believe absurdities, then you can make them commit atrocities.' Because any idea that is called a religion is given state sanctioned protection, today absurd ideas have accumulated within religious circles. Problems of religion are social problems. They need to be handled by people with good judgement. People apt at managing social issues. There is no magic solution that works for all.
@82abhilash 'If you can make people believe absurdities, then you can make them commit atrocities.'
True, but if a central philosophy of Hinduism allows people to determine their individual beliefs, and it is adhered to, there should be no making of people to believe.
The philosophy seems to make the religion itself suicidal in the face of the spread of reason.
@robtbo I can say with some reservation that there is no central philosophy to Hinduism. It is very decentralized. But the freedom for individual belief was not always the case. The caste system which started out based on the division labor evolved over time to something very rigid. What you should believe and do had to do a lot with the caste of your parents. If you behaved in a manner inappropriate for your caste, you could be banished. The India that the British captured has many ills.
@Anekantavad I doubt that. The Brahmins where usually very poor. They did contemplate, but it would be wrong to call it leisure. The Kshatriays has wealth, but it was taxes so it was technically not their own. They where busy with wars, especially during the times the Islamic rulers where trying to Islamize all of India. The Vaishyas usually had less wealth than the Kshatriays, but they could call it their own. They probably had more leisure time than others.
@82abhilash The brahmins were poor, but they did not want for anything. They were provided for by the other castes so that all their basic needs were met. That means leisure. The ksatriyas had leisure, since even in times of war most soldiers aren't fighting.
@Anekantavad When there is no fighting, the soldiers have to stay alert. Scholars are fed and clothed because scholarly pursuits are supposed to benefit society and they need the academic freedom for that. It is very simplistic to say that because no manual labor was done, therefore it is al leisure.
@82abhilash The ksatriyas made their own leisure. The Buddha and Mahavira were ksatriyas and they rejected the ritualism of the brahmins and found leisure in either rejecting wealth and luxury and sense-gratification and relied upon begging, or like Mahavira they relied upon nothing at all and fasted to death.
@Anekantavad Yeah I suppose it is not wrong to say that the ksatriyas enjoyed leisure. But the leisure of a dutiful ksatriya was like that of a soldier on a break, enjoying the time he had not knowing when he will be called back to the front. But that of a corrupt ksatriya was like that of a soldier deserting his post and enjoying himself while the enemy ravaged his land. My point is that it was not a leisure driven society. But people did seem to have a lot of time on their hands regardless.
Science definitely does not claim to know the answer, it looks for it by a process or heuristics called Science. I have Indian background and I am an atheist. I went to a religious school ran by Monks. But all that salvation and moksha, in the end is not backed up any evidence, it is someone's wishful thinking. True that a lot need to be known, but what we don't know, simply means we do not know. And Hinduism, monkey gods, elephant Gods? And these Gods hear prayers? Ridiculous.
statickk14 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wbraddell2 Realize one thing. When you say "It manifests the personal God as a means of returning us to it." You are saying that "Brahman wishes to kill everyone, so it sends an assassin (Ishvara) to come kill us." If you kill a human they will "go back to the earth." Contrast this nonsense with Christianity that says we are born for a reason, to live eternally. Mystical experiences are valid-; non-experiential theories, such as spiritual death (oops, I mean oneness), are not.
danmeast 1 month ago
@wbraddell2 Impersonal realities do not manifest anything personal. Impersonal and personal have eternally existed, and given contrast to each other. We are not meant to be an "it." We are persons. Persons can only arise from pre existing persons, no exception to this has ever been observed. Impersonal systems are law based, while a person has free will. You cannot make a free willed person from an impersonal reality.
danmeast 1 month ago
That is why Yoga and meditation is such an integral part of Hindu and Buddhist practices. Prove what Krishna or Buddha did for themselves by achieving that knowledge of God for ourselves without Krishna or Buddha. Just like learning Newton's laws, we don't need to know about Newton or the details about him to understand his laws. If we lose the history of Newton and even his physics someone else can rediscover it because it is always there for us to discover and use. That is the Dharmic way.
tomtomttom 2 months ago
As stated in previous post, Dharmic religions believe each human has the potential and even ability to meditate and download God's message, if you can call it that, by divine inspiration. Even if only one in a million or billion or more does this it, it is possible and should be strived for so the sole knowledge of God is not controlled by some institution that claims it received it from a saint or godman or son of god or whatever centuries ago. Should be achievable right now.
tomtomttom 2 months ago
Thank you for this video. The clear distinction between the Dharmic (Indic) faiths and Abrahamic views is history centrism. The Dharmic religions are not solely dependent on a set of historical event to state this is our religion. While Abrahamic religions are like that. Even bigger difference is how the knowledge is transferred. Dharmic religions believe that everyone of us, through meditation can download the knowledge directly from God while Abrahamic religions rely on prophets from long ago.
tomtomttom 2 months ago
Atheism is the denial of God's person. Believing that God is impersonal would still be atheism. Impersonal reality cannot really be denoted as "God," because it is just reality. Mysticism is a system of investigation that has arisen due to the people's search for a direct experience of God. However, mysticism is not a religion and it isn't meant to be a substitute for belief in a personal God. I myself am a mystic but also believe in a personal God.
danmeast 4 months ago
@danmeast I think the quibble here is over nothing more than definitions, no?
Anekantavad 4 months ago
@Anekantavad Words have no meaning if there are not set definitions. The definition of God is a person who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Hinduism isn't unified, there are various opinions that they have- you have impersonalists (following the Shankara view, or others) and you also have some that believe in various personal Gods, like Krishna -who HareKrishnas believe to be both personal and impersonal. An impersonal reality isn't compatible with the word "God."
danmeast 4 months ago
@danmeast "The definition of God is a person who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. " That's one definition, yes. It isn't the only one.
Anekantavad 4 months ago
@Anekantavad There is no need to force various things to conform to a set definition- "God" is a German world used to denote a personal God. Over time with the studies of various religions the term is forced onto other things which need not be misused in that way. An impersonal reality, or Brahman, need not be called "God." It can just be denoted as "reality." "God" is the name of the Judeo-Christian God.
danmeast 4 months ago
@danmeast That is yet another definition of "god". There are others.
Anekantavad 4 months ago
@Anekantavad It is irrational to call anything impersonal "God," and is probably indicative of the fact that people feel the need to validate things to make it appear that they do have faith, but this is incorrect. Reality has various levels, or layers- but substances are not "a God," they are what they are, and most atheists recognize this so they never use the word "God" because it is just incorrect to do so.
danmeast 4 months ago
@Anekantavad And that is precisely how a word would lose its meaning, when people try to tamper with things which need not be tampered with. The whole point of "God" is that He is real, not invented by a human. Defining anything as "God" that has no evidence of being from outside humanity is unneeded. An impersonal reality should not be forced to conform. You are trying to bring religious validity to something which is not religious.
danmeast 3 months ago
@Anekantavad The problem is that people don't really understand the true meaning of the words they are talking about. Yoga, or any kind of mysticism is not a religion. A religion deals with God, or gods. Yoga is a way of investigating higher impersonal realities. It is something which is done to enrich us, not to give us a "God." There is no reason to change the definition of God. If you reject God you are an atheist, and have no religion, nor will you experience eternity of your person.
danmeast 3 months ago
@danmeast "The problem is that people don't really understand the true meaning of the words they are talking about."
Bingo.
How do we avoid this?
:-)
Anekantavad 3 months ago
@Anekantavad "How do we avoid this?" We avoid it by not forcing our own beliefs onto words that have already been clearly defined. "God" and "Atheism" already have a context, and to obscure them due to the desire for legitimacy of one's own beliefs is an emotion-based, irrational move. An impersonal reality being called God is incorrect because "God" refers to a personal reality, just as "human" refers to a personal reality and if some day people decided to call monkeys humans it would be false.
danmeast 3 months ago
@danmeast Define "God", leaving nothing out.
Good luck.
:-)
Anekantavad 3 months ago
@Anekantavad Of primary importance is the idea that He is our Father, a personal God who has revealed HimSelf to humanity through the prophets. The Yogis, as well as other mystics in the various traditions, have found contact with a presence that permeates our reality. Mystics who are atheists have samadhis and assume that this revelation of oneness is their destiny- that spiritual death is destiny- they assume these things, they don't know. They have no God and therefore, no eternal life.
danmeast 3 months ago
@danmeast So Artemis, Huitzilopochtli, Horus and Loki aren't gods?
Not all religions deal with eternal life. For example, the Ancient Hebrew Yachveh didn't promise anything of the sort.
Anekantavad 3 months ago
@Anekantavad Of course they are, man is made to worship someone, in the absence of God one will simply be invented. They key is to look at how much evidence is present for each deity. A personal God can communicate with us, can reveal the truth. An impersonal God cannot. It is just that simple.
danmeast 3 months ago
@danmeast "A personal God can communicate with us, can reveal the truth. An impersonal God cannot."
Why not?
Anekantavad 3 months ago
@Anekantavad The reason why we theists believe so strongly in God is that we have evidence. He has revealed HimSelf and told us who He is, we have not relied on our opinions and assumptions, that is the key. What evidence would you have that an impersonal reality is "God?" An impersonal reality cannot tell you what it really is, what it wills for you, and what your own destiny is, God can. Why would you settle for a "God" which is mindless and can offer no truth at all? Explain your viewpoint.
danmeast 3 months ago
Interesting videos sir. You certainly have a pretty good idea about Hinduism. I was born a Hindu but was an atheist for much of my early life mainly because no one in my family could point me towards Hindu philosophical/spiritual literature. Their own knowledge and understanding was too shallow to make any impression on me. Then somehow I stumbled upon Vivekananda and from there discovered the massive amount and variety of Hindu literature that exists. Thanks for doing these videos,
joydeepdutta2 4 months ago
@joydeepdutta2 I'm glad you enjoyed them :-)
Anekantavad 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD -An excerpt from the Hindu Upanishads
/watch?v=z5qEaZZS1nk
q09999 4 months ago
Hinduism + Atheism -> Buddhism
forgottenmemories63 6 months ago
@forgottenmemories63 Correction
Hinduism (minus numerous god) + Agnosticism = Buddhism!
sriambharrish 6 months ago
Something interesting here!
/watch?v=UA42ojvSJs0
doubleagentrikosky 7 months ago
Lots of forms of Hinduism include the creator god type. Including the massively popular Vishnu who created the multiverse. Also half of the things you mentioned are atheist religions and so the is nothing their for atheism to attack.
kairobinson 7 months ago
Comment removed
kairobinson 7 months ago
Budhha didn't believe in a god but belived in re-birth. I guess the definition of atheism should be expanded to mean lack of belief in anything supernatural (including rebirth) and not just god.
sadhaklal 8 months ago
The main reasion way most atheist like my self do not talk about the easterner FAITH is becouse it not there up of tea. Most of the Athesit are christian atheist mean most of the Amercan Atheist come form most of the ABRAMIC FAITH .there for thy know vary littel about the fare east faith. A buddhist and Hinduism Atheist know more about there ex faith then a afthere Athesit in Amercia
trackman2300 8 months ago
Atheism vs Theism fad in English countries MUST put in context of Western environment it comes from. That is why it falls apart when it tries to criticize Vedism or Buddhism. I'm Asian Buddhist. To me Buddhist & Vedic theories of Parallel-Universes, Billion year old Planets, Geological Time, etc, was in fact same as Modern Scientific Physics of 20th century. But was invented 2500 years ago, so was Non-theism was expressed by analogies of supernatural beings that regular people could understand.
pixusbubblejet 9 months ago
@RpgMakerVXTutor
i too was hindu and now atheist. But I dont agree to your reason of leaving it. Many of my friends describe themselves as "hindu atheists. " I know that the current day practiced hinduism is corrupt and in conflict with science. But if you go to the earler scriptures and scholarly works, you wont find any such conflict ..at least in most subbranches of hinduism. You should read the wiki article on hindu philosphy. Kapil and Charvak were the prominent hindu atheists.
astoma199 9 months ago
This is a really good point. If you look at the hindu philosophy article on wiki, you will find that 4 out of 9 schools were explicitly atheists. In fact except one, all were at least "non-religious" in modern terms.
astoma199 9 months ago
smart video. out of the box
MetrazolElectricity 9 months ago
There are many Gods and Deities within Hinduism and it can be easily proved that were based on same mythological lines as Jesus or Allah were. But the Hindu culture does NOT exclusively derive its religious and spiritual values from these Gods. Without Jesus and Allah, Xianity and Islam will cease to exist. However, same is NOT true about Hinduism. There is no single central belief in it.
TheAtheistHindu 11 months ago
Every epistemology (including science) is based on some sort of belief (axioms that need to be considered self-evident). For instance, I would LOVE to know why the gene is selfish. I am going to apply infinite regress to the answer by asking Why?Why? and Why? Eventually we would reach a point that one would have to take as true unprovably. I am agnostic on the creationism/evolution debate. But I just want to point out that atheists do NOT have any monopoly over absolute truth.
anoninus 11 months ago
there is a theory, (and i'm sorry i forgot where i heard it), a theory none the less that the missing years of Jesus where spent in India or their abouts, so as to come into contact with Hinduism, which of course you know stems from the ancient Vedic civilization of the Indus Valley over 6,000 years ago. i always liked this theory as it seemed to fit the massive change in gods biblical tone. which is evident, so so evident when one flicks from Malachi to Matthew.
Orwellianliving 1 year ago
@Orwellianliving I've gotten wind of that one too. Intriguing, isn't it?
:-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
I agree with you about Dawkins. It is sad that some use his book as a background for everything they currently believe( or don't). This is why I have become more and more interested in just knowing what knowlegde can be known on the early history of Christianity and Judaism. Something that is incredibly interesting in it's own right.
Foxcanine1 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
I would suspect that Dawkins wouldn't show as much interest in Hinduism as others mainly because as of now there isn't much interaction between the eastern and western world ( something I suspect will be changing rapidly and very soon). I don't know about your claim that Hindu's would except all views of science> I realize that my biasness is coming into play here but I suspect that one can find fundamentalist Hindu's as well.
Foxcanine1 1 year ago
Needless to say I disagree that Dawkins and Hitchens just address the Abrahamic god(s). Their argument about religiously motivated violence does apply to Hindu nationalist violence just as well.
If you want people to speak to it, listen to Salman Rushdie, Arundathi Roy, perhaps add Taslima Nasrin. And you will find that Indian atheist critique is not somehow magical drastically different than abrahamic ones. And the persecution and violence isn't all that different either. M.F. Hussein?
socrates856 1 year ago
I think basically all these big atheistic authors address your point explicitly. The only reason they attack the Abrahamic tradition of god is that this is the one that is trying to take science out of our schools. It is also the one that all of them grew up around and feel the most pressure from.
To argue against the eastern traditions is just as easy though. The religion makes an unsubstantiated claim about reality, the atheist points out its lack of evidence. Done.
PainefulMass 1 year ago 2
@PainefulMass "The religion makes an unsubstantiated claim about reality"
Such as?
And anyway, what does religion in schools have to do with atheism?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
It depends on the definition of atheism you are using. A commonly invoked term of atheism is weak atheism i.e. someone who does not claim that there is no god, but does not explicitly believe in a god as they have as of yet found no compelling reason or evidence to believe in one. By this definition agnostics are atheists. The other commonly invoked term is strong atheism, which is someone who asserts that there is no god.
Cuoin 1 year ago
@Cuoin So we've go a whole bunch of different atheisms out there ... probably as many as there are atheists. But that goes for any -ism, so why should atheists be held to a different standard?
:-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad There are two types presumably. The definition ultimately entails a lack of belief. The fact that atheism is related to other "isms" by similarity of wording doesn't imply that every "ism" ought to be treated in the same way.
Cuoin 1 year ago
@Cuoin Every -ism is just that: an -ism. A phantom. A nonexistent ghost created not to scare little children, but to reassure grown adults. Without the human imagination there are no ghosts. Without the same faculty there are no -isms.
As for atheism, one has to decide what it is that is the subject of the lack of belief. If it is unclear what is being disbelieved, one may as well call an atheist an a-zforxianist, as both theism and zforxianism are equally devoid of meaning.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
I believe part of the issue is that some of the religions you mention -- at the very least buddism -- are not THEISTIC in nature. They are a religion, sure, but they don't necessarily advocate the existence of any god to which one must be subservient, which is the primary objection of many atheists.
Presumably any argument against a monotheistic god could also be used for any of the Hindu gods as well, especially given they are portrayed (to my limited knowledge) as fallible.
firefly4f4 1 year ago
@firefly4f4 This is why I said that people who insist that christianity or islam or any other monotheistic faith are easily debunked by their contradictions (usually to be found in their own literature) are essentially saying that only the fanatics or fundamentalists (who do indeed usually interpret their scriptures in an uncompromising way are the true representatives of their faiths, when they are quite demonstrably not. There are other ways to interpret the koran or bible than literally.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad 'So people say Hindus don't bother us so we don't care. People criticize us with stuff like human rights and stuff, man I've read about some sick stuff that happens in India and Africa. How about their human rights ?
0Idskool 1 year ago
@0Idskool Human rights? Well, what about human rights everywhere else? We've all got a pretty dismal track record.
PS: India has been a democracy longer than Spain, Greece, Poland, Korea, Chile, South Africa, Portugal, Slovenia, Germany, Russia ....
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Exactly, human rights everywhere.
Child marriage, 40% of the world's child marriages occurred in India. Child prostitution, '' Born into brothels'' was disturbing. People born into classes cause they apparently came out of Krishna's feet or something.
All in the biggest democracy in the world, I don't a lot a fuss being made about it.
0Idskool 1 year ago
@0Idskool I remember the seizure of the US hostages in Tehran in 1979, & I remember the impotent fury that seized the US at the time. To me, that was the 1st spark in the new "Cold War" that may be taking place between the west & the Islamic world, but relations were still on the whole healthy & cordial. 911 changed all that. The perps of 911 said they were Muslims acting as such, and that did it. To many in the west, Islam = evil itself, and that explains a lot of what you allude to.
Very sad.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Peace Andy.
0Idskool 1 year ago
As philosophies, Taoism, Buddhism and to a certain extent Hinduism, are hard for a "Dawkins" type atheist to tear apart. Of course, there are more "naive" forms of these philosophies also, and once these philosophies become religions with dogmas and actual blue skinned Gods and many-armed Bodhisattvas, then they are as easy to debunk as Christianity is. The Buddha never wanted a religion, or a priesthood who controlled it.
Untemperedsteel 1 year ago
@Untemperedsteel There is some evidence that Jesus didn't want religion, priests, etc either. That's what he got :-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
I used to be into Eastern Religion and Spirituality. You want I should debunk them?
Klingschor 1 year ago
@Klingschor Would be cool to see a new topic dealt with than the sort I usually see.
Pushtrak 1 year ago
@Klingschor Feel free. I'm not an adherent of any of them, so it isn't as though you'll be offending me :-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
I didn't mean it as a challenge - I think it would be fun though :)
Klingschor 1 year ago
I don't care to make the distinction really except for educational purposes. Believe in unicorns for all I care but when you start sacrificing children to the gods to make your crops grow then we're going to have a problem.
DiwataMan 1 year ago
Taoism and Buddhism began as philosophies then morphed into religions, often incorporating local cultural beliefs. Also, because of the emergence of Hinduism, Buddhism (around 200 b.c.) and Taoism (around 400 a.d.) took on much more of a religious tone. The Buddhism of Siddhartha and Taoism of Lao Tzu could best be described as agnostic concerning deistic worship. Now I have to sub to see where this is going : )
deepashtray 1 year ago
@deepashtray Yes indeed. I would definitely say that the Buddha was the ultimate agnostic, as demonstrated by his enigmatic smile whenever people asked him about gods or the metaphysical. But that doesn't stop his followers from worshipping all manner of gods, nor from essentially deifying the Buddha himself. IMO this is not a degeneration so much as it's an acceptance that people with different temperaments or mentalities deal with philosophy and the rest of it in different ways.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I feel that as we are bound a little by the language we use as far as a 'religion' is 'theistic' we can be 'athiest' about it. As for non 'theistic' belief we can apply all the normal standards of proof to said beliefs.
resonance10 1 year ago
@resonance10 Well, we can, but only up to a point. Philosophy isn't necessarily theistic, but as it deals with things like love, happiness, contentment, rage etc, the scientific tools we normally reach for aren't very useful at all.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad OK but i am talking about the 'beliefs' evoked by the 'non theistic religions'..ie claims by yogi's and guru's of 'supernatural' powers like materializing objects out of nothing or manifesting multiple bodies etc..which are commonly used to impress the gullible so they will join a sect or follow a guru. I appreciate the crux of your point ( i think! ) it would be useful to narrow down the question to specifics, because my impression is this could easily become a bit obtuse.
resonance10 1 year ago
@deepashtray "Taoism and Buddhism began as philosophies then morphed into religions.." Common misconception, this was a ( well intentioned ) mistake made by early 'scholars' and 'romantic' types largely in the west. The motivation often being along the lines of ' western dogmatic religion vs eastern 'enlightenment' 'higher' philosophy that somehow 'degenerated' into 'religion'...well as far as Taoism is concerned anyway. For Buddhism what you say is somewhat closer.
resonance10 1 year ago
@resonance10 I've heard more recent authors, like Stephen Batchelor, refer to these as philosophies. I can't argue with you though. Taoist and Buddhist monks seldom complain about whether they are practiced as a religion or philosophy, so I would be foolish to push the issue. For me as an atheist I derive a great deal out of them as philosophies. Thanks.
deepashtray 1 year ago
@deepashtray True enough, its fair to say as they have a lot more philosophy than dogma and I to enjoy that aspect :) I meant that they didn't ( taoism anyway ) start as 'philosophy' and 'become' religion. The only reason I mention it is because some people had a clear 'west' = 'bad' and 'east' = 'good' romantic view of these things and it is still somewhat prevalent today. I think that when it comes to eastern religion we do need a different mode of discourse about them. Cont'd..
resonance10 1 year ago
The western Judeo/Christian lens is frankly incapable of encompassing them, and I think that an 'understanding' of Hinduism would be helpful in our attempts to frame a discourse about them. Eg what Anekantavad says about 'paradox' is interesting, as a Daoist priest told me that paradox is viewed as an opportunity/invitation to 'knowledge' similar to Zen Koans etc.. cheers yourself! :)
resonance10 1 year ago
Is christianity from asia?
jimbob202019 1 year ago
The thing that perceives, interprets and judges info received by our senses is the brain. We know which parts of the brain process what information. Memories are recreations of past events in our minds. Just because our understanding isn't complete doesn't mean we should leap to conclusions. It is only human vanity and wishful thinking that there must be something more, becasue our physical bodies are so obviously finite.
AnApeLikeMe 1 year ago
@AnApeLikeMe Fair enough. Now what is putting value or judging all that info received by the brain? For example, what is it that takes a series of vibrations which are channeled through the ear, converted into a series of impulses and turns the result into something called "music"? Where does a bunch of vibrations (or impulses really) get its "musicness" from?
It's that that I am referring to.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I know what you're getting at. These are complex hard to answer questions, but I don't think the answers are to be found in any religion. The only way we will find answers is through research now and in the future, not in readings of old ideas and philosophies.
AnApeLikeMe 1 year ago
@AnApeLikeMe Knowledge is to be found where it resides. Just because it falls under the heading "religion" doesn't mean it's invalidated by it. That's closed-mindedness, no?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad But when it comes to the workings of the human brain I'm more interested in listening to a neuroscientist than a religious scholar. Is that close minded? Should I give equal consideration to every possible theory, there isn't enough time in the day.
AnApeLikeMe 1 year ago
@AnApeLikeMe Specializing in one field needn't mean discounting all others. And a "religious scholar" has no more or less an understanding of consciousness or its relationship to the "external world" than a neuroscientist. The only way one can say that one is superior to another's is if one assumes that one day science will figure out something that "religion" hasn't, and that's faith.
Ironic, no?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
the eastern conception of God is identical to the eastern conception of consciousness in classic scripture. that's a gross over simplification, but accurate enough here.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk quite. god is the manifestation of brahman, and brahman is atman.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
The reason Dawkins talks mainly about the abrahamic faiths is because in the west these are the dominant religions. There is a tendancy by some westerners to have a romantic view of eastern philosophy and religion becasue of it is so different to western religion. That there must be something to it. But they are merely cultural differences, they also have crude creation myths and superstition. There is nothing mystical about the Ganges, it is a river.
AnApeLikeMe 1 year ago
@AnApeLikeMe "But they are merely cultural differences"
Why do you say that? The "eastern" conception of time itself is totally different from ours.
And as for crude creation myths, here's one of hinduism's many creation myths: watch?v=LJXyDm7c7s8.
Call that crude?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I watched that video and I admit that they are more sophisticated and interesting ideas about the universe than stories in the bible, but what else? Does hinduism provide access to some devine truth. I don't think so. Hinduism has concepts such as an eternal soul and reincarnation which I reject, becasue there is no evidence for them.
AnApeLikeMe 1 year ago
@AnApeLikeMe Why do you reject an eternal soul, or reincarnation? First of all, eternity is forever, and a soul is a very ill-defined thing. Secondly, we don't know what consciousness is, where it comes from, how it gets linked to the physical body, nor where it goes after death. We have no clue. So unless we understand what we mean by all these concepts, it's difficult to discuss things like the reincarnation of the soul, isn't it?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad No one knows for sure what happens after death but all the evidence leads me to conclude that after brain activity ceases, I cease to be. I have no concept of me before I was born becasue I as an individual didn't exist. The atoms that make up my body will continue on in other living things but my consciousness will be no more. True we don't fully understand consciousness yet, but to say it is seperate from our physical bodies is going into the realsms of superstition.
AnApeLikeMe 1 year ago
@AnApeLikeMe "after brain activity ceases, I cease to be"
Fair enough. But you have to define what the "I" is, no? I mean strip away all the memories, experiences and all the rest, and there is still something: the thing that perceives, interprets, and judges all the info received by the senses. That's consciousness itself. Is that the "I" that dies, or is the "I" the consciousness + the memories, experiences, etc? Are they the same thing? If so, how? If not, how not?
Not so simple, is it?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
Hmm, I may be mis-stating this, but I don't remember it being the job of atheists to refute or debunk a theist's claim. Rather, I remember the burden of proof being on one who makes claims. Religion is that claim, so far as I know.
justicetrooper 1 year ago
@justicetrooper What claim is Hinduism making?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad That is a very good question. I can't tell someone else what claims they make. I believe that if they (Someone making a positive claim) want a response on the part of another, they first must construct their case. I'm quite ignorant of Eastern Religion, to tell the truth, and the little bit of Hinduism I have seen is somewhat reminiscent of the Greek mythology.
justicetrooper 1 year ago
@justicetrooper It's quite similar, but with a greater (or different) depth of philosophy and applied mysticism.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
another great point and vid:),i dont understand why certain atheists seem to praise these eastern religions sure their god concept maybe different to the Abrahamic one. but realistically its donimated by gurus preforming benny hinn style miracles the skeptics community in india i hear is doing good works to inform and educate people i.e telling people to go see a doctor instead of a "witch" doctor
0ptimusbibIe 1 year ago
@0ptimusbibIe Yes, but those self-same doctors may be practicing Hindus themselves.
:-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
I think a similar point was made by the author Guy P. Harrison when he said we shouldn't fall into the trap of cultural myopia by calling "it" "God", but always using "a god" or "gods". I think a more fruitful discussion is the one about "supernaturalism". I don't get the supernatural (what does the term even mean?) or the belief in it: "Asupernaturalism vs the East".
wimsweden 1 year ago
@wimsweden I agree. Inevitably one gets snarled up in words, and there is ample warning in the Hindu and Buddhist tradition against this. Words are tools, nothing more.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
Caste system, deadly animals that you can't fight for your life and sacred cows that you can't eat in a place where hunger is a problem... Superstition is seldom without harm.
But anyway, if you actually LISTEN to those people you mentioned, you'll notice that it's not an equivocation that they mainly attack the abrahamic religions. It's a clear choice because they think they are the most dangerous those who most affect their own culture.
kaminarigaston 1 year ago
@kaminarigaston Caste, superstition ... what else? And how does this relate to Hinduism?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
Superstition, you know? Like when you kill people and wait for the dawn, and if the sun goes out, it means that the killing was enough. And how does this relate to hinduism?... Well GEE, I don't know! Through a convoluted history of flawed thinking and lackadaisical discrimination between founded and unfounded claims?
kaminarigaston 1 year ago
@kaminarigaston So, Hinduism = "you kill people and wait for the dawn, and if the sun goes out, it means that the killing was enough". That's Hinduism, is it?
And what unfounded claims does Hindusim make? In fact, what claims does Hinduism make at all?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
No, that's not hinduism, that's superstition. What claims does hinduism make? Since it's a melage of assorted traditions, none and a whole lot. Some dude named Ghandi for example claimed "The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection".
kaminarigaston 1 year ago
@kaminarigaston So how is one to come to grips and debate either for or against a faith that makes no claims and a whole lot of claims, and seems to thrive on its contradictions?
That's my entire point, actually.
:-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@kaminarigaston Would India's hunger problem won't get magically resolved if people start eating beef? Consider the fact that America is rich in land where cattle can be mass produced. In India cattle is needed to plough the fields which provides grain, that is nutrition. The dung is fertilizer and fuel, the milk is also nutritious. Cattle is more useful alive than dead under such a setup for the sake of nutrition. The idea of the sacred cow grew out from that tradition.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@kaminarigaston Now there are a lot of stray dogs in India. They can be captured and killed but they just seem to breed and feel the vacuum. I once floated the idea that we should get some Korean chefs to teach Indians how to cook dog. The poor and starving will have food and the stray problem is also solved. No one liked my idea and dogs are not even sacred.
82abhilash 1 year ago
What about indigenous African and Native belief systems? I'm so tired of Asian examples being the only counter-example people use when making this argument. *sighs*...
cymonebreathe 1 year ago
@cymonebreathe There's only so much one can study within the scope of a human lifetime, and Hinduism is more than enough for 100 lives. No offense meant to the San or the Anishinabe.
:-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
The oldest records of atheists are from India. wiki article "atheism in hinduism" can tell you more about that. also, you can google "progress of atheism in india"
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo Yes indeed. There's nothing fundamentally incompatible between Hinduism and atheism.
But what does this do to our definition of "religion"?
:-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Yeah, religion is a fuzzy word indeedf, as is atheism nowadays. Believer and non-believer are the best terms to use, as some religious are not always believers and some non-believers doesn't consider themselves atheists. Things can get misunderstood quite a lot with those terms therefore.
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo Quite. Often people reject something simply because it has the term "atheist" or "religion" attached to it, regardless of the content of the discussion. That's narrow-mindedness, however one defines it.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
Not all Atheist bother to fight for their view on religion neither do all Christians, Muslims etc.
Those Atheist who like to have the discussion mostly end up in a quarrel with Christians here in the west.(Hard to find a Hindu)
rusle 1 year ago
@rusle If you go looking for a discussion, you can have one with anyone. If you go looking for a quarrel, you can find one too :-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
Good topic! Having spent my teens studying Eastern religions, it is also clear to me that most atheists assume that refuting the Abrahamic traditions entails refuting religion per se.
And when atheists do consider Oriental religions, too often, rather than approaching with a fresh objectivity, they import the same assumptions and vitriol they've developed for their native religion as if all religions are the same.
Such a-priori bias ensures glossing over important differences among religions.
iamgoddard 1 year ago
@iamgoddard Indeed. I'll have quite a few additional videos on this one :-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@ITZBIZBUZ Debating religion is something just about any Hindu is willing to do. Showing deliberate and calculated offense will tuen anyone off, regardless of what is being discussed.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad, and an interesting feature of Indic religions is that their adherents scramble to argue that their faith, from its ancient texts, is consistent with modern scientific findings. You can find many books on how ancient Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist models of reality jibe with contemporary cosmology and physics.
Quite the opposite of how so many Bible believers have reacted to science over the last few centuries, trying to deny science. Suggests better flexibility in Oriental traditions.
iamgoddard 1 year ago
And here's clear evidence of belief flexibility in Buddhism: watch?v=rQ_zIEFHz3I
That video from Emory University about teaching science to Buddhist monks and nuns observes at 3:05: "These monks and nuns are even willing to toss out a long-held belief of the Buddhist faith if modern science proves it wrong."
That shows remarkable belief adaptability among Buddhist monks and nuns, the most likely to be prone to inflexible dogmatism. This certainly shows something very unique about Buddhism.
iamgoddard 1 year ago
@iamgoddard Hinduism has no definitive "canon", nor does Buddhism or even Jainism. This sometimes gets them dismissed as unintelligible or meaningless, but it also makes them much more flexible and adaptable.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
The simple answer (as an Atheist) is that I don't. I have no issue with them, unless they start using force and passing laws which affect me. THAT is why Atheists "go after" Christians. They attempt to enforce their lifestyle upon us.
tecnoblix 1 year ago
@tecnoblix So "atheism" isn't about whether or not god exists ... ?
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Even a belief that gods don't exist (rather than only lack of belief) isn't requiring absolute certainty, and certainly doesn't require a conviction that this is important to make other people also have as their position.
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo I agree. It's getting increasingly difficult to nail down what the various terms mean, isn't it?
:-)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
Like the Aberhamic faiths, the ones you mention have preasts for whom there is a conflict of intrest . They must tayler the message toward a biger stripend, that goes some way to explaneing how castraited boy prostatuites at the golden temple can be a " good thing". So if I thought That if I could not be an atheist Iwould have to be a diest or primativest.
clawdfrawg 1 year ago
@clawdfrawg You'll find all kinds of superstition, abuse and insanity in Hinduism. You'll also find mind-blowing speculations and philosophie. Like reality itself, Hinduism is equal parts beauty and filth.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I Like that answer plain, simple,yet the kind of thing that neads to be stated once in while. Just the same I had hoped you would adress the point that once you have a preist who makes a living at it, he whould be working against his own intrest to favor truth werever you find it. So to sum it up the more organized a faith the less likley it has an opinion that is not clouded by there own motives.
clawdfrawg 1 year ago
We really just attack claims. Especially if they try and push it on us. There are parts of eastern religion I will disagree with, but since they aren't being pushy with it except for the very extreme, we don't really care that much. Most of us have been raised with or around Abraham faiths in the west, so that's the definition of god that everyone here knows. I consider myself a philosophical Buddhist and Taoist but I'm still an atheist.
anubis2814 1 year ago
@anubis2814 "I consider myself a philosophical Buddhist and Taoist but I'm still an atheist"
See the problem with even starting a debate on "Atheism vs India"?
But that causes another problem. Are Buddhism or Taoism (or Hinduism) religions? And if they aren't what are they? And what is religion?
Heh heh ...
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I can't say I see a problem. There is theoretical and applied philosophy just like there is theoretical and applied science. Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism are either applied philosophies or religions depending on what you believe about them and how much of the supernatural is involved, Hinduism has many schools of thought and even had an atheist school of thought. There are as many "denominations" of these as there is Christianity. They range from all extremes as well.
anubis2814 1 year ago
For my self I believe that it can be some God like beings, but we can't prove that it is. But I don't believe that there is a single Abrahamic creator-God. If Gods exists they are not supernatural just natural but in a realm of realety that we for the time being can't measure and understand. But just coz we can't understand it doesn’t mean that it don't exist. Just a thought from me. Regards and have a skilful life. Pinge
PingeMusic 1 year ago
@PingeMusic That's pretty much how I feel. Disbelieving the Abrahamic god doesn't mean one is an atheist at all.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Many times when I follow the debate it seams like it's more about what the doctrines claim that God is not really if a God is possible or not
PingeMusic 1 year ago
I'm guessing it's just the flip-side of Mere Exposure Effect; mystery solved?
TETSUno1 1 year ago
@ITZBIZBUZ The problem with Hinduism and Buddhism is that they use so much deliberate paradox that it is difficult to find an idea out there to debunk. And yet they point to something ... an existence or "reality" that is far beyond what our normal sensory apparatus are capable of picking up on, except in rapid flashes.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad From what I can understand, these belief systems (thinker toys I think) are instruments to broaden your mind towards possibilities you have not considered. Their purpose seems to be to keep people broadminded at all times. However, if one deliberately chooses to be narrow minded, then even these beliefs may not suffice. So it has its limits. And once limits are reached superstitions creep in. By the 18th and 19th century, Indian society was certainly in a state of decay.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@Anekantavad On the other hands Dawkins says it is not a good idea to be broad minded enough to let your brains drop out. But if you are broadminded, you are also receptive to tools that allow you to discriminate between good and bad ideas. Which means bad ideas once entered can be go into the trash bin of your mind.
82abhilash 1 year ago
I'd say Kuba022's beaten me to what I'd've said.
MrKrov 1 year ago
@MrKrov What claims is Hinduism or Buddhism making?
(I'll ask Kuba the identical question ...)
Anekantavad 1 year ago
I have always enjoyed this debate with Hindus, although i realise it is mostly futile. The great thing about Hinduism, as i understand it, is that its set of stories are like the first chapters of a play that current believers are currently all playing their own tiny part in now. Atheism even has its place there, see Astika and Carvaka schools.
The point is that they are just stories, we are still just monkies and we are all spinning through space on a lump of disinterested rock.
gabiotta 1 year ago
@gabiotta I agree that atheism and Hinduism are not necessarily at loggerheads. The only conflict I would see is that a "philosophical" or adept or advanced Hindu (if s/he even used the term "Hindu" anymore) would see "atheist" as too narrow a philosophy to encapsulate the totality of existence.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
I would have thought anybody who wasn't being fed through a tube would think "atheist" as too narrow a philosophy to encapsulate the totality of existence. That does not mean that there is any validity it whatever stories that they've made up to explain whatever they don't understand about reality.
gabiotta 1 year ago
Ane-I find myself grappling a bit with this too. I guess I would be considered a "Naturalistic Pagan", following some practices of the Celtic/Germanic Pagans (Wheel of the Year-I live in a pastoral area of the US where the seasons are depended on) and some Native American tradition (Ojibway medicine wheel-very similar to the Wheel of the Year), which is very earth based but looks beyond the material. BTW, I dont believe in heaven or gods/goddesses/magic.
skeletonmom 1 year ago
@skeletonmom This is why I have always wanted to do a video on (my conception of) female spirituality. It's quite a different thing from the uber-masculine abrahamic faiths, and Hinduism is IMO one of the strongest survivals of the pre-abrahamic "pagan" or syncretic religions that give equal weight to male and female spirituality - although adamantly insisting that they are ultimately two seperate (yet complimentary) things.
I'll deal with this in another video in this series.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad - Cool! Looking forward to it.
Dont know if you have any information about the Indigenous (First Nations) Peoples of the Americas spiritual practices but a video mentioning them would be interesting. They are "western", but their genetic ancestry is from the east due to the migrations from other continents to the new world. Not out of the realm of possibility that they took some of those old beliefs with them in their oral history.
skeletonmom 1 year ago
@skeletonmom - Darn character limit. Oral spiritual history that changes with the needs of the people and its community, as opposed to a written, fixed spiritual history is an interesting topic, too. Although, its more fagile-and can be wiped away with genocide.
skeletonmom 1 year ago
Atheists don't HAVE TO attack any religion unless one considers stating "I don't believe in that" as an attack.
The Abrahamic religions claim over 50% of the world population, with other religions being scattered mostly over non-English speaking countries.
Outspoken atheism on the internet seems to have started as a response against discrimination, not an attack and steamrolled from there into what it is today.
If a Hindus started posting more videos, you'd see more of a focus on them.
Meh.
robtbo 1 year ago
@robtbo I'm sure there are atheists in India who are outspoken against Hindus, but since I don't know the language... how can I tell?
robtbo 1 year ago
@robtbo I do know the language. So I can tell. They do a good job of debunking charlatans playing magic tricks on unsuspecting illeterates. But they do not usually mount philosophical attacks. It is difficult, if not impossible. There is no single coherent text. There is no to do list. There is no central dogma. Besides you can address superstitions and social evils without debunking any important doctrines. In fact that is the most effective ways to address them. So what is there to debunk?
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash I figured there was a good probability that was going on. India seems to be an interesting mix of cultures colliding as the country expands. I don't know much of the political climate or discrimination that occurs, but from what little I've read, the religion seems to be very free-form.
Personally, I don't seek to debunk religion, but promote unifying philosophies. People will always have differences in belief. Coexistence seems a more reasonable goal.
robtbo 1 year ago
@robtbo If you believe your way of life is superior to all others, then co-existence is just a means of buying time until you are strong enough to destroy people who lives are 'inferior'. Such ideologies need to be debunked. There are threads of such thoughts within Hinduism too, thought they are not too prominent. I take the time to debunk them too. The Hare Krishnas for example are definitely supremacists. But they have become less troublesome these days. In the 1970s they where a nuisance.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash Religions almost necessitate the concept of a superior lifestyle. If it results in acting out against others, they're dangerous. It's important to let it be known that the rest of humanity won't tolerate it, even if it requires an "enemy of my enemy" tactic within the affected (inflicted) region.
Without saying circumstances won't ever call for action, I have faith that the role of religion will diminish in favor of practicality until only the "loonies" remain amongst a majority.
robtbo 1 year ago
@robtbo Not necessarily. In Hinduism people who practice their faith in variance with yours and even contrary to your understanding is often times legitimized under the notion of 'since people are different, truth is revealed to them differently'. Superiority complex not necessary. That is necessary all when religion becomes an instrument for totalitarianism. Can that happen with Hinduism? I do not know. But I know that before the Islamic invasions, wars in India where not religiously motivated.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash Considering the generally tolerant attitude, I wouldn't consider the religion worth opposing except on a local level, to prevent discrimination where it arises. Beliefs that are harmless amount to little more than opinion.
Trying to spread a belief through dishonesty, ignorance or exploiting ignorance does merit attention, but if such a religion makes an individual feel complete, I'd consider it more a negative thing to try to debunk it.
robtbo 1 year ago
@robtbo There is a saying, 'If you can make people believe absurdities, then you can make them commit atrocities.' Because any idea that is called a religion is given state sanctioned protection, today absurd ideas have accumulated within religious circles. Problems of religion are social problems. They need to be handled by people with good judgement. People apt at managing social issues. There is no magic solution that works for all.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash 'If you can make people believe absurdities, then you can make them commit atrocities.'
True, but if a central philosophy of Hinduism allows people to determine their individual beliefs, and it is adhered to, there should be no making of people to believe.
The philosophy seems to make the religion itself suicidal in the face of the spread of reason.
robtbo 1 year ago
@robtbo I can say with some reservation that there is no central philosophy to Hinduism. It is very decentralized. But the freedom for individual belief was not always the case. The caste system which started out based on the division labor evolved over time to something very rigid. What you should believe and do had to do a lot with the caste of your parents. If you behaved in a manner inappropriate for your caste, you could be banished. The India that the British captured has many ills.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash The caste system is the social system that allowed all the bramins and ksatriyas the leisure to speculate about everything.
All is paradox, and all is irony.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I doubt that. The Brahmins where usually very poor. They did contemplate, but it would be wrong to call it leisure. The Kshatriays has wealth, but it was taxes so it was technically not their own. They where busy with wars, especially during the times the Islamic rulers where trying to Islamize all of India. The Vaishyas usually had less wealth than the Kshatriays, but they could call it their own. They probably had more leisure time than others.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash The brahmins were poor, but they did not want for anything. They were provided for by the other castes so that all their basic needs were met. That means leisure. The ksatriyas had leisure, since even in times of war most soldiers aren't fighting.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad When there is no fighting, the soldiers have to stay alert. Scholars are fed and clothed because scholarly pursuits are supposed to benefit society and they need the academic freedom for that. It is very simplistic to say that because no manual labor was done, therefore it is al leisure.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash The ksatriyas made their own leisure. The Buddha and Mahavira were ksatriyas and they rejected the ritualism of the brahmins and found leisure in either rejecting wealth and luxury and sense-gratification and relied upon begging, or like Mahavira they relied upon nothing at all and fasted to death.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad Yeah I suppose it is not wrong to say that the ksatriyas enjoyed leisure. But the leisure of a dutiful ksatriya was like that of a soldier on a break, enjoying the time he had not knowing when he will be called back to the front. But that of a corrupt ksatriya was like that of a soldier deserting his post and enjoying himself while the enemy ravaged his land. My point is that it was not a leisure driven society. But people did seem to have a lot of time on their hands regardless.
82abhilash 1 year ago