Atheism, Spritualism, Theism, Agnosticism and Hinduism – Join the debate
This is a lazy post i.e. one made up entirely of comments by other readers. It is an offshoot of the discussion on the post re. attack on an Army convoy in Tamil Nadu.
Somewhere along the line, the discussion on the Tamil Nadu post branched off into a debate on Atheism, Theism, Spritualism, Humanism, Agnosticism etc. Read on to see how...and please share your thoughts, futher comments etc below.
Particular thanks to Sabari and Harapriya. I am learning a lot from this.
*** Beginning of Comments ***
***
Comment by Nanda (below):
This is a very good lesson for those who think ‘Periyar alais EV Ramasamy’ has done any good for the state.
Periyar and the DK clan has spoiled Tamil people to the core and have made them irreligious, immoral, casteists, hate mongers and anti-nationals. He is the worst of the Indian atheists who invariably take the society on a self-destructive path or in an anti-hindu path.
Similar to extrimist’s version of Islam, TN is facing an ideological corruption built by Periyar who opposed India as an independant nation because of his anti-hindu stand. Only way to control this ideological barbarianism and anti-nationalism is to lock all periyar worshippers and anyone strongly associated with Periyar ideology under NSA, which is unlikely as all the powerful antisocial elements and rogue politicians would fall under this category.
Unless Indian government does something at the earliest, noone can stop TN becoming another J&K, may be even become a danger to the security of the Indian republic.
***
Comment by Sabari:
   …spoiled Tamil people to the core and have made them irreligious, immoral, casteists, hate mongers and anti-nationals
Sweeping generalisations for the win!
   noone can stop TN becoming another J&K
WTF‽
The PDK are about as representative of the better ideals of Periyar as the Chinese are communist. (That means that they aren’t. 😉 ) Also, TN would be a far better place if the people actually were irreligious.
***
Comment by Nanda:
@Sabari
“TN would be a far better place if the people actually were irreligious†– I won’t blame you, because as an atheist and one of DK clan, it is just your philosophy.
@Sabari,
Also, Your character is clear by your drerogatory remarks ‘WTF’. I am confident you are one of those DK clan atheists. I am not surprised or insulted as its just your character.
“Sweeping generalisations for the win†– Voting a well known anti-hindu who abuses hindu gods is irreligious, TN has the most number of OBC-SCST fights in the world this is casteist, majority believes in aryan theory and hate them as outsiders this is hate mongers, you are an example for being immoral for commenting WTF without respect, entire periyar clan is against Indian soverignity and just sticking to india out of lack of strong support. Now where is the generalisation. I know about exceptions.
***
Comment by Sabari:
I’m not from TN, nor am I a DK sympathiser. While I’m at it I should add that I completely agree with the original article, since some of you lot seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance. But I cannot accept the implication—I’m looking at you Nanda—that a major part of the country is made up of imbeciles.
Nanda: drerowhatnow? Also you appear to be quite sure of which side the exceptions are on.
Shantanu: The amount of superstition that prevails is terrible. That probably is the case elsewhere too, but this I have seen. Also, religion (I’m thinking theism and spiritualism here) never did anyone any good.
(Whilst we’re I’m on the topic of credulity, what do people think of what this chap has to say?)
PS: Being a Hindu or an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Get over it.
***
Comment by K. Harapriya:
“Religion….never did anyone any goodâ€. I suppose then that we will have to dismiss every classical work of art, sculpture, literature, music etc. from India since all these were expressions of that “religious†belief. We might also have to dismiss the entire philosophy of Vedanta because it too represents a religious point of view.
Let us also dismiss every act of charity done in the name of the unknown and perhaps unknowable God.
One of the greatest myths of modern times is that atheism is somehow representative of rational thought, rooted in facts. Another myth is that to be an atheist is to be intellectual. However, that is not exactly true. Atheism is really just another religion. Its adherents also cling to their beliefs. They deny the existence of God and dispute the very concept of a spiritual experience. But really, unless you know what God is, how can you deny or dismiss it? And if you have never sought or had a spiritual experience, how can you claim that it is not relevant for the entire humanity.
What atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins usually do, is attack a particular religions’ definition of God, yet they pose it as though it holds true for all religions. Dawkins in fact says in his book that Pantheism is just “sexed up atheismâ€. That is not really true and if he actually understood pantheism he might have refrained from saying it. However, people with a Euro-centric bias often don’t consider other possible definitions of God.
***
Comment by Sabari:
@ K. Harapriya:
since all these were expressions of that “religious†belief
Were they all? Of course not.
   Let us also dismiss every act of charity …
Why? Let’s just dismiss the reasoning, and not the result; ends don’t always justify the means. There’s no need to be petty.
   Atheism is really just another religion.
Sigh. Atheism is the lack of belief in god, not belief in the non-existence of god.
   how can you deny or dismiss it?
   And if you have never sought or had a spiritual experience…
As long as there is no implication that the spiritual experience had anything supernatural about it, I don’t care.
   pantheism…
I’ve always thought of it as watered down monotheism.
Well done for ignoring many centuries of rationalism, empiricism and humanism in India!
PS: Agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive either.
***
Comment by K. Harapriya:
@Sabari. 1. Pantheism….watered down monotheism. Monotheism is the belief that God is the primary but not the material cause of the universe i.e God is the creator but not part of the creation. Pantheism is the belief that God is both the primary and material cause of the universe i.e there is “god stuff†within the creation.
2. Classical Indian arts and literature were linked to the relgious beliefs of the people. Thus, classical music (esp. carnatic), classical Indian dance (Bharata Natyam, Kuchipudi etc.) and classical Indian literature (including the Mahabharata, works of Kalidasa, Tulsidas etc.) were an outgrowth of a certain religious ethos and belief system. I was speaking specifically of Hindus and their classical literature.
3. †Atheism is lack of belief and not belief in the non-existence of God†Well, not exactly. According to Websters, atheism is the “doctrine that there is no God†and an atheist is one who denies the existence of God. While atheists like to pretend that their position is a neutral and a tolerant one which includes a lack of belief accompanied by tolerance for whatever others believe in , it is in practice as virulent and aggressive as those of the believers. Atheism is not a politically or socially inactive ideology which is content with mere discussion of the possibility or impossibility of God. It is an ideology which seeks to dismantle not merely religious belief but also the institutions of religion. We have numerous examples in India, whether it is installing a Periyar statue in front of Sri Rangam as an affront to Hindus, or the questioning of Rama’s existence and engineering qualifications.
4. While it is indeed intellectually seductive to try to conflate rationalism with atheism (which is what Karunanidhi thinks he is doing), they are not the same. Rationalism is the use of reason as a basis of establishing religious truth. In fact, that is what Adi Shankara does in his explantion of Vedanta. It is also the subject matter of Vedanta itself.
***
Comment by K. Harapriya:
@ Sabari.This is what M.V. Ramamurthy said on his lecture on Atheism and Humanism in ancient India.
†But what we actually need is not a submissive type of reformation but a bold intellectual revolution and renaissance. This we find coming up in the twentieth century in the form of persons like the Devatma, M.N. Roy, Periyar E.V., Ramasamay, Gora, Dr. Ambedkar, Jawahar Lal Nehru, the socialists and the Marxists and a host of others. People are yet to realize the advantages of atheism. If atheism reigns over the whole world, most of the tensions and wars and terrorism going on at present in the name of God and religion will vanish and a positivist breeze will start blowing. With the help of the present technology the unification of humanity as one family is likely to emergeâ€
This poor man has obviously not heard of the atrocities done by atheists, from Stalin to Pol Pot–all of them Marxists. He is also obviously not cognizant of the atrocities committed by Maoists and various naxalite groups in India, all subscribing to various versions of Marxism (which includes the ideology of atheism) .
Let me end by saying that if indeed the “lack of belief in god†can cause so much destruction, let me have one of those aggressive monotheisms instead which at least occassionally do some good works. Even if the end doesn’t always justify the means, and even if the ends are nefarious, at least in doing some good to benefit humanity is dharmic in itself.
***
Â
Comment by Sabari:
@ K. Harapriya:
   1.
Indeed.
   2.
The plots of most song and dance certainly drew from the myths.
   I was speaking specifically of Hindus and their classical literature.
Presumably you’re also only considering those Hindus who believe in the supernatural. That’s hardly fair!
So no Jain literature then. That leaves treatises on medicine, politics and grammar. How about Sangam poetry? Let’s not get into a debate about Thiruvalluvar’s faith. 🙂
Does a religious piece (a great deal of them rather, I grant you) make the entire art form religious?
So, not all classical art was religious. Even otherwise, why dismiss the results?
(Vayalar, an atheist, wrote some of the best devotional music in Malayalam.)
(Orson Scott Card is a crazy Mormon homophobe, and much worse, but Ender’s Game is a good novel. He’s not getting any of my money though.)
   3.
You’re still confusing atheism with an organised belief system. It isn’t, and neither is Hinduism for that matter; and again, not mutually exclusive. So some atheists fit my definition, some yours, many neither.
   Atheism is not a politically or socially inactive ideology
I would certainly hope so.
   the questioning of Rama’s existence and engineering qualifications
I liked that. 🙂
   4. they are not the same
Quite right.
You’re still ignoring India’s tradition of empiricism and humanism. Anyway, we’ve drifted quite a bit now.
***
Comment by Sabari:
@ K. Harapriya:
   This poor man has obviously not heard of the atrocities done by atheists
Now you’re confusing correlation with causation. Nothing excuses violence or intolerance.
(I don’t share M. V. Ramamurthy’s optimism that things would suddenly become so rosy.)
In fact Stalin, Pol Pot and the violent Marx/Mao-ists are just as guilty of cultishness and dogma as organised religion, and their followers are just as irrational. Apart from the obvious one, there is no binding ideology amongst atheists.
Just because one calls oneself a follower of an ideal or individual doesn’t mean he adheres to the values it represents. The recent violence in Karnataka isn’t representative of Hindusim, and the Catholic church wasn’t responsible for what Hitler thought or did. (Why am I defending religion now? 😉 )
   at least in doing some good to benefit humanity is dharmic in itself
(Straw man! Straw man!) Assuming non-otherworldly definitions of dharma, yes, let’s not dismiss the results, no matter how selfish the reasons might have been. (Correlation, Causation …)
But theism and spiritualism (Hindu or otherwise) are responsible for superstition, division, and much worse.
***** End of Comments ***
Please continue the discussion below.
Other Lazy Posts:
On Marayada Purushottam, Sita Mata, Agni Pariksha and Vaali VadhÂ
Do you believe in Jesus as much as you believe in Ganesh?Â
A strategic response to terror – “Balkanization†of Pakistan?
@Sabari. Let me get this straight. According to you, Hinduism can be blamed for the superstitions and divisions practised by its adherents although these find no support from primary scriptures (Vedas), but we cannot blame atheists for their atrocities because they don’t have a shared ideology. But that isn’t true. Atheists do have a shared ideology–which is the implicit belief that since there is no God, there is no fear of retribution. Therefore, since there is no retribution or afterlife (i.e no karma demerits) they can and have acted with impunity in the 20th century. Some of the worst acts of violence in the last century have been done by atheists.
Why then should we not hold their belief system accountable for their behaviour?
@Sabari,
One of the tactics of atheists like you in TN and Kerala is to mix athesism with hinduism thereby trying to destroy hinduism. Hindu and Ateist are mutually exclusive.. get over it.
Atheist are the number one enemy of Hinduism, because they are irreligious.
You are yourself unclear of your phylosophies..When harapriya talks about classical hindu literature, you are saying “How about Sangam poetry”. If classical literature has religious elements, it doesn’t meat it does not have ‘non-religious’ elements. Get over your misunderstanding.
Atheists in TN and Kerala(if it includes you) show Sangam literature as non-religious. This is the level of knowledge on Tamil these people have. There are plenty of references to hinduism in sangam literature.
The question is no whether ‘to discuss the merits of hinduism with an Atheist’, the question is the respect an atheist gives for people who have faith’. In principle, atheist must oppose all religion. Even in that case, they cannot disresepct people of religions. This is exactly the problem with TN atheists like all the DK clan and their patronisers. I’m sure this is there all over India but very worse in TN.
The amount of hate monging the prevails in India is terrible. Atheism in India has done no good, it only caused people to live like animals, with no ethics.
K Harapriya
Hinduism promotes a belief system that supports such supersticions. If you in one supersticion without evidence, why not another? What is the line you draw if the subjective becomes acceptable evidence?
We don’t blame atheism for the atrocities of communists because it is pretty obvious their motivation (it starts with a c). It is similar to the fact that if a religious person commits a crime we don’t immediately assume religious motivation.
As for atheists believe they can act with impunity, you do realize that is a logical fallacy?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
More to the point, if fear is all that prevents you from evil you are not a moral person.
Nanda
Atheists do not have to oppose all religion. If one is a utilitarian they only have to oppose it when it is a threat. A good number are perfectly fine with it as long as its members do not confuse it with objective reality.
Atheism has caused people in India to live like animals? How so?
Skinner- >>>>”Hinduism promotes a belief system that supports such superstitions..”
Thanks.
Strangely, this is the same line that britishers adopted. And missionaries.
Such a coincidence that you too think on those lines.
And the britishers, after destroying indigenous education system started teaching this line to indians for about 200 years.
Many indians who believed it started disrespecting their own culture and accepted the westerners as leaders which is what the britishers wanted.
But somehow this insinuation is not supported by ancient indian literature.
Is there any chance that the venerable britishers were misled about ancient indian scriptures ?
No, Hinduism can’t, but the theists can, and I shall continue to draw a distinction.
The Vedas might be the primary scriptures for some, but the vast majority of people who are identified as Hindus haven’t read them, if indeed they have heard of them. You mentioned Vedanta before – how many people have even heard of it?
How about adherents of Charvaka, were they not Hindus? How about the many temples were they still sacrifice animals? Temples where they offer the gods meat and alcohol? How about the many Hindus for whom beef is a primary source of sustenance? I am not describing rural, or exceptional practices.
Since Nanda brought up Kerala, the most important day in the Malayali calendar is Onam. The Malayalis have a take on the Vamana-Mahabali story that is different from that of the rest of us. Are they heretics?
There is much more to Hinduism than what you describe. I surely don’t want to see the good bits gone. I could equally accuse people who share your viewpoint of hijacking the religion. That isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.
Again, causation and correlation aren’t the same thing. If the only reason you are moral is fear and selfishness, I am sorry!
Does that include the Buddhists and Jains? There are many people who identify themselves as Hindu atheists too.
Of course. I have poly/mono-theists in my family. Nearly half of my sister’s in-laws are Muslim. Neighbours, friends of all sorts of faiths. I get on very well with all of them, but I don’t have to respect what they believe.
Nonsense. Besides, Humans aren’t the only animals with ethics.
Not all of it (Hinduism). There was, and continues to be, a huge gap between the various intellectual, rational schools and everyday, folk Hinduism practised by the masses.
Interesting point. I’m curious about the change in accessibility to education over the years though.
@Sabari
More food on killing animals in Temple.
My mind goes back to the 1939 George Stevens escapist adventure movie Gunga Din. The film is about a trio of Her Majesty’s finest British soldiers in India, where they take on an uprising of Kali-worshipping Thugees. The Thugees are used as the all-purpose evil enemy dedicated to the slaughter of white men, while chanting “Kill for the love of Kali, kill as you yourselves would be killed, kill for the love of killing…kill, kill, kill!” Gunga Din influenced the way that many westerners of that era viewed India and Hinduism in general, giving the impression of a backward country full of brutal pagan savages (Hindus).
Films and TV programs like these are fraught with xenophobic imagery and misrepresentations reinforcing colonial notions of Hindus as uncivilised savages with brutal gods. It could be argued that Thugees were indeed a real group and thus as the dominant impression of Kali in western media as portrayed in these films is somehow justified. However history tells us that the Thugee were just a sort of back-country Mafia that slaughtered tradesmen and anyone traveling with valuables, and that their Kali worshipping religious element has just been romanticised to create fantasies about them. Research shows that they had both Hindus and Muslim as members and naturally tended to take up the general religious customs of the region they resided in.
http://www.hinduvoice.co.uk/Issues/7/Kali.htm
@Sabari. Let me clarify. Hindu philosophy is divided into orthodox and heterodox systems. The orthodox systmes accept the Vedas as pramana (a means of knowledge) and the the heterodox systems do not.
The six systems of Indian philosophy or the Shad-Darsanas are the six orthodox systems of philosophy. They are the six ways of looking at the Truth. They are
(1) The Nyaya;
(2) The Vaiseshika;
(3) The Sankhya;
(4) The Yoga;
(5) The Purva-Mimamsa
(6) The Uttara-Mimamsa, or the Vedanta.
The orthodox systems of philosophy believe in the authority of the Vedas. The heterodox systems of philosophy do not believe in the authority of the Vedas. The six heterodox systems of philosophy are:
1. The Materialistic School of Charvaka;
2. The System of the Jainas;
3. The School of Presentationists or Vaibhashikas (Buddhistic);
4. The School of Representationists or Sautrantikas (Buddhistic);
5. The School of Idealism or Yogacharas (Buddhistic); and
6. The School of Nihilism of the Madhyamikas (Buddhistic)
So technically, Jainism, Buddhism and Charvaka do not constitute Hinduism. However, according to our constitution for legal and census purposes, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are considered Hindus because they practice an Indic religion (one that originated in India).
“if the only reason you are moral is fear..” and “if fear is what prevents you evil…”
Actually fear of consequences is really the basis of our entire legal system. The concept that there are painful consequences if the law is broken is what prevents rampant anarchy. In fact, in countries (perhaps unlike India) where the law is more stingently enforced, we find that most people are quite law abiding. Religions merely extend that logic to include the personal sphere. Can a person be moral without religion? Absolutely. But most religions do provide a moral compass which is very useful for its adherants.
“Correlation and causation are not the same thing”. True but are you sure it is merely correlation? My stance is that atheism ((the position that there is no God) also implies that there is no soul (atma), no afterlife( i.e in the form of heaven or even rebirth–reincarnation). Thus, atheists do not have a reason to be moral and some have indeed been very immoral or amoral. One interesting fact is the common ideology shared by two nations that had leaders commit genocide of its people — China under Mao (the cultural revolution) and Pol Pot (Cambodia). Both nations embraced communism (which has atheism as a core principle) and were formerly Buddhist countries (another ideology which has atheism as a core principle). ( Merely an interesting coincidence).
@ Samuel Skinner. Yes it is a logical fallacy to assume that consquences are the result of the truth or falseness of a belief. But I never said that. I merely said that one’s actions flow from the beliefs one holds (irrespective of whether those are true or false). For example, if the LTTE did not believe that they are a people who are intrinsically different in culture, tradition, history from the rest of Sri Lanka, they might be less inclined to terrorism. If Missionaries did not believe that only those who believe in Jesus go to heaven, they may be less inclined to trying to convert the whole world to Christianity. Need more examples?
Regarding the topic of Hinduism promoting superstition. Superstition exists among people of all religions whether in Sub-saharan Africa where people regularly practice female circumcision or in the most modern of places, the U.S. where they have male circumcision. Both are medically unnecessary and yet done on a regular basis. Thus superstitious practices can exist among the educated or uneducated. But generally, we find that the more educated a population is , it is less inclined to superstitious practices. So the problem may not be the religious doctrines but rather the lack of education.
“How many people have read the Vedas…Vedanta” Actually, it is a misunderstanding of the way Hinduism was transmitted for centuries. The essential teachings of Hinduism were always transmitted orally . Even though most of the practicing Hindus do not know the actual slokas of the Vedas, they all seem to know the essential teachings of the the Vedas–including the concepts of dharma, Karma and samskararas ( these are the central principles of Hinduism). This was possible because the entire Puranic literature as well as the Ithihaasas (Ramayana, Mahabharata etc.) all reiterate the central principles of Vedas. That is why, while most do not read the Vedas, many do read the Gita which again has explains the Vedanta in concise form.
Hinduism is not a religion of fanatics which requires religious study of books and indoctrination.
I thought I will quote from the wikipedia article on Stalin to give an example of atheistic fundamentalism :
Samuel Skinner : You say that the fundamental motivation of fundamentalists of this kind was communism and not atheism. Well, one can say exactly the same thing about atrocities commited in the name of Hinduism too – one can identify specific political factors and blame them, and claim that Hinduism wasn’t the motivation at all.
Do you realize that your argument is exactly that of those who say “True Hindu will not kill”, “True Muslim will not kill” etc.
Oops, I screwed up both formatting and content. My comparison with “those who say True Hindu will not kill” etc. was ill founded.
What I mean is – people of any denomination can commit atrocities. And various complex socio-political factors will be interwoven into each atrocity. Fanatic versions of religions get peddled in order to gain followers – just as science and technology are used to make bombs. And similarly a certain fanatic version of atheism played a role in Stalin’s atrocities. Of so many factors blaming religion alone is, you know, nothing but witch-hunting.
What strikes out to me about modern-day Indian atheists is their propensity to declare their “faith”. Otherwise, no one in India goes around asking others (as a litmus test) or declaring one’s own faith – “Hey, I’m a Hindu and my ishtdeva is Krishna/Shiva/Vishnu” or “Hey, what branch of Hinduism do you belong to? Which god/goddess do you worship?”
It’s not something that Hindus ask of each other (at least I never, not once, experienced it while growing up), or declare to each other their faith – and implicit in that (non)action is acceptance of whatever faith, whatever path the other follows and that it’s one’s personal matter. Whereas, modern-day atheists feel the need to declare their “faith” and judge others on theirs, and have a tendency – along the same lines as Christianity and Islam (or any other totalitarian concept) – to be virulently anti-Hindu/anti-religion and changing it from a personal matter to a public matter.
For what it’s worth.
Hinduism and Theism. While the word Hinduism has been used to refer to a religion, a philosophy , culture and a civilization at varying times, the religion of Hinduism is essentially theistic in nature and inclues ideas of mono, poly and/or pan theism. Yes, one can be an atheist Hindu only if one refers to Hinduism as a conglomeration of cultural practices devoid of a theologicial and philosophical anchor.
Well I’m surprised the 2 major religions in the world are not brought into the conversation, which are the imaginary religion created by a fanatic(Islam) and the one created and sustained by war mongers(Christianity) using a fictional character(Jesus).
Comment 4
I hold that about ALL irrational belief systems. Homopathy is rampant in England and the church is partly to blame there for its embracing of mushy wushyness. The communists whole “trust authorities implicatly” hasn’t helped rational thinking either.
The British held that line because they thought the Indians were barbaric savages. Apparently they took practices like burning people alive and blamed it on the religion because in Europe (and most societies) religion was tied to morality and custom. Not being able to read the local language, they went with the more obvious path- people claim it in name of faith=the faith. If people do barbaric things obviously they need to get a faith that isn’t barbaric- ours. This ignored some of the more… bloody things in Christianity and has resulted in Christianity being seen ironically as a more liberal religion in parts of Asia.
Comment 5
All religions have a rationalist movement inside them. The Catholic Church is known for both its rampant dogmatism and excellent schooling, Islam had the “Dark Ages”, Confucism ran academies, etc. Anti-intellectual religions are rare are religions may not be pro-reason they do try to include as many individuals as possible and a good number try to be as rational as possible.
Sadly, some faiths are entirely anti-intellectual (the more insane version of Christianity and Islam). Not being caught up on the KMT, I cannot say if they are included, but their dream of a Hindu Nation disturbingly echos Christian nationalists.
Comment 6
They probably were a real group. The Assassins were a real organization, the inquisiton where they tortured people out of love was real, the Aztecs were real- I don’t find it hard to believe that a cult of sociopathy existed and followed Kali.
Comment 7
Is India defined as the Subcontinent or all Indian territory? Because if you have embassies in Israel, the land they are on is Indian Territory and hence you get a claim to Christianity:)
Obedience=/moral. It is law abiding, but not moral. Moral is to do what is right, which if they law is unjust is to break it.
Religion tries to do so, but it does not work. Atheistic countries have less crime than those were the population is very faithful- mostly because the more secular ones include both wealth and the communist police states (who experienced a similtaneous rise in crime and belief, although this was due to suddenly converting to capitalism in a short time).
Atheism does not imply the lack of soul. That is naturalism. Atheists reason to be moral is based on empathy.
You are off on genocide. 1939, 1918, 1991, 1992, 2004- all these were against their own population.
Chinas genocide is due to the fact that Marxism is insane. After their victory in the Chinese Civil War, Mao’s belief in a People’s War was boosted and he undertook measures to make that a reality. Decentralized industry was a key principle because the strategy was designed to counter nuclear weapons of the Soviets and the US. The Soviets almost adopted the same strategy, but those in favor of concentrated industry (Stalin and the like) managed to win out.
Needless to say, the idea sucked as mines, rails and machine tools were concentrated and all they had to smelt was tools. Opps.
Cambodia… I have no idea. The ideology they had is so insane that I cannot comment, only point out that they were brought down by another communist regime.
Note that atheism is NOT a component of communism- Marxism and communism are not the same thing!
“Need more examples?”
How is that a disproof? These are only a problem because… their beliefs are false! You might as well complain that people rush into burning buildings to save lives and somethimes there is no one inside. The problem isn’t the action, but the fact that the rationale is wrong!
Using education to fight supersticion might backfire and increase nationalism. Not to mention that MENSA is no more rational than the rest of the population- being rational is hard. It requires self doubt and examination, the willingness to admit to being wrong and the willingness to think things over and spot the flaws. You can use others to help you with this, but needless to say it kills your desire to read alot of books when you realize who bad so many are.
Comment 9
French Revolution and you see the same pattern! Why? Because the church was a support of the old regime and a potential lightening rod for enemies of the state.
Plus, stealing their stuff can be used to boost the treasury and increase the workforce.
“Same as No True Muslim”
Except that you can point at a specific rationale from those religions for certain activities. The “kill the unbelievers” in Judaism and Islam isn’t exactly hidden. The story of Hanakuh is a classic where the first person to die… is a Jew that converted to Greek Polytheism.
Additionally, I recognize Stalin was a real atheist.
Comment 10
Science and techology don’t require us to use- fanaticism does. Religion is to blame for religious based atrocities.
The creation of Pakistan was entirely religious based and led to the loss of millions of lives directly and indirectly. It isn’t purly religion, but what could have been negotiable became a cause for killing when faith got involved.
Samuel : Except that you can point at a specific rationale from those religions for certain activities. The “kill the unbelievers†in Judaism and Islam isn’t exactly hidden. The story of Hanakuh is a classic where the first person to die… is a Jew that converted to Greek Polytheism.
I don’t know about all your references, but “Kill the unbelievers” in, say, Sura Tauba of Koran was, according to many Muslims, directed at the specific group of people called “Mushriqeen” of Mecca with whom Mohammed was fighting. Of course, there will be jihadis who don’t accept that interpretation.
Similarly, there is a lot of atheist activism that says “Religion is dangerous to the survival of humanity” and have fomented atrocities as well.
Your claim is that this atheist activism need not come with atheism. And my point is that fanatic interpretation need not come with religion either.
The atheist activism in US, Europe etc. haven’t caused violence – that is not because atheism is benign, but because US and Europe are prosperous countries with very efficient law and order mechanisms. There are extremely antediluvian christian groups in US as well, and they don’t take part in any violence either.
Science and technology don’t require us to use- fanaticism does. Religion is to blame for religious based atrocities.
Once again, you are sticking to your interpretations of religion and merely asserting, without any proof whatsoever that more peaceful interpretations of religion are wrong.
Kaffir : Good point about Indian atheists wanting to declare their faith. Notions of coolness and globalness have a lot to do with the popularity of atheism in India.
On the other hand, there are Hindus on facebook who clearly follow Hinduism, but list their religious view as “spiritual”, “global” etc.
Skinner>>>>I hold that about ALL irrational belief systems.
Your labelling appears irrational
>>>>>>The British held that line because they thought the Indians were barbaric savages.
Nice attempt to justify the british.
They saw all those wonderful Temple Architecture, buildings such as Taj Mahal, Qutub Minar, the 22% of world GDP of India in 1700s compared to their own 5%, the unmatched riches, unrivalled spiritual wealth which impressed the best of western brains, such as Schopenhauer, Thoreau, Voltaire, and ‘they thought the Indians were barbaric savages’.
Are you daft ?
>>>>>>Not being able to read the local language, they went with the more obvious path…
They did well enough to trade with the indians, they did well enough to instigate one against another and exploited the resulting conflicts to their advantage despite ‘not being able to read the local language’. They did well enough to loot this country, to destroy its society and also managed to write Vedas in english totally distorting their meaning despite ‘not being able to read the local language‘.
what a shameless british apologist you are.
If you are an indian, try to understand what the culture of this country was, before britishers destroyed it.
If you are not, understand the immense cruelty and deviousness of the imperialist mind.
*** COMMENT DELETED ***
Francis: I have decided to delete your comment since I just could not make any sense of it. Please stick to the topic and pl. use plain English as far as possible. Thanks.
Pl. also read my comments policy under “Legal Disclaimer“
Straw man! Straw man! Straw man!
Comment 15
2nd paragraph
The ideology is generally referenced as anti-theism and it is not tied exclusively to atheism. The French Revolution was marked by anti-theism and the revolutionaries were deists.
3rd paragraph
Fanaticism invaribly comes with religion, but atheism does not have anti-theists if it is not in contact with religion.
4th paragraph
…You are kidding, right? Lets see… we had the death cultists in Japan, the cult in the North-West that poisoned a town, Johnstown, abortion clinic bombers, beatings of gays, etc.
5th paragraph
The origional interpretation was warlike. Religions that were not warlike invaribly were destroyed by those that were.
Comment 16
1st paragraph
And your reason is…?
2nd paragraph
The Spanish came to the Aztec capital and saw a city bigger than any in Europe, with a quarter of a million. They saw massive pyramid temples, a lake filled with floating farms and countless other marvels.
They also say human sacrifice and decided the natives were savages.
3rd paragraph
Cortez destoryed the Aztecs even though he couldn’t speak their tounge- he needed two translators. What makes you think that the British leaders could read Hindi or bothered to look at the Vedas?
4th paragraph
So… ironic. India was a poor, divided and backward country before the British arrived. Afterwards it was… a slightly less poor, backwards country except now it was divided by religion and in the interium the British had taken what wealth they could and accidentally killed more people by famine than Mao ever dreamed of.
But looking at its past marvels as great culture? If it is one thing history has taught us, the past sucked. In every country, people a century back were significantly worse off than those living today. Why people consider it something to be proud of escapes me. Sure, people then built the foundation of our lives today and we should be thankful for that, but we shouldn’t venerate them to the point of refusing to move foward.
Samuel: Specifically with reference to your last point:
please have alook at these links: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/08/30/colonial-legacy-myths/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/08/30/loot-east-india-company/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/02/04/economic-exploitation-drain-of-wealth/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/09/27/india-in-the-1820s/
More later…Thanks all for a fascinating discussion.
@Sabari,
“how about buddhism and jainism”, lol, now you want to compare the indian atheist clan with buddhists and jains? poor buddhists and jains, its a pity that these indian atheists think themselves so high as buddhists and jains who beleive in the greatest phylosophy of desire being root cause of all suffering, which is an unknown phrase for our atheists.
Day dreams baby day dreams.
@Skinner. Your claim that Marxism is not communism and neither has atheism as a core belief is wrong. While Marxism is the philosophy which analyzes societies and how they are organized and Communism is a political movement , Communism is essentially the political avatar of the Marxist philosophy and world view. Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth.
One famous Communist, Lenin, once said, “Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism.”
By the way, didn’t Karl Marx actually author the book ” The Communist Manifesto”?!
Peace, all. You folks be troubled by misleading ideas.
The one true church is here:
http://www.venganza.org
Feel free to join.
🙂
Cheers
Nanda: No, YOU did. Bravo! Try reading before replying.
I thought I’d mention that my ancestors, only a few generations ago, would have been allowed nowhere near the old schools.
Hinduism: Religion, Culture or Way of Life? might be of interest to some.
Patriot: 🙂
Oh, BTW Shantanu, I am still waiting for evidence of the four-tusked elephants from RB Maliger – you want to remind him?
🙂
Cheers
Samuel :
1. The ideology is generally referenced as anti-theism and it is not tied exclusively to atheism. The French Revolution was marked by anti-theism and the revolutionaries were deists.
Really? Then similarly, there is a difference between “fanatic interpretation of religion” and “spiritual interpretation of religion”. You choose to “reference” things the way you want, and demand that everyone else play by your rules?
2. Fanaticism invaribly comes with religion, but atheism does not have anti-theists if it is not in contact with religion.
Do you realize that you are looking at a handful of cases and concluding that fanaticism invariably comes with religion? That is a wild induction.
3. …You are kidding, right? Lets see… we had the death cultists in Japan, the cult in the North-West that poisoned a town, Johnstown, abortion clinic bombers, beatings of gays, etc.
Hmmm, I didn’t think of that. But those are still rare and freak cases. Atheism hasn’t enjoyed the kind of mass popularity religions have, and only when it proves innocuous after getting that kind of popularity, can a valid comparison in this regard be made. Beating of gays etc. – there are accounts of similar self-proclaimed rationalist atheist violence I have heard regarding Indian villages. Though, that is a second hand account.
The origional interpretation was warlike. Religions that were not warlike invaribly were destroyed by those that were.
Totally baseless. Read the new testament, my friend. Read the upanishads.
@ Frog –
The new testatment was spread by the sword, as evangelicals descended on the pagans and helped them “see the light”.
The whole of South America was thus converted in the name of the Christ, that most peaceful one!
We were slightly lucky in the sense that it was the British colonials that held sway over India, rather than the Portuguese or the Spanish, and this was after the Lutheran Reformation movement that split the church.
Cheers
@ Frog –
“Atheism hasn’t enjoyed the kind of mass popularity religions have, and only when it proves innocuous after getting that kind of popularity, can a valid comparison in this regard be made.”
Well, they do constitute a significant proportion of the population of Europe and are growing in America:
http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=281&article=0
Would you change your position on the above remark based on this data?
Cheers
Plus the very fine Japanese, and the Scandinavians! Very innocuous.
“Hinduism: Religion, Culture or Way of Life? might be of interest to some.”
Yeah, that website (Nirmukta) believes in censoring comments that challenge the points in their posts. So much for open dialog. The authoritarian strain is well and alive on that website and it seems to be interested in cultivating a group identity based on cognitive dissonance and indulging in censorship.
Comment 20
The British always loot the best stuff for themselves. No surprise there. I’m amazed you guys are still in the Commonwealth.
Comment 22
Mao was a communist. Mao was not a Marxist. Marxism is a specific branch of communism.
The states that tried for Marxism (technically Marxist-Leninism) was Revolutionary Soviet Union and Cuba. The USSR quit after banning money didn’t work out so well. They went towards Stalinism.
Comment 23
Yes he did. Of course, there were communist and socialist movements that occured before he wrote the book- he didn’t invent it, just try to make it “scientific”. Which translates to really long books full of tautologies.
Comment 27
1)So actually following the dictates of your religion… or making things up as you go along. Didn’t you previously claim that you couldn’t blame atrocities because they were supported by holy writ? If people get to decide holy writ, that defense doesn’t hold.
2)Except that it has come almost every time in history. China is replete with religious uprisings, Europe is filled with religious war after war, the middle east… well, self explanatory, India and Pakistan’s existance is because of religion causing seperation and violence…
Most of history is not a few small examples.
3)They are only rare because we employ competant police in the first world and have good security. If we weren’t that rich, we might have cases were terrorists take over part of a city. In Europe, atheism has approached such levels and- unsurprisingly- religious based violence is low.
As for attacking gays, I would believe it. Cuba’s party is atheist, but they locked up gays. Asia is an oddity in that respect- I believe that while in the west atheists are more tolerant towards people who are different, this trend does not hold true in China.
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/04/revenge_of_the_roader_chinese.php
4)Matthew 10:34 – “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword”
Christianity is peaceful… until it got power. Than we had the purging and violence rear its ugly head. The Cathar Crusade is a great example.
Comment 28
Actually… it depends. The Spanish and Portugese were noted for not bringing women with them and intermarrying with the locals. Plus, they had a massive advantage in the new world, while India was stronger, with a large population, disease resistance and modern weaponary. Additionally, they were never in the running- the alternate power was the French.
Patriot :
1. New testament : You are totally in the wrong context. I was responding to the allegation that the original interpretation was war like. I never denied that a lot of violence happened in the name of new testament.
2. Europe is a different continent – you will have to produce data of non-rare religious violence exceeding atheist violence in spite of not having substantial difference in subscriber population. America is still predominantly christian.
Samuel :
1. Didn’t you previously claim that you couldn’t blame atrocities because they were supported by holy writ?
No. Atrocities are always to be blamed and cracked down upon. I never said otherwise.
2. Those statements are still examples, and quoting 20 examples doesn’t make it “most”. British imperialism wasn’t because of religion. While Spanish converted the remnants of Incas and Aztecs, religion wasn’t their motivation – money was. Religion at best had a restraining role – namely, it forbade them to kill anyone who converted. So now shall we go ahead and claim that money is evil?
3. “Rare” also means statistically insignificant. There are statistically insignificant crimes with *all kinds of motivations*, and that doesn’t mean that all factors that contributed were bad. So many crimes happen for money. So many crimes happen due to sex instinct.
Then again, there is this issue that atheism comes mostly from educated people, and educated people are obviously least likely to indulge in violence. I am a student of mathematics. I have noticed that mathematicians at great universities are often too focused on their career, far too mad about it. Obviously they have more at stake in taking to violence. This is not due to any virtue of atheism at all.
4. Your Matthew quote is totally out of context. It never was even remotely meant to suggest to Christians to act violently. Moreover you are losing the context – the new testament example, as I said above, is to contest your claim that “original interpretations” were all war like.
@ Samuel: Pl. be clear about what you want to say.
My comment #20 was in response to your assertion that “India was a poor, divided and backward country before the British arrived.”
You wrote: “The British always loot the best stuff for themselves.”
So do you accept that India was not a poor, divided and backward country before the British arrived?
@Sabari. The article by Ajita Kamal that you suggested is hardly an objective look at religion. But leaving that aside, there are some glaring inaccuracies which lead one to believe that the author may not be as knowledgeable on the subject of religion. The components of religion are not really group identity, authoritarianism and congnitive dissonance (which by the way, she uses inaccurately). If that was the extent of the definition, then that OSHO group would have been a religion.
Religions are usually (at least when defined by university professors as opposed to ignorant web bloggers) defined as a set of practices and beliefs held by a group where there is usually a theology behind it (in the form of some scriptures–whether oral or written). It has specific ritual practices which are repeated and transmitted faithfully to the future generations. It has its own symbolic language. This is why, godless religions like Buddhism or Jainism are considered religions.
Authoritarian figures in religion. Except for the Catholic church and perhaps Tibetan Buddhism, no religion (Inculuding Islam) has a central figure of authority which all adherents look up to. The millions of people following their individual gurus, who they can change at will does not really consitute an authoritarian system. (Authoritarianism is where one cannot really change one’s loyalties–i.e. it is imposed on one).
Cognitive Dissonance: Here is the real bummer. Cognitive dissonance is not a term used in psychology to refer to differing beliefs held by a group of people–some people within a self-identified group believing in one thing while others in the same group believe something else. She gives the example that some Muslims believe that Islam is a religion of peace and others are blowing up buildings.
Cognitive dissonance occurs where the individual (a single person) holds two conflicting points of view and beliefs and the mental disturbance that it causes. For example if the same Muslim who thinks that Islam is a religion of peace also believes he has to blow people up to be peaceful.
I always have a problem when people refer to individuals like Sai Baba and Baba Ramdev as “con-men” because to make an allegation like that, one might actually need to prove it. While I personally don’t follow Ramdev’s yoga, I do think that he has brought yoga to millions of Indians who might otherwise not have done it. And as for Sai Baba, exactly who is he conning. His believers find peace in singing the bhajans. He has used the money he gets to build colleges and hospitals (as opposed to depositing it in Swiss banks.) and managed to bring water and electricity to villages without these things. Come to think of it, if he ever stands for election, I would vote for him.
For those of you interested in learning more about various aspects of Hindu practices check out
http://www.dharmacentral.com/articlesbysridharmapravartaka.php
Thanks for the link Harapriya…I will check it out…
I have to come back and revisit this whole thread over the weekend…
Some great discussion and exchange of thoughts here.
Thanks to all.
That’s about as much as I can take. Goodbye!
“Hinduism: Religion, Culture or Way of Life? might be of interest to some.â€
Yeah, that website (Nirmukta) believes in censoring comments that challenge the points in their posts. So much for open dialog. The authoritarian strain is well and alive on that website and it seems to be interested in cultivating a group identity based on cognitive dissonance and indulging in censorship.
I just looked and found your comments on that site. Anyway, did you actually write any constructive comments or do you always just provoke them like in this comment: http://nirmukta.com/2009/02/03/responding-to-the-atheist-crimes-of-the-20th-century/comment-page-1/#comment-445 , which I must say was answered very well in the reply below it.
@Kaffir:
(ROTFLMAO) You actually took the phrases “Authoritarian strain” and “cognitive dissonance” from that article on Hinduism that you are attacking and used it against the same website without providing any evidence or explanation. You don’t actually say anything about the article itself.
Read this article on Dharma and Religion (http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion) to have a better understanding about Hindu Dharma. Projecting Hindu Dharma in the shadow of Christianity and Islam is a sign of ignorance.
Comment 33
So you want me to provide a statistical analysis of all the violence and death caused by religion? I think someone did that and it came out to about 10% that is entirely religious based.
2)Uh, the British expeditions and conquest of India were partially religious based. The Europeans had to go around Africa because the Muslims were monopolizing the spice trade.
As for money was the primary motivation, that fails to explain the Spanish expansion into areas that were deserts or resource pour. The Conquistadors fought for God AND Gold-you seem to think you can tease out secular motivations from the religious ones. And lets not forget what the proving ground of the Conquistadors was- 700 years of the Reconquesta.
3) 20 million people died in the Great War. Over a horrific 5 years Europe was bathed in blood in an event that still has its effects today. It contributed to the barbarianism that soon followed in the interwar years.
And yet in 1918 50 MILLION DIED- in but a year the Influenze Epidemic killed that many and infected up to a FIFTH OF THE WORLDS POPULATION.
In comparison, the Holocaust, The Armenian Genocide- even the Great Patriotic War pales. And yet we try to fight the scourge of war. Even if it is less deadly it is still something that can be fought.
4) Christianity started peaceful for the same reason Islam did- it was small and weak. When it gained power it proceded to act warlike.
Comment 34
It was divided which is why the British conquered it, it was backward (although in comparison to Europe is hard to guage) and it definately was poor- its industries collapsed due to European competition.
@ Samuel: You appear to have a penchant for making flippant remarks, then backtracking and or meandering further.
First you wrote: “India was a poor, divided and backward country before the British arrived.â€
When I posted a few links in response, you modified your statement and remarked: “The British always loot the best stuff for themselves.†– implying that there was something to loot and the country may not have been poor after all.
Now you say: “…it was backward (although in comparison to Europe is hard to guage)” – so in comparison to what exactly was it backward?
and you go on to assert: “…it definately was poor- its industries collapsed due to European competition…” By that logic, UK must be poor since its industries appear to have collapsed due to Chinese competition, no?
If you do take the trouble to read the links that I posted earlier, I think you may have reason(s) to change your mind on this.
And please do provide facts, figures and evidence/references to support your view(s). I do not understand words much and English is, after all not my native tongue.
In any case, we are getting way off-topic here. If you are really serious about debating this with me, please leave a comment on any one of these links below and I will be happy to discuss this further.
Thanks.
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/08/30/colonial-legacy-myths/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/08/30/loot-east-india-company/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/02/04/economic-exploitation-drain-of-wealth/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/09/27/india-in-the-1820s/
Belief in a higher power might in fact be a biological imperative and something that is within our genetic framework.
Check out this post on the God gene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
Comment 43
Not really. Haiti is the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere. They still have enough stuff in the hands of the rich for you to loot and make yourself wealthy. India was the same, just like much of the world at that time with wealth being ridiculously concentrated. That doesnt detract from the fact that the per capita GDP was low and hence poor.
Modern times is a good comparison.
Its cloth industries collapsed because Britans industry was BETTER- that was the first industry to benefit from the industrial revolution. England lost out to China because the wages are lower.
@ Samuel: a few hurried comments:
1] Re. your point about poverty, read the paragraph titled, “Poverty and Population Growth” at this link: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/08/30/colonial-legacy-myths/
2] Do you have any evidence to support your statement that wealth was “ridiculously concentrated” in pre-British India?
3] Do you have figures for per capita GDP of India before the British arrived – i.e. 17th century and/or before?
4] Where did the money for Britain’s industry come from? (Hint: Read Rajni Palme Dutt’s India Today)
5] Let us step back a bit.
You said: “…(India) definately was poor- its industries collapsed due to European competition…â€
I responded: By that logic, UK must be poor since its industries appear to have collapsed due to Chinese competition…
You then wrote: “England lost out to China because the wages are lower
Not really. England looses against China because China’s production costs are lower (and hence its good are more competitive). So my earlier analogy (By that logic, UK must be poor since its industries appear to have collapsed due to Chinese competition…) still holds.
6] And no, India’s cloth industry did not collapse because British cloth was better – it was made cheaper and imported at ridiculously low import duties between 2-4%. Remarkably, the “fair” British imposed import duties of 70% – 80% on imports of Indian cloth.
So at least one reason for collapse of India’s cloth industry was cheaper imports – the same reason that traditional British manufacturing has collapsed. Nothing to do with poverty.
Finally, why do I get the feeling that the only reason you are persisting with your remarks on this specific thread is because you have not read ANY of the other links?
Anyways, this is the LAST time I am letting you comment about this topic on this particular thread. As I mentioned at #43, let us move the debate to the appropriate links – assuming you are serious about the discussion.
Thanks to Sanjay for pointing me in the direction of this amazing post:
Atheistic Materialism in Ancient India
Nanda, Sabari and Harapriya: I think the three of you will particularly enjoy it.
Rebirth is ‘YES’. I know about my previous birth. My most Revered Guru of my previous life His Holiness Maharaj Sahab, 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had revealed this secret to me during trance like state.
HE told me, “Tum Sarkar Sahab Ho†(You are Sarkar Sahab). Sarkar Sahab was one of the most beloved disciple of His Holiness Maharj Sahab.
Since I don’t have any direct realization of it so I can not claim the extent of its correctness. But it seems to be correct. During my previous birth I wanted to sing the song of ‘Infinite’ but I could not do so then since I had to leave the mortal frame at a very early age. But through the unbounded Grace and Mercy of my most Revered Guru that desire of my past birth is being fulfilled now.
Apparently, …Maryland and six other states (in the US) still have articles in their constitutions saying people who do not believe in God are not eligible to hold public office...
Of course, communists have been in power for several years in 2 states in India – a country ridiculed for its intolerance