Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Why would it be different for a Hindu?
Also... Why exactly are there no pickles?
I am not very familiar with Hinduism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Re: What use does an atheist have for deities?
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
Also... Why exactly are there no pickles?
I am not very familiar with Hinduism.
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
Allah is also beyond concern, Allah is not an entity (that would categorically be Shirk and Kafir), that misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Islamic beliefs contradict Tawhid entirely.
First you've got to think seriously about the notion of an idol and why you would project your emotions onto that merely as a means of intermediary attachment, instead of devoting oneself to Reality itself, which is formless and transcendent of these things?
Kinda like in Tibetan Buddhism and Vajrayana, once you let go of deities, symbols and images, then you are able to face that Light at the end without falling for the illusions that deceive the ego - this can be extrapolated beautifully in several ways.
You're Theravada right? (Again, I ask because I need to know how to convey things the most relevant to your worldview which is obviously different to Islam or even general Vedanta).
Ok think about this, Reality is as it is. A symbol/image or idol can never in any shape or form account for the Ultimate Reality itself, which is the very thing sustaining and pervading (in Islamic belief) the Universe we are living in this very moment. The Source that produces and contains all of this, is the most important thing to devote oneself to, not things that are equally as illusory as oneself (our bodies die and decay, just like an idol or image can be smashed and or lost/forgotten - unlike Ultimate Reality).
This is just your biases, nothing categorically or philosophically meaningful to the definitions. I do love that we're both at the polar opposite side of the spectrum there though, as not only as a Muslim but just as a human being, I view it as the single most important thing there is, period.
True, well Aupmanyav isn't as far away from what we believe than he thinks he is but semantics and language are always going to be areas of bias around this. However, I am able to retain a discussion about both Islam and Hinduism without mentioning terminology of either religious tradition.
I think both you and Aupmanyav have a lot of learning to do with disassociating Monotheism with Anthropomorphism. Aup at least still can't see the difference between Devas and Brahman when placed over another belief system.
Bingo, one of my points right there. Hindus place importance in symbol/image to worship Brahman/Parabrahman - whether it be Vishnu (and his avatars), Shiva, Shakti etc for emotional attachment to Brahman/Parabrahman. Whereas Islam is the same profound philosophy (emphasized even more strongly) taking the opposite view of any form of symbol/image/idol as being illusion, therefore counterintuitive to worshiping Ultimate Reality.
Are you getting me yet?
Jews, Zoroastrians and Sikhs also understand this very well too.
Why does it only overcomplicate things when Muslims have diverging views, yet wise when Hindus have diverging views?
The quoted portion is two different but related things actually. In that quoted portion, both Hindus and Muslims hold to essential Ultimate Reality but hold very different views about the value in using intermediaries of any kind.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hello!....
The trick is to think about the true meaning of words.
Deism = A disinterested, unconcerned, or unaware God.
Theism = An interested, concerned or aware God.
Ergo, Deists cannot be Theists...... and in that sense they are Atheists.
And I'll bet that a member is going to tell me that Deists are Theists! Amazing!
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I appreciate your (basic) knowledge about Hinduism. Actually worship of Brahman is deprecated in YajurVeda (40.9) and Ishavasya Upanishad (Verse 9):"Andham tamah pravishanti ye asambhutim upāsata, tato bhuyā ive te tamo yā u sambhutyam ratah."
They fall into great darkness who worship the unmanifest, in greater darkness fall those who worship the manifest.
Brahman does not require any worship. What Hindus worship is their own choice and ignorance. Hinduism is cool about that. It does not think their ignorance merits beheading.
Furthermore, Brahman (Allah for you) would not send a son, prophet, manifestation or mahdi to the world. These are all stories. The existence of 'that' itself creates the illusion of the world. And it is possible that Brahman does not even respect the borders of existence and non-existence like humans do. It could be more like virtual particles in Quantum Mechanics. RigVeda said:
"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
Hindus considered the subject deeply for some 4,000 years. They arrived at the conclusion "Sarvam khalu idam Brahma" (All this, verily, is Brahman - Māndukya Upanishad, 14.3), and realized that the pickles are of our own making.
Last edited:
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Honestly dude, you are too. So what if people view the gods - any gods - as nothing more than inspirational symbols. Who cares? There are plenty of deities that, from their very inception, were nothing but symbolic personifications. Not actual "viewed as individuals" deities. How another views the gods is nothing to get one's knickers in a twist. Don't be so serious.
syo
Well-Known Member
What makes your lord god? because you say so?
syo
Well-Known Member
Then I would ask ''what is a symbol?''
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
You have a very basic knowledge of Islam as you display quite openly here.
Allah does not require worship, it only benefits us. The whole point of worshiping is to purify oneself, getting sustenance (as the Qur'an even puts it) from Ultimate Reality. It is reciprocal to the the very source that pervades every single millisecond of your entire life.
"The self-sufficient" (as-samad) is also one of the 'names' of Allah in Islam as well.
You've still got far far far to go in understanding Islam Aup buddy.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
syo
Well-Known Member
I see. I thought that a symbol is something imaginary. If the sun is a symbol, then symbols are real.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
The sun is real. How we personify the sun is the symbol. You're overthinking this.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
syo
Well-Known Member
I think I understand.
syo
Well-Known Member
What's a god then? A label?
What does the name "Islam" refer to?
That is a very useful question, and unfortunately it is also one that is very easy to answer.
Because Muslims are adherents to Islaam, while Hindus follow a true religion.
Hindus realize that they are not expected to neurotically make authoritative claims about the universal nature of their unavoidably personal beliefs.
Indeed. Muslims are taught to feel guilty about being human.
Of course it would. Yet at the same time, Allah is also the author of the Qur'an. Impressive for a non-entity. And I suppose that it makes it also somewhat self-demeaning, since it is the Qur'an that establishes the parameters that require its existence to be Shirk and that determines that Shirk is something to be avoided.
But sure, it is undeniably Kafir as well. No argument there.
The very sustentation of Islaam is idolatry. Idolatry of the idea itself of God.
I did. That made me an atheist from very early on. I have a good nose for false gods.
Quite so.
Don't you worry about that. I have learned from various sources, and I am a Dharmi. I do not value adherence to traditional views very much, mainly because not too much of those can actually make sense for any given person, including myself.
I take responsibility for my beliefs, not the other way around.
In the text above you are implying that existence has a Creator-nature which should for some reason receive devotion.
That is a very arbitrary and unsupported belief, and it violates this self-imposed parameter of yours of avoiding illusions, images, symbols and other idols.
Yeah, that is common among Muslims. I hope you learn to deal with that.
You and me do not hold very similar beliefs at all. From my viewpoint you are very much an idolater of monotheism. I am not.
That is good, but I don't think I have seen that happen.
I disagree, and I offer that instead you have a lot to learn about the difference between the Divine and the Sacred. Or, to use a traditional world, Advaita. Or by a different perspective, Anicca, Anatta and Pratītyasamutpāda.
Why would you think that? He seems to have a pretty functional understanding of both concepts.
I fear that I am indeed. You seem to believe that Islaam teaches detachment from false forms, and in that sense it coincides with Hindu Advaita or even transcends it.
I don't think so.
If you ask me, so does most everyone else, particularly outside the Abrahamics.
All this worry about confusing symbols with reality is, frankly, rather odd.
Last edited: