Can Hindus be atheist?

[Spirit_Warrior]

This it is established beyond doubt that Spirit_Warrior's arguments regarding the Carvaka are without merit and are conclusively refuted.

Sayak has done no such thing. Sayak has repeatedly used a fallacy in the course of this debate, and this known as the fallacy of "avoding the issue/ignoring the argument"

Avoiding the Issue

(also known as: avoiding the question [form of], missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, distraction [form of])

Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument. Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.

Logical Form:

X is Y. Did you see that new show on TV last night?

Example #1:

Daryl: Answer honestly, do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be Christian, or would we be Muslim?

Ross: I think those of us raised in a place where Christianity is taught are fortunate.

Daryl: I agree, but do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be Christian, or would we be Muslim?

Ross: Your faith is weak -- you need to pray to God to make it stronger.

Daryl: I guess you’re right. What was I thinking?

Explanation: Some questions are not easy to answer, and some answers are not easy to accept. While it may seem, at the time, like avoiding the question is the best action, it is actually an abandonment of reason and honest inquiry; therefore, fallacious.​

I will show now how Sayak has recently again employed this fallacy

​

One objection that was raised by him was that my description in the previous post (LINK) is dualism. It is not. For, dualism entails that the psychological properties like thoughts, emotions, self-awareness etc. are properties of a new immaterial substance called the soul (or something akin to a soul) apart from matter-energy. This is not the Carvaka position, nor a position held by modern materialist. In actuality, the psychological properties associated with sentient self are considered properties of physical matter that become manifest when, and only when, certain combination of matter are present under certain specific conditions.

Here he ignored this argument:

If you accept thoughts, self, mental states or what in philosophy we call "qualia" to really exist, then you accept the mind to exist as a separate substance. In philosophy we only use the term "real" if something has an independent existence not if it has a dependent existence. If mind is just a substance that depends on matter, then it does not have real existence independent of matter. It is just a name that exists for a particular arrangement of matter e.g. happiness is just chemical changes in the brain; every thought is just a firing of synapses in the brain.

The position of materialists as defined by early materialist philosophers like Loke is qualia are only secondary qualities and not primary qualities, primary qualities are material properties e.g. changes in electrical activity which are experienced as mental properties.

Materialists do not regard mind as being something separate from matter, hence do not accept its real existence. They call mind and consciousness an "epiphenomena" You have heard this before, when materialists claim that your feelings are just chemical changes in the body or that your thoughts are electrical activity in the brain. They do not consider your mind or consciousness to be a real substance.

1) Just as only under certain conditions and combinations do the intoxicating qualities of grape (for wine) or barley/wheat (for beer) become manifest but are not present in vanilla grape juice or vanilla barley extracts, so too only under certain combinations and conditions do the psychological qualities of certain combinations of matter energy become manifest. No extra "intoxicating substance" is needed to be posited apart from matter contained in grape or barley to explain this.

Here he ignored this argument:

The Carvaka argument that somehow different material arrangements of the 4 elements originate mind and consciousness was refuted by the NV. The analogy of how the parent substances of wine are not intoxicating but when mixed in a certain combination they originate the power of intoxication is a fallacious one, because to know that wine is intoxicating you require a conscious subject to drink the wine, the wine itself cannot drink itself and know it intoxicating.

That something is intoxicating cannot be known by the wine itself, the wine cannot drink itself to know it is intoxicating. That the wine is intoxicating can only be known by a conscious subject who drinks the wine. Hence, the argument is refuted that a certain arrangement of matter can originate mind or consciousness in a certain conditions or combinations, because that arrangement cannot know itself.

I also refuted this argument in my own thread the body cannot be the locus of mental properties because the body is made up of the same substance that make up rocks(atoms) and no matter how many arrangements of rocks you put together you cannot produce mental properties in them. Similarly, no arrangement of atoms because they have no mental properties to begin with, can originate mental properties.

The argument can be further reinforced with another argument. If mental properties belong to the body, then they should always be there. However, this is not the case, because a corpse has no mental properties. Therefore, something which was associated with the body was the locus of those properties and now that something has left, the body no longer shows any mental properties. It is also proven in cases like comas, NDE's, deep sleep and during states of absent mindedness --- the gross body is there, but the mind not there. e.g. Your eyes are open and in front of you is a giant mountain, but you do not see the giant mountain, because your mind is elsewhere. It is only when you mind returns to engage with the body that you see the mountain. Hence, the mind is not an intrinsic property of the mind like say sweetness is the intrinsic property of sugar, it is an accidental property --- sometimes it is there and sometimes it is not. An example of accidental property is the sweet taste of water, if the water tasted sweet at one time and not sweet at another, it means sweetness was not the intrinsic property of the water, it was accidental; meaning the sweetness property belongs to another substance that was associated with the water(sugar) Similarly, mental properties do belong to matter/body, they belong to another substance that is associated with the body --- soul. If the soul is present, the body displays signs of mind, life etc; if absent, it does not.

n all these cases, the self (with its psychological traits) is a set of qualities/properties akin to the fire in the wood or the intoxicating power in the wine -and is considered a distinct conglomeration of properties different from the generic matter properties of bodily substance, just as fire-properties are distinct from the generic properties of wood and intoxication power is distinct from generic properties of barley or grape.

Here he ignored this argument

You are bringing up old, long refuted obsolete arguments. The modern position suffers from the same problem as the Charvaka, how does matter with no mental properties combine to produce mind, this is Chalmers Hard problem of consciousness which proves fatal to the position of materialism.

The hard problem of consciousness is admitted in Modern philosophy of Mind to be a fatal block or dead-end for materialism. Materialism has absolutely no way to explain how matter like rocks with no mental properties can somehow one day as if by magic develop mental properties like awareness, thinking, feeling. This objection is so fatal that some even consider materialism to be refuted now and alternative theories are gaining more currency like "panpsychism" which makes the claim that all matter has mental properties to begin with and thereby contradicting the materialist thesis.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I can defend Buddhism, Christianity, Islam as well as various aspects of Hinduism with equal strength and conviction. I use beliefs as tools for my own ends of advancement of the self in my material, psychological, ethical and spiritual growth. The beliefs and darsana-s serve me, I do not serve them. Your excessive attachment to beliefs and your desire to show other beliefs, religions and worldviews are wrong or only imperfectly true, compared to what your own beliefs are, is an impediment to your own progress along the Hindu path. The sooner you get rid of it the better.

I am responding to this directly, as this is a personal remark as opposed to an argument. Hence it deserves rebuke.

I can defend Buddhism, Christianity, Islam as well as various aspects of Hinduism with equal strength and conviction.

Try this thought experiment. Suppose an imposter who is a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim or Charvaka is going around claiming to be a Hindu. How would a Hindu know that they are an imposter? One way of knowing is if their loyalties to do not lie with Hinduism but with another religion. Your loyalties are clearly divided. You speak for everybody but Hindus. On the contrary you even reject Hinduism is a religion, has its own canons of scriptures, founders and its own tenets. If I had to bet money on who I think the imposter was, my money would be on you.

I use beliefs as tools for my own ends of advancement of the self in my material, psychological, ethical and spiritual growth. The beliefs and darsana-s serve me, I do not serve them. [/i]

Meaning you cherry pick what you like and leave what you dislike from everything. Like in pre-philsophy time you are a sophist, the measure of your own truth. That is why you live in a solipsistic world.

Your excessive attachment to beliefs and your desire to show other beliefs, religions and worldviews are wrong or only imperfectly true, compared to what your own beliefs are, is an impediment to your own progress along the Hindu path. The sooner you get rid of it the better.

Nope. I have a clearly defined worldview and hence clarity of thought. I know that I am not this body, that I am a soul that has been transmigrating from body to body over eons. I know that it is desire that keeps me bound in this cycle and I know it only through working with my karma, can I evolve further. Hence, my understanding informs my practices and lifestyle. I practice Yoga, meditation and Tantra techniques to directly work with my karma, and I know the fruits of those practices might not appear in this life, but carry on into future lives. Hence, I do not get disheartened if I do not see results, I just do my karma anyway because of my conviction of belief. I am aware of my multidimensional nature and the multidimensional nature of this universe, hence I strive to gain greater control of the higher aspects or bodies of myself, like the subtle body. I have been successful to an extent, as I have had real experiences and validated some of what shastra says, hence I speak from my experiences too. I do not just talk in theory.

On the other hand, you do not have clearly defined worldview, yours is muddled up, a hodgepodge of everything and the kitchen sink cherry picked from everywhere. Hence, you are confused and constantly contradict yourself. You also suffer from massive problems of doubt and ego, you think you can do this all by yourself and work it all out by yourself, you don't need scripture, shastra or guru. This is your biggest impediment in your progress. You need to get over yourself. We would say you lack shradda(faith in the scriptures and the word of Guru) You have not even got to the very first stage of not just Hindu dharma, but all Dharmic religions and realised you are a separate entity from your body. Hence, your journey hasn't even begun.

I am not caught up in belief and faith. I used scripture to signpost me in the right direction, because I did not suffer from problems like arrogance that I can do it all by myself, I did not feel I needed to reinvent the wheel or feel nobody could educate me. I accepted the authority of those aptas(experts) or Rishis. I listened to them(sharvanam) I then contemplated for years and years(mananam) and then I practised, meditated and validated some of the the truths they told. (Btw you still have not conceded to me you were wrong that this three-step method was invented by Shankara)

 

[sayak83]

Sayak has done no such thing. Sayak has repeatedly used a fallacy in the course of this debate, and this known as the fallacy of "avoding the issue/ignoring the argument"

​

I will show now how Sayak has recently again employed this fallacy

​

Here he ignored this argument:



Materialists do not regard mind as being something separate from matter, hence do not accept its real existence. They call mind and consciousness an "epiphenomena" You have heard this before, when materialists claim that your feelings are just chemical changes in the body or that your thoughts are electrical activity in the brain. They do not consider your mind or consciousness to be a real substance.



Here he ignored this argument:



That something is intoxicating cannot be known by the wine itself, the wine cannot drink itself to know it is intoxicating. That the wine is intoxicating can only be known by a conscious subject who drinks the wine. Hence, the argument is refuted that a certain arrangement of matter can originate mind or consciousness in a certain conditions or combinations, because that arrangement cannot know itself.

I also refuted this argument in my own thread the body cannot be the locus of mental properties because the body is made up of the same substance that make up rocks(atoms) and no matter how many arrangements of rocks you put together you cannot produce mental properties in them. Similarly, no arrangement of atoms because they have no mental properties to begin with, can originate mental properties.

The argument can be further reinforced with another argument. If mental properties belong to the body, then they should always be there. However, this is not the case, because a corpse has no mental properties. Therefore, something which was associated with the body was the locus of those properties and now that something has left, the body no longer shows any mental properties. It is also proven in cases like comas, NDE's, deep sleep and during states of absent mindedness --- the gross body is there, but the mind not there. e.g. Your eyes are open and in front of you is a giant mountain, but you do not see the giant mountain, because your mind is elsewhere. It is only when you mind returns to engage with the body that you see the mountain. Hence, the mind is not an intrinsic property of the mind like say sweetness is the intrinsic property of sugar, it is an accidental property --- sometimes it is there and sometimes it is not. An example of accidental property is the sweet taste of water, if the water tasted sweet at one time and not sweet at another, it means sweetness was not the intrinsic property of the water, it was accidental; meaning the sweetness property belongs to another substance that was associated with the water(sugar) Similarly, mental properties do belong to matter/body, they belong to another substance that is associated with the body --- soul. If the soul is present, the body displays signs of mind, life etc; if absent, it does not.






Here he ignored this argument



The hard problem of consciousness is admitted in Modern philosophy of Mind to be a fatal block or dead-end for materialism. Materialism has absolutely no way to explain how matter like rocks with no mental properties can somehow one day as if by magic develop mental properties like awareness, thinking, feeling. This objection is so fatal that some even consider materialism to be refuted now and alternative theories are gaining more currency like "panpsychism" which makes the claim that all matter has mental properties to begin with and thereby contradicting the materialist thesis.

In philosophy we only use the term "real" if something has an independent existence not if it has a dependent existence.

In Spirit_Warrior's poorly understood philosophy this may be true, but in actual philosophy it would be an absurd statement. Perhaps Spirit_Warrior seeks to convince philosophers and scientists that things like temperature, pressure, heat, color, velocity, acceleration, shape, dimension, hardness, viscosity, reactivity...are not real but are fictions as they are all either properties or dependent upon atomic arrangements of quantum field states? I am quite confident that such an attempt will make little headway in either philosophy or in science. In reality as well as in science and philosophy, the fundamental states and all possible arrangements of these states into wholes and properties of all such possible wholes at every scale from the quantum to the inter-galactic are simultaneously real. Otherwise geology, cosmology, biology, chemistry are all fictions as they all deal with wholes and properties of wholes at various scales and configurations. Clearly Spirit_Warrior shows no real understanding of either philosophy or science and has only got his information second-hand from polemical sources, otherwise he would not say such a patently absurd thing like this. His knowledge about them are indeed fictions.

Materialists do not regard mind as being something separate from matter, hence do not accept its real existence. They call mind and consciousness an "epiphenomena" You have heard this before, when materialists claim that your feelings are just chemical changes in the body or that your thoughts are electrical activity in the brain. They do not consider your mind or consciousness to be a real substance.

Here once again Spirit_warrior has made a Khitchdi out of various disparate ideas. It is one thing to say that mind and consciousness is dependent upon and arising out of the biological processes of the brain (which modern materialists believe and ancient Carvaka-s suspected) just like fire arises from the chemical processes of wood. It is yet another thing to say that consciousness does not have causal efficacy, which is what the word epiphenomena is supposed to point to. Fire, a dependent phenomena or wind, a dependent phenomena , does have enormous causal efficacy (fire heats and gives light, wind moves leaves or even houses and carves rocks). A small group of materialist scientists and philosophers, based on the Libet free will experiment, is of the opinion that consciousness does not have causal ability to direct, influence or constrain voluntary actions. Its a controversial claim, not accepted by most other materialist scientists or philosophers, and recent experiments have overturned this idea that consciousness does not have causal efficacy.
Brain might not stand in the way of free will
I am happy to discuss whether modern brain science experiments support or reject the idea that consciousness directs free will or not, but this has nothing at all to do with whether consciousness is a material phenomena like a fire or an immaterial substance.
Is fire a fundamental substance? Is it real? Is it causally efficacious? What does Spirit_Warrior say? Let's see who is really avoiding the issue here.


To be continued...

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

This thread wasn't really about whether Charvaka was right or whether Hinduism was right. This is what what the discussion has now become a philosophical debate whether Charvaka is right(no life independent of the body, no life after death, no heaven or hell, no gods and goddesses) vs whether Hinduism is right(consciousness separate from the body, reincarnation, karma, life after death, heaven and hell, gods and goddesses)

Sayak is now openly showing he is a Charvaka and like the Charvakas of the past he trying to disprove Hinduism. I, on the other hand, am defending the Hindu worldview here and like Hindus have done in the past, giving a resounding thrashing to the Charvakas. The Charvakas became an extinct philosophy in India, because they they were every-bodies punching bag. Nobody liked them, including Buddhists and Jains and they were defeated in every debate.

There is no reason to be a part of a Dharmic religion if you do not believe that consciousness survives the death of the body. Why live a Dharmic life then of austerity, of sense control of eschewing sense pleasures and living morally? We live that life because we are seeking moksha from the vicious cycle of birth and rebirth. We know we are not this body and this body is just a temporal vehicle. If you believe what the Charvakas believe, then it makes no sense to practice austerity, sense control, eschewing sense pleasure and living morally -- life is too short to waste it on such pursuits --- rather try to get as much pleasure as you can. Survival of the fittest -- trample over people to get what you want(there is no moral law to give you the fruits of your action, so do what you want)

Anyway we can clearly see Sayak cannot be a Hindu because he is a Charvaka. We are clashing because I am a Hindu and he is a Charvaka.

 

[sayak83]

That something is intoxicating cannot be known by the wine itself, the wine cannot drink itself to know it is intoxicating. That the wine is intoxicating can only be known by a conscious subject who drinks the wine. Hence, the argument is refuted that a certain arrangement of matter can originate mind or consciousness in a certain conditions or combinations, because that arrangement cannot know itself.

I also refuted this argument in my own thread the body cannot be the locus of mental properties because the body is made up of the same substance that make up rocks(atoms) and no matter how many arrangements of rocks you put together you cannot produce mental properties in them. Similarly, no arrangement of atoms because they have no mental properties to begin with, can originate mental properties.

The argument can be further reinforced with another argument. If mental properties belong to the body, then they should always be there. However, this is not the case, because a corpse has no mental properties. Therefore, something which was associated with the body was the locus of those properties and now that something has left, the body no longer shows any mental properties. It is also proven in cases like comas, NDE's, deep sleep and during states of absent mindedness --- the gross body is there, but the mind not there. e.g. Your eyes are open and in front of you is a giant mountain, but you do not see the giant mountain, because your mind is elsewhere. It is only when you mind returns to engage with the body that you see the mountain. Hence, the mind is not an intrinsic property of the mind like say sweetness is the intrinsic property of sugar, it is an accidental property --- sometimes it is there and sometimes it is not. An example of accidental property is the sweet taste of water, if the water tasted sweet at one time and not sweet at another, it means sweetness was not the intrinsic property of the water, it was accidental; meaning the sweetness property belongs to another substance that was associated with the water(sugar) Similarly, mental properties do belong to matter/body, they belong to another substance that is associated with the body --- soul. If the soul is present, the body displays signs of mind, life etc; if absent, it does not.
The hard problem of consciousness is admitted in Modern philosophy of Mind to be a fatal block or dead-end for materialism. Materialism has absolutely no way to explain how matter like rocks with no mental properties can somehow one day as if by magic develop mental properties like awareness, thinking, feeling. This objection is so fatal that some even consider materialism to be refuted now and alternative theories are gaining more currency like "panpsychism" which makes the claim that all matter has mental properties to begin with and thereby contradicting the materialist thesis.

It would be easy for a materialist relatively well-versed in neuroscience to refute these extremely weakly formulated arguments against the proposition that consciousness and self are phenomena (like fire) that arise out of the biological activity of the brain. However note what Spirit_Warrior is doing. He is conceding the fact that materialists and Carvaka-s do in fact consider the emotional, psychological and consciousness properties associated with the self to be a distinct set of properties different from other bodily properties (like fat, thin,rich, poor, hungry etc.). Hence, now, he is currently rehashing (badly) the arguments against this correctly formulated proposition. Thus he has conceded that his original formulation of the materialist position was a caricature, and, since he knows the actual position well enough to try to refute it, a deliberate and intentional misrepresentation. Here it is again:-
Can Hindus be atheist?

Now let me show you why metaphysical materialism leads to a Charvaka like lifestyle first beginning with their epistemology. If only what I can know through my 5 senses what I can see, hear, feel, taste, smell is what I accept to be real. Then all I know about myself is that I am nothing separate from this body. If the body is thin I say "I am thin" if the body is fat I say "I am fat" if the body is hungry I say "I am hungry" if the body is thirsty "I say I am thirsty" Whatever the body is feeling I am feeling. If the body is low in energy, "I am low in energy" If the body is stimulated with a drug "I am feeling stimulated" If the body is dying "I am dying" Therefore, if I am just a body, then my bodies needs are my needs. These include food, water, shelter and at a stretch sex -- or otherwise purely material needs. If this is the case, then in order to life a fulfilling life, I need to a life where I maximise the pleasures of my body(eat, drink and me merry) and minimise the pains of the body(weakness, disease etc) That was the Charvaka way of living.

The correct Carvaka and materialist position has been outlined here
Can Hindus be atheist?

Which, apparently Spirit_Warrior has conceded to be the correct description of the metaphysical position of materialists as he is now trying to show why that metaphysical picture about the self is not the true one.

It matters not a jot to my argument whether the materialists are correct or not about the metaphysical theory of self and consciousness. I also do not believe that they are correct in this. But the point here is whether, given what Carvaka-s, epicureans and modern materialists actually believe to be the material nature of the self- the charge that their metaphysics naturally results in unbridled, selfish, consumerist ethical hedonism is true or not. The proposition is simple:-



If their metaphysics is taken to be provisionally true then

What kind of ethics and lifestyle are consistent with the metaphysics?
Whether some of these ethical and lifestyles are consistent with Dharma?
If yes, could they legitimately call themselves (or we could call them) atheist Hindu-s?

Spirit_Warrior, completely influenced by abrahamic religions, have reduced dharma to a set of core beliefs. Dharma however is a life-stance (regarding ethics, duty, love, meaning, wealth-acquisition, attitude to others and the world, attitude to oneself, ideas of self-improvement etc.) and can only be assessed holistically looking at the life-condition of the person acting and living in the world. That is why a simple villager knowing nothing of the Veda-s and shastra-s can through self-less love and dutiful performance of his/her actions for the good of his family and the village be a better Hindu than knowledgeable Brahmin who, knowing everything, hankers after wealth, fame and strives to maintain status in society.

Now that there is agreement about what materialists actually believe and Spirit_Warrior has conceded the point, one can finally look at what kind of life such a metaphysics actually lead towards.

 

[sayak83]

This thread wasn't really about whether Charvaka was right or whether Hinduism was right.

Ah! The backtracking continues. Who was trying to refute the Carvaka position here? Not me.

This is what what the discussion has now become a philosophical debate whether Charvaka is right(no life independent of the body, no life after death, no heaven or hell, no gods and goddesses) vs whether Hinduism is right(consciousness separate from the body, reincarnation, karma, life after death, heaven and hell, gods and goddesses)

Which presumes that Carvaka and atheists cannot be Hindu-s ...neat sleight of hand there.

Sayak is now openly showing he is a Charvaka and like the Charvakas of the past he trying to disprove Hinduism.

I am no Carvaka. KInd of difficult to be one when one remembers parts of at least 2 past lives (once a Vedic Brahmin and once a Buddhist monk) and sense the presence of Brahman/Iswara since childhood (i.e. first memory). Science was something new, so thought I would spent this life trying to learn it and make it Dharmic. Project going well so far.

Anyways... I am however fully opposed to Spirit_Warrior's take on Hinduism. It like over-boiled tea, raw and strong with all the flavor burnt out.

I, on the other hand, am defending the Hindu worldview here and like Hindus have done in the past, giving a resounding thrashing to the Charvakas. The Charvakas became an extinct philosophy in India, because they they were every-bodies punching bag. Nobody liked them, including Buddhists and Jains and they were defeated in every debate.

So they say. Could you do us a favor and try to take your fight with atheists here in the General Debates forum, my newly minted Hindu-Warrior? We shall see how you do. Try something like "Why materialism is false". i will cheer you and give a few likes, promise.

There is no reason to be a part of a Dharmic religion if you do not believe that consciousness survives the death of the body. Why live a Dharmic life then of austerity, of sense control of eschewing sense pleasures and living morally? We live that life because we are seeking moksha from the vicious cycle of birth and rebirth. We know we are not this body and this body is just a temporal vehicle. If you believe what the Charvakas believe, then it makes no sense to practice austerity, sense control, eschewing sense pleasure and living morally -- life is too short to waste it on such pursuits --- rather try to get as much pleasure as you can. Survival of the fittest -- trample over people to get what you want(there is no moral law to give you the fruits of your action, so do what you want)

You can't figure it out does not mean there are very good reasons for materialists to lead such a life. I will get there, once you stop caricaturing the materialistic beliefs.

Anyway we can clearly see Sayak cannot be a Hindu because he is a Charvaka. We are clashing because I am a Hindu and he is a Charvaka.

Yeah, well, that is another thing about which you are wrong.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am no Carvaka. KInd of difficult to be one when one remembers parts of at least 2 past lives (once a Vedic Brahmin and once a Buddhist monk) and sense the presence of Brahman/Iswara since childhood (i.e. first memory). Science was something new, so thought I would spent this life trying to learn it and make it Dharmic. Project going well so far.

Anyways... I am however fully opposed to Spirit_Warrior's take on Hinduism. It like over-boiled tea, raw and strong with all the flavor burnt out.

If Sayak claims he remembers two of his past lives and senses the presence of Ishvara, then why is spending so much time and energy defending the Charvaka position, when he himself knows through experience it is false? The whole debate becomes pointless then.

 

[sayak83]

If Sayak claims he remembers two of his past lives and senses the presence of Ishvara, then why is spending so much time and energy defending the Charvaka position, when he himself knows through experience it is false? The whole debate becomes pointless then.

Because dear Spirit Warrior, the debate was whether atheistS can be Hindus or not and that was followed by significant differences between you and I about how to understand the term Hinduism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Because dear Spirit Warrior, the debate was whether atheistS can be Hindus or not and that was followed by significant differences between you and I about how to understand the term Hinduism.

Hinduism is that religion or worldview which teaches about past lives and Ishvara etc

If you already believe it, or rather in your case know it by experience to be true, then you have just wasted a lot of time and energy viciously fighting with your own kind who believes the same.

I think this a universal Hindu/Indian problem to be honest. Indian people love to fight with each other, over the most trivial of things and do not fight together those things that are a threat to both of them. For example I was really disheartened to read recently how the Maraths ascended to power and almost vanquished Mughal rule all over India, and even defeated the British in the first Anglo-Maratha war, and later in their own ranks due to in-fighting, one of them decided to support the British in fighting his own kind. If you really are not a Charvaka, then don't fight like a sepoy on their behalf with another Hindu. There is a wider gap between a Hindu and a Charvaka than there is between a Hindu and another Hindu. You should not feel like you like have to fight their battles.

I also felt the same in the IVC thread. Aupmanyav for example is a Hindu and he believes the Vedas are more than 10,000 years old and then you suggested towards the end you believe that the Vedas were composed before 4000BCE, and yet both of you were fighting like dutiful sepoys for AMT's who said they were composed in 1200BCE.

I think Hindus need to stop fighting among each other over minor differences in opinion and unite over larger similarities.

 

[Curious George]

If you really are not a Charvaka, then don't fight like a sepoy on their behalf with another Hindu. There is a wider gap between a Hindu and a Charvaka than there is between a Hindu and another Hindu.

Is this a call to oppose otherness? Is this whole thread an attempt to draw a line of otherness? And because you were but-hurt? I think there is a lesson one can read when they visit old threads of their past. I hope you choose to visit this one.

 

[Kirran]

So they say. Could you do us a favor and try to take your fight with atheists here in the General Debates forum, my newly minted Hindu-Warrior? We shall see how you do. Try something like "Why materialism is false". i will cheer you and give a few likes, promise.

"What is wrong with people who follow materialism?"

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

As far as Hinduism is concerned, materialism is the exact ant-thesis of what we believe and practice. In other religions like Christianity and Islam, it is other religions that get condemned, but in Hinduism it is materialism which is condemned. That is because one who truly believes in materialist doctrine, has no valid reason to be moral and live a pure spiritual life. Life is too short for that. I will give an illustration to show this is the case

Suppose you are on a visit to a foreign land where nobody knows you. You are given shelter by a elderly lady who lives in the middle of nowhere on her own. You discover she owns some very expensive jewellery worth millions. You could, if you want, kill the lady and steal her jewellery and nobody will ever find out. So do you kill the lady and steal the jewellery and return back millions richer which can you put to good use to live a high life or do you leave in the morning bid your farewell never to see her again.

This kind of moral dilemma could present it to anybody in that situation. However, it is based on your ethics and beliefs that you would behave.

A Hindu: No, I can't do it, because if I do the law of karma will deliver me the fruits of my action later
Jain: No, I can't do that, because of ahimsa, no violence to any living being in thought, speech or action
Buddist: No, I can't do that, because I am to radiate compassion to all
Muslim: No, I can't do that, because Allah sees all and will send me to hell
Christian No, I can't do that, because God sees all and will send me to hell

Materialist: Maybe, I am only going to live once anyway, the old bat is probably going to die soon anyway and nobody is ever going to find out, and there is no God who is going to punish me or law of karma that is going to get me, I will come out millions richer and be able to do all the things I dreamt off and live a comfortable life from now on.

Some possible reasons not do do it

"What if I get caught" -- Not all crimes which are committed are caught, in fact there are more crimes committed than are caught. If caught, not all crimes are prosecuted.
"Guilty" --- Not every criminal who commits a crime feels guilty, some even laugh at their victims or think their victims deserved it. Guilty being a mental feeling, can and is often rationalised "Well she was on own anyway, I put her out of her misery; what was she going to do with that jewellery anyway, somebody else or the state will probably take it from her, at least I can put it to good use; she is going to die soon anyway, and everybody has to die one day"

-- I think this is what Krishna meant when he called materialists "hypocrites" They invent their own morals to suit their own circumstances .

I am not saying that everybody who believes in materialist beliefs is immoral and goes around killing old ladies, I am saying one truly believes it and lives by it, has no reason not to. . Such as the Charvaka and the Asuras. Hence why even Dawkins recognises it is dangerous and hence why it strongly condemned in Hinduism as a worldview.

 

[sayak83]

Hinduism is that religion or worldview which teaches about past lives and Ishvara etc

I disagree and I did outline why I disagree with this before.
Can Hindus be atheist?
The analogy is simple. Science does believe that the speed of light is constant. But one is not a scientist because he/she believes that the speed of light is a constant, nor does one cease do be a scientists if one, due to some well argued scientific theory going beyond relativity, holds that the speed of light is not actually a constant but varies.The method of enquiry that Hinduism espouses- into ethics, into nature, into one's duty to society, one's duty to one's own spiritual, perceptual and intellectual growth- are the true core of Hinduism even it happens to be true that the method when pursued has led most Hindus into certain realizations regarding the nature of the world and the nature of the self. Just like in science, in Hinduism the beliefs are a consequence of and hence is secondary to the method (the yoga, the yajna/sadhana, the samkhya enumeration, the nyaya reasoning etc.).

Why you have construed this disagreement as an attack on Hinduism, I have no idea.

If you already believe it, or rather in your case know it by experience to be true, then you have just wasted a lot of time and energy viciously fighting with your own kind who believes the same.

I am less interested in seeing what one believes than how one believes. But I am confused. You started a debate about whether atheists can be included within HInduism in the same-faith section expecting all Hindu-s to agree with you? Why start a debate thread in the same-faith thread if you do not want to debate with other Hindu-s?
I do indeed believe that atheists can be Hindu-s because even though I am certain (within human limits of fallibility) that reincarnation happens and there is the ultimate reality of Brahman behind all this based on what I have experienced, I do not think one is automatically excluded from Hinduism if one does not believe those things simply because they haven't yet glimpsed them. That's the entire point.

I think this a universal Hindu/Indian problem to be honest. Indian people love to fight with each other, over the most trivial of things and do not fight together those things that are a threat to both of them. For example I was really disheartened to read recently how the Maraths ascended to power and almost vanquished Mughal rule all over India, and even defeated the British in the first Anglo-Maratha war, and later in their own ranks due to in-fighting, one of them decided to support the British in fighting his own kind. If you really are not a Charvaka, then don't fight like a sepoy on their behalf with another Hindu. There is a wider gap between a Hindu and a Charvaka than there is between a Hindu and another Hindu. You should not feel like you like have to fight their battles.

I do not believe in groupism. I am surrounded by hard working scientists, most of them being atheists and agnostics who work everyday with complete ad total devotion to unveil the astounding structure of nature through the imperishable language of mathematics. I do not think what they do is against dharma in any way. Its a form of sadhana as well, one that does provide spiritual fruits.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I disagree and I did outline why I disagree with this before.
Can Hindus be atheist?

You are not going to get anywhere by denying that Hinduism does not reach reincarnation and Ishvara, as there are several dozens of Hindus on this forum who know you are wrong.

The analogy is simple. Science does believe that the speed of light is constant. But one is not a scientist because he/she believes that the speed of light is a constant, nor does one cease do be a scientists if one, due to some well argued scientific theory going beyond relativity, holds that the speed of light is not actually a constant but varies.The method of enquiry that Hinduism espouses- into ethics, into nature, into one's duty to society, one's duty to one's own spiritual, perceptual and intellectual growth- are the true core of Hinduism even it happens to be true that the method when pursued has led most Hindus into certain realizations regarding the nature of the world and the nature of the self. Just like in science, in Hinduism the beliefs are a consequence of and hence is secondary to the method (the yoga, the yajna/sadhana, the samkhya enumeration, the nyaya reasoning etc.).

Why you have construed this disagreement as an attack on Hinduism, I have no idea.

Your problem is you are treating Hinduism as a science, merely a method by which one knows. However, again there are several dozens of Hindus on this forum and several hundreds of millions of Hindus around the world who know it is a faith.

Why would we say shraddha, faith in scripture and word of Guru is important, if it wasn't? Why would we have scriptures and gurus? As I already have proven to you which you falsely thought to be a later invention by Shankara and did not have the humility to concede that you were wrong, the classical epistemology of Hinduism is first you listen to the Guru or scripture(Srvanam) you then contemplate on its meaning, raise questions and remove all your doubts so you are convinced of its truth(Mananam) and finally once you convinced, you practice and meditate(Nidhidhysanam)

You will not be able to convince hundreds of millions of Hindus who swear by scriptures and Gurus that Hinduism is just a method of knowledge or science(I have tried in the past, btw, as I use to think wrongly like you) nor are you going to convince millions of scientists that Hinduism is a science, when all they see is hundreds of millions of Hindus worshipping deities in temples and performing all sorts of rituals an rites.

You are fighting a losing battle.

I do indeed believe that atheists can be Hindu-s because even though I am certain (within human limits of fallibility) that reincarnation happens and there is the ultimate reality of Brahman behind all this based on what I have experienced, I do not think one is automatically excluded from Hinduism if one does not believe those things simply because they haven't yet glimpsed them. That's the entire point.

You are excluded, because this is what Hinduism teaches.

I do not believe in groupism. I am surrounded by hard working scientists, most of them being atheists and agnostics who work everyday with complete ad total devotion to unveil the astounding structure of nature through the imperishable language of mathematics. I do not think what they do is against dharma in any way. Its a form of sadhana as well, one that does provide spiritual fruits.

Oh, but I think you do. You just identify with a different group. You don identify with Hindus or the rest of your kind, you identify with "hard working scientists, most of them atheists..." and you defend them faithfully on here, you act as their sepoy and you even lavish praises on them by calling what they do "sadhana " lol --- I think you might be suffering from the, I am sure there is a name for it, but let's just call it want-to-be-accepted-so-bad-by-them syndrome.
Hence, you are embarrassed to admit to some of your beliefs and try to couch your beliefs in scientific terms to make them more acceptable to them.

On the other hand, I as a Hindu can speak without any morsel of shame about scriptures, rishis, devi/devatas, ishvara, lokas, atman,,brahman, krishna, rama, pujas, chakras, nadis, kundalini and pretas etc etc I am not trying to be accepted by anybody. I am a Hindu, this is why I believe in those things.

 

[sayak83]

You are not going to get anywhere by denying that Hinduism does not reach reincarnation and Ishvara, as there are several dozens of Hindus on this forum who know you are wrong.



Your problem is you are treating Hinduism as a science, merely a method by which one knows. However, again there are several dozens of Hindus on this forum and several hundreds of millions of Hindus around the world who know it is a faith.

Why would we say shraddha, faith in scripture and word of Guru is important, if it wasn't? Why would we have scriptures and gurus? As I already have proven to you which you falsely thought to be a later invention by Shankara and did not have the humility to concede that you were wrong, the classical epistemology of Hinduism is first you listen to the Guru or scripture(Srvanam) you then contemplate on its meaning, raise questions and remove all your doubts so you are convinced of its truth(Mananam) and finally once you convinced, you practice and meditate(Nidhidhysanam)

You will not be able to convince hundreds of millions of Hindus who swear by scriptures and Gurus that Hinduism is just a method of knowledge or science(I have tried in the past, btw, as I use to think wrongly like you) nor are you going to convince millions of scientists that Hinduism is a science, when all they see is hundreds of millions of Hindus worshipping deities in temples and performing all sorts of rituals an rites.

You are fighting a losing battle.




You are excluded, because this is what Hinduism teaches.




Oh, but I think you do. You just identify with a different group. You don identify with Hindus or the rest of your kind, you identify with "hard working scientists, most of them atheists..." and you defend them faithfully on here, you act as their sepoy and you even lavish praises on them by calling what they do "sadhana " lol --- I think you might be suffering from the, I am sure there is a name for it, but let's just call it want-to-be-accepted-so-bad-them syndrome.
Hence, you are embarrassed to admit to some of your beliefs and try to couch your beliefs in scientific terms to make them more acceptable to them.

On the other hand, I as a Hindu can speak without any morsel of shame about scriptures, rishis, devi/devatas, ishvara, lokas, atman,,brahman, krishna, rama, pujas, chakras, nadis, kundalini and pretas etc etc I am not trying to be accepted by anybody. I am a Hindu, this is why I believe in those things.

You are severely confused and deluded in thinkING that your views are representative in any way shape or form.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You are severely confused and deluded in thinkING that your views are representative in any way shape or form.

I clearly know your views are not representative mate that Hinduism is just a science. It is neither accepted by the mass of Hindus or by the mass of scientists. You are trying too hard to fit into your "scientists" group.

Anyway, now that I know you do actually believe in reincarnation, samsara, Ishvara etc, I think debating further with you is pointless. You clearly have major confusions about your religion and accepting it as a religion, and this is probably motivated by your Nehruvillian pseudosecularist politics -- you did after all, earlier present Nehru as an example of a great atheist.

 

[sayak83]

I clearly know your views are not representative mate that Hinduism is just a science. It is neither accepted by the mass of Hindus or by the mass of scientists. You are trying too hard to fit into your "scientists" group.

Anyway, now that I know you do actually believe in reincarnation, samsara, Ishvara etc, I think debating further with you is pointless. You clearly have major confusions about your religion and accepting it as a religion, and this is probably motivated by your Nehruvillian pseudosecularist politics -- you did after all, earlier present Nehru as an example of a great atheist.

I also agree that arguing with you is pointless.
Indeed nehru was a great atheist, a great leader and a great indian.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Indeed nehru was a great atheist, a great leader and a great indian.

Every Hindu and Indian here who knows about Nehru now know exactly what ideology you are coming from and why your loyalties do not lie with Hindus. Fortunately, Indian people have wisened up since 2014.

By the way, I had to point out the irony, for somebody who denies atheism has any links with Hedonism and then gives Nehru as an example of a great atheist, this is too funny! Nehru was a known womanizer and drunkard and died of Syphilis

 

[sayak83]

Every Hindu and Indian here who knows about Nehru now know exactly what ideology you are coming from. Fortunately, Indian people have wisened up since 2014.

I also voted for Modi, who is another great indian patriot. Your little boxes have no hope of grasping india or Hinduism it appears.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I also voted for Modi, who is another great indian patriot. Your little boxes have no hope of grasping india or Hinduism it appears.

Sure, you may have, but you didn't really have much choice did you, it was Rahul Gandhi vs Modi. You are far too intelligent to have voted for Rahul Gandhi. But your political subscriptions are obvious by calling Nehru "great." Him and his ensuing dynasty, who today millions of Indians and Hindus consider to be the cause for the ruin of India for the the rampant corruption, stagnation of the economy, lack of infrastructure etc. Those who know his history, know he was opposed to Gandhi's "Swadeshi" ideology of redeveloping India along its own Hindu/Dharmic culture. Nehru was opposed to Hinduism. He is infamous for being an anti-Hindu. Nehru believed that India's ancient traditions, philosophies and religions were obsolete and superseded by Western Science and Philosophy. The British considered him a perfect example as "one of them"

Your anti-Hindu views articulated in this thread are all starting to make sense.