Can Hindus be atheist?

[Curious George]

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 Nehru believed that that of India's ancient traditions, philosophies and religions were obsolete and superseded by Western Science and Philosophy.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.

I don't know if you learned, but resorting to attacking the person of whom you are debating rather than their argument is not good form. You have thus far chosen your own interpretations for definitions, appealed emotionally to Hindus based on hindu-ness to oppose non-Hindus, and now you are attacking others based not on their arguments about the subject of your op. Your argument is that Sayak should not count as a Hindu, and more he is the enemy of Hindus, so other Hindus should not listen to what he says.

Both of you(@Spirit_Warrior and @sayak83 ) have turned this discussion into a rather passive aggressive thread where each post speaks more to your own psychological baggage than it does to the others point of view.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I don't know if you learned, but resorting to attacking the person of whom you are debating rather than their argument is not good form. You have thus far chosen your own interpretations for definitions, appealed emotionally to Hindus based on hindu-ness to oppose non-Hindus, and now you are attacking others based not on their arguments about the subject of your op. Your argument is that Sayak should not count as a Hindu, and more he is the enemy of Hindus, so other Hindus should not listen to what he says.

I do agree it has become personal and it should not be. I am not making any appeals to Hindus to oppose non-Hindus. I am making an argument that Hinduism is a clearly well defined worldview that is distinct. Hence, I am arguing for distinctiveness. You do not seem to be aware of Indian politics which in inseparably tied with Hindu religion and attitudes towards Hinduism, but the views I am representing here are held by a wide number of Hindu scholars. I would recommend a good book, "Being Different" by Rajiv Malhotra to understand why we Hindus insist you recognise us as a distinct worldview. We do not appreciate being assimilated into other paradigms, and we definitely do not appreciate forcing us to accept what are heretical worldviews, like materialism/atheism.

 

[Curious George]

I do agree it has become personal and it should not be. I am not making any appeals to Hindus to oppose non-Hindus. I am making an argument that Hinduism is a clearly well defined worldview that is distinct. Hence, I am arguing for distinctiveness. You do not seem to be aware of Indian politics which in inseparably tied with Hindu religion and attitudes towards Hinduism, but the views I am representing here are held by a wide number of Hindu scholars. I would recommend a good book, "Being Different" by Rajiv Malhotra to understand why we Hindus insist you recognise us as a distinct worldview. We do not appreciate being assimilated into other paradigms, and we definitely do not appreciate forcing us to accept what are heretical worldviews, like materialism/atheism.

I am not forcing any views onto Hindus. I will read the book you have suggested. But I invite you to reread your postings in 5-10 years when you are a different person. If you were so blessed to let go of "Indian politics" perhaps it would be clearer that you are fighting yourself.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am not forcing any views onto Hindus. I will read the book you have suggested. But I invite you to reread your postings in 5-10 years when you are a different person. If you were so blessed to let go of "Indian politics" perhaps it would be clearer that you are fighting yourself.

I am not saying you personally are. However, there is an attitude, and it is again tied in with politics, a lot which traces back to Nehru, that Hinduism is not a religion and has no distinctiveness. This lead to 70+ years of discrimination against Hindus in India itself, which Hindus are always treated differently from the other so-called minority religions, particularly Islam and Christianity e.g. Hindu temples and monuments are not protected, in the same way they are. Hindus do not have the same entitlements to government funds the same way they are etc. There are many such examples. Even until recently, the Nehru dynasty were about to institute a law called the "anti communalism" bill which would have made it legal to prosecute Hindus involved in communal riots, but not Muslims or Christians(though Christians are relatively peaceful in comparison) The recent rise in Hindu nationalism has a lot to do with decades of discrimination against us. The Nehru dynasty calls this "Secularism" but we call it pseudsecularism.

All that Hindus insist on is fair treatment. We are a major world religion as well. We have our founders, canons of scriptures, core beliefs and tenets, history and mythology, as well as traditions we consider heresies. I honestly cannot see how it makes me some fundamentalist, extremist or Nazi to insist on this?

 

[Curious George]

I am not saying you personally are. However, there is an attitude, and it is again tied in with politics, a lot which traces back to Nehru, that Hinduism is not a religion and has no distinctiveness. This lead to 70+ years of discrimination against Hindus in India itself, which Hindus are always treated differently from the other so-called minority religions, particularly Islam and Christianity e.g. Hindu temples and monuments are not protected, in the same way they are. Hindus do not have the same entitlements to government funds the same way they are etc. There are many such examples. Even until recently, the Nehru dynasty were about to institute a law called the "anti communalism" bill which would have made it legal to prosecute Hindus involved in communal riots, but not Muslims or Christians(though Christians are relatively peaceful in comparison) The recent rise in Hindu nationalism has a lot to do with decades of discrimination against us. The Nehru dynasty calls this "Secularism" but we call it pseudsecularism.

All that Hindus insist on is fair treatment. We are a major world religion as well. We have our founders, canons of scriptures, core beliefs and tenets, history and mythology, as well as traditions we consider heresies. I honestly cannot see how it makes me some fundamentalist, extremist or Nazi to insist on this?

I certainly never said you were such. I believe you are just a person. A person who is attached to a fight. In your religion, from my understanding, you have plenty of time to get this out of your system. I just think it will happen sooner than later.

 

[sayak83]

I don't know if you learned, but resorting to attacking the person of whom you are debating rather than their argument is not good form. You have thus far chosen your own interpretations for definitions, appealed emotionally to Hindus based on hindu-ness to oppose non-Hindus, and now you are attacking others based not on their arguments about the subject of your op. Your argument is that Sayak should not count as a Hindu, and more he is the enemy of Hindus, so other Hindus should not listen to what he says.

Both of you(@Spirit_Warrior and @sayak83 ) have turned this discussion into a rather passive aggressive thread where each post speaks more to your own psychological baggage than it does to the others point of view.

Sorry about that. I will not engage further with spirit warrior here. Apologize for my role here

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I certainly never said you were such. I believe you are just a person. A person who is attached to a fight. In your religion, from my understanding, you have plenty of time to get this out of your system. I just think it will happen sooner than later.

Curious George, if you don't mind me asking, what is your religion? In my religion love for India, the motherland(matrabhumi) is an integral part of our religion. We call India "Devabhumi" the land of gods and "Rishibhumi" the land of sages. Hence, it is our sacred duty to fight for the causes of India and for our religion Hinduism. However, we do not fight with swords, we fight with words, well reasoned argument. I would never get violent against somebody, say a materialist/atheist just because I disagree with their worldview, however when invited to I would definitely debate them and give it my all to bring them down to their knees. That is what a debate is right? Why have a debating forum otherwise?

 

[Curious George]

Curious George, if you don't mind me asking, what is your religion? In my religion love for India, the motherland(matrabhumi) is an integral part of our religion. We call India "Devabhumi" the land of gods and "Rishibhumi" the land of sages. Hence, it is our sacred duty to fight for the causes of India and for our religion Hinduism. However, we do not fight with swords, we fight with words, well reasoned argument. I would never get violent against somebody, say a materialist/atheist just because I disagree with their worldview, however when invited to I would definitely debate them and give it my all to bring them down to their knees. That is what a debate is right? Why have a debating forum otherwise?

I am an atheist. I don't mind you asking at all. Debate imo can offer insight. That possibility is for closed however once we pursue debate for the purpose of hearing our own voice. At that point debate is no more significant than shouting into the wind. And while both can be cathartic, we would often better serve ourselves if we did the latter. Debate is a type of connection to another, not a type of conquest over another.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am an atheist. I don't mind you asking at all. Debate imo can offer insight.

That is a discussion. When I am not trying to prove my points or disprove yours, but when we are mutually trying to learn about each others views by asking questions.

A debate is much more violent. In a debate I am trying to prove my point while disproving yours. It has been a long maintained Indian and Dharmic tradition, and it carries on till today:

See it is not exactly peaceful is it(look at the gestures with the stamping down of the hand to complete a refutation)

Debates happen between mutually opposing schools of thought, especially when they are polar opposite like Hinduism vs Materialism. The position of Hinduism is clear that Materialism/atheism is a heresy, we condemn it strongly and associate it with demonic and immoral ideology. We have a right to take this position and the materialist has a right to defend their position.

 

[Kirran]

Just because X, Y and Z are an integral part of YOUR Hinduism doesn't mean they are an integral part of everybody else's Hinduism.

Also, I suspect your thinking that a materialist would merrily rob old women if they could get away with it is projection. I know a great many moral materialists.

The whole thing strikes me as an intellectualising approach to morality.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Just because X, Y and Z are an integral part of YOUR Hinduism doesn't mean they are an integral part of everybody else's Hinduism.

I never said it was my Hinduism, I said Hinduism as defined in the scriptures. Love for the holyland, that is India is an integral theme and India is also geographically defined as "Bharatvarsha" through Indian scriptures, variously called divine land, land of gods, land of sages etc.

I do not buy this argument that Hinduism is whatever you want it to be.

Also, I suspect your thinking that a materialist would merrily rob old women if they could get away with it is projection. I know a great many moral materialists.

The whole thing strikes me as an intellectualising approach to morality.

This is a strawman of my original argument:

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.

A Hindu who truly believes in their religion will not kill and rob the old lady because they know that the karma will come back to them. A materialist, however, does not believe in any moral law or life after death, hence if they can get away with something and it benefits them, why not? Everybody dies anyway. A materialist has no time to waste on morality, charity and spirituality -- and for what ends?

 

[Kirran]

I never said it was my Hinduism, I said Hinduism as defined in the scriptures. Love for the holyland, that is India is an integral theme and India is also geographically defined as "Bharatvarsha" through Indian scriptures, variously called divine land, land of gods, land of sages etc.

I do not buy this argument that Hinduism is whatever you want it to be.

In some scriptures, which some people accept, in some interpretations. Plenty of Hindu populations aren't even in India, and have been outside of it for many generations.

A Hindu who truly believes in their religion will not kill and rob the old lady because they know that the karma will come back to them. A materialist, however, does not believe in any moral law or life after death, hence if they can get away with something and it benefits them, why not? Everybody dies anyway. A materialist has no time to waste on morality, charity and spirituality -- and for what ends?

Basically you're saying a totally selfish person will not rob someone if they believe the karma will come back to them because it means they believe they'll be punished.

I honestly feel little reason to promote such ideas, as far more important is actually having basic compassion for other human beings.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

In some scriptures, which some people accept, in some interpretations. Plenty of Hindu populations aren't even in India, and have been outside of it for many generations.

95% of the population of Hindus is in India. Besides, a huge number of Muslims live outside of Mecca and Medina, but they still make pilgrimage to it because it is the holy land. Similarly, a lot of Hindus living outside of India, make tirtha yatra to the holy places in India.

Again, I do not accept the argument some scriptures, in some interpretations. In the Puranas all the sacred tirth or pilgrimage sites in India are marked out and Puranas are not a minor scripture in Hinduism, in fact they are considered the 5th Veda. The Mahabharata itself is considered a Purana. The Agamas also mark them out. Certain places are considered holy like Kashi, Kailash, Mathura etc


[qutoe]Basically you're saying a totally selfish person will not rob someone if they believe the karma will come back to them because it means they believe they'll be punished.[/quote]

If they truly believe in the law of karma and go on rob and murder an old lady, then they are forced to accept that they will have to face the consequences of their actions later. That would be like knowingly put your hand into hot lava.

I honestly feel little reason to promote such ideas, as far more important is actually having basic compassion for other human beings.

Whose promoting these ideas. I am saying the materialist has no reason not to rob the old lady and murder her, because if they can get away with it, they do not believe in a law of karma and they do not believe in a life after death where they will have to face divine justice. Why then should they be compassionate? Can you give me reasons why they should be? If they take the jewellery worth millions they can do everything they wanted and the only price they had to pay for it was an old lady, who was probably going to die soon anyway. They might even think they did her a favour.

The fact is situations like this do happen. Greed does make people do horrible things. So it is a dilemma worthwhile discussing. Why should the materialist be moral and for what ends? If they act morally they don't get the millions and if they act immorally they do. Which seems wiser?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am saying the materialist has no reason not to rob the old lady and murder her, because if they can get away with it, they do not believe in a law of karma and they do not believe in a life after death where they will have to face divine justice. Why then should they be compassionate? Can you give me reasons why they should be?

Sigh. You are not only lacking in your basic understanding of religion in general and Hinduism specifically.

You are sorely lacking in understanding people.

 

[Kirran]

95% of the population of Hindus is in India. Besides, a huge number of Muslims live outside of Mecca and Medina, but they still make pilgrimage to it because it is the holy land. Similarly, a lot of Hindus living outside of India, make tirtha yatra to the holy places in India.

Again, I do not accept the argument some scriptures, in some interpretations. In the Puranas all the sacred tirth or pilgrimage sites in India are marked out and Puranas are not a minor scripture in Hinduism, in fact they are considered the 5th Veda. The Mahabharata itself is considered a Purana. The Agamas also mark them out. Certain places are considered holy like Kashi, Kailash, Mathura etc

Plenty make pilgrimage to places which are not in India, also. Hinduism, unlike Islam, Christianity and Sikhism, didn't have some single founding, there was no specific place of founding, it just generally emerged in South Asia.

Some Hindus reject the Vedas. Some Hindus just have nothing to do with them. Argue based on various scriptures all you like, it'll never apply to all Hindus.

Whose promoting these ideas. I am saying the materialist has no reason not to rob the old lady and murder her, because if they can get away with it, they do not believe in a law of karma and they do not believe in a life after death where they will have to face divine justice. Why then should they be compassionate? Can you give me reasons why they should be? If they take the jewellery worth millions they can do everything they wanted and the only price they had to pay for it was an old lady, who was probably going to die soon anyway. They might even think they did her a favour.

The fact is situations like this do happen. Greed does make people do horrible things. So it is a dilemma worthwhile discussing. Why should the materialist be moral and for what ends? If they act morally they don't get the millions and if they act immorally they do. Which seems more wiser?

I think maybe you're just not understanding that some people have compassion for people, and refrain from harming them for other than personal gain. We don't see materialists being any more prone to crime or harming people in reality than anybody else. You're just looking at it from a cold intellectual point of view. I'm afraid I must agree with @LuisDantas. This is an aspect of spiritual development, to open your heart, to open yourself to intuitive and emotional understanding, rather than attempting to explain everything philosophically using the intellect, although going through such stages can be a part of the journey - it was for me!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Plenty make pilgrimage to places which are not in India, also.

I am not aware of any holy Hindu places outside of India, unless you are referring to recently built temples like BAPS?
The fact of the matter is all the holy places of Hindu re Kashi, Mathura, Himalayas, Ganges and Saraswati etc are all in India. All the main temples like the four dhams are in India. India, is thus a holyland for Hindus, in much the same way Jersusalem is for Jews and Christians or Mecca and Medina for Muslims.

Hinduism, unlike Islam, Christianity and Sikhism, didn't have some single founding, there was no specific place of founding, it just generally emerged in South Asia.

We don't have a single finder, but a group of finders ours Rishis who started the Vedic tradition. (I am not going to go into pre-Vedic claims of Hinduism as they are not based on evidence and is based on the AMT theories which does not inform traditional Hindu understanding)

Some Hindus reject the Vedas. Some Hindus just have nothing to do with them. Argue based on various scriptures all you like, it'll never apply to all Hindus.

I do not accept Neo-Hindu arguments. The only group I know of that rejects the Vedas are the Lingayats, and that is a political group more than a religious group, who consider as their founder a political leader Basava.

I think maybe you're just not understanding that some people have compassion for people, and refrain from harming them for other than personal gain. We don't see materialists being any more prone to crime or harming people in reality than anybody else. You're just looking at it from a cold intellectual point of view.

I never made the claim materialist people are more prone to crime. I am saying if you genuinely believe in a materialist metaphysics, then why bother with morality, you don't have time for it. People die all the time, anywhere from before being conceived to elderly age, different people dropping at different ages. Some die through natural causes, some through accidents and some murders. You are going to die anyway and the outcome is the same for all you cease to exist. So whether that happens for them today, tomorrow, a few years later or few decades later is irrelevant. All you should be concerned about is your own selfish needs, your own desires, getting what you want. Survival of the fittest. "Society" is just a social construct. As Thatcher said, "There is no society, just individuals."

You also do not have a lot of time, by the age of 40 your body is already in accelerated decay and diseases start to creep up increasing discomfort in your life and reducing your ability to enjoy life. Hence, considering this, you really have no time to be moral and charitable. Rather you should live to maximise your own selfish benefits.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You are sorely lacking in understanding people.

You are not understanding, I am merely playing devils advocate here. Of course I do not want people going around robbing and killing old ladies and I know a majority of people, materialist included wouldn't. But why they wouldn't, I argue, is because they truly don't believe in the materialist metaphysics that they would practice it to its logical conclusion. This is why Dawkins admits it is dangerous if it actually practised.

I argue, that there is something within us, a conscience if you like, which is something outside of a naturalist metaphysics which stops us from doing immoral things.

The point if you really believe this is the only life you are going to get then you have to admit life sucks. Look at the vast inequality, the wars, conflicts, violence in the world. The facts of death, decay, disease and impermanence. Give all this, why waste your life on needless pursuits?

Ok fine, let us for argument sake accept your argument that materialists might be happy doing a bit charity now and again and pursuing knowledge, wisdom, meaning etc ---- but the fact is the materialist metaphysics allows for the old-lady-robbing-and-killing materialist to exist too. The peace-loving materialist tells old lady-robbing materialist "Don't do it, it is wrong" but the old lady robbing materialist replies "Ha, that is just your opinion, I am doing what nature intends survival of the fittest"

The Hindu metaphysics does not allow for a lady-robber. If a Hindu genuinely believes in Hindu metaphysics, then as I said, robbing the old lady would be like putting your hands in hot lava. Who would do that?

 

[Kirran]

I am not aware of any holy Hindu places outside of India, unless you are referring to recently built temples like BAPS?
The fact of the matter is all the holy places of Hindu re Kashi, Mathura, Himalayas, Ganges and Saraswati etc are all in India. All the main temples like the four dhams are in India. India, is thus a holyland for Hindus, in much the same way Jersusalem is for Jews and Christians or Mecca and Medina for Muslims.

You haven't heard of Kataragama?

We don't have a single finder, but a group of finders ours Rishis who started the Vedic tradition. (I am not going to go into pre-Vedic claims of Hinduism as they are not based on evidence and is based on the AMT theories which does not inform traditional Hindu understanding)

What of the Shramanas? And the innumerable folk traditions making up a great deal of modern Hinduism?

I do not accept Neo-Hindu arguments. The only group I know of that rejects the Vedas are the Lingayats, and that is a political group more than a religious group, who consider as their founder a political leader Basava.

The vast majority of Hindus have nothing to do with the Vedas. They just do them lipservice.

I never made the claim materialist people are more prone to crime. I am saying if you genuinely believe in a materialist metaphysics, then why bother with morality, you don't have time for it. People die all the time, anywhere from before being conceived to elderly age, different people dropping at different ages. Some die through natural causes, some through accidents and some murders. You are going to die anyway and the outcome is the same for all you cease to exist. So whether that happens for them today, tomorrow, a few years later or few decades later is irrelevant. All you should be concerned about is your own selfish needs, your own desires, getting what you want. Survival of the fittest. "Society" is just a social construct. As Thatcher said, "There is no society, just individuals."

You also do not have a lot of time, by the age of 40 your body is already in accelerated decay and diseases start to creep up increasing discomfort in your life and reducing your ability to enjoy life. Hence, considering this, you really have no time to be moral and charitable. Rather you should live to maximise your own selfish benefits.

I know you didn't make the claim, but one would assume it from your argument. You are saying that people would assume the important thing is personal gain, I don't see why you would assume that. You seem to be saying 'this is how I would act if I was a materialist' or something along those lines. But it doesn't fit the facts on the ground of how people actually act. Thatcher wasn't a materialist!

 

[LuisDantas]

You are not understanding, I am merely playing devils advocate here.

You are being intentionally foolish. I do not much care what you hope to achieve in so doing. You should know better either way.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are not understanding, I am merely playing devils advocate here. Of course I do not want people going around robbing and killing old ladies and I know a majority of people, materialist included wouldn't. But why they wouldn't, I argue, is because they truly don't believe in the materialist metaphysics that they would practice it to its logical conclusion. This is why Dawkins admits it is dangerous if it actually practised.

Well, I guess you are admiting that you do not understand the first thing about atheists then.

That is obviously true, so it is a good thing that you are admitting it.

I argue, that there is something within us, a conscience if you like, which is something outside of a naturalist metaphysics which stops us from doing immoral things.

You are quite wrong. If you truly want to learn how and why, Peter Singer's "How Are We to Live?" is a nice place to start. Sam Harris has some fine texts as well.

The point if you really believe this is the only life you are going to get then you have to admit life sucks. Look at the vast inequality, the wars, conflicts, violence in the world. The facts of death, decay, disease and impermanence. Give all this, why waste your life on needless pursuits?

Basic human decency. Are you truly claiming to have such a poor grasp of it? I am sorry for you then.

Ok fine, let us for argument sake accept your argument that materialists might be happy doing a bit charity now and again and pursuing knowledge, wisdom, meaning etc ---- but the fact is the materialist metaphysics allows for the old-lady-robbing-and-killing materialist to exist too. The peace-loving materialist tells old lady-robbing materialist "Don't do it, it is wrong" but the old lady robbing materialist replies "Ha, that is just your opinion, I am doing what nature intends survival of the fittest"

There are no materialist metaphysics, now are there?

The Hindu metaphysics does not allow for a lady-robber. If a Hindu genuinely believes in Hindu metaphysics, then as I said, robbing the old lady would be like putting your hands in hot lava. Who would do that?

Two words: utilitarist ethics.

Incidentally, let me assure you: I have first hand experience with reincarnationists (mostly Kardecists), enough so to know for a fact that such a belief is not even marginally helpful in attaining morality.