Hi Guys! Just joined the AR and already excited to meet many like minded people. I would describe myself as about 70% atheist and 30% agnostic.
As a Hindu, I find it very difficult to find any arguments or debates against Hinduism on many sites, or even on youtube, where Hitchens and Dawkins primarily argue against Christianity and Islam, both which I find very interesting indeed, but fail to relate to the concept as a whole.
Now, even though I am against the whole general idea of a creator itself, as a scientific person, I like to keep that 30% agnosticism.
Having read parts of the Gita, which is the holy book of Hindus, I personally find it to be more logical and practical than Bible and the Quran and I dont mean to offend anyone, its just my view.
Having said that, Buddhism might be the practical of all religions, and this I am not classifying on the basis of belief of a God, because thats the concept of all religions, but by the literal meaning where religion refers to 'a way of living life'.
Basically, I want all of you, be it theist or non theist, to point out some of the flaws you see in the Buddhist and Hinduism religion, other than the creator perspective and the amusing traditons which all seem to share, considered you have some familiarity with them, and also compare them with Islam or Christianity.
Anyways guys, amazing to be here. Cheers!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ QP
"Hinduism far too many gods, none of them credible.:
Well, yes and no. Depends on the Hindu to whom one is speaking.
Many will argue Hinduism has 15 million gods. Yet I once ran across a man who insisted he was a Hindu. He was also an atheist.
There are a great many Hindu who will argue that there is in fact only one god ,and that all other Hindu Gods are simply a reflection of the Godhead .
Some of the revered books of Hinduism are profound. The one with which I am most familiar is the Bhagavad Gita, but it is some years since I read it. (I have not read much of rest of the Mahabharata)
Buddhism shares some concepts with Hinduism, but lacks divinities. Again, it depends on to which Buddhist you speak; many worship the Buddha as a god. Many others (including me) will describe Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion.
As you say, no gods to disbelieve. Buddhism is often called an atheistic religion" . I have no quarrel with that definition,. I don't understand your problem with Buddhism .It's emphasis on self? So what? Imo human beings are innately egocentric , it's crucial to our survival
I find it hard to criticise a life philosophy which teaches "above all loving kindness" (as the Buddha is recorded as saying) or 'ahimsa', which I interpret as the absence of the desire to harm.
The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path provide an honourable way of life which works for many millions. . .
Every philosophy has its flaws. There is no reason for me to even try to deconstruct Buddhism
I do not believe in any god(s) due to an absence of proof nor do I care about the personal superstitions of others . Unlike say Christianity and Islam, neither Hinduism nor Buddhism are missionary , and so do not usually proselytise.
I have neither an interest nor the obligation to disprove any belief system. It is the obligation of the person making the claim to provide the proof.
As with metaphysical propositions generally, the existence of god(s) is unfalsifiable .That means it cannot be proved nor disproved. God(s) cannot be argued into or out of existence .
Such arguments may be of academic interest, but logic is not a reliable tool for discovering truths. ( I do not believe claims of THE truth. again due to a lack of proof .)
@TheQuantumPhysicist: RE: like minded people. I would describe myself as about 70% atheist and 30% agnostic.
NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THAT MEANS
Do you believe in a god or gods. Yes or No. If you say yes, you are a Theist. If you say "No." You are an atheist.
Do you have Knowledge of a God or Gods. If you say "Yes." you are a Gnostic. If you say "No" you are agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are two completely separate things though they are not mutually exclusive. Agnostic Atheists are atheists that do not believe in god because there is no evidence (knowledge) concerning god or gods.
Agnostic Theists are theists that assert belief in God or gods without knowing whether or not there really are any gods or God.
-------------------------------
RE: I find it very difficult to find any arguments or debates against Hinduism.
This is because the average westerner is not exposed to Hinduism. Trust me, as soon as you make a stupid remark associated with your religious beliefs, you will be challenged. Try passing off any of the million Hindu Gods as real, assert reincarnation is a proved fact, try and convince someone of the law of karma and see what happens. Hitchens and Dawkins grew up around Christianity. It is Christianity that colors the world we live in. It gets the most attention.
----------------------------------------------
RE: I like to keep that 30% agnosticism. (You have no idea what it means to be atheist or agnostic. You do not understand the terms you are using.)
*****************************************************
RE: Lord Krishna (the magical deity) is certainly not more logical than any other faith out there. You just grew up around it and it colors your culture. There is nothing special about the Bhagavad Gita. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
________________________
RE: Having said that, Buddhism might be the practical of all religions,
One of the stupidest comments made all year. Spend your life learning Buddhist dogma so you can forget it and attain enlightenment. The law of Karma is directly responsible for cast systems. You are poor, it is what you deserve for past life atrocities you committed. Your child dies, eh! that's your Karma, now all the neighbors know you are a bad person and being punished. BUDDHISM IS AS INSANE AS ANY OTHER RELIGION ON THE PLANET.
_____________________________
@Cognostic
With all due respect, I will tell you what that means. I am sure as hell aware of the meaning of both terms and yes, both of them are different. However, Richard Dawkins, as you may have read in his book, The God Delusion, had created a scale from 1 to 7, based on the strong belief of a person towards his/her theism or athesim. Number 6 has been called the 'de facto' atheist, one is not certain of his presence but lives on the 'assumption' that he is not there. Dawkins was himself a category 6 person, as compared to the strong atheist, which I presume you are. So yeah, I can believe it that way. Plus as a scientist, Im bound only to experimental proof, the presence or absence of which hasnt been found. So my 70% also comes from philosophical purposes.
There is nothing special yes, but definitely it was a much better book to read in terms of valuable content.
Oh yes I completely agree with you, I think you misunderstood me. I think practical was the wrong word to use there for me, but what I was trying to say is that I personally classify religions as whose writings or teachings are more 'flawed' than the other. Having read almost all of those, I believe that The Gita and Buddhist teachings have much lesser questionable errors than an ocean of them in the Bible and Quran.
No one gives a fuck about Richard Dawkins or his scale. He is a biologist. He invented a scale. I don't follow it.
Do you believe in a god, -- The answer is "Yes" or "No" You could possibly be confused at times but you can NOT hold both beliefs simultaneously. Answer the question.
Do you know, have actual knowledge of God or Gods? "Yes" and you are a gnostic, "No" and you are agnostic and without knowledge of god or gods.
-----------------------------
RE: There are a great many Hindu who will argue that there is in fact only one god ,and that all other Hindu Gods are simply a reflection of the Godhead .
HINDU 101 - I do not know a Hindu who does not make this assertion. Even Jesus is one of the unfolding personalities of Shiva. God is playing hide and seek with himself. You are also a part of the unfolding of the godhead. You have said nothing.
RE: I believe that The Gita and Buddhist teachings have much lesser questionable errors than an ocean of them in the Bible and Quran.
I am betting you are confusing Buddhist psychology and philosophy with actual Buddhist dogma. The Koans and stories are inquiries into the consciousness of man. They have little to do with the Buddha, the four noble truths, the 8 fold path: right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Buddhism characteristically describes reality in terms of process and relation rather than entity or substance. What is written is not what is done. The Bible tells Christians to love their neighbor. It does not happen. LOOK AT WHAT REALLY HAPPENS. What are the results.
Do you actually understand Buddhism? Look at society based on Buddhism and what do you see? Korean Buddhists that kill female babies because not getting a male baby is bad karma. If you are too poor to fly to another country for an abortion and you have a child that is deformed or mentally handicapped. you hide it away so that the neighbors do not know of your bad Karma.
IT'S NOT BETTER - IT IS DIFFERENT. You can pull good things from the bible and from the Quaran. Believers do it all the time. Certainly you can pull good things from Buddhist teachings. I have a copy of Zen flesh Zen Bones on my desk and refer to it often. J. Krishnamurti put Buddhism in its place for me. It's just another inane religion with fanciful ideas un-backed by any substance at all. I REPEAT: You spend a lifetime learning Buddhism so you can let it go. (THERE IS NOTHING TO LEARN. THE MORE YOU CLING TO THE TEACHINGS THE MORE YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. THERE IS NO PATH, NO TRAINING AND NO-PLACE TO GO.) NO ONE NEEDS BUDDHISM, NO ONE NEEDS TO SAY I AM A BUDDHIST. ALL YOU NEED DO IS OPEN YOUR EYES.
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
RE: RICHARD DAWKINS -----
RE: 1.00: Strong THEIST. (GNOSTIC THEIST - GOD CAN BE KNOWN)100 per cent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' (A DELUSIONAL POSITION AS WE NEVER KNOW ANYTHING 100%.)
2.00: (I BELIEVE GOD CAN BE KNOWN, SOMEWHAT GNOSTIC - THEIST) Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. ****DE FACT0 THEIST****. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.' (YOUR STANDARD EVERYDAY THEIST.)
RE: 3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. (GNOSTIC - WELL MAY BE GOD CAN BE KNOWN BUT I AM PLAYING IT SAFE THEIST.) Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.' (PASCAL'S WAGER IN FULL FORCE. I AM AFRAID OF GOING TO HELL SO I AM GOING TO BELIEVE.)
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. (SAME AS 3 NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. GNOSTIC-THEIST) 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' (RICHARD IS COMPLETELY WRONG. YOU CAN NOT HOLD TWO BELIEFS SIMULTANEOUSLY. THIS IS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and they are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AGNOSTICISM.
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. (GNOSTIC - THERE MUST BE SOME TRUTH OUT THERE - THEIST. NOT AN ATHEIST AT ALL. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. YOU DON'T LEAN TOWARDS ATHEISM. THERE IS NOTHING TO LEAN TOWARDS. YOU BEGIN QUESTIONING AND DOUBTING YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS. ATHEISM IS NOT A DOGMA. IT IS NOT A SECT. IT IS SIMPLY GIVING UP RELIGIOUS BELIEF IN GOD OR GODS. THIS PERSON IS A THEIST WHO IS QUESTIONING HIS VIEWS. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' *GOD IS VERY IMPROBABLE IS NOT QUITE RIGHT. * THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN GOD OR GODS. (*** THIS IS ATHEISM*** ) GOD IS ALWAYS IMPROBABLE. THE LEVELS ABOVE THIS JUST DON'T KNOW IT UNTIL THEY ARE CHALLENGED. MOST ATHEISTS DO NOT ASSERT THAT THERE IS NO GOD. ATHEISM IS A POSITION OF NON-BELIEF IN GOD OR GODS. MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR SUCH THINGS.
7:00: Strong atheist. (THIS ONE IS ALMOST CORRECT.) 'I know there is no God, (YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY KNOW THIS.) ATHEISTS WILL TAKE THE STRONG POSITION WITH REGARDS TO CERTAIN GODS. GODS THAT ARE PRESENTED WHICH ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY; JUST AND MERCIFUL, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN NOT POSSIBLY EXIST. THE ALL LOVING BUTCHER OF THE BIBLE IS ANOTHER CONTRADICTION. THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL BASED GOD WHO IS ALL LOVING CAN BE DISPROVED WITH THE BIBLE. with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
RICHARD IS WRONG, IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE. ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM ARE SEPARATE THINGS. AGNOSTICISM IS KNOWLEDGE AND ATHEISM BELIEF.
IF I ASK YOU. DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? AND YOU TELL ME,"I AM AGNOSTIC." YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. I DID NOT ASK YOU IF YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GOD. THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT BELIEF.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD? YES OR NO?
My friend, Im afraid you might be wrong at various places. Anyways, Im not the person to tell whos right or whos wrong as everyone has a different view. I agree with you on the Buddhism point of view, atleast somewhat but since our conversation here has drifted to the question of holding two beliefs simultaneously, let me elaborate on that.
In your previous post, you said he was a 'biologist', so his scale doesnt matter, atleast indirectly.
That to me, is a very poor point. I dont care if hes a biologist or physicist or a carpenter or a shopkeeper. The fact is that he is an atheist and has raised important questions to the society. He along with some others has contributed greatly to both communities, the science one and the atheist one. So, Im not saying you follow his scale, just saying that his profession doesnt matter at all.
And now in your most recent one,, you clearly stated that a person cannot hold two beliefs simultaneously, and rightly along with it you gave a medical psychological condition called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. And yeah, it is a well know condition but if you are using it in this context, I will too.
Tell me then, are we all suffering from 'COGNITIVE DISSONANCE' if are are seeing light or for that matter take electrons, take both a wave like nature and even a particle nature. And this is one of the several examples I can list to you from nature, of particles exhibiting two extremely distinct behaviours, several also in few of them. According to your belief, NO, its all wrong. Light just shows wave/particle behaviour. And this not just 'diversity of thought', its been proved. So, now what, we flip a coin and decide one?
So yes my friend, I can choose the level of atheism and agnosticism that suit my beliefs, just like light shows wave nature in a double slit, and shows particle nature in the famous photoelectric effect
Yes, you can choose the level of Atheism and Agnosticism that suit your beliefs. Go to the front page of the Atheist Republic. Scroll down on the right and read the article. Agnosticism and Atheism are not the same thing.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Well, I love how you send me a picture I have seen a 1000 times and havent replied to my previous question
TheQuantumPhysicist: READ THE ARTICLE.
DAWKINS USES THE TERM AGNOSTIC INCORRECTLY IN HIS SEVEN LEVELS
I will my friend, I surely will, dont worry about that. Just hope you realized your error when you said that two things cannot be believed at the same time simultaneously. Anyways, thanks for the discussion. See you around :)
Hinduism to my understanding has two very basic points, right off the bat, which are utter bollocks.
The fact it has a god... sorry, but this will be the same old tedious path of trying to get a theist to demonstrate some objective, empirical evidence to support the notion.
And immortal individual souls, again, another appeal to the super natural and something that has met 0% of the burden of proof.
However, I will admit that I like Hinduism from a personal experience of interactions I've had of those who follow it.
They have tended to be wonderful and kind people and not as morally bankrupt as muslims and socially retarded as Christian's.
But still, all concepts have no objective, empirical evidence to support them and hold as much scientific weight as the belief that a golden rabbit is constantly orbiting Pluto and can only be seen by those who really believe.... and have a fucking huge telescope.
You aren't a Muslim anymore?
@TheQuantumPhysicistYes.: If I said "beliefs" I am an idiot. I should have said "Opposing Beliefs." Thank you for the correction and I will explain below. This opinion came largely from Matt Dilahaunty; however, I did a bit of research on my own. Not having any of that handy, I quickly found the following. I think it is fairly clear.
The law of contradiction. "In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,"
Krishna KumariChalla, Ph.D. Founder, Science Communication Network at Sci-Art Lab (2008-present) "It is possible if logic is used, sometimes, not so judiciously.
"But in my field of science, true scientists cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance ( science doesn't allow for the holding of two contradictory positions). They must choose the facts and stick to them. While establishing facts of science, you cannot have two views!
Yes, you can try to understand others’ view point. But accepting them needs thorough critical analysis which is based on evidence. So if evidence is provided, it can be welcomed but only if the other - not so reliable - one is discarded.
How can you believe that ghosts exist and don’t exist at the same time? You have the fact that there is no evidence of ghosts and it had been shown that it ‘s people’s wild imagination and hallucination that make them believe in them."
But you can say both ‘meat is disgusting’ and ‘very tasty ‘ depending on two psychological or physical conditions of two people! What is the truth here? Both are correct because you have evidence of two people vouching for their taste! Truth is relative in such conditions. For a third person, who chooses to be neutral, both conditions are possible and therefore he or she can trust both views, and can think the taste depends on the condition of the person."
I think the God assertion falls more in line with the first example than the second. How do you believe a god both exists and does not exist. It is not possible. You can believe that some people think god exists and some people don't think a god exists. He may exist for some and not for others. This avoids cognitive dissonance. (Taken from a discussion on Quora
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-believe-two-opposing-points-of-v...
----------------------------------------------
Does that make sense?
One problem I have with Hinduism is religion and Indian national identity are the same. The intolerance of Muslims and beef eaters is leading to atrocities and possible nuclear war.
@chimp3: Damn Beef Eaters!
@ Cog
"Damn BeefEaters"
Exactly! if they would only stick to their place guarding the English Crown Jewels the world would be a better for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YS0vGq0QsE