Will Hinduism become extinct?

[AKane]

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Getting wiped out of South Asia (just India Nepal now), the final frontier for these two predatory religions. Atheists are in the frontlines behind these powerful armies with their “all religions are same” pipedreams. 

I am agnostic. I just don't know. All religions are not the same ..... but there is no evidence of "one God" either. The same God who says venerate the cow because it gives you milk to sustain you when you are the most vulnerable as a baby cannot say kill and grind that cow into a burger and eat it with ketchup and mustard.

 

I get this thought into my mind that when Brahma (or whatever Hindu power) created the world in satya yug, "My father/Yahweh/Allah" - who are one and the same - was not known to Brahma. This thing arrived on the scene from left field somewhere and took the Hindu gods by surprise from which they have not yet recovered.

 

Again all this is I think beyond our comprehension and so I am agnostic. I don't know.....

[randomGuy]

I am agnostic Hindu. I.e. to say that I don't know but I am biased towards Hinduism.

 

I am tremendously proud of Hinduism, that I am born in this soil and in this culture...we have Gyan marg, bhakti marg to experience mukti. In bhakti marg, we have nirgun and sagun bhakti. As humans evolve more, the shift is most definitely going to be towards the concepts of Hinduism. Yoga, meditation, bhakti etc. 

 

I am also tremendously proud that dharmic religions (basically religions born in India) give importance to veganism n vegetarianism. 

 

We have precision fermentation and cultivated meat being touted as the future of food just as EV is the future of transport and solar/wind is future of power rather than coal(similar to animal slaughter in the context).

 

It is a journey of evolution of human beings for the next 30-40 years and by that time people's conscience will move them towards concepts and the way of life of Hinduism..

 

Edited September 8 by randomGuy

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

And he openly admitted to be afraid of Islam and steered clear of any criticism of Islam and facking pee’ed in his pants. All his valor is against non-Islam

 

 

 

even before he became scared of islamists, his POV was still pretty rudimentary and oversimplified. He shot to fame after writing ' The Selfish Gene' - which i will say is an excellent book for laymen to understand how genes actually work. Dawkins even makes a case for ' genetic determinism', which is intreaguing, as he basically implies that our free will and individualism is all a 'by-product' of our genes trying to spread. 

He then graduated to 'scientific atheism', where he makes a whole bunch of arguments about why theism is wrong/assumptive. Which i agree with. 

But his position of 'if no evidence of god = no need to think about god' is only possible, as he openly admitted, by co-opting agnosticism under atheism, as they both are ' no proof, no dice' camp. 

But technically, agnosticism is not a negation of god like atheism is. Agnosticism in its conceptual sense (not christian agnosticism btw, they have a different definition) is not a 'yes' or a 'no' to the question ' is there god/gods?', its  the 'situation indeterminate' answer. 
Which is a transient answer, known as search function query. 

In simple terms, if i ask you ' are my keys in your house ?', there are 3 possible answers at the time of asking the question: Yes, No and ' dunno, still searching'. Once you finish searching the house ( the entire domain in question), you arrive at 2 possible answers : yes, i found your keys and no, i searched the whole house, no keys. Ie, x is found in domain y or domain y has been searched, exhausted and no we didnt find x. 

 

Technically speaking, agnosticism is the only viable answer till we either find god/gods or we exhaust entire domain of search - which is the whole damn universe and possible higher dimensions of existence. Because, by search function query logic, have we found x(Gods)? Nope. Have we exhausted searching through entire domain ( all realms of existence) ? Nope. Ergo, only valid answer to ' does God/Gods exist ?' : I dunno.(Agnosticism). 

 

Dawkins admits this openly ( which blows his whole atheist argument apart), yet manages to blithley say ' well until you find x, a i dunno can be seen as a no if i frame it as a binary logic variable, with it being false until you find x'. Which is clear-cut intellectual dishonesty. 

 

 

Long story short, western atheists HATE the idea of ' i dunno, gods can exist'  just as much as western theists hate the idea that Christ isnt God. They are used to binary god-devil/heaven-hell scenarios, so they see the 'i dunno' as admission of other camp's viability and that must not be allowed. 

 

Thats why i dont take western atheists very seriously, especially not intellectually dishonest ones like Dawkins. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

On 9/6/2024 at 3:46 PM, RizBarKhan said:

The point of religion is to explain our purpose in this world and how to make it to paradise. Any belief system that doesn’t explain that is not really a religion but more of a cultural group/cult/mythology.

then that is not applicable to hinduism, as hinduism does make an attempt to explain our purpose in this world, as does all dharmic beliefs, same as abrahamic ones. The difference is, they are not fascist like abrahamic beliefs, who perpetuate ' only us is correct an we must exterminate all others' . 

Mythology is basically a term invented by chrsitians to put pagan theology at a lower level to theirs. Otherwise, there is no difference between mythology and theology. 

 

[zen]

In one way or the other, we all follow religion (and I believe that there comes a time in everyone’s life when he/she has to think about God). 
 

For e.g. religion has laid down certain family guidelines (passed on from gen to gen) such as the role of parents, siblings, etc.  What separates us from animals, who probably don’t understand the brother-sister, father-daughter, mother-son, husband-wife dynamics, is religion.

 

Marriages take place according to religion. Families come together by accepting such unions accepted through a religious ceremony.

 

All these customs/practices are said to be passed on through divine knowledge. 
 

 

[Muloghonto]

35 minutes ago, zen said:

In one way or the other, we all follow religion (and I believe that there comes a time in everyone’s life when he/she has to think about God). 
 

For e.g. religion has laid down certain family guidelines (passed on from gen to gen) such as the role of parents, siblings, etc.  What separates us from animals, who probably don’t understand the brother-sister, father-daughter, mother-son, husband-wife dynamics, is religion.

 

Marriages take place according to religion. Families come together by accepting such unions accepted through a religseus ceremony.

 

All these customs/practices are said to be passed on through divine knowledge. 
 

 

several animals understand complex family kinship relations: Bonobo monkeys, elephants, dolphins, killer whales. etc. They are perfectly aware who the grandmother is, who the mother,sister, brother, etc is and what is the family pecking order for authority and kinship. 

there is no seperation of mankind from animals in hinduism like there is in abrahamic religions. God didnt make this planet for us, didnt appoint us caretakers of all ze animals/life/masters etc. We are animals. Hinduism and several dharmic religions teach that we are not 'separate' from animal world, we are just the ' einstien in the class, where next best student is rambo'. 

 

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

several animals understand complex family kinship relations: Bonobo monkeys, elephants, dolphins, killer whales. etc. They are perfectly aware who the grandmother is, who the mother,sister, brother, etc is and what is the family pecking order for authority and kinship. 

there is no seperation of mankind from animals in hinduism like there is in abrahamic religions. God didnt make this planet for us, didnt appoint us caretakers of all ze animals/life/masters etc. We are animals. Hinduism and several dharmic religions teach that we are not 'separate' from animal world, we are just the ' einstien in the class, where next best student is rambo'. 

 

 

The information is likely to be programmed in their DNA. I am not debating here but writing what I have evaluated. 

 

Most animals are unlikely to be aware of concepts such as  “adultery”, “incest”, etc. And I am an animal lover who spends time with animals. 

 

I know what you are trying to say but I am not looking for such discussions. I don’t care what “paper y published in magazine z said about Dolphins doing x”. This is not such a thread. 

 

This is more from a religious point of view where a marriage, the concept of sin, etc., come from religious teachings!

 

It is “me” who is putting his ideas forward, not parroting something said somewhere by someone apart from in religious books! 

[Muloghonto]

21 minutes ago, zen said:

 

The information is likely to be programmed in their DNA. I am not debating here but writing what I have evaluated. 

Not for elephants or dolphins, where we can see these are learned behaviour from divergence in capabilities of these creatures in said social pairings in captivity vs non captivity. 

 

21 minutes ago, zen said:

Most animals are unlikely to be aware of concepts such as  “adultery”, “incest”, etc. And I am an animal lover who spends time with animals. 

 

I know what you are trying to say but I am not looking for such discussions. I don’t care what “paper y published in magazine z said about Dolphins doing x”. This is not such a thread. 

 

This is more from a religious point of view where a marriage, the concept of sin, etc., come from religious teachings!

 

It is “me” who is putting his ideas forward, not parroting something said somewhere by someone apart from in religious books! 

I dont agree at all that the concept of marriage comes from religion at all- sin does. yes. 

marriage or marriage-like customs are found in atheist societies over time as well, as well as in non religious tribal societies as well. its evolutionary pair bonding social behaviour in our species. 

 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not for elephants or dolphins, where we can see these are learned behaviour from divergence in capabilities of these creatures in said social pairings in captivity vs non captivity. 

 

I dont agree at all that the concept of marriage comes from religion at all- sin does. yes. 

marriage or marriage-like customs are found in atheist societies over time as well, as well as in non religious tribal societies as well. its evolutionary pair bonding social behaviour in our species. 

 

I don’t think there were any “atheist” societies (it is a relatively new concept). Religion in one form or the other has been around since time immemorial.  
 

Marriage has a religion tone, considered a sacred union, to it and therefore it takes place in a religious environment (legal marriage is a new concept). Child born out of a marriage is called names.

 

And who is to say that God is only for humans? 
 

There is nothing to agree or disagree. Feel free to believe what you want!
 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

I don’t think there were any “atheist” societies (it is a relatively new concept). Religion in one form or the other has been around since time immemorial.  

 

There are still plenty of tribal societies that dont have a belief in god or gods. not that many, but they do still exist 

 

Just now, zen said:

 

 

Marriage has a religion tone, considered a sacred union, to it and therefore it takes place in a religious environment (legal marriage is a new concept). Child born out of a marriage is called names.

 

And who is to say that God is only for humans? 
 

There is nothing to agree or disagree. Feel free to believe what you want!
 

 

marriage doesnt have religious tone. marriage is outside of religion as well and seen in said tribal societies without a functional religion or gods or anythign as well. marriage is special becuse its evolutionary mating strategy.  child born out of marriage is called names because that child has lower chance of survival and thriving. again, evolutionary dynamics, outside of religion, hence its seen in almost all societies (postmodern west being the exception).

 

[zen]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

There are still plenty of tribal societies that dont have a belief in god or gods. not that many, but they do still exist 

 

 

marriage doesnt have religious tone. marriage is outside of religion as well and seen in said tribal societies without a functional religion or gods or anythign as well. marriage is special becuse its evolutionary mating strategy.  child born out of marriage is called names because that child has lower chance of survival and thriving. again, evolutionary dynamics, outside of religion, hence its seen in almost all societies (postmodern west being the exception).

 

Sorry, I don’t buy that. I feel you are wasting your (and my) time!
 

What is being discussed in beyond what you are trying to discuss. 
 

What you are trying to do is something like  “tribe X in the heart of continent Y is atheist (or the guy who found that didn’t understand them and their beliefs). And they were getting married.” … There could be various explanations for such behaviour, directly or indirectly, linking to religious teachings. 

 

As I said, I go by what I see and analyze, based on examples in front of me. 

 

What I would be interested in is if you fly the tribe to my place. Let “me” evaluate them based on my methodology. I could find something contrary to what has been taught to you! 

[zen]

An issue is that many, unfortunately, believe in “black or white” concepts within the scope of what has been taught to them. Religion is not black or white. 
 

Most people have heard of the Pirahã people in South America, who are “considered” atheist by “Christian” definition.
 

But I do not consider them atheist per my definition as they have a belief system whereby spirits talk to them, guide them, and can take various forms including of animals. It is a different type of belief system.

There is a book called “Don’t Sleep, There are Snakes” that talks about these people, judging them from a “Christian” point of view. 
 

Edited September 8 by zen

[Zero_Unit]

11 hours ago, zen said:

It is not the religion, which is supposed to separate humans from animals, but that humans find ways to misrepresent it to use and control others using the means available to them. For e.g. we even use the color of our skins as a means to group people. Other tools that we use include nationalism, socialism, communism, etc. 

 

Bhagat Gita tells you all you need to know about a religion. Below are a few quotes from Chapter 5:

 

 

“The karm yogis, who are of purified intellect, and who control the mind and senses, see the Soul of all souls in every living being. Though performing all kinds of actions, they are never entangled.”

“Neither the sense of doership nor the nature of actions comes from God; nor does He create the fruits of actions. All this is enacted by the modes of material nature (guṇas).”

 

“The omnipresent God does not involve Himself in the sinful or virtuous deeds of anyone. The living entities are deluded because their inner knowledge is covered by ignorance.”

 

“The pleasures that arise from contact with the sense objects, though appearing as enjoyable to worldly-minded people, are verily a source of misery. O son of Kunti, such pleasures have a beginning and an end, so the wise do not delight in them.”

 

“Those persons are yogis, who before giving up the body are able to check the forces of desire and anger; and they alone are happy.”

 

“The truly learned, with the eyes of divine knowledge, see with equal vision a Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater.”

Basically, telling us to improve ourselves (and therefore the community) through good deeds, equality, not differentiating, not being materialistic, etc. 
 

Religion here is about doing good to ourselves to attain a higher state (as explained in Gita). And if more and more people work to improve themselves, that leads to a better society.
 

But we do not necessarily want a better society. We want good materials, power, control, etc., so if a religion gets in our way, we “twist” it to instead use it for our goals! 
 

I respect your view (you're a very humble person as far as I've seen from your posts) and I agree with you on what you said. If you look into any religious books, you will find similar quotes/verses/etc. However, if it was upto me, all religion needs to die. They had their time and purpose, 2024 is not the time for religion (just like test cricket :P )

Edited September 8 by Zero_Unit

[zen]

25 minutes ago, Zero_Unit said:

I respect your view (you're a very humble person as far as I've seen from your posts) and I agree with you on what you said. If you look into any religious books, you will find similar quotes/verses/etc. However, if it was upto me, all religion needs to die. They had their time and purpose, 2024 is not the time for religion (just like test cricket :D )

If religions die, people may need to avail psychologists. One of the reasons that I find that people in India are able to handle challenges relatively better is because of religion. 
 

When there is an issue, we visit temples and pray to Gods. And that makes us us feel better, while also providing us with hope that eventually God will make everything better. There is someone up there who looks after us. It makes people less tense and feel really better mentally.
 

Take that away and we may see more and more people having mental issues because of pressure and challenges. Life, today, itself is a challenge. 
 

Now I do not want to force anyone who does not believe in religion to believe in it. People should not be forced as believing is a personal journey.
 

Similarly, it is probably not fair to wish that religion goes away if people believe in it. Obviously, there are people who force their religion but there are also those who don’t. Anyways, religion is not going to vanish in our lifetime. 

What you can do is use this thread to follow the discussions to see what folks think about religion. Most of us are highly educated with multiple degrees so maybe also a way to see why educated people still believe in religion.

 

Edited September 8 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Sorry, I don’t buy that. I feel you are wasting your (and my) time!

 

What is being discussed in beyond what you are trying to discuss. 
 

What you are trying to do is something like  “tribe X in the heart of continent Y is atheist (or the guy who found that didn’t understand them and their beliefs). And they were getting married.” … There could be various explanations for such behaviour, directly or indirectly, linking to religious teachings. 

 

As I said, I go by what I see and analyze, based on examples in front of me. 

 

What I would be interested in is if you fly the tribe to my place. Let “me” evaluate them based on my methodology. I could find something contrary to what has been taught to you! 

You dont buy what ? that there are plenty of oooga booga tribes out there that have marriage customs but dont believe in god or gods ? they are not religious societies either. 
Examples in front of you is not a scientific methodology. You have to account for anecdotal evidence, sample bias, etc. 
Simple reality is, marriage is seen as a custom in both religious and non religious societies. Openly majority atheist societies like Soviet Russia or North korea didnt see any change to marriage rates. We also see marriage customs in every human group, but we dont see religion in every human group. Ergo marriage as a custom is not related to religion.

 

[zen]

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You dont buy what ? that there are plenty of oooga booga tribes out there that have marriage customs but dont believe in god or gods ? they are not religious societies either. 
Examples in front of you is not a scientific methodology. You have to account for anecdotal evidence, sample bias, etc. 
Simple reality is, marriage is seen as a custom in both religious and non religious societies. Openly majority atheist societies like Soviet Russia or North korea didnt see any change to marriage rates. We also see marriage customs in every human group, but we dont see religion in every human group. Ergo marriage as a custom is not related to religion.

 

That is your interpretation based on what you have read and what is been taught to you. 

It also depends on how marriage is defined. And there are ways for religious teaching to seep in without being “religious” by most likely “Christian” definition. 

Majority people in Russia and North Korea were not always atheist, which is an Impact of communism in those countries. There is 1,000 of years of religious history that seeps into culture. 

As I said, I do not need to know what scientific methodology is based on what you think.
 

This is a thread on religion. Not on scientific methods. Tomorrow, you will ask for proof of God.

 

There is no point in attempting to turn threads into pointless discussions. 
 

 

 

Edited September 8 by zen

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

That is your interpretation based on what you have read and what is been taught to you. 

It also depends on how marriage is defined. And there are ways for religious teaching to seep in without being “religious” by most likely “Christian” definition. 

People in Russia and North Korea were always atheist. There is 1,000 of years of religious history that seeps into culture. 

As I said, I do not need to know what scientific methodology is based on what you think.
 

This is a thread on religion. Not on scientific papers. Tomorrow, you will ask for proof of God.

 

There is no point in attempting to turn threads into pointless discussions. 
 

 

 

No, that is the logical interpreation. marriage is defined very simply as form of sexual commitment between two adult human beings. mostly male and female. 

Conclusions you draw have to follow scientific principles. you cant ditch them just because the topic is religion and invent **** as you see fit because of your interpretations. 

This is a thread on religion. Which is why i said the conclusion ' marriage comes from religion' is not a valid conclusion, as evidence shows otherwise. 

Just as marriage can seep into a culture via religion, it also seeped into religion via culture. they are mututal feeback loops. If you claim marriage is from religion, you have to explain marriage in societies and tribes that have never had religion in the first place. 

 

Edited September 8 by Muloghonto

[zen]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

No, that is the logical interpreation. marriage is defined very simply as form of sexual commitment between two adult human beings. mostly male and female. 

Conclusions you draw have to follow scientific principles. you cant ditch them just because the topic is religion and invent **** as you see fit because of your interpretations. 

This is a thread on religion. Which is why i said the conclusion ' marriage comes from religion' is not a valid conclusion, as evidence shows otherwise. 

 

Yeah, and by that definition, someone can be “married” to multiple people.

 

Buddy, you know nothing  … Please stop wasting your (and others) time!

[Muloghonto]

22 minutes ago, zen said:

Yeah, and by that definition, someone can be “married” to multiple people.

 

Buddy, you know nothing  … Please stop wasting your (and others) time!

 

yes, there are religions that allow marriage to multiple people. 
You are gonna make a claim and then not accept factual criticism nor amend your claim- thats not how rational discussion works. You simply have zero basis to conclude marriage exists because of religion. And until you can explain marriage customs in irrilgious societies and tribes, your comment remains invalid. 

 

[zen]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

yes, there are religions that allow marriage to multiple people. 
You are gonna make a claim and then not accept factual criticism nor amend your claim- thats not how rational discussion works. You simply have zero basis to conclude marriage exists because of religion. And until you can explain marriage customs in irrilgious societies and tribes, your comment remains invalid. 

 

Yeah, with multiple people including possibly males and a definition that can even make animals “married”.
 

Discuss the theories of the proper uses of scientific methods, facts, and logic with your professor.
 

Buddy, in real world, you have to understand other people’s pov, including reading b/w the lines! No one is going to spoon feed you based on how “you” understand things. 

 

Appears as if you have learned nothing from what I have posted. 

Edited September 8 by zen