Atheism - the best 'religion'

[maggot_brain]

Oh dear oh dear, doesn't religion cause so many problems in our beloved Motherland? Better that we all realise that ALL religion is superstitious nonsense, then there would be no communal tension. Are there any atheists here? If so please state your given 'religion'. In my case it is Hinduism, if I'm ever asked I always tell people I'm atheist but born Hindu and am not practising. Ironic really, If I'd been a Muslim and had turned away from my faith the consequences would probably have been more severe than my atheism has been for me. If you are an atheist, why did you stop believing? Did you ever believe? What do your friends and family think? I eat beef, something that would have been unthinkable to my grandparents. What about NRIs (and NRPs and Bs) have you turned away from religion now you live in the West? The only known atheist I have seen on ICF is Gaurav....

[THX_1138]

for one... atheism is not a religion. second, it is not a cult. third it is not a matter of stop believing, it is a matter of lack of evidence. please dont ever ever ever refer to atheism as a religion. people who share my proclivities are already isolated and often ridiculed when infact, a majority of the world's brightest minds are drawn from our ranks. having said that... i stopped being deluded when after years of painstaking efforts i finally reached a junction where introduction of the god hypothesis to explain or argue any phenomenon what so ever in this universe failed to provide a statisfactory result. i.e. a result that could be replicated with comparable success. hence in summary... atheists do not stop believing, they stop being deluded. we do believe in stuff that can be verified, and theories that are supported by empirical data. unfortunately, the God hypothesis is not one such theory. and please dont give me that old "lack of evidence is not the proof of non existence crap" since we do not have any evidence to show that the flying spagetti monster exists, and yet we never stop to argue that "hey that does not prove that the flying spagetti monster does not exists!".

[maggot_brain]

for one... atheism is not a religion. second, it is not a cult. third it is not a matter of stop believing, it is a matter of lack of evidence. please dont ever ever ever refer to atheism as a religion. people who share my proclivities are already isolated and often ridiculed when infact, a majority of the world's brightest minds are drawn from our ranks. having said that... i stopped being deluded when after years of painstaking efforts i finally reached a junction where introduction of the god hypothesis to explain or argue any phenomenon what so ever in this universe failed to provide a statisfactory result. i.e. a result that could be replicated with comparable success. hence in summary... atheists do not stop believing, they stop being deluded. we do believe in stuff that can be verified, and theories that are supported by empirical data. unfortunately, the God hypothesis is not one such theory. and please dont give me that old "lack of evidence is not the proof of non existence crap" since we do not have any evidence to show that the flying spagetti monster exists, and yet we never stop to argue that "hey that does not prove that the flying spagetti monster does not exists!".

Hence the quotation marks. Agree with the rest of what you are saying though totally.

[Guest dada_rocks]

My religions is informed scepticism....I like to belive this is the best approach.. Can't buy mindlessly into any edicts Yes detest the harmful ones particularly those category which sounds like dictatang others behaviour.. About harmless ones well could not care less....

[maggot_brain]

My religions is informed scepticism....I like to belive this is the best approach.. Can't buy mindlessly into any edicts Yes detest the harmful ones particularly those category which sounds like dictatang others behaviour.. About harmless ones well could not care less....

I'm surprised by you I must say. I though you'd have gone out of your way to shoot me down given how much support you seem to have for the BJP. You don't seem to be making yourself out to be particularly religious so what are you saying? You pick and choose the best bits from your religion and discard that which you think is bad?

[Guest dada_rocks]

for instance switch to times now channel and see live how morons have this custom of throwing kids from first floor in Alakhnath temple particularly those couples who presumably have babies after mannat at this temple.. yes no doubt kid gets caught in a towel.. poor kids are crying like hell ( if I ever get hands on these clowns I might come to blows) many kid die in this ritual.. This is freaking religious custom what to say.. Pity the fools who buy into these craps.. Other day was watching pakistani channle their they have the custom of leaving their first kid on mazaars as orphan ( kind of offering to mazaar) after couple have kids presumably through mazaar's blessings..

[Guest dada_rocks]

I'm surprised by you I must say. I though you'd have gone out of your way to shoot me down given how much support you seem to have for the BJP. You don't seem to be making yourself out to be particularly religious so what are you saying? You pick and choose the best bits from your religion and discard that which you think is bad?

BJP is not about hinduism public perception aside, I have been to RSS sakhas for quite some time 90% of the time they keep talking about nation building....

[Dhoni's English]

for one... atheism is not a religion. second' date=' it is not a cult. third it is not a matter of stop believing, it is a matter of lack of evidence. please dont ever ever ever refer to atheism as a religion. people who share my proclivities are already isolated and often ridiculed when infact, a majority of the world's brightest minds are drawn from our ranks. having said that... i stopped being deluded when after years of painstaking efforts i finally reached a junction where introduction of the god hypothesis to explain or argue any phenomenon what so ever in this universe failed to provide a statisfactory result. i.e. a result that could be replicated with comparable success. hence in summary... atheists do not stop believing, they stop being deluded. we do believe in stuff that can be verified, and theories that are supported by empirical data. unfortunately, the God hypothesis is not one such theory. and please dont give me that old "lack of evidence is not the proof of non existence crap" since we do not have any evidence to show that the flying spagetti monster exists, and yet we never stop to argue that "hey that does not prove that the flying spagetti monster does not exists!".

Atheism is a disbelief in God. It is agnosticism that is a belief that nothing is known and I call myself an agnostic .

[Guest HariSampath]

BJP is not about hinduism public perception aside' date=' I have been to RSS sakhas for quite some time 90% of the time they keep talking about nation building....[/quote'] Namaste dada_rocks-Jee :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest HariSampath]

Atheism is nothing but a philosophy of thought that does not accept the existence of God . This is a very subtle point. In the first place if atheists say " there is no god", we have to assume that they know what is God and say such a thing does not exist. This is not possible as all religions eventually describe God according to their own perceptions and philosophies, and no one really "knows" what is God. At best the atheists arguments will be there is no god "as described" by the common religions, according to the atheists own standards of proof, which is correct. Religion is a way of life and believing in a certain manner of thought and consequent action for well understood reasons. So, in a sense atheism too is a religion . Atheists are also very many and differ in their beliefs , ranging from humanism to those who foster scientific temper and say all creation is an accident of nature ( something I had refuted with scientific reasoning on several boards). The Hindu way of thought is probably the only one in known and recorded history that accepts atheism as a valid philosophy . This is based on the simple principle " I can only believe what my intelligence accepts and my experience confirms"... meaning such a basic point of view is the very fundamental platform for understanding nature and the universe we live in. I always tell atheists that God exists and the proof is simple. 1. No advanced science has ever been able to come up with a definition of Time ( including Einstein), in the context of cosmology. All that exists must have evolved at some point, including time, and that origin can be called God for purposes of convenience. 2. Irrespective of belief in a God or not, all human beings are endowed with a sense of right and wrong ( even if they all differ, we know that). The very fact the human mind thinks there is something called right and its opposite is wrong is indicative of cognitive intelligence ( an extension of Rene Descartes, I might add) 3. A natural need to feel happy, and to confer happiness. No one wants to deliberately feel unhappy, all want to feel happy, 4.and everyone wants to be seen as "good", whatever they define it as To me these are the strongest indicators that indicate an existence of a Cosmic Intelligence

[The Outsider]

hence in summary... atheists do not stop believing, they stop being deluded. we do believe in stuff that can be verified, and theories that are supported by empirical data. unfortunately, the God hypothesis is not one such theory.

You are describing agnostics above and I fall under that category. Atheists say for sure there is no God.

[The Outsider]

1. No advanced science has ever been able to come up with a definition of Time ( including Einstein), in the context of cosmology. All that exists must have evolved at some point, including time, and that origin can be called God for purposes of convenience.

Not true. Time is a well defined concept in Cosmology. It's definition might not be all encompassing and provide all answers but from a scientific point of view Time is well defined.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Namaste dada_rocks-Jee :two_thumbs_up:

Namskar My point is people have these ideological quarters in their mind xyz party pro-hindu xyz anti-hindu xyz pro-muslim xyz anti-hindu.. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. And when facts is not in congruence with these compartmentalization in their mind then they cry wolf, u-turn yada yada Latest drama in this episode is Modi govt hounding 18000 of hindus in after riot law and order episode as opposed to 8000 muslims. If anybody goes by the official casualty list in the riot then the ratio of people killed from respective communities was kind of same. To any unjaunidced mind it would mean that there is no religion based bias involved in after riot policing issue in Modi administration. Numbers perfectly gell well with the reality on the ground. Now see how different section of society respond to this fact in light of their own perception (1) Swami narayan temple priest calls Modi anti-hindu claiming he didn't go out of his ways to help hindu out.. Obviously in this gentleman's eyes Modi was a pro-hindu who will break the law to aid hindus and since he didn't do that so he branded him anti-hindu (2) Psec media-morons have same problme even in their eyes modi is anti-muslim and pro-hindu.. Since these clowns aresophisticated in their glib talk so they are not calling him anti-hindu lest people might ask him what the fcuk have you bene harping on so far. So they say he is neither pro-hindu nor pro-muslim he is pro moditva.. whatevert the fheck that means.. Honest things would have been to accept that they have been commenting through their rear ends so far and they are sorry for this journalistic dishonesty and smear campaign. (3) Congress; who till yestreday had been harping on Gujarat is filled with hindu terrorist and is being ruled by one lines; says we always said Modi is anti everybody:hysterical: Latest round of debate is on why BJP doesn;t have hindutva in their manifesto. Psec morons are uncomfortable seeing their citadel of character assassination fall brick by brick.. They are calling him paper-tiger for not having those things in manifesto. So basically it goes like this, I will call you some name and when your action doesn;t prove that then I will csay u took u-turn u are paper-tiger. Quite responsible journalism at displayfrom these folks http://www.ibnlive.com/news/modi-turns-paper-tiger-no-hindutva-on-manifesto/53767-3.html

[maggot_brain]

dada_rocks please don't hijack the thread with your Modi nonsense. No-one mentioned him before you did.

[Guest dada_rocks]

dada_rocks please don't hijack the thread with your Modi nonsense. No-one mentioned him before you did.

Shut ur pie-hole .. question was asked about BJP and I answered..

[Guest HariSampath]

Not true. Time is a well defined concept in Cosmology. It's definition might not be all encompassing and provide all answers but from a scientific point of view Time is well defined.

Wrong...when I say Time is not defined in the context of cosmology, I mean it has not been defined as an absolute independent of other factors like space, events etc. Time by its very definition is a cosmological constant, and even Einsteinian theory only relatively defines it as a "concept"...not as an entity. Refer to the latest theory of the creation of universe, that is Dr Paul Steinhardt's ( Theoritical Cosmologist, Princeton Univ) , theory of the cyclic universe, now accepted as having superseded the Big Bang theory. The issue with something like "time" is that it cannot have a definition outside of events happening. This was always the hole in the Big Bang theory for the following reasons. 1. If the universe was a result of the Big Bang, and can be traced to a few micro seconds of its origin, what existed before that time ? 2. If Time itself is an intervel between 2 events ( Einsteinian frame of reference), then where was Time before the event happened , or what was time ? My own questions would be : 1. If the Big bang happened at a particular point in time : what existed before ? Energy ? if so how was that energy created, as by all laws of physics energy cannot be created. 2. If the universe was created or transformed from energy at a particular point in time ( Einsteinian frame of reference) then how long was the pre-creative or pre- energy state existent, and most importantly WHY did it happen at that moment, and how long was it in an "absolute timeless" state, as the very first event ( big bang) is what led to the creation of conceptual, relative time. Answers go beyond known science, and Paul Steinhardt has provided the most acceptable model of a cyclic universe ( endless universe) and even said in his paper that his theory coincided exactly with ancient Hindu thought and the theory of creation found in the Rig Veda.

[coffee_rules]

There are too many coincidences which enabled life to begin on earth. The apt amout of distance from sun, the magnetic fields protecting earth from all bad elements of sun, etc. I belive in some unexplained source cauising these coincidences as long as there are scientific theories disproving them. I don't believe in some power controlling all our activities day in and out. Religion was created to control people and stopping them from being Immoral. Immorality cannot be controlled by fear of god alone. A civil upbringing is good enough for people to grow up being good to others. I believe in some kind of spirituality to keep the sanity level of life with all the stress of day-to-day life. And lastly, I don;t mock/judge people who believe in god.

[Guest HariSampath]

Shut ur pie-hole .. question was asked about BJP and I answered..

DR...if you want to post on the Parivar, Hindutva etc, please do so in a separate thread, and I would be more than happy to join , but this thread is about Atheism/God/beliefs/science etc...so actually there is no point posting political beliefs here. ( I am much more a bigger supporter of the BJP...and if you have a relevant thread, I will give you reams of material lol ) :D

[Guest HariSampath]

There are too many coincidences which enabled life to begin on earth. The apt amout of distance from sun' date=' the magnetic fields protecting earth from all bad elements of sun, etc. I belive in some unexplained source cauising these coincidences as long as there are scientific theories disproving them. I don't believe in some power controlling all our activities day in and out. Religion was created to control people and stopping them from being Immoral. Immorality cannot be controlled by fear of god alone. A civil upbringing is good enough for people to grow up being good to others. I believe in some kind of spirituality to keep the sanity level of life with all the stress of day-to-day life. And lastly, I don;t mock/judge people who believe in god.[/quote'] Thats what I said too. Man has got a natural affinity for some kind of spirituality, based on man's natural tendencies to be happy, be good etc. And the pre-conditions of the creation of Universe itself have never been understood/explained by the most advanced science. I had said that even atheists who don't believe in a "religious god" like Shiva, Jesus, Allah etc..cannot deny the above 2 points, and this being a belief itself, is accepted in Hindu thought as a very valid philosophy. Note : The ancient Vedas don't mention God, but just Truths on creation, philosophy, the nature of the changing universe, the unchanging etc, the importance of values and so on

[The Outsider]

Refer to the latest theory of the creation of universe, that is Dr Paul Steinhardt's ( Theoritical Cosmologist, Princeton Univ) , theory of the cyclic universe, now accepted as having superseded the Big Bang theory. The issue with something like "time" is that it cannot have a definition outside of events happening. This was always the hole in the Big Bang theory for the following reasons.

What rubbish!! Steinhardt's model is not accepted by most cosmologists. In fact, all recent observations right from Cosmic Microwave Background and Supernovae point to a universe which will keep on expanding forever ending in a "Big Rip" where all things will be ripped apart to the fundamental particle level.

1. If the universe was a result of the Big Bang, and can be traced to a few micro seconds of its origin, what existed before that time ?

Irrelevant. Time as defined in Cosmology starts with the Big Bang.

2. If Time itself is an intervel between 2 events ( Einsteinian frame of reference), then where was Time before the event happened , or what was time ?

Again irrelevant. As defined in Cosmology, Time starts with the Big Bang. Your questions are unanswered by Science at this point but have nothing to do with the definition of Time in Cosmology.