Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hinduwoman · 11-19-2002, 05:03 PM

The only true religion we are told is universal and clear. Well, take a look at atheism through the centuries. In every country, in every age, the atheists without having contact with each other 'knew' certain truths:

1. There is no evidence of any god and so it probably does not exist.
2. The natural world is all there is.
3. There is no heaven and hell for the soul to go.
4.The Holy Books are written by humans.

(Sometimes even the method of criticizing is the same:
Vedas prophesy results which turn out to be false.
Vedas are contradictory.
If one portion of the scriptures is like the sayings of a madman, then the rest must be equally regarded. If the Vedas are holy you must accept it entire. One cannot pick and choose from the scriptures.
Various schools give various interpretations about Vedas. Since interpretations contradict each other, Vedas cannot be a valid source of knowledge.
Priests insist on the importance of Vedas and worship for their own gain. Priesthood is the livelihood of the feebleminded and the frauds.

Anyone notices any resemblance with something here?

And those guys argued this c 1000 B.C!)

Since all those arguments arose spontaneously in different cultures in different times then they must be true, for only the Truth can be so universal and so clear.

Therefore atheism is the only true religion!

11-19-2002, 05:36 PM

"1. There is no evidence of any god and so it probably does not exist. "

My question : If you are so sure about God not existing, why do you use the word "Probably"?

"2. The natural world is all there is."
"3. There is no heaven and hell for the soul to go."

My question : Is there any proof or anyone who died return back to tell you that?

"4.The Holy Books are written by humans. "

My question : Is this assumption based on the fact that humans are the only one capable of writing?

"Vedas prophesy results which turn out to be false.
Vedas are contradictory."

My reply : Example of this "prophesy" and contradiction, please.
As for as I know, Vedas (Veda and Rig Veda) was meant for mantra chanting for specific elements, prayers and rituals, I'm not aware of any prophesies.

"If one portion of the scriptures is like the sayings of a madman, then the rest must be equally regarded. If the Vedas are holy you must accept it entire. One cannot pick and choose from the scriptures."

My reply : Who told you that? Veda is not the Bible or Al Quran, dear. The very notion of why Vishnu incarnated several times is to fix corruption in religion and benefit of mankind.
If you say one must accept it entirely, it is to say that Hindus has no right to think by themselves and God never gave them the free will to choose.

"Various schools give various interpretations about Vedas. Since interpretations contradict each other, Vedas cannot be a valid source of knowledge. "

My reply : Various schools give various interpretation because they have various minds who is doing the interpretations, because they have free will to do so. It is also your free will to choose which is the proper interpretation and follow it if you choose. In the end, it is not matter of which interpretation which is right, it is matter of choicing.

"Priests insist on the importance of Vedas and worship for their own gain. Priesthood is the livelihood of the feebleminded and the frauds. "

My reply : SO? If priest are greedy, that's their business, what does that have to do with you?
I live in Malaysia where Indians here are more free to choose what they want to follow, maybe the condition in your place is a bit different.

"Since all those arguments arose spontaneously in different cultures in different times then they must be true, for only the Truth can be so universal and so clear. "

My reply : If a person is greedy, it will show the SAME sign of greediness no matter what religion or race he or she is. He or she will go after money and wealth without bothering about consequence. Does that means that he or she is right about his or her quest (for wealth)?
Your understanding of the world around you is VERY shallow.

Demosthenes · 11-19-2002, 05:45 PM

Um, one simple sentence

Atheism is not a religion.

Atheists come from all walks of life, the only thing they agree on is there's no such a thing as a supernatural deity supervising the daily running of the universe.

Jobar · 11-19-2002, 05:52 PM

Hinduwoman, atheism is not a religion. It is a philosophy which a particular religion, or sect of a religion, may embrace; i.e., there are sects of Buddhism and Hinduism which are explicitly atheistic.

Don't we hear this from the fundamentalists enough without making the same mistake ourselves?

bluefugue · 11-19-2002, 07:28 PM

As an atheist, I don't claim to "know" ultimate truths. I make best guesses.

1. There is no evidence of any god and so it probably does not exist.

-- Seems reasonable to me. There is no evidence of a gigantic petunia orbiting Neptune, and so it probably does not exist.

2. The natural world is all there is.

-- This is not a prerequisite for atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in gods, not in all supernatural entities. However, my personal problem with this statement is semantical. I define "nature" as being "all that exists," therefore anything that exists is natural. If there were ghosts and miracles and gods, I would not consider them supernatural, but rather part of nature.

3. There is no heaven and hell for the soul to go.

-- Well, I certainly hope there's no hell, and if there is a heaven, I hope it's not Falwell's version of it.

4.The Holy Books are written by humans.

-- Most books seem to be written by humans (including some very good ones, like Hamlet and the Principia and the 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins), so it seems reasonable to assume the Holy Books also were. At any rate, it seems to me the burden of proof lies with those who claim that certain books are written by other than humans. Theists know this, which is why they appeal to prophecy, "uncanny" scientific knowledge in the Bible, etc.

Aquila ka Hecate · 11-19-2002, 08:22 PM

Lovely irony, hinduwoman!

(and try to read it as irony, you grumps!)

But it's a good thought-atheists were deconstructing hinduism thousands of years ago.
Looks like we never bloody learn, do we?

Fiach · 11-19-2002, 08:28 PM

If Atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a form of sexual intercourse.

If Atheism is a religion, then sanity is a form of mental illness.

Fiach

11-19-2002, 11:32 PM

Hindu Woman,

Don't atheists and theists share many of the same epistemological tools? Perhaps the fact that it seems to hinduwoman that "those arguments arose spontaneously in different cultures in different times then they must be true, for only the Truth can be so universal and so clear." is due to a peculiar human proclivity for a certain form of error.

Despite the thinness of said inference, I quite agree that the arguments for atheism you mention are effective tools for discerning the *human* nature of religion. But I do not agree that they are unique to atheists.

Many religious people, particularly those of an apologetical disposition, wield those very same sorts of arguments against the host of falsity, folly and delusion which are known to plauge humanity. The Lutheran religion, to take one notable example, attacked with great success the manifestly human organization and genesis of the Catholic bureaucracy.

To me, hinduwoman, it seems that many human beings have these insights. Atheism is simply the stark, existentially startling result of following such incisive questioning through to the essences of one's own theological foundations. The difference between atheists and theists, is really one of a kind of degree rather than kind of kind.

I think one of the most powerful forces preventing theists from abandoning their faith is the realization that there is no gulf between them and atheists. The more important questions can be agreed upon without regard to God.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

kctan · 11-20-2002, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach:
<strong>If Atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a form of sexual intercourse.

If Atheism is a religion, then sanity is a form of mental illness.

Fiach</strong>

Sanity is a form of "mental illness". We are the majority of the "insane" to the minority of "sane".

Remember we are the ones' calling the others "insane". Who is right is yet to be proven.

Keith Russell · 11-20-2002, 06:58 AM

Greetings:

Atheism is not a religion. Religions are systems of specific types of beliefs, mainly mystical/spiritual.

Atheism is a lack of such beliefs; atheism could thus be called the lack of religion.

All religions believe in a supernatural 'higher power', generally undefined, even though this 'higher power' may or may not be a 'God', 'god', or 'gods'.

Atheism rejects the belief in a mystical/spiritual/supernatural 'higher power', so atheism, again, is not a religion.

Theistic religions beleive that one can 'pray' to 'God', or to the 'gods', and this prayer will mystically (magically) bring about favourable (or desired) changes in reality.

Non-theistic religions almost always have some equivalent, they advocate belief in some means of altering reality via mental states, in the present or the future, in order to bring about desired events.

I have yet to meet an atheist who believes in 'prayer', or any other mystical, spiritual, or supernatural means of interacting with reality.

If one wishes to call atheism a religion, one must first remove all of the relevant characteristics from the meaning of the word 'religion', in order to include 'atheism' as part of the definition of that concept.

Keith.

11-19-2002, 05:03 PM	#1
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Atheism is the only true religion! The only true religion we are told is universal and clear. Well, take a look at atheism through the centuries. In every country, in every age, the atheists without having contact with each other 'knew' certain truths: 1. There is no evidence of any god and so it probably does not exist. 2. The natural world is all there is. 3. There is no heaven and hell for the soul to go. 4.The Holy Books are written by humans. (Sometimes even the method of criticizing is the same: Vedas prophesy results which turn out to be false. Vedas are contradictory. If one portion of the scriptures is like the sayings of a madman, then the rest must be equally regarded. If the Vedas are holy you must accept it entire. One cannot pick and choose from the scriptures. Various schools give various interpretations about Vedas. Since interpretations contradict each other, Vedas cannot be a valid source of knowledge. Priests insist on the importance of Vedas and worship for their own gain. Priesthood is the livelihood of the feebleminded and the frauds. Anyone notices any resemblance with something here? And those guys argued this c 1000 B.C!) Since all those arguments arose spontaneously in different cultures in different times then they must be true, for only the Truth can be so universal and so clear. Therefore atheism is the only true religion!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2002, 05:36 PM	#2
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"1. There is no evidence of any god and so it probably does not exist. " My question : If you are so sure about God not existing, why do you use the word "Probably"? "2. The natural world is all there is." "3. There is no heaven and hell for the soul to go." My question : Is there any proof or anyone who died return back to tell you that? "4.The Holy Books are written by humans. " My question : Is this assumption based on the fact that humans are the only one capable of writing? "Vedas prophesy results which turn out to be false. Vedas are contradictory." My reply : Example of this "prophesy" and contradiction, please. As for as I know, Vedas (Veda and Rig Veda) was meant for mantra chanting for specific elements, prayers and rituals, I'm not aware of any prophesies. "If one portion of the scriptures is like the sayings of a madman, then the rest must be equally regarded. If the Vedas are holy you must accept it entire. One cannot pick and choose from the scriptures." My reply : Who told you that? Veda is not the Bible or Al Quran, dear. The very notion of why Vishnu incarnated several times is to fix corruption in religion and benefit of mankind. If you say one must accept it entirely, it is to say that Hindus has no right to think by themselves and God never gave them the free will to choose. "Various schools give various interpretations about Vedas. Since interpretations contradict each other, Vedas cannot be a valid source of knowledge. " My reply : Various schools give various interpretation because they have various minds who is doing the interpretations, because they have free will to do so. It is also your free will to choose which is the proper interpretation and follow it if you choose. In the end, it is not matter of which interpretation which is right, it is matter of choicing. "Priests insist on the importance of Vedas and worship for their own gain. Priesthood is the livelihood of the feebleminded and the frauds. " My reply : SO? If priest are greedy, that's their business, what does that have to do with you? I live in Malaysia where Indians here are more free to choose what they want to follow, maybe the condition in your place is a bit different. "Since all those arguments arose spontaneously in different cultures in different times then they must be true, for only the Truth can be so universal and so clear. " My reply : If a person is greedy, it will show the SAME sign of greediness no matter what religion or race he or she is. He or she will go after money and wealth without bothering about consequence. Does that means that he or she is right about his or her quest (for wealth)? Your understanding of the world around you is VERY shallow.

11-19-2002, 05:45 PM	#3
Demosthenes Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: a speck of dirt Posts: 2,510	Um, one simple sentence Atheism is not a religion. Atheists come from all walks of life, the only thing they agree on is there's no such a thing as a supernatural deity supervising the daily running of the universe.

11-19-2002, 05:52 PM	#4
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Hinduwoman, atheism is not a religion. It is a philosophy which a particular religion, or sect of a religion, may embrace; i.e., there are sects of Buddhism and Hinduism which are explicitly atheistic. Don't we hear this from the fundamentalists enough without making the same mistake ourselves?

11-19-2002, 07:28 PM	#5
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	As an atheist, I don't claim to "know" ultimate truths. I make best guesses. 1. There is no evidence of any god and so it probably does not exist. -- Seems reasonable to me. There is no evidence of a gigantic petunia orbiting Neptune, and so it probably does not exist. 2. The natural world is all there is. -- This is not a prerequisite for atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in gods, not in all supernatural entities. However, my personal problem with this statement is semantical. I define "nature" as being "all that exists," therefore anything that exists is natural. If there were ghosts and miracles and gods, I would not consider them supernatural, but rather part of nature. 3. There is no heaven and hell for the soul to go. -- Well, I certainly hope there's no hell, and if there is a heaven, I hope it's not Falwell's version of it. 4.The Holy Books are written by humans. -- Most books seem to be written by humans (including some very good ones, like Hamlet and the Principia and the 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins), so it seems reasonable to assume the Holy Books also were. At any rate, it seems to me the burden of proof lies with those who claim that certain books are written by other than humans. Theists know this, which is why they appeal to prophecy, "uncanny" scientific knowledge in the Bible, etc.

11-19-2002, 08:22 PM	#6
Aquila ka Hecate Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Luna City Posts: 379	Lovely irony, hinduwoman! (and try to read it as irony, you grumps!) But it's a good thought-atheists were deconstructing hinduism thousands of years ago. Looks like we never bloody learn, do we?

11-19-2002, 08:28 PM	#7
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	If Atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a form of sexual intercourse. If Atheism is a religion, then sanity is a form of mental illness. Fiach

11-19-2002, 11:32 PM	#8
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Hindu Woman, Don't atheists and theists share many of the same epistemological tools? Perhaps the fact that it seems to hinduwoman that "those arguments arose spontaneously in different cultures in different times then they must be true, for only the Truth can be so universal and so clear." is due to a peculiar human proclivity for a certain form of error. Despite the thinness of said inference, I quite agree that the arguments for atheism you mention are effective tools for discerning the human nature of religion. But I do not agree that they are unique to atheists. Many religious people, particularly those of an apologetical disposition, wield those very same sorts of arguments against the host of falsity, folly and delusion which are known to plauge humanity. The Lutheran religion, to take one notable example, attacked with great success the manifestly human organization and genesis of the Catholic bureaucracy. To me, hinduwoman, it seems that many human beings have these insights. Atheism is simply the stark, existentially startling result of following such incisive questioning through to the essences of one's own theological foundations. The difference between atheists and theists, is really one of a kind of degree rather than kind of kind. I think one of the most powerful forces preventing theists from abandoning their faith is the realization that there is no gulf between them and atheists. The more important questions can be agreed upon without regard to God. [ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

11-20-2002, 06:58 AM	#10
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Atheism is not a religion. Religions are systems of specific types of beliefs, mainly mystical/spiritual. Atheism is a lack of such beliefs; atheism could thus be called the lack of religion. All religions believe in a supernatural 'higher power', generally undefined, even though this 'higher power' may or may not be a 'God', 'god', or 'gods'. Atheism rejects the belief in a mystical/spiritual/supernatural 'higher power', so atheism, again, is not a religion. Theistic religions beleive that one can 'pray' to 'God', or to the 'gods', and this prayer will mystically (magically) bring about favourable (or desired) changes in reality. Non-theistic religions almost always have some equivalent, they advocate belief in some means of altering reality via mental states, in the present or the future, in order to bring about desired events. I have yet to meet an atheist who believes in 'prayer', or any other mystical, spiritual, or supernatural means of interacting with reality. If one wishes to call atheism a religion, one must first remove all of the relevant characteristics from the meaning of the word 'religion', in order to include 'atheism' as part of the definition of that concept. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.