☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 138142" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black">Atheists (if they do claim scientific superiority) may claim scientific superiority in america because the religious right takes an almost ridiculously extreme position on most scientific issues (like evolution). </span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black">This notion of scientific superiority doesnt translate to sikhism as well as it does to say islam or christianity but as we are discussing "religions in general" (and seeing as sikhism constitutes such a small percentage of religious people)—I dont see a problem with the notion that atheists are smarter and their position more scientifically sound then that of their religious counter parts. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black">If this was strictly a atheism/sikhism debate... it would be harder for atheists to claim scientific superiority against a religion that is (in my opinion) largely indifferent to the implications of science. Sikhism doesnt care for evolution, the big bang theory, and other theories that other religions find blashphemous. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black">There is no theory of atheism. But the idea of atheism receives support from challenging the idea's people have about what god should be doing. For example, if people think that "prayer" works and may help save the lives of sick individuals, science conducts a study (which they have) that proves prayer at best has no effect on the death toll of cancer-stricken patients and at worst seems to have a slightly negative affect on their health (slight but not significant). Then, from their, atheists would view that as more evidence in support of their notion that god cannot exist if that was indeed one of his properties (the ability to answer prayers). </span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black">Again, the above doesnt really apply to sikhism. But other stories that the general sikh populace is keen on (guru nanak's handprint on the boulder, the ganga sagar, baba deep singh fighting an entire army without his head) can be scientifically discounted.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"><span style="color: Black">So, in my point of view, support for atheism comes from the lack of support for theism (whether it be christianty, islam, sikhism, etc). I believe that miraculous claims (like the idea that their is a god) need strong evidence to support it. It is, then, the onus of sikhs, muslims and christians to provide the evidence in support of their view. Atheism is simply the default or null hypothesis, if no evidence can be provided in support of the original hypothesis (that their is a god) then that is seen as evidence for the null hypothesis (there is no god). </span></span>I have personally, never seen an atheist resort to that argument. I have seen many atheists suggest that science has provided evidence that strongly contradicts the idea that their is a god. And that in all probability, there is no god, based on the lack of evidence in favor of a god. But again, that argument is long-winded. I can see why some atheists might just up and say "science proves god cant exist." So if your asking me why some atheists might resort to that argument? I'm guessing simply because they dont want to be long winded lol. However, the null hypothesis in my point of view is "that there is no god." Are we on the same page their or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god? </p><p></p><p>If we are on the same page. I guess it would be an obligation on our part to spread the truth as we see it from a scientific point of view. Because so many religions can have such a negative or dangerous impact—asking the religious to provide support for their views is our way of hoping they can keep themselves in check? I'm not so clear as to what ur asking, I think your asking "why cant atheists just leave theists alone" and if thats the case, i do think the large majority of atheists do leave theists alone. But some of us, especially those raised from super religious families, do consider it an obligation to prevent the spreading of something that is simply wrong. Thats why i cant simply live with knowing im right and the rest of the religious world is rong. I wish to see people change their views and "become more right." </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed, but scientists are allowed to come to their own conclusions of whether or not they believe in a god based on the neutral evidence. So The evidence is neutral and indifferent as it should be because that lends more support to the notion that their is no god. The evidence isnt biased for one view (or the other) but it does support one view over the other.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 138142, member: 5962"] [COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Black] Atheists (if they do claim scientific superiority) may claim scientific superiority in america because the religious right takes an almost ridiculously extreme position on most scientific issues (like evolution). This notion of scientific superiority doesnt translate to sikhism as well as it does to say islam or christianity but as we are discussing "religions in general" (and seeing as sikhism constitutes such a small percentage of religious people)—I dont see a problem with the notion that atheists are smarter and their position more scientifically sound then that of their religious counter parts. If this was strictly a atheism/sikhism debate... it would be harder for atheists to claim scientific superiority against a religion that is (in my opinion) largely indifferent to the implications of science. Sikhism doesnt care for evolution, the big bang theory, and other theories that other religions find blashphemous. There is no theory of atheism. But the idea of atheism receives support from challenging the idea's people have about what god should be doing. For example, if people think that "prayer" works and may help save the lives of sick individuals, science conducts a study (which they have) that proves prayer at best has no effect on the death toll of cancer-stricken patients and at worst seems to have a slightly negative affect on their health (slight but not significant). Then, from their, atheists would view that as more evidence in support of their notion that god cannot exist if that was indeed one of his properties (the ability to answer prayers). Again, the above doesnt really apply to sikhism. But other stories that the general sikh populace is keen on (guru nanak's handprint on the boulder, the ganga sagar, baba deep singh fighting an entire army without his head) can be scientifically discounted. So, in my point of view, support for atheism comes from the lack of support for theism (whether it be christianty, islam, sikhism, etc). I believe that miraculous claims (like the idea that their is a god) need strong evidence to support it. It is, then, the onus of sikhs, muslims and christians to provide the evidence in support of their view. Atheism is simply the default or null hypothesis, if no evidence can be provided in support of the original hypothesis (that their is a god) then that is seen as evidence for the null hypothesis (there is no god). [/COLOR][/COLOR]I have personally, never seen an atheist resort to that argument. I have seen many atheists suggest that science has provided evidence that strongly contradicts the idea that their is a god. And that in all probability, there is no god, based on the lack of evidence in favor of a god. But again, that argument is long-winded. I can see why some atheists might just up and say "science proves god cant exist." So if your asking me why some atheists might resort to that argument? I'm guessing simply because they dont want to be long winded lol. However, the null hypothesis in my point of view is "that there is no god." Are we on the same page their or do you believe that the null hypothesis is that there is a god? If we are on the same page. I guess it would be an obligation on our part to spread the truth as we see it from a scientific point of view. Because so many religions can have such a negative or dangerous impact—asking the religious to provide support for their views is our way of hoping they can keep themselves in check? I'm not so clear as to what ur asking, I think your asking "why cant atheists just leave theists alone" and if thats the case, i do think the large majority of atheists do leave theists alone. But some of us, especially those raised from super religious families, do consider it an obligation to prevent the spreading of something that is simply wrong. Thats why i cant simply live with knowing im right and the rest of the religious world is rong. I wish to see people change their views and "become more right." [COLOR=Blue][/COLOR] Agreed, but scientists are allowed to come to their own conclusions of whether or not they believe in a god based on the neutral evidence. So The evidence is neutral and indifferent as it should be because that lends more support to the notion that their is no god. The evidence isnt biased for one view (or the other) but it does support one view over the other. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top