• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Atheism Are We All Atheists?

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen F. Roberts

I came across this quote and it just made so much sense to me. It just strengthened my belief that Sikhism is a logical religion and therefore, it allows its followers to believe in any sort of God they want. It does not matter whether this God is more than one God or no God at all.I relate this directly to the Sargun-Nirgun concept, all attributes-no attributes.
I think that everything else in Sikhism is what the Gurus related to the most. You know that God is our mother, father, etc. and various other analogies and concepts. This would be an intelligent thing to teach to common folk and would provide them with a loving guardian, whereas, they would believe the opposite since most religions have God(s) that punish.

I could be completely wrong, of course. I justthought that I should share this, and I encourage everyone to present what they think. :)
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen F. Roberts

I came across this quote and it just made so much sense to me. It just strengthened my belief that Sikhism is a logical religion and therefore, it allows its followers to believe in any sort of God they want. It does not matter whether this God is more than one God or no God at all.I relate this directly to the Sargun-Nirgun concept, all attributes-no attributes.
I think that everything else in Sikhism is what the Gurus related to the most. You know that God is our mother, father, etc. and various other analogies and concepts. This would be an intelligent thing to teach to common folk and would provide them with a loving guardian, whereas, they would believe the opposite since most religions have God(s) that punish.

I could be completely wrong, of course. I justthought that I should share this, and I encourage everyone to present what they think. :)
Ok Bhagat Singh,

Bani states it is every person goal to become Gurmukh rather than Munmukh. God will rather than Selfwill. When we manage to tune our selves into being Gurmukh's, much like a radio trying to tune into a particular station we realise God. The 5 thieves etc become irrelevant. What Guruji is saying is God is within each and every one of us but it is up to us to try and realise God.......but what Bani is saying is that God is one and the same.

It does not say their are different God's, but just the one Ekh Onkar!
 
Ok Bhagat Singh,

Bani states it is every person goal to become Gurmukh rather than Munmukh. God will rather than Selfwill. When we manage to tune our selves into being Gurmukh's, much like a radio trying to tune into a particular station we realise God. The 5 thieves etc become irrelevant.
See, I thought it was about the five thieves becasue they affect not only us but also people around us. Whereas if you believe in a God or not doesn't really make a difference.

What Guruji is saying is God is within each and every one of us but it is up to us to try and realise God.......but what Bani is saying is that God is one and the same.
So if God is the same, is my non-existent God the same as your existent God? What about my friend's multiple Gods? or possibilty of other Gods?

It does not say their are different God's, but just the one Ekh Onkar!
What did you think about that quote and my views?
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
See, I thought it was about the five thieves becasue they affect not only us but also people around us. Whereas if you believe in a God or not doesn't really make a difference.
Precisely, it is about the 5 thieves

Self will = 5 thieves run riot

God will = 5 thieves controlled

So if God is the same, is my non-existent God the same as your existent God? What about my friend's multiple Gods? or possibilty of other Gods?
I think if there were no God then who's will would a person be doing?

If their were multiple God's then the same question arises, who's will would you be doing? Which God's will? 1 , 2 or all of them?

What did you think about that quote and my views?
Quote is interesting but it would not address my issue I have above. Whose will would we be following?
 
Precisely, it is about the 5 thieves

Self will = 5 thieves run riot

God will = 5 thieves controlled
In SGGS it says "hukumai under sabh ko bahar hukum na koi"
You cannot be out of God's control.

I think if there were no God then who's will would a person be doing?
Um this runs contradictory to your statements above. But if no God then Self will.

If their were multiple God's then the same question arises, who's will would you be doing? Which God's will? 1 , 2 or all of them?
In any possible combination depending o nthe person.

Quote is interesting but it would not address my issue I have above. Whose will would we be following?
Our own. Whether there is one God, no God or multiple Gods.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
In SGGS it says "hukumai under sabh ko bahar hukum na koi"
You cannot be out of God's control.
I think one must differentiate between "will" and "control". God gives us a free will and we are able to use that will either to follow God's will or our own.

Um this runs contradictory to your statements above. But if no God then Self will.
Precisely, then it is again self will.

In any possible combination depending o nthe person.
Again precisely, Is it not better to have one God that represents all these aspects and you follow that?

Our own. Whether there is one God, no God or multiple Gods.
We are again back to square one are we not? We are following self will which is controlled by the 5 thieves?

This is a very interesting conversation Bhagat Singh and has really got me thinking.
 
I think this will go in circles.
I have an idea, let's define what the 5 thieves are.
I define them as extreme forms of pride, attachment, anger, lust, greed.

Those emotions are required in daily life, but the extremes is what I think Guru sahibs tell us to stay away from. The extremes ruin our lives. The extremes cause illnesses. The "rog" is precisely this illness.

I think these extremes can be controlled by:
meditating (calming our minds)
volunteer work (creates a sense of hapiness when we see others get happy, it takes us away from our own world and puts us out there, unlike meditating where we may explore our own world, evalutate ourselves)
honest living (will keep you from stress, which is a factor in causing those extremes. the problems associated with the opposite of honest living fire up those extremes)

Its funny how Guru Sahibs tells us the way to God is through the above methods. I see that and think that God is not the issue here, god is not important, believe in whatever you want but keep these things in mind. These are practical and can be confirmed with scientific tests. These are based on the least amount of assumptions, whereas believing in a God, is an assumption on its own.
Witty persons know how to get people to do good things. Guru Sahibs did jus that.
I think Sikhi is both for atheists and theists. To theists Guru Sahibs will say this is the way to God. for atheists Guru Sahibs will say this is a healthy way to live and is for a better state of humanity. This is the conclusion I come to.
Then I see the sargun - nirgun concept which confirms exactly that. it takes every possible God into account.

But Randip Singh ji, I totally see the limitations of my brain. Perhaps, I am falling for confirmation bias, only considering evidence that confirms by belief rather than trying to disconfirm the beliefs by looking for evidence that counters them.
So I do try my best to see if there is something I am missing out on.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
I think this will go in circles.
I have an idea, let's define what the 5 thieves are.
I define them as extreme forms of pride, attachment, anger, lust, greed.
Or obsession with? but either way correct.

Those emotions are required in daily life, but the extremes is what I think Guru sahibs tell us to stay away from. The extremes ruin our lives. The extremes cause illnesses. The "rog" is precisely this illness.
Agreed


I think these extremes can be controlled by:
meditating (calming our minds)
volunteer work (creates a sense of hapiness when we see others get happy, it takes us away from our own world and puts us out there, unlike meditating where we may explore our own world, evalutate ourselves)
honest living (will keep you from stress, which is a factor in causing those extremes. the problems associated with the opposite of honest living fire up those extremes)
Agreed

Its funny how Guru Sahibs tells us the way to God is through the above methods. I see that and think that God is not the issue here, god is not important, believe in whatever you want but keep these things in mind. These are practical and can be confirmed with scientific tests. These are based on the least amount of assumptions, whereas believing in a God, is an assumption on its own.
I think again you are correct. It is really not important what name we use, but the concept of God encapsulates what you have stated above. This "Higher Conciousness" focuses the human psyche to aim for something better.

Witty persons know how to get people to do good things. Guru Sahibs did jus that.
I think Sikhi is both for atheists and theists. To theists Guru Sahibs will say this is the way to God. for atheists Guru Sahibs will say this is a healthy way to live and is for a better state of humanity. This is the conclusion I come to.
Then I see the sargun - nirgun concept which confirms exactly that. it takes every possible God into account.
Have you ever read the Big Book from Alcoholics Anonymous? I am not saying you are an Alcoholic, but my friend passed it to me to look at the concept of God in there. Have a look.

But Randip Singh ji, I totally see the limitations of my brain. Perhaps, I am falling for confirmation bias, only considering evidence that confirms by belief rather than trying to disconfirm the beliefs by looking for evidence that counters them.
So I do try my best to see if there is something I am missing out on.
No, it's good to question and confirm.

I don't believe in blind faith, but I do believe that there something there that we don't quite understand. Like I said, like the Force concept in the Star Wars films.

BTW I don't believe in miracles, heaven , hell etc.
 
Randip Singh ji, What I am trying to focus your attention towards is this:
Its funny how Guru Sahibs tells us the way to God is through the above methods. I see that and think that God is not the issue here, god is not important, believe in whatever you want but keep these things in mind. These are practical and can be confirmed with scientific tests. These are based on the least amount of assumptions, whereas believing in a God, is an assumption on its own.
You replied to that with:
It is really not important what name we use, but the concept of God encapsulates what you have stated above.
You left me confused. :confused:
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Bhagat Singh ji and Randip Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have been following your interaction on the subject in this thread and could not resist pitching in. So allow me to express myself a bit on it.

The definitions of God & Atheist according to the dictionary:-

a·the·ist (
th
-
st) [SIZE=-2]KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]NOUN: [/SIZE]




One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
  1. [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]God[/SIZE][/FONT] <LI type=a>A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
  2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
  3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
  4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
Dictionary: Online definitions and pronunciations - Yahoo! Education

Now let us see what is IK ONG KAAR according to Moolmanter?

Ajuni Sahibangh= Creative Energy. In other words, NOT a personified DEITY whom the atheists define as God.

So in nutshell what/whom the atheists call GOD has nothing to do with Ik Ong Kaar.

In fact I have many atheist friends who understand the concept of Ik Ong Kaar of Sikhi very well and appreciate it.

That is why I never call Ik Ong Kaar God or Lord and have urged in this forum for people not to use it.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Ajuni Sahibangh= Creative Energy.
Neither ajuni nor saibhang when put together or separately mean "creative energy".
They mean "Beyond Birth, Self-Existent", according to Sant Singh Khalsa's definition.
and they mean "unborn and self-illumined" according to Manmohan Singh ji's definition.
I agree with both but agree more with Sant Singh ji's overall translation.

ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ
ੴ सति नामु करता पुरखु निरभउ निरवैरु अकाल मूरति अजूनी सैभं गुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace ~


ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ
ੴ सति नामु करता पुरखु निरभउ निरवैरु अकाल मूरति अजूनी सैभं गुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.
There is but one God. True is His Name, creative His personality and immortal His form. He is without fear sans enmity, unborn and self-illumined. By the Guru's grace He is obtained.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Neither ajuni nor saibhang when put together or separately mean "creative energy".
They mean "Beyond Birth, Self-Existent", according to Sant Singh Khalsa's definition.
and they mean "unborn and self-illumined" according to Manmohan Singh ji's definition.
I agree with both but agree more with Sant Singh ji's overall translation.

ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ
ੴ सति नामु करता पुरखु निरभउ निरवैरु अकाल मूरति अजूनी सैभं गुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Guru's Grace ~


ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ
ੴ सति नामु करता पुरखु निरभउ निरवैरु अकाल मूरति अजूनी सैभं गुर प्रसादि ॥
Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.
There is but one God. True is His Name, creative His personality and immortal His form. He is without fear sans enmity, unborn and self-illumined. By the Guru's grace He is obtained.
It is ok to disagree. Gurbani is like a multifacted stone lapidated by our visionory Gurus. Each of us see's it from our own light. I agree with Gyani Arshi ji that Sant Singh Khalsa's interpretation is the worst of all and is distorting and misleading.

You may also disagree with the following:-

http://www.sikhism.us/gurmat-vichaar/16256-mool-mantar-the-blueprint-sikhi-marg.html

Tejwant Singh
 
bhagat singh ji,

i was going through this discussion for a while.

Neither ajuni nor saibhang when put together or separately mean "creative energy".
They mean "Beyond Birth, Self-Existent", according to Sant Singh Khalsa's definition.
I totally agree with you here.

If god was the creative energy, it was again in duality. As creative and destructive energies both go together, they are two aspects of the same phenomenon. According to gurbani god is beyond all dualities. It is transcendental.
 
Top