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

Atheism Conversation About Atheism

Spades

SPNer
Aug 12, 2010
32
34
Spades ji,

Guru Fateh.

You have contradicted yourself several times above. As you are tired from work, I will not indulge you tonight. Tomorrow you re read my post and your response with contradictions and then let me know.

We have all our lives to learn, so there is no hurry.:)

Regards and rest well.


Tejwant Singh

I did not contradict myself, I stated that

The Mul Mantar, Shahada, and the statements professing Christ as lord mean exactly the same thing to me on a personal level (which is nothing btw). I am talking about STATEMENTS not about the characteristics of these gods.

I think I stated this before.

Atheism is about logic and rationality

Spirituality is about belief which is irrational.

Why would someone who believes in rationality wish to convince someone who's belief is based on an irrational concept that they are irrational. They already know belief is irrational.

As for Sikhism, let us take the first line of Mul Mantar!

Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.

There is but One Universal Constant . Its Name Is Truth. The Creator. Fearless. Its does not make enemies. It is Beyond Space and Time. It is self existent.We learn this through the Teacher.

Now I don't know about you, but this concept seems pretty Universal to an Atheist or a believer in a higher power (which some people call God, other Truth, other the Universe etc etc)

I don't wish to convince anyone of my way of thinking since that would be an automatic tie due to what you have stated above.

As for that translation of the Mul Mantar it depends on who you ask. I'm sure subjectivists and nihilists would probably object to it.
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,656
staunch believer in GOD because GOD is truth and truth is GOD.
If you do not believe in truth either then you can find suitable title for yourself to live with your conscious.
Sikhism is so wonderful that IMHO if you replace the word GOD by NATURE , the wish of God by RESULT OF DEEDS even then everything will seem to be so logical & perfectly RATIONAL to you . I may request others to kindly suggest some other words in replacement of GOD
Now I don't know about you, but this concept seems pretty Universal to an Atheist or a believer in a higher power (which some people call God, other Truth, other the Universe etc etc)
If God is just Truth or Energy or Nature or Universe. Then why not just use the words Truth, Nature, Energy and Universe.

As far as I can tell none of the religions contain a God that is JUST truth, energy, nature or Universe. The (Sikh) God is much more than just Truth, Energy, Nature or Universe. He is much more than just a higher power. He is panentheistic and personal in nature; he is immanent within creation and he responds to you when you attempt to reach him. Such a concept is not universal (to an atheist).


Let's be honest about the (Sikh) God. Let's stop replacing the word God with every other word and let's stop calling that word the (Sikh) God.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,950
55
United Kingdom
I don't wish to convince anyone of my way of thinking since that would be an automatic tie due to what you have stated above.

Indeed it would be, but neither am I try to convince you.

All I am saying is we all believe in a higher power, be it the Universe, Atoms, Nuclear Fission, the Sun, the moon. To some these concepts would be "God" like.


As for that translation of the Mul Mantar it depends on who you ask. I'm sure subjectivists and nihilists would probably object to it.

Oh yes indeed they would, but if you read the actual Gurmukhi text, it can mean many things to many people.

There is talk of higher power, truth and descriptions of it. If some people choose to call that "God", and that is how they understand these concepts then I say good luck to them. If someone else choose to understand it as Time, Space, Truth etc then I say good luck to them.

I think in Bani, their is enough room for Rational and Irrational people swordfight!
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,935
2,950
55
United Kingdom
If God is just Truth or Energy or Nature or Universe. Then why not just use the words Truth, Nature, Energy and Universe.

As far as I can tell none of the religions contain a God that is JUST truth, energy, nature or Universe. The (Sikh) God is much more than just Truth, Energy, Nature or Universe. He is much more than just a higher power. He is panentheistic and personal in nature; he is immanent within creation and he responds to you when you attempt to reach him. Such a concept is not universal (to an atheist).


Let's be honest about the (Sikh) God. Let's stop replacing the word God with every other word and let's stop calling that word the (Sikh) God.

Ok answer me this.

What does "Ik On-kaar" mean?


Then answer me this:

Is not the Universe , Universal to an Atheists?

Is not Time Universal to an Atheist?
 

jasi

SPNer
Apr 28, 2005
304
277
83
canada
SS AKAL Ji


Rationality can be proven with many scientific means or by touchings,feelings,seeing but to be able to get connected with Supreme power comes from realizations as per explained in Jap Ji Sahib Ji.

If some one ask a fruitless question to raging river how big is the ocean will be a fruitless question. River it self looses his even its identity (name) when emerges in the ocean and become a ocean.

Similarly how could we speak about the God or can suppose or create,no one has been born yet to explains ,Vedas could not give us any clue about God 's abundance creations.
Says Nanak.
It is a faith which grows in blessed souls without one trying to prove His existences.

Jaspi
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Spades ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

I did not contradict myself, I stated that

The Mul Mantar, Shahada, and the statements professing Christ as lord mean exactly the same thing to me on a personal level (which is nothing btw). I am talking about STATEMENTS not about the characteristics of these gods.
The contradictions are quite nitid below.

You write:

I understand there is a difference between the Christian god and the Sikh god

So you agree that there is a difference.

but what I was trying to say is that the Mool Mantar/Ik Ong Kaar (which is quoted below) is nothing special to me personally and I consider it to be the same thing as someone stating the Shahada, saying that Jesus Christ is Lord, or any other declaration of faith/prayer/boast about god. I never said that the gods of these three religions had the same characteristics nor did I ever say that the three religions are similar. Please don't put words in my mouth.


So, is it a same thing or different? And I am not putting words in your mouth. Those are exactly your words. I do not have to.

What is it?

Let's carry on.

You continue:

Once again if I misinterpreted the question please tell me and correct me. I was unsure if you wanted me to give you a literal translation of Ik Onkaar or if you wanted me to tell you what it meant to me personally or how I view it.
I just asked you what you understand by the phrase IK ONG KAAR . Sikhi has no deity as a God as in other religions so there must be a difference of some sort. If there is in your mind then what is it?

Below you claim that Ik Ong Kaar is not a deity.

As for calling the Sikh God a deity I will admit that after being tired from work and lack of sleep that I may have misused that word as it is more suited for more humanoid supernatural beings (Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc). I should have used the word supernatural being if that makes it any better.

Here you contradict your own statement above:

As for Sikhi being not being about a deity or a religion I am going to have to stop you right there. Every religious person of every faith has used the "We are not a religion" card with me since religion has pretty much become a dirty word in Western society but that is what Sikhism is... a religion.

I did not contradict myself, I stated that

Yes, you did. The above are your words, not mine.

So, what is it? Is Ik Ong Kaar a deity or not?

The Mul Mantar, Shahada, and the statements professing Christ as lord mean exactly the same thing to me on a personal level (which is nothing btw). I am talking about STATEMENTS not about the characteristics of these gods.

Can you please elaborate the above and what you really mean by that because you are contradicting yourself again here?

Lastly I would like to comment about your statement,"I should have used the word supernatural being if that makes it any better".

For me, in Sikhi, there is no such thing as supernatural being but Nature itself is super and Gurbani expresses that very well.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 

jasi

SPNer
Apr 28, 2005
304
277
83
canada
SS AKAL JI.

SPADES JI.

Above conversations can make any one understand how one can be that far away from understanding EK ON KAR that it is not some kind of deity to practice but just is written expression in Punjabi language like in English "there is one GOD" OR in many other languages means the same one GOD.

There is no more to comments on what Guru Nanak Dev denounced of existences of any other GOD or man made GODS and that is all about being a Sikh, mean follower of TRUTH.. .

Jap Ji Sahib is GPS to realizes the TRUTH without any rituals or following any live or dead human being came into this world so far.

Jesus says I am Son of GOD but still maintained there is one God,that is his Father in heaven.Jesus left message in the world to follow him so he can take every one to the kingdom of His Father (GOD)

Guru Nanak Dev says why go after the light shining rather go after the transmitter from where the light is coming out ,means source of lights ( Father or (GOD).

Gur Nanak teachings does make every one understand regardless of one 's social status or casts made so much easy for all human race to appreciate ONe GOD (Ek On KAR) means in Punjabi one God.

There is nothing like pin picking about the words expression in different languages and means the same thing.. The most important results will be felt by repetitions of remembering MUL MANTRA that there is one GOD (EK ON KAR ) will get rid of all falseness and idolatry,rituals,fake priests and make one leads a truthful life .

Skh means learner of TRUTH . Truth is GOD..

Guru Nanak Dev ruled out once for all are other worshiping od different gods are false except ONE GOD EXISTING FOR ALL HUMAN RACE.

Mohammad denounced every thing except Allah which is Arabic word of GOD.

All roads leads to one God which neither can be explained by any one or can be created by any one ,neither Vedas had given any clues of God or when human being came into existences.
Says Nanak

But we are still wandering for petty excuses try to distort the real meanings of expression in different languages like One GOD or Ek On Kar is the same .

Jaspi
 

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 2, 2010
652
980
UK
Re: Introducing Myself

Thanks Mai Ji,

I was born a Sikh but I left Sikhism because I don't have any sort of reason to believe in the God concept. I was a Deist in between my transition from Sikhism to Atheism but after a while I found out that I was just believing in a hypothesis that can't be proven and had no facts to back it up. Then I became the Atheist.

Dear Spades Ji

I can appreciate your line of reasoning above i.e there is no proof for the existence of a deity, God or a Creative Source or whatever you may want to call It

In a similar vein, would it be fair to say that you are unable to prove a Creative Source does not exist either?
 

Spades

SPNer
Aug 12, 2010
32
34
So, is it a same thing or different? And I am not putting words in your mouth. Those are exactly your words. I do not have to.

What is it?

Let's carry on.

I said the STATEMENTS (Ik On Kaar, Shahada, and the declaration that Jesus is the Lord and Savior) are all declarations of faith in a higher power. I never said that the three gods were the same.

And yes I did mistakenly use the word deity in place of god in the second quote but you haven't really address the main point of that statement and proved that Sikhism isn't a religion.

I can appreciate your line of reasoning above i.e there is no proof for the existence of a deity, God or a Creative Source or whatever you may want to call It


In a similar vein, would it be fair to say that you are unable to prove a Creative Source does not exist either?

There is no proof of a deity because all I have seen so far hasn't given me any indication that I should believe in a god. If I ever find proof than I will change my opinion on the matter.

You can't disprove an non-experimental claim like believers present on God. As for a Creative Source then yes. I haven't seen any sort of evidence for an entity that created everything while not being created itself. I would have to say that I don't believe in a Creative Source with the knowledge I have now.

It is a faith which grows in blessed souls without one trying to prove His existences.

That's why I am where I am now. I don't like believing in things on blind faith.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
I said the STATEMENTS (Ik On Kaar, Shahada, and the declaration that Jesus is the Lord and Savior) are all declarations of faith in a higher power. I never said that the three gods were the same.

And yes I did mistakenly use the word deity in place of god in the second quote but you haven't really address the main point of that statement and proved that Sikhism isn't a religion.



There is no proof of a deity because all I have seen so far hasn't given me any indication that I should believe in a god. If I ever find proof than I will change my opinion on the matter.

You can't disprove an non-experimental claim like believers present on God. As for a Creative Source then yes. I haven't seen any sort of evidence for an entity that created everything while not being created itself. I would have to say that I don't believe in a Creative Source with the knowledge I have now.



That's why I am where I am now. I don't like believing in things on blind faith.

Spades ji,

Guru Fateh.

Can you please address each person in different posts because it becomes confusing and difficult to interact?

After all, we are all here to learn from each other and I hope you agree with that.

Secondly, I would like you to respond to all of my post, not bits and pieces that you choose, which seems quite unfair for any reasonable person no matter what his/her belief is or not.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh.
 

Spades

SPNer
Aug 12, 2010
32
34
Spades ji,

Guru Fateh.

Can you please address each person in different posts because it becomes confusing and difficult to interact?

After all, we are all here to learn from each other and I hope you agree with that.

Secondly, I would like you to respond to all of my post, not bits and pieces that you choose, which seems quite unfair for any reasonable person no matter what his/her belief is or not.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh.

The reason I do it in every post is because almost every forum I've been to so far has a rule that goes against double & triple posting so it is just habit.

As for the second point I do apologize for that. I have to handle so many responses at once that I may have accidentally glossed over some of your post. Also I am not aware of the character limit per post on here so I may have chomped some things down so that I could fit everyone in.

My Bad,
Spades
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Spades ji

We do not have a character limit. And also, there would be no rule against multiple posts directed to different people and containing different content.

The rule we would enforce is no duplicate posting of the same thing. And this often happens to members by accident anyway. There are no penalties. I just come along and delete any duplicate posts and a note is placed in the thread. No warnings, no infractions -- unless of course someone is doing it to be troublesome, as in trolling the forum.
 
Top