Atheism Live Free

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Dear Annie

Nothing to apoligise for everyone gets equal time here.

No religion has a monopoly on Truth,it's the purpose of religion that one must understand.
Religions are in a way all like wonderful airlines,all with different livery and brands, different food served, but they all have take you to the same place , to your self!

 

[Annie]

No religion has a monopoly on Truth,it's the purpose of religion that one must understand.
Religions in a way are all like airlines, with different livery and brands, different food served, but they all have take you to the same place , to your self!

Sinner Sing ji,

Exactly! Whatever name we call Waheguru, God, Allah, HaShem... it is the spring from which all things flow. It is the beginning and the all-encompassing; therefore by definition, it is the same entity. Only the details change from one religion to the next.

Yes I agree the purpose of religion should be to take us to ourselves, but I think there's more to it than that. I think the purpose of religion is also to try to figure out the universe, both seen and especially unseen. We try to learn and evolve and go beyond ourselves.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Dear Annie Ji

The details of a religion reflect the geography and the place in time that it was founded,for example Christianity has alot of Greek Theology,but that did not really extend into India instead the Sikh Monotheism arrived.
I agree we should not coerce anyone but religion cultivates in us morality and ethical living.
Fanatics give a bad name to Religion ,but if practised in it's purest form it is a freeing spiritual journey.
It is said in our Holy text that the Universe is itself within us!

 

[Harry Haller]

@Ishna
First of all, yes the satanic bible is relevant to atheism as it does not tell you to do the so called "simran" and stuff. Just live free and obey the following basic rules of humanity:
1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Deleted personally insulting comment directed at another member.

Yes i mentioned looking from up there and thats because every early religion used this version and all thanks to you, sikhi is an evolved version. And yes i agree with you on atleast one point, you're sold on the concept of waheguru.
And what are you talking about? No concept of sin in sikhism? Then what do you call a person killing people on the streets?
I doubt that sikhism doesn't classify that as a grave sin.

admin note: The Judaeo Christian concept of sin is not part of Sikhi.


@Kanwaljit Singh
Im not surprised with you aggressively protecting the faith after seeing your picture that portrays a blurred nihang. I can remember a person wearing the dress, trying to separate the country, taking the holy scripture in hand and blaming the government for stereotyping.

And wow that was so intelligent, "computer science doesn't exist", i am again not surprised with it. Believers have such an extraordinary sense of logic.
Deleted an insulting innuendo directed at another forum member. I know its there. It is not based on some things someone said and told you to believe. It actually is tangible.


I am kind of wondering why i didn't give more time to other scriptures like biographies of very successful people who are not blinded by faith.

I am very sorry to disappoint you but yes, i do not know of any fear.



Yeah, that's what you do, find an ambiguity in people words. You know what, you gotta give priorities to people who care for you. I completely disagree to the 'Moh' fact that you should not give priority to human relationships over god. You know what that makes you? Self-indulgent!



Guess what, surprise, he did ask you, Deleted a statement that undermines the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on a Sikh forum.


And please, only some logical people reply to the thread. Admin note: Anyone may reply to the thread who observes TOS and is a forum member. I want some atheists to come forward and discuss their views on atheism :

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
-House

On a second thought Mr spnadmin, why don't you come forward instead of appreciating others?
Or you could simply block me and put my username on that wall of shame...like its broadcasted worldwide.

-Free From Chaos

I thought I was an atheist as although I was aware of 'something', I, like you, did not really see any benefit in the 'simran and stuff', I also had a similar list of actions. I felt it was my duty to feel every pleasure and satisfy every lust. As a trade off, I did as much sewa as I could, in the hope that there would be some sort of balance.

Now you are probably expecting me to say, and now I love simran, and hate pleasure and I have found god, and everything is good and right, well sorry to disappoint you, but nothing has really changed, the only difference now is that I defer to 'the complete truth', not a man in a beard, not simran, and I certainly do not turn against the darker side of me within, I accept the dark side as truth as much as the good side.

You seem a proud person, who has been hurt , and who now rejects ideals on grounds of former pain. A bit like me! but, it is not a personality that has done this, or a person, or a being, the truth happened, thats all., Fight the truth if you like, it won't really get you anywhere, what is needed is acceptance, and as soon as you accept the truth as, well truth, you are a sikh.

I still find no point in simran, but I know as my appreciation of the truth grows, I may wish to sing about it, or talk about it, or make music of love and happyness, but that will come in time.

The truth is a most beautiful thing, see how we as a planet spin towards the truth in ever great leaps, leaving behind a path of lies and falshehoods.

Slavery, Sati, Sexual/Racial discrimination, have all been exposed for what they were in the last century, we now look at these concepts with disgust and disbelief. Did South Africa really exist??? Did we really encourage women to throw themselves on funeral pyres??

Maybe in 100 years time people will not be able to fathom how you could contemplate buying that new Mercedes when there are people starving within a mile of your house, the burning truth is that no person should be starving in this world when man can send rockets to Mars, but that truth has yet to be given a priority. We hang today those whom we put on pedestals tommorow, one of those actions must be universally true, the knack is knowing which one.

People debate as to what makes man different to other animals, I will tell you, man is possibly the only living thing that can find his own truth, and some might say that is our reason for living.

I would say to you, forget simran, forget the traditions, forget every auntie or uncle who fills your head with lies (intentional or not, my perceptions about sikhism were mostly false and abrahamic), forget everything and concentrate only on the truth, and I mean that literally, focus on what you know to be right, and go from there, in time, you, and me, will learn to love that truth, respect it, and in the end, get huge pleasure from its presence if we can only learn to integrate it into our life

 

[Harry Haller]

"Yeah, that's what you do, find an ambiguity in people words. You know what, you gotta give priorities to people who care for you. I completely disagree to the 'Moh' fact that you should not give priority to human relationships over god. You know what that makes you? Self-indulgent!"

I actually complete agree with this statement, When I first started looking for the truth, I promised my wife that nothing would ever stop me from loving her above everything, and that if I found anything it would only enable me to love her even more. If anything the truth I found, would fill any holes in my heart that made sad or unloved, and allow me to love her,my stepson and my parents and brother on a higher plane. The truth does not wish to be worshiped, it is there to HELP you, not take over your life, it is a compliment

 

[Annie]

Sinner Singh ji,

Thank you for this interesting conversation.

The details of a religion reflect the geography and the place in time that it was founded,for example Christianity has alot of Greek Theology,but that did not really extend into India instead the Sikh Monotheism arrived.

An interesting thing about monotheism and polytheism: there is a concept in Jewish mysticism called Sefirot. Simply put, it is ten personality traits - glory, nurturing, severity (like a strict parent)... I can't remember the others at the moment. Those are the sides or roles of the Deity. They are also the sides or roles of ourselves.

It has also been said, but I don't know how common the belief is, that the multiple deities in Hinduism are really a symbolic personification of all the traits in the one Deity and also in ourselves.

I agree we should not coerce anyone but religion cultivates in us morality and ethical living.
Fanatics give a bad name to Religion ,but if practised in it's purest form it is a freeing spiritual journey.

I couldn't agree more. Too bad a lot of religious people seem to have forgotten this.

It is said in our Holy text that the Universe is itself within us!

Does it also say that paradoxically, the Universe is within us, yet at the same time we are each a small, separated part of the Universe - and we are trying to become less separated?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Dear Annie Ji ,

Thankyou for your kind words,and likewise.

Religions should not really be researched for the best one as it were ,much better to just adopt them all in essence by living the truth. You probably have already adopted the common life maxim of " First do no harm ".Which means you comply with most World Religions already.If you accept that maxim then you seem to have decided without deciding on being religous.

Just because you do not go to confession does not mean you are not religous ,you by the sounds of it have read more about religion than most religous people have.I think it is the conventions of your particular religion that you have issues with, but that goes for most people who are brought up in a religion ,they question the conventions ,but it's the essence of it that matters.

Understanding the being who invented understanding itself is going to be tough ,Quantum physics is childs play compared to God .

Recently I started spending four or five hours reading Holy Scripture and philosophy.I thought a religous forum would be a good place to take a break and engage in dialectic reasoning. unfortunately I seem to get distracted anyway five thousand years of men better than me have been searching only very few have found the light. For a Christian there is less in studying it and more in just believing it,as it says that " I am the Way and the Truth and the Life."
Christianity for me is really easy to believe in as every day when we look at the date in most of the western world it is confirming the birth of Jesus. In medieval latin AD translates as "In the year of our Lord" your very date of birth is counted as from your Lords birth.

 

[Caspian]

Religions should not really be researched for the best one as it were ,much better to just adopt them all in essence by living the truth. You probably have already adopted the common life maxim of " First do no harm ".Which means you comply with most World Religions already.If you accept that maxim then you seem to have decided without deciding on being religous.

Just because you do not go to confession does not mean you are not religous ,you by the sounds of it have read more about religion than most religous people have.I think it is the conventions of your particular religion that you have issues with but that goes for most people who are brought up in a religion they question the conventions but it's the essence that never changes.

Forgive me for jumping partway through an ongoing conversation. But I have to raise this point because I disagree with your views. You said earlier that "No religion has a monoply on truth" (I agreed with that, and I wanted to reply partly tongue in cheek by saying "Science has a monoply on the truth ") but it seems that the above passage (especially the bold) implies that religion has a monoply on simple good deeds? Why is that? The maxim of "first do no harm" is not inherently religious is it? Where as the conventions that she she is complaining about ARE inherently religious. Religion, in general, does not have a monoply on being a good person. You can be a good person and an atheist just as well.

So for those of you who are catholic but opt not to go to confession—you are not religious, or atleast not as religious as those catholics who do go to confession. Even if both people in question followed the first maxim by the letter. Its following the often pointless religious conventions that makes someone religious seeing as the first maxim and moral rules like that are to broad and general to ascribe to any one religion, unlike the conventions which are religion specific.

Quantum physics is childs play compared to God

Then lets first master quantum physics who noes, maybe we wont need our concept of god after, if it really is that much more complicated then QM. Occam's razor anyone?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Dear Caspian Ji

It's my general theory of religiosity (tongue in cheek)and I appreciate the disagreement but it was meant for the open minded Annie .

Can I recommend a site for you http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-limits-of-science

I think by saying Annie is a religious person without knowing it ,I may have offended your status as an atheist.I meant no disrespect to her or you ,as she was undecided I thought she would be more open to discourse.You Caspian however have made your mind up already that's your privledge,and it's not for me to try to convert you to Sikhism .( By the way Ockham was a Monk and believed in God )
I feel Science does have it's limits and it does not really tell you to be good.If you do good why is it that you feel you should? There seems within us a desire to be good even when not allied to a faith ,Why is the world generally moral and wholesome .Why is there any need to be orderly. Going to confession or not does really make you more or less religious in the eyes of God , whether we follow the conventions or not ,there is a set of beliefs and search to good peoples lives .Religion is a search to me more than conventions.
ijsu kwrix hMau FUMiF FUFydI so sjxu hir Gir pwieAw ]
I was seeking and searching for Him, the Lord, my best friend, and I have found Him within the home of my own being.
eyk idRisè hir eyko jwqw hir Awqm rwmu pCwxI ]
I see the One Lord, and I know the One Lord; I realize Him within my soul

I was trying to frame a splendid response( but then was distracted by the Tv and an ice cream)but what does it matter if one person frames a better question or answer ,Religion is primarily a belief system but some people avoid it for the doctrine. But if you have no recognised religion you still have a belief system and that's kind of the same thing.
Many great scientists like Newton realised that there was more than science tothe Cosmos, if you listen to a few of the lectures by Proffessor Ward I,m sure you will like them.

 

[Caspian]

I think by saying Annie is a religious person without knowing it ,I may have offended your status as an atheist.I meant no disrespect to her or you ,as she was undecided I thought she would be more open to discourse.You Caspian however have made your mind up already that's your privledge,and it's not for me to try to convert you to Sikhism .( By the way Ockham was a Monk and believed in God )

I'm always open to discourse more so now then maybe I was before, a year or two ago. And seeing as Ockham lived from 1288 to 1348, I can't "fault" him for believing in god. It was essentially the simplest explanation back then after all. I would hope, given all the advances in science and philosophy since then, he would happily apply his razor to his own beliefs if he was alive right now (or who noes? maybe he wouldnt). Science has no agenda and we welcome the contributions of religious men like Occam, Mendle (whos beanstalks, in conjunction with the theory of evolution, paved the way for a modern understanding of genetics) and Lemaître (a catholic priest who first proposed the big bang theory). Indeed, religious men and women have contributed greatly to the sciences. Not that science cares for their religion.

I feel Science does have it's limits and it does not really tell you to be good.If you do good why is it that you feel you should? There seems within us a desire to be good even when not allied to a faith ,Why is the world generally moral and wholesome .Why is there any need to be orderly.

Can science answer moral question? I take it you believe science is not capable of answering questions like "what it means to be good." And I know a great many atheists who would disagree with that outlook. I know Sam Harris gets used alot but I quite liked his ted talk entitles "sciencecan answer moral questions" ( YouTube - ‪Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions‬‏ ).

The world is generally moral and wholesome because evolution dictates it in my opinion. Without getting into the nitty gritty details of evolution. If you accept evolution as a viable explanation for how we humans came to be as we are today. Then you must accept that most of our traits, be it physical or psychological were honed to our survival. That includes our internal morality center. Its not a supernatural entity like a soul that gives rise to our good nature. Were simply good natured because it is evolutionarily advantageous to be good natured. But as times change ever more quickly, traits from the past that may have been evolutionarily advantageous (like our fight/flight/freeze response) could be evolutionarily disadvantageous in the future (in the modern world, the fight/flight/freeze response gets triggered by mundane activities like doing one's taxes, this could lead to stress which could lead to nervous breakdowns if prolonged and a whole host of psychological disorders like depression). I feel like our belief in god, is one of those traits that is no longer advantageous to us—but thats another talk all-together.

To better answer the original question. Let me ask you in reverse. If you attribute the world being generally good and wholesome to some diving essence—that of a god perhaps. Then what do you attribute the negative aspects of our nature to? If you were fair you would say that the bad part of us also stems from this divine nature. But I think its more practical to attribute both our good and bad traits to ourselves and ourselves only . Nothing divine about it as far as I can see.

Going to confession or not does really make you more or less religious in the eyes of God , whether we follow the conventions or not ,there is a set of beliefs and search to good peoples lives .Religion is a search to me more than conventions.

Personally, If god exists, I dont think going to confession is going to make you any more or less of a religious person in his eyes. But I can say that about a whole host of traditions and conventions. Keeping your hair and beard is not going to make you any more or less religious in his eyes either. If religion is a search lets do away with the names (why do we have to ascribe ourselves as sikhs, it only serves to seperate and distinguish us from one another when we ought to be focusing on what unites as humans), lets get rid of all these silly conventions, lets get back to the philosophy and science of it.

Many great scientists like Newton realised that there was more than science tothe Cosmos, if you listen to a few of the lectures by Proffessor Ward I,m sure you will like them.

The idea's are more important then the man. If there's one thing I would love to stress on this forum, its that one should be able to judge ideas independently from the character, moral, and outlooks of the person who thought of the ideas to begin with. Just like with Occam, we've adopted his maxim, despite it ironically threatening his very beliefs. Same applies to newton and the many great scientists you speak of. Lets judge their idea's seperately from their other ideas. I mean newton was bang on with Calculus and Newtonian mechanics (easily one of the smartest people to ever have lived)—But in my opinion he was also slightly wrong in his beliefs about Alchemy and religion. Lets not let his success in one field (calculas and physics) imply or validate any of his other beliefs, ideas and opinions without first examining them on their own merit. And there comes a time where we ought to lay some ideas to rest. Alchemy couldnt survive as a theory, and Newton isnt any less of a genius because of that—but lets not take his word for everything thats all im sayin.

Apologies for the typo's, I'm too lazy right now to fix them. Stanley cup, Game 7, Go Canucks