Are you an atheist?

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

.... He was an atheist. By supporting and praising him, are you an atheist, too?

Dear sf, I don't know whether you wanted a detailed response to this point, but I find myself unable to resist giving you one. This topic is of very great interest to me, that is why. Also, since this has nothing to do with the topic we were discussion, I am presenting my response as a separate thread. If there is any interest to discuss this topic further, I will be glad to participate.

First, let us get the obvious point out of the way, no, my status as a theist or atheist is not derived from my support of EVR as a reformer and a great iconoclast.

Now I want to address the question, "Are you an atheist?"

The answer depends upon what is meant by the word "atheism". If atheism is defined broadly as the opposite state of "theism", i.e. opposite to the state of belief in a personal god who cares about human affairs, then, yes, I am an atheist.

But, if atheism is defined as total disbelief in any supernatural powers, then as a rational person, one has to hedge a little. In as much as a negative cannot be proved beyond doubt, it is impossible to rule out such a power with absolute certainty. So, we have some who call themselves Agnostic. Agnostic does not mean, not sure whether god exists, it is the state of certainty in the belief that existence or non-existence of god cannot be proved conclusively. Then, logically I have to say I am an agnostic, but only in a very strict logical sense.

So, if we put these two together, I am an Atheist with respect to personal gods, like Rama, Krishna, Jesus, etc., and a reluctant Agnostic with respect to distant, uncaring Brahman like the advaitic nirguna brahman. The reason I am reluctant is because my opinion is, the existence of even a distant and uncaring supernatural power is extremely unlikely. But I cannot prove this negative. So, I am having to reluctantly concede that there is a remote, slight, chance that there may be a power outside the material realm.

If we take a look at the Samskritam terminology, नास्तिक (nastika), that refers only to the state of belief in the Vedas. आस्तिक (astika) is one who puts faith in the Vedas, and नास्तिक (nastika) is one who does not. So, Kapila, the proponent of Samkhya, did not believe in any god, was an आस्तिक (astika) because he believed in the Vedas. But, the Tamil Saivas and Karnataka Lingayats, who are quite theistic as they believe in Shiva as personal god, are नास्तिक (nastika) because they reject the validity of the Vedas.

I think all of us are born as just humans, like all other animals are born as a member of their respective species. But, as we grow up we get labeled as this or that, a Hindu, a Brahmin, a Saivite, a Vaishnavite, an Atheist, and so on. I don't like any of these labels. I like to think of myself as just a human, a freethinking human.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

Dear sf, I don't know whether you wanted a detailed response to this point, but I find myself unable to resist giving you one. This topic is of very great interest to me, that is why. Also, since this has nothing to do with the topic we were discussion, I am presenting my response as a separate thread. If there is any interest to discuss this topic further, I will be glad to participate.

First, let us get the obvious point out of the way, no, my status as a theist or atheist is not derived from my support of EVR as a reformer and a great iconoclast.

Now I want to address the question, "Are you an atheist?"

The answer depends upon what is meant by the word "atheism". If atheism is defined broadly as the opposite state of "theism", i.e. opposite to the state of belief in a personal god who cares about human affairs, then, yes, I am an atheist.

But, if atheism is defined as total disbelief in any supernatural powers, then as a rational person, one has to hedge a little. In as much as a negative cannot be proved beyond doubt, it is impossible to rule out such a power with absolute certainty. So, we have some who call themselves Agnostic. Agnostic does not mean, not sure whether god exists, it is the state of certainty in the belief that existence or non-existence of god cannot be proved conclusively. Then, logically I have to say I am an agnostic, but only in a very strict logical sense.

So, if we put these two together, I am an Atheist with respect to personal gods, like Rama, Krishna, Jesus, etc., and a reluctant Agnostic with respect to distant, uncaring Brahman like the advaitic nirguna brahman. The reason I am reluctant is because my opinion is, the existence of even a distant and uncaring supernatural power is extremely unlikely. But I cannot prove this negative. So, I am having to reluctantly concede that there is a remote, slight, chance that there may be a power outside the material realm.

If we take a look at the Samskritam terminology, नास्तिक (nastika), that refers only to the state of belief in the Vedas. आस्तिक (astika) is one who puts faith in the Vedas, and नास्तिक (nastika) is one who does not. So, Kapila, the proponent of Samkhya, did not believe in any god, was an आस्तिक (astika) because he believed in the Vedas. But, the Tamil Saivas and Karnataka Lingayats, who are quite theistic as they believe in Shiva as personal god, are नास्तिक (nastika) because they reject the validity of the Vedas.

I think all of us are born as just humans, like all other animals are born as a member of their respective species. But, as we grow up we get labeled as this or that, a Hindu, a Brahmin, a Saivite, a Vaishnavite, an Atheist, and so on. I don't like any of these labels. I like to think of myself as just a human, a freethinking human.

Cheers!

nara,

so nice to see this post.you believed in sv sampradayam and got disgusted with it,and leaning towards the original truth of 'nirgunam brahman' aka god or formless god,who is the in-dweller of all beings & non-beings,as only 'nb' exists nothing else.the shloka poornamadah poornamidam poornath poornamudachayathe poornasya poornamadaya poornameva vashisyathe aptly sums up the true reality in a poetry form.really liked your post a lot,becoz agnostic and believers,its a darn thin line,and when miracles happen in ones life which cannot be termed as coincidence,by jingo you are baaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkk with us

 

[Nara]

NN, you have completely misread my post, and I don't know why I am not surpirsed, may be I do.

.... you believed in sv sampradayam and got disgusted with it,

I am not at all disgusted with SV, are you reading my posts on Azhvar pasurams. If I were to believe in god, I would want to be a practicing SV, not anything else.

I feel nirguna Brahman (NB) is of no use to anybody. What is the point of it? People say the ultimate is Nriguna Brahman, but they don't even realize what that means. If there is nothing other than this NB, and NB is pure consciousness, what is the purpose of this pure consciousness? What would NB do with it? Might as well not be there.

So, if you take away this NB, which is of no use to nobody, then what we are left in Advaitam is Buddism. This is why SVs say Advaitees are pracchanna (प्रच्छन्न) Bouddas, Buddists in disguise. Perhaps Adi Sankara wanted to move the Buddists over to Hinduism and wanted to guide them through small steps. Perhaps the NB was a small step they were willing to take, but a Kalyanana Guna Maharnava Iswara was too much for them.

you are baaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkk with us

Reports of my return to the fold of theists is premature (h/t Mark Twain).

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

கண்டவர் விண்டிலர் , விண்டவர் கண்டிலர்

 

[nachi naga]

nara,

I feel nirguna Brahman (NB) is of no use to anybody. What is the point of it? People say the ultimate is Nriguna Brahman, but they don't even realize what that means. If there is nothing other than this NB, and NB is pure consciousness, what is the purpose of this pure consciousness? What would NB do with it? Might as well not be there.

So, if you take away this NB

nb is the cause,the effect is the universe & its inhabitants.to realise this as 'self' is the first step towards moksham,from janma janmanaath bandham aka punarapi jananam punarapi maranam....its only the body which dies repeatedly not the in-dweller aka athman...lord krishna has this explained to lord arjuna via his epic gita-upanishadham.lord krishna incarnated as the eight avataaram of lord vishnu,who is one of the trinity of the lord's or sagunam brahman aspects of the nirgunam brahman.my english writing has its limitations to convey the essence of philosophical truths,so ,as i recognise you as scholarly person,you already know from sv sampradayam,the subject.yesterday you were a believer of sv,today you are an agnostic,tomorrow ,i don't know?i will wait for tomorrow to know it.thank you.