I dont, because it does not exist (Reply #89) - Democratic Underground Forums

Vehl

(1,915 posts)

89. I dont, because it does not exist

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:45 AM

Dec 2011

At least according to the Hindu school of philosophy I agree with. I do not believe in anything without evidence to back it up. Amongst the 4 "paths" (not the same as philosophies) in Hinduism I use the Jnana-Yoga(Jnana = knowledge). Knowledge is what i seek.

I do not know much about Gora,Thank you for the link. I'm pretty sure Rabindranath Tagore was a Hindu. Ironically Buddha was also a Hindu and considered as such by Hindu's to this day. It was his followers, especially a few generations later made "Buddhism" into a religion. There were many philosophers in Hinduism who created new philosophies and reform movements, and Buddha was one of the excellent ones of his era. This might not go down that well with some Buddhists who crave a separate identity, but I'm yet to see any evidence that he wanted to start a new religion/way.

A few weeks ago I posted my take on the difference (or lack thereof) between Buddhism and certain Hindu philosophies. Check it out if interested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=2291

Ps: On a related note, I once started a thread on Tagore, commemorating his 150th anniversary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1061541

I like Ambedkar for the excellent constitution he wrote, and for speaking up for the downtrodden classes. However I do find his association of caste with Hinduism rather misleading. It is my opinion, along with most Hindus that Caste is a social construct (similar to the feudal system in Europe) and not a religious one. As all systems of social stratification around the world, it will be used by those in power to keep those under them in check. The kings and lords of europe used the church to prop up their divine right to rule, and those who held power in the subcontinent used their local religious leaders(cos Hinduism is not a "organized" religion) to do the same.

Good examples of caste crossing religious boundaries can be found in Srilanka, a Buddhist majority country. The Srilankan Buddhists are very caste-oriented and have a caste system that exists to this day. In fact its so ingrained that even Mahanayaka's(chief priest of Buddhist sect's/monasteries) have to be the same caste as the dominant cast in the region. Thus Ambedkar was incorrect to assume that by converting to Buddhism he will be leaving caste behind. He could have done more by siding with many progressive Hindu's of that era to eradicate caste instead.

regards

--------------------
[IMG][/IMG]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I don't believe in God, so why is it that I don't want to be labelled an atheist? [View all] rug Dec 2011 OP

Probably the most provocative link I have seen here on this forum. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #1

Atheism says nothing about the individual other than MineralMan Dec 2011 #2

At the very least, it means the individual doesn't believe in punishment or reward after death. PassingFair Dec 2011 #10

Does it? tama Dec 2011 #16

I haven't met any. PassingFair Dec 2011 #18

E.g. buddhist and hindu atheists nt tama Dec 2011 #20

Have you ever met someone who identified as a "hindu atheist"? PassingFair Dec 2011 #28

There're are millions of Hindu atheists. laconicsax Dec 2011 #29

Do Hindu atheists believe in reincarnation? PassingFair Dec 2011 #30

I don't know what they believe, you should ask them. laconicsax Dec 2011 #32

I already said that I don't know anyone who calls themselves a "hindu atheist". PassingFair Dec 2011 #38

There's one here on DU. laconicsax Dec 2011 #42

And they say that they believe in reincarnation? nt PassingFair Dec 2011 #54

At the risk of repeating myself, "I don't know what they believe, you should ask them." n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #61

OK. Let's put it this way. No atheist that I've ever actually known IRL... PassingFair Dec 2011 #62

And how large is your sample size? laconicsax Dec 2011 #63

Lifetime, probably 100 or so. PassingFair Dec 2011 #64

Well, if you've known a hundred, you surely know everything there is to know! laconicsax Dec 2011 #65

I know that most atheists eshew the supernatural. PassingFair Dec 2011 #68

Some do, some dont Vehl Dec 2011 #84

and what is your source for this interesting statistic? kwassa Dec 2011 #55

You can start here: laconicsax Dec 2011 #60

The statistic I was interested in was "millions" kwassa Dec 2011 #80

You must not be synthesizing information. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #82

Hindu Atheists use the names of the Hindu philosophies they subscribe to. Vehl Dec 2011 #85

It does help. kwassa Dec 2011 #87

you are welcome. nt Vehl Dec 2011 #91

So are you saying tama Dec 2011 #33

"Atheists have been saying that it's just about disbelief in god..." PassingFair Dec 2011 #39

Einstein tama Dec 2011 #43

Spinoza's God Ron Obvious Dec 2011 #58

Not an atheist tama Dec 2011 #66

There's an awful lot of Einstein worship among believers, MarkCharles Dec 2011 #67

"Spinoza's God" PassingFair Dec 2011 #69

I'm a Hindu Atheist. Vehl Dec 2011 #83

I knew about Nehru..... PassingFair Dec 2011 #86

I dont, because it does not exist Vehl Dec 2011 #89

I think that Tagore's position is muddied. PassingFair Dec 2011 #92

Hey! I know that guy from that one thread! =) opiate69 Dec 2011 #88

Hey! Vehl Dec 2011 #90

I know atheist Buddhists who strongly believe in reincarnation. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #70

Yes. Those buddhists probably refer to themselves as buddhist. PassingFair Dec 2011 #71

What do you thing that means? MineralMan Dec 2011 #22

I think it means that they act in a manner of self determination. PassingFair Dec 2011 #31

Would the writer have hesitated skepticscott Dec 2011 #3

Not everyone feels the need to be labeled. tinrobot Dec 2011 #4

Yeah before those guys atheists were just benevolently treated.... dmallind Dec 2011 #5

That was 100 years ago, and it wasn't even my point. tinrobot Dec 2011 #6

I am. Those things were relgious oppression manifested into law. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #11

People can certainly be outspoken about those things if they want... tinrobot Dec 2011 #12

Is the label "bald" "forced" on people without hair? dmallind Dec 2011 #14

Not a good comparison. tinrobot Dec 2011 #15

A man with no hair on his head is bald skepticscott Dec 2011 #27

What the hell difference does that make? dmallind Dec 2011 #34

Au contraire. The meaning of the word "atheist" has changed. kwassa Dec 2011 #56

No it hasn't. Not even close. Fundies TRY to make explicit atheism the ONLY meaning. dmallind Dec 2011 #76

To clarify. kwassa Dec 2011 #81

Bald using Wig? Hair growing but shaven bald? tama Dec 2011 #17

It's very simple indeed. A bit simpler than atheist even. nt. dmallind Dec 2011 #79

I still realize there is a bias against women and drinkers. Do you against atheists? dmallind Dec 2011 #13

But atheist is simply a label for someone who lacks belief Meshuga Dec 2011 #7

'Atheism" has such a scorning ring to it' LARED Dec 2011 #8

Words can have stong meanings, multiple meanings, and those meanings can change. tinrobot Dec 2011 #9

My point was that LARED Dec 2011 #21

So you don't think people treat atheists badly in the US Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #40

As a general rule no. LARED Dec 2011 #46

Then you need to read Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #49

You hold unpopular views, people have opinions about those views, and act accordingly LARED Dec 2011 #53

I know one guy who hates the term and sees it as kind of a religion in its own ButterflyBlood Dec 2011 #19

There is an interesting tension LARED Dec 2011 #23

Ever wonder why? dmallind Dec 2011 #25

Spoken like a true victim. LARED Dec 2011 #35

Riddle me this? Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #41

the long-standing denial of equal rights for women also comes from religion RainDog Dec 2011 #44

let's not forget skepticscott Dec 2011 #45

So no response from you Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #50

I did not forget. Just busy nt LARED Dec 2011 #52

Imagine if you were responding to a homosexual. trotsky Dec 2011 #57

Where the hell do you live that religion has little influence on laws? dmallind Dec 2011 #73

The assertion that religion leaves laws alone has already been generously disproven. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #48

**MY** assertion?? Read that again please.... nt dmallind Dec 2011 #74

many apologies, dmallind LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #77

Nae worries. Just don't want lurkers or newbies confused. thx. nt. dmallind Dec 2011 #78

As usual, you misstate things skepticscott Dec 2011 #26

Actually what you said and what I said are much closer than you think. LARED Dec 2011 #36

Sorry, lousy argument skepticscott Dec 2011 #37

I don't feel like a persecuted minority where I am RainDog Dec 2011 #59

We can however, prove that is so. dmallind Dec 2011 #75

Yeah and fat people often dislike being called fat. Still ARE fat though. dmallind Dec 2011 #24

I think I would prefer Empiricist as a more accurate categorization LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #47

There are probably Christians who don't want to identify themselves cbayer Dec 2011 #51

Because you'd be as bad as a religious fanatic onion belt Dec 2011 #72

Because the greater culture has successfully loaded the word, like they did the word liberal. TransitJohn Dec 2011 #93

Religion

Vehl

Edit history

Recommendations