Comments on: Daytheists in the closet

By: cookiebrown

cookiebrown — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:29:50 +0000

ummm… also linked as

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17058

By: cookiebrown

cookiebrown — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:23:56 +0000

A very late post, but as this thread is still topical, its worth reading this rather long post on Richard Dawkins’ website by Aneesh Mulye. I think he covers it all, except for Carvaka philosophy.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=17056&p=272635&hilit=advaita#p272635

By: Mohammed

Mohammed — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:52:16 +0000

Try being an atheist in a muslim country. Oh, you can’t you get your head chopped off. Allah Akbar! Just talk to the Hindu.

By: Nikhila

Nikhila — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:03:27 +0000

I’ve been examining my own feelings about this since reading this post. I think in my case, it’s true that I do not have very positive feelings about atheism and those who espouse it; but it’s not because I feel they are morally or ethically inferior to theists or have an “undesirable” set of political beliefs. I have realized I have a strong tendency to see atheists as less intelligent, less open and lacking in the ability to perceive the deepest levels of reality. To me, the existence of God is such an obvious, intuitive truth that anyone who cannot perceive it must be wearing some kind of blinders that prevent them from that realization. They are not looking deep enough, long enough, hard enough. Yes, they are looking deeper than many unthinking theists, but only deep enough to see the ugly, negative things, not deep enough to see the next layer underlying that: shattering, unbelievable, pervasive beauty and love. And that’s God. They don’t know the existence of that layer; they think they’re at the deepest layer and can’t conceive of anything beneath it. They can’t see the forest for the trees. To me that denotes a fundamental lack of something — something hard to define, but something fundamentally important that I consider a necessary quality in my friends and loved ones. I don’t enjoy associating with those who lack it. Sorry, maybe I’m not “tolerant” enough, but that’s the unsweetened truth.

By: God

God — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:02:16 +0000

Hello, do I need to register to post here?

By: S O

S O — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:05:05 +0000

I feel the comments made by a political leader need not be given as much importance….and I see no rationale in calling bal thackeray an atheist …the very definition of a hindu will be lost…..There have been numerous occasions things have been claimed by political leaders which make no sense in real life…

By: chetchow

chetchow — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:00:34 +0000

http://www.gullible.info/

In a study done at Cornell University, it was found that athiests were 63 percent more likely to return a wallet found on the street than self-described Christians. The research was done with a planted wallet and a hidden camera.

is that because the religious folk would justify finding a wallet by saying that God deemed it so?

By: DJ Drrrty Poonjabi

DJ Drrrty Poonjabi — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:37:34 +0000

I'm late, as usual, but wanted to add a few things:

I think any discourse on Atheism in India would be amiss without at least a passing mention of India's most famous godless shaheed. I referenced his essentially deathbed defense of Atheism here.

AMFD ponders: >>How can I become a Hindu? Just accept the idea that nobody can or should get something for nothing, either in the material world or in the spiritual realm.

By this defintion, would sadhus be considered Hindu?

Antahkarana and Emma, props for doing what you want to do without having to justify your actions to the anyone. I have to constantly explain to people that my teetotalism is based on personal motivation and, not by some overarching dogmatic diktat. The idea that one can go through life governed by personal morals and without citing an organized religion as an impetus for his/her actions is still unsettling to some I know.

Neal, I know I should have said something after you posted it on your blog two months ago, but your essay on Dawkins is excellent. Proselytizing, whether it's Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc, isn't conducive to a free and democratic society and objective, rational thought should be the only agenda of science.

Anyhoo, enough gasbaggery from me. Here's my favorite quote on the subject, courtesy of Salon:

"It's been said that the Swedes are the most secular people in the world, and the Indians are the most religious," [Pat] Robertson said. "The American people are like Indians ruled by Swedes!" (Or, to use the parlance of New Jersey, an important swing state: dot-heads ruled by square-heads.)

By: suede

suede — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:11:51 +0000

Thank God I’m a homosexual and not an Atheist! Phew! That was close.

By: allah

allah — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:41:39 +0000

The noble lie theory of course is Western in more modern times, but read your Chanakya and you will find some there to...................

yeah yeah, whateva

I have read Chanakya and you, sir, are certainly no Chanakaya.

I think you may be confusing Maya with the \"noble lie theory\". After all, it was Krishna (the Lying, kanieving, dishinest \"trickster\" according to the typical western Donigerisma) who natchaoed the simple-minded Yashoda around his finger. Was Krishna taking advantage of Yashoda? Hindus have never seen it in that manner.

People inhabit different realities and, of course, any would-be Chanakya or Krishna would latch on to that fact. This is miles and miles away from a \"noble lie theory\" of \"Religion\". Chankaya is certainly not explaining \"Why\" there are all these multifarious traditions, around him. Nor does he fell the need to justify the presence of diversity, as the abrahmaics are wont to do. He is only explaining how to navigate yourself among the diversity.