Philosophy of Atheism

[Kashmiri Pandit]

Anyone ?

Is Atheism anti-thesis of Theism ? Does Atheism comprise of its own philosophy ? Is Atheism equivalent to Hedonism ? Atheism supports various sub-groups ?

Is Atheism Materialism ?

This is what , One of the Ancient Atheist schools have to say :

Being positivistic Cārvāka claims that perception or pratyaksa is the only means of valid knowledge. Therefore, only what is perceivable is the object of knowledge for Cārvāka. Whatever is not perceivable is rejected as a figment of our imagination.

Since there is no entity called ‘soul’ as distinct from the body, as given in perception, there is no place for such an entity in this system.

There is no life-breath or consciousness in the minute particles (kana) of matter, which are the basic constituents of matter, when they are in a disjoined state.At that time, they remain in a lifeless and Carvaka insentient state.However, due to that very peculiar and mutual combination or mixture of these elements, there appears life-breath and consciousness. Thus what we call soul is nothing but the conscious body. In other words, consciousness or mind is an epi-phenomenon, a by-product of matter. Such a by-product is possible because qualities not possessed by the elements individually, may arise in the aggregate constituted of them.

Turn to Light before SATAN takes over - Refrain from such comments

Is Modern day Atheism just like Theism ?
Atheists deny God just like Theists believe in God

@nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Abingdonboy @SR-91 @nang2 @fsayed @anant_s @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair
@TejasMk3
@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @PARIKRAMA @egodoc222 @DesiGuy1403 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @MilSpec @Spectre @Windjammer @Horus @GURU DUTT @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @abcxyz0000
@MilSpec @Spectre
@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @Zibago @Srinivas
@GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina @randomradio @Guynextdoor2 @2800 @calmDown@all @zebra7

@Chinese Bamboo @Chinese-Dragon @Godman @Gibbs

@Windjammer @Horus @Arsalan

 

[dadeechi]

Anyone ?

Is Atheism anti-thesis of Theism ? Does Atheism comprise of its own philosophy ? Is Atheism equivalent to Hedonism ? Atheism supports various sub-groups ?

Is Atheism Materialism ?

This is what , One of the Ancient Atheist schools have to say :

Being positivistic Cārvāka claims that perception or pratyaksa is the only means of valid knowledge. Therefore, only what is perceivable is the object of knowledge for Cārvāka. Whatever is not perceivable is rejected as a figment of our imagination.

Since there is no entity called ‘soul’ as distinct from the body, as given in perception, there is no place for such an entity in this system.

There is no life-breath or consciousness in the minute particles (kana) of matter, which are the basic constituents of matter, when they are in a disjoined state.At that time, they remain in a lifeless and Carvaka insentient state.However, due to that very peculiar and mutual combination or mixture of these elements, there appears life-breath and consciousness. Thus what we call soul is nothing but the conscious body. In other words, consciousness or mind is an epi-phenomenon, a by-product of matter. Such a by-product is possible because qualities not possessed by the elements individually, may arise in the aggregate constituted of them.

Turn to Light before SATAN takes over - Refrain from such comments

Is Modern day Atheism just like Theism ?
Atheists deny God just like Theists believe in God

@nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Abingdonboy @SR-91 @nang2 @fsayed @anant_s @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair
@TejasMk3
@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @PARIKRAMA @egodoc222 @DesiGuy1403 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @MilSpec @Spectre @Windjammer @Horus @GURU DUTT @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @abcxyz0000
@MilSpec @Spectre
@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @Zibago @Srinivas
@GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina @randomradio @Guynextdoor2 @2800 @calmDown@all @zebra7

@Chinese Bamboo @Chinese-Dragon @Godman @Gibbs

@Windjammer @Horus @Arsalan

From Dharmic religions perspective, Atheists believe in steady state universe while others believe in Big Bang.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

From Dharmic religions perspective, Atheists believe in steady state universe while others believe in Big Bang.

Explain

What you said is too complex for me

 

[zebra7]

Atheist is usually defined as not believing in God. Now of course ‘God’ needs to be defined. In the west (Christianity and Islam) God stands for a personal God who is separate from human beings and in one case has a son whom he sent to earth and in the other a last prophet. Now in India, this God is not considered the Ultimate. In India, the Ultimate, Brahman, Paramatman, is all pervading, not personal. It is the life, energy, awareness, essence of everything manifested. It is what is unchanging in midst of this changing universe. Science discovered the one energy underlying every appearance. India’s wisdom discovered that this energy is conscious.

Now, this Brahman is not imaginable, it cannot be grasped by the mind, but since it is our essence, it can be felt, realized as real. To be able to realise it, the scriptures give some methods, like jnana or bhakti. Here comes in the personal God. To feel love (bhakti) for That, which is form- and nameless, it is helpful to direct it towards a form and name, which acts like an access point, i.e. Shiva, Devi, Krishna, Ram, Ganesh, etc…

In Hinduism you need not have an Ishta deva. You can do Jnana Yoga (trying to get to the one truth by enquiry) and many more paths are there. You are basically a Hindu when you acknowledge that there is a conscious basis or cause to that universe including your own person, that is immanent and even beyond and it would make sense of course to try to connect to that, more so, since the Rishis claim it is possible…

Unfortunately, in the west the Hindu concepts are not known. So when people lose faith in Christianity, they reject also ‘God’, not knowing that the personal God is not the real, ultimate truth.

 

[T-72M1]

all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

 

[zebra7]

The factors that make a 'Religion' are a 'God', his messenger, a single authoritative book and a structure to assemble its followers. This 'God' is a male who has created the universe and everything in it, including the evil. 'God' is all powerful and can get angry and can punish you when one does not adhere to his commands. His messenger is to whom 'God' has 'revealed' his 'message' in form of 'commandments' and 'Book'. If one follows the dictum as mentioned in the 'Book' it is deemed as 'Good' else it is deemed 'Bad'. Now, to keep the society away from this 'Bad' and 'help' everyone do 'Good' as per the 'Book', a organization is required which will control people and take the 'message' forward. There's a catch here! The organization or its members cannot talk to the 'God' as they are 'sinners' and only the 'son of god' or the 'divine messenger' has conversed with this 'God' and his message is in the 'Book'.

As you can clearly see, only the 3 Abrahamic establishments (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) can be called as 'Religions'. They have a 'God' (Yahweh/Jehovah, Christ, Allah), a messenger/prophet or son of god (Abraham, Jesus, Prophet Mohammed), one single 'Book' (Torah, Bible & Quran) and a organization to 'guide' the society such as the Church and the Ulemas, etc.

A person who adheres to one of these 3 faiths and goes by the 'Book' will be a 'Theist'. The term 'Theism' derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". Hence a person who is born in one of these 3 faiths BUT does not believe in existence of 'God' or his 'messenger' will be an 'Atheist'. No one else in any other traditions or faiths of the world can be a 'Theist' or an 'Atheist'. The origin of the terms 'Theism' and 'Atheism' is very recent, in the 17th century, and were freely used to distinguish between believers and non-believers of their 'God', as the colonial world spread.

Hence an Athiest is not a Naastika as they have nothing in common. A naastika is one who does not accept the authority of the Vedas and does not conform to either of the 6 astika schools. This is in no way same as 'not believing' in 'God'. A person born in other traditions can become a believer in 'God' only if he undergoes the process of conversion and is baptized as a Christian or a Muslim and is initiated into the Church or the Ummah. Only later can he choose to not believe in 'God' and claim to be an 'Atheist'. No one else can.

Unfortunately 'Religion' has been translated to 'Dharma' which has caused the greatest harm to us and our nation. In modern sense, we are still unclear as to what 'Dharma' means while there are several definitions, like cosmic order, code of ethics for society & person, etc. But in no way its related to 'Religion'.

When there are no 'Religions' in Bharateeya traditions, there is no question of categorizing any of our actions as 'Religious' or otherwise. But in Bharateeya traditions, one who adheres to Carvaka, Ajivika, Jaina or Buddhist traditions can certainly have their own temples (though in different names) and still visit them. For e.g the Ajivikas consider Shiva and Vishnu purely as forces of nature but do not perform any 'pooja'.

Sadly, 'God' has been translated to 'Deva', 'Bhagwan', etc. Deva/Devaru is not same as 'God' as you can see from the above definition. 'Worship' and 'Pooja' are not same either. In our tradition, we are free to choose our Deva/Devaru including a personal Deva/Devaru apart from what Vedas and other revered texts mention as Deva/Devis. Hence you see hundreds of local deva/devis all over Bharat like Yellamma, Kabbalamma, etc. Those who believe in such deva/devis can belong to both Astika or Nastika traditions or even the Tantrik traditions.

As you must be aware by now, such translated terms were imported into our country during the colonial times and gradually found its way into our vocabulary and school syllabi. The translations into regional languages too were done mostly by the initial colonial writers or those from Europe who called themselves 'indologists', for eg. Robert De Nobli in Tamil, Telugu & Samskrut or Ferdinand Kittle in Kannada, who were actually missionaries. All of them were Christians and therefore their worldview was essentially Christian. How and why did this Chiristian worldview got framed is a huge subject again. As you will see, each of these terms is a result of this Christian worldview.

@Kashmiri Pandit Read this slowly, and this will clear all your Doubts, and you won't need any other defination and answer.

So to make it clear, if you are a Hindu you can be a Nastika or a Astika

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

The factors that make a 'Religion' are a 'God', his messenger, a single authoritative book and a structure to assemble its followers. This 'God' is a male who has created the universe and everything in it, including the evil. 'God' is all powerful and can get angry and can punish you when one does not adhere to his commands. His messenger is to whom 'God' has 'revealed' his 'message' in form of 'commandments' and 'Book'. If one follows the dictum as mentioned in the 'Book' it is deemed as 'Good' else it is deemed 'Bad'. Now, to keep the society away from this 'Bad' and 'help' everyone do 'Good' as per the 'Book', a organization is required which will control people and take the 'message' forward. There's a catch here! The organization or its members cannot talk to the 'God' as they are 'sinners' and only the 'son of god' or the 'divine messenger' has conversed with this 'God' and his message is in the 'Book'.

As you can clearly see, only the 3 Abrahamic establishments (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) can be called as 'Religions'. They have a 'God' (Yahweh/Jehovah, Christ, Allah), a messenger/prophet or son of god (Abraham, Jesus, Prophet Mohammed), one single 'Book' (Torah, Bible & Quran) and a organization to 'guide' the society such as the Church and the Ulemas, etc.

A person who adheres to one of these 3 faiths and goes by the 'Book' will be a 'Theist'. The term 'Theism' derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". Hence a person who is born in one of these 3 faiths BUT does not believe in existence of 'God' or his 'messenger' will be an 'Atheist'. No one else in any other traditions or faiths of the world can be a 'Theist' or an 'Atheist'. The origin of the terms 'Theism' and 'Atheism' is very recent, in the 17th century, and were freely used to distinguish between believers and non-believers of their 'God', as the colonial world spread.

Hence an Athiest is not a Naastika as they have nothing in common. A naastika is one who does not accept the authority of the Vedas and does not conform to either of the 6 astika schools. This is in no way same as 'not believing' in 'God'. A person born in other traditions can become a believer in 'God' only if he undergoes the process of conversion and is baptized as a Christian or a Muslim and is initiated into the Church or the Ummah. Only later can he choose to not believe in 'God' and claim to be an 'Atheist'. No one else can.

Unfortunately 'Religion' has been translated to 'Dharma' which has caused the greatest harm to us and our nation. In modern sense, we are still unclear as to what 'Dharma' means while there are several definitions, like cosmic order, code of ethics for society & person, etc. But in no way its related to 'Religion'.

When there are no 'Religions' in Bharateeya traditions, there is no question of categorizing any of our actions as 'Religious' or otherwise. But in Bharateeya traditions, one who adheres to Carvaka, Ajivika, Jaina or Buddhist traditions can certainly have their own temples (though in different names) and still visit them. For e.g the Ajivikas consider Shiva and Vishnu purely as forces of nature but do not perform any 'pooja'.

Sadly, 'God' has been translated to 'Deva', 'Bhagwan', etc. Deva/Devaru is not same as 'God' as you can see from the above definition. 'Worship' and 'Pooja' are not same either. In our tradition, we are free to choose our Deva/Devaru including a personal Deva/Devaru apart from what Vedas and other revered texts mention as Deva/Devis. Hence you see hundreds of local deva/devis all over Bharat like Yellamma, Kabbalamma, etc. Those who believe in such deva/devis can belong to both Astika or Nastika traditions or even the Tantrik traditions.

As you must be aware by now, such translated terms were imported into our country during the colonial times and gradually found its way into our vocabulary and school syllabi. The translations into regional languages too were done mostly by the initial colonial writers or those from Europe who called themselves 'indologists', for eg. Robert De Nobli in Tamil, Telugu & Samskrut or Ferdinand Kittle in Kannada, who were actually missionaries. All of them were Christians and therefore their worldview was essentially Christian. How and why did this Chiristian worldview got framed is a huge subject again. As you will see, each of these terms is a result of this Christian worldview.

@Kashmiri Pandit Read this slowly, and this will clear all your Doubts, and you won't need any other defination and answer.

So to make it clear, if you are a Hindu you can be a Nastika or a Astika

BINGO ! I myself had doubts about commonness of Atheism and Nastika but in lame terms , We used to say Nastik = Atheist , when in reality it isn't . Very good points

 

[untitled]

In the west (Christianity and Islam) God stands for a personal God who is separate from human beings

How is Allah or a Christian God a "personal" God? He is the creator of everything and all worlds not just ours. How can he be a personal God? We are the creations and he is the Creator. We have to submit to his will. So how is he personal?

This 'God' is a male

How is Allah a male? Allah having a gender means he has a need to procreate. And the need to procreate only arises when something is not immortal. This is clearly rejected in Sura Iklas chapter 112 of the Quran as Allah has no need to have offspring. In most languages including Hindi when you describe something as dominating you describe it is a male. This is the only reason why Allah is mentioned as a masculine.

Now, this Brahman is not imaginable, it cannot be grasped by the mind, but since it is our essence, it can be felt, realized as real. To be able to realise it, the scriptures give some methods, like jnana or bhakti

How is this concept of Brahman any different from the concept of God in Islam?

o direct it towards a form and name, which acts like an access point, i.e. Shiva, Devi, Krishna, Ram, Ganesh, etc…

And what is the status of these access points? Are they human or superhuman and gods in their own right? If they are dieties then why does a God need to create more gods?

---------------------------------

So when a hindu says he is an atheist does he reject the concept of Brahman too?

 

[zebra7]

How is this concept of Brahman any different from the concept of God in Islam?

According to Hindu ideology the ultimate goal and Absolute of Hinduism is termed "Brahman" in Sanskrit. The word comes from the Sanskrit verb root brh, meaning "to grow". Etymologically, the term means "that which grows" (brhati) and "which causes to grow" (brhmayati).

Brahman is not "God"
Brahman, as understood by the scriptures of Hinduism, as well as by the'acharyas' of the Vedanta school, is a very specific conception of the Absolute. This unique conception has not been replicated by any other religion on earth, and is exclusive to Hinduism. Thus to even call this conception of Brahman "God" is, in a sense, somewhat imprecise. This is the case because Brahman does not refer to the anthropomorphic concept of God of the Abrahamic religions. When we speak of Brahman, we are referring neither to the "old man in the sky" concept, nor to the idea of the Absolute as even capable of being vengeful, fearful or engaging in choosing a favorite people from among His creatures.

For that matter, Brahman is not a "He" at all, but rather transcends all empirically discernable categories, limitations and dualities.

What is Brahman?
In the 'Taittariya Upanishad'II.1, Brahman is described in the following manner: "satyam jnanam anantam brahma", "Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity." Infinite positive qualities and states have their existence secured solely by virtue of Brahman's very reality. Brahman is a necessary reality, eternal (i.e., beyond the purview of temporality), fully independent, non-contingent, and the source and ground of all things. Brahman is both immanently present in the realm of materiality, interpenetrating the whole of reality as the sustaining essence that gives it structure, meaning and existential being, yet Brahman is simultaneously the transcendent origin of all things (thus, panentheistic).

The Nature of Brahman
As the primary causal substance of material reality (jagatkarana), Brahman does not arbitrarily will the coming into being of the non-Brahman metaphysical principles of matter and jivas (individuated consciousness), but rather they are manifest into being as a natural result of the overflowing of Brahman's grandeur, beauty, bliss and love. Brahman cannot but create abundant good in a similar manner to how Brahman cannot but exist. Both existence and overflowing abundance are as much necessary properties of Brahman as love and nurturing are necessary qualities of any virtuous and loving mother.

Brahman is the Source
One can say that Brahman Itself (Him/Herself) constitutes the essential building material of all reality, being the antecedent primeval ontological substance from whence all things proceed. There is no ex nihilo creation in Hinduism. Brahman does not create from nothing, but from the reality of Its own being. Thus Brahman is, in Aristotelian terms, both the Material Cause as well as the Efficient Cause of creation.

The Final Goal & the Final Cause
As the source of Dharma, the metaphysical ordering principles inherent in the design of the cosmos, Brahman can be viewed as the Formal Cause. And as the final goal of all reality, Brahman is also the Final Cause. Being the ontological source of all reality, Brahman is the only substantial real that truly exists, all other metaphysical categories being either a) contingent transformations of Brahman, having their very being subsisting in attributive dependence upon Brahman, or else b) illusory in nature. These views about the nature of Brahman are in general keeping with the theological teachings of both the Advaita and the Vishishta-Advaita schools of Hinduism.

Brahman is the Ultimate Reality
All reality has its source in Brahman. All reality has its grounding sustenance in Brahman. It is in Brahman that all reality has its ultimate repose. Hinduism, specifically, is consciously and exclusively aiming toward this reality termed Brahman.

So when a hindu says he is an atheist does he reject the concept of Brahman too?

Read my this post https://defence.pk/threads/philosophy-of-atheism.452012/#post-8741489

 

[untitled]

This is the case because Brahman does not refer to the anthropomorphic concept of God of the Abrahamic religions.

The concept of God in Islam is not anthropomorphic

nor to the idea of Absolute as even capable of being vengeful, fearful or engaging in choosing a favorite people from among His creatures

Then what is point of praying to Brahman? And is someone who prays to him with or without access points equal to someone who does not pray to him at all? Are these two people equal in their search for truth?

Plus when hindus do pooja how many of them are actually thinking about the Brahman rather than the diety in front of them?

 

[zebra7]

Then what is point of praying to Brahman? And is someone who prays to him with or without access points equal to someone who does not pray to him at all? Are these two people equal in their search for truth?

When Brahman is the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity, who is praising whom ??

To understand it you have to think spirutally, and if you believe in facts and science then let me tell you, why there is a god, a supreme power, it is because there are many questions which we don't have any answer -- Say e.g when did the time started and if it started from some point, what was before that ?? The answer is Infinity, a variable thus God who have done this, and that, and make the book, make laws etc etc. But Brahmin concept goes to the spirutual concept of understanding ourself, and look at the answer within because we believe that everything is the GOD, so how could a dna in your body could search for you.

Plus when hindus do pooja how many of them are actually thinking about the Brahman rather than the diety in front of them?

Sorry sir, but there is no translation for the Pooja also, and does not means the religious ritual, rather its the offering which the devotee aka the person who believe something to the Diety the one whom he believe. There is no rule of doing that, and anyone could do in any form he likes, any time, with anything, and not restricted to someone, or even forced to do that. The Freeness of our culture gives us this.

 

[untitled]

because we believe that everything is the GOD,

Then how do you differentiate between Creator and creation. By looking at a beautiful garden one can admire the handiwork of a seasoned gardener but that does not make the garden a gardener

Sorry sir, but there is no translation for the Pooja also,

Well your defination of pooja is not unique is it?

You must have heard the saying printed on the Pakistani rupee
"Earning an honest living is an act of worship"

Any good or kind act is an act worship in Islam and is not limited to five daily prayers, fasting or going for Hajj etc

But you did not answer my question. Are the devotees really thinking of Brahman when they are worshipping their diety of choice?

 

[Fenrir]

This might seem strange, but I consider Atheism to be a quasi-religious movement itself. When you have organized Atheists, communities and groups of people coalescing around a set of beliefs they then try to propagate and distribute, that borders uncomfortably against religious movements themselves.

I'm not religious, but I'm no Atheist either. To me Atheism is a rejection of religion, but I neither accept nor reject religion or the existence of a supreme being, I simply go about my business blissfully ignorant of either possibility.

Hedonism

Now there's a philosophy I can get behind... or on top of.

Yeah, I went there.

 

[Godman]

Atheism is pretty much you only believe in science

 

[sims1729]

One is based on based on evidence and os constantly evolving..is humble enuf to change when presented with contrary evidence
Other is ancient ..wants to hold on to its dogmatic beliefs..will never accept evidence..and will eventually decline

i ll leave it to u to decide which is which