I don't know much about hinduism, and this should be remedied. Also, as i understand, hinduism isn't a religion in the same sense as abrahamic religions. For example i hear there are many path possible in hinduism, most of them actually being atheistic...

I would disagree. The disclaimer should be that hinduism has a multitude of sects. And sometimes even these sects can branch out because of minor philosophical and religious disagreements. People sometimes complain there are so many types of Christians (Methodists, 7th Day Adventists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc)...the sects of Hinduism in just 1 region of India easily trumps this.

Some sects of Hinduism emphasize it more as a philosophical "way of life" over a more institutional based religious experience. But hinduism is a religion in the traditional sense as well - we have customs, devotional hymns, a long litany of scriptures, temples of worship, tenets and strict codes of behavior and values, priests, etc. I wouldn't describe Hinduism as being atheistic. Neither would I describe hinduism as polytheistic. My sect of Hinduism actually teaches that all manifestations of God (Shiv, Krishna, Ganesh, Vishnu - these are the most common names you've heard of Hindu deities) are just avatars or forms that God (singular as in one) takes.

My sect of Hinduism (http://www.baps.org/) is most similar to the Roman Catholic Church. I realize this analogy is flawed and isn't the best, but its probably the closest thing people are familiar with.

Trust me. Even I used to be an atheist.

What caused you to change your mind? What convinced you?

^Just...personal issues. I'm sorry, its not really something I would reveal publicly.


Everyone finds faith in different ways...in my life some of the most passionate and sincere believers I've met are those who find it spontaneously and unexpectedly (as in something pushes them toward God). All the people I've known who've grown up in religion from their birth (mostly Christians in my town) are just believers in name only. They don't really read the Bible or follow all the tenents of their church. And that's not just for Christians...that's for Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. Although this may just be a result of the region of the US I live in...where religion isn't really a major feature in people's life.

I believe there is a creator of everything that is something we as humans can't and will never comprehend.

I believe there is a creator of everything that is something we as humans can't and will never comprehend.

If you can't comprehend it, why do you believe it? And, if you can't comprehend it, how can you know anything at all about it?

Edited 12/14/2015 05:30:40

I personally am an Atheist due to the fact that a good majority of religions seem to be attempting to knock science, which I view as more valuable to human knowledge than belief in an existence of a superior being.

That being said, I have no problem with religious persons who aren't trying to debunk science left and right.

Just to be clear before we delve into any discussion on Hinduism- as someone who used to be Hindu:

- Hinduism is an umbrella term for multiple worldviews that don't share the same metaphysical framework (although many of them borrow concepts from one another- turns out horizontal transfer occurs in religions, too). There are variants/sects that are atheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic. I've personally mainly been involved with the vaguely polytheistic variants that are super-common in India as well as a strongly monotheistic one that's more or less a cult centered around a single man; there are multiple schools of thought, with some being far more predominant than others

- The main similarity between members of the set of worldviews described as "Hinduism" is regional- i.e., they're more or less grouped (largely by outsiders and later in the process of nationalistic unification) based on the proximity of the cultures they influence (as well as the tendency of their texts to be written in some Indo-Aryan language, commonly Sanskrit)

- I've also been involved with BAPS and would agree with Jai's characterization of them as a monotheistic organization with some appeals to polytheism. Hinduism is very, very, very syncretic and absorbs trends (like virtually every major religion)- for example, Puranic Hinduism (which largely occurred as a response to the dominance of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent) initiated a trend toward incorporating Buddhist ideology and treating the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu, which you can see in multiple modern manifestations

- Before some mystic declares themselves intellectually superior and claims that you aren't able to understand the "metaphysics" of Hinduism, keep in mind that it's not very complicated (although I'd argue it's still interesting because it doesn't quite follow the same patterns as Western religions) and definitely should not be elevated to the level of high philosophy, just as ancient Indian medicine should not be considered a form of science. I understand that there's a tendency to be edgy/trendy and claim intellectualism for other/marginalized cultures, but remember that in the process of doing so you are likely engaging in patronization and (more importantly) nationalistic revisionism of cultural backgrounds. Hinduism, especially since 1947 (when India has struggled to separate itself from Pakistan in a way very similar to how the former Yugoslav republics have shifted their identities to distinguish themselves, inventing new languages in the process) has been redefining itself and rewriting its own history as part of a set of campaigns in the realm of identity politics.

TL;DR: Jai is a nationalist tool. Be a little bit careful before you sip his Kool-aid. I can't do much but I can at the very least contest him when he claims to speak from authority about Hinduism, so feel free to hit me up there. (Yes, I am nonreligious now- no I'm not here to circlejerk about it either.) Moreover, if you're looking for the logical conclusion of Jai's ideology, simply join any predominantly-Indian Facebook group (especially one with religious nationalist undercurrents) and rejoice that you don't encounter the same third-world ideology every day. (That said, some of us still see India as a secular republic, but of course I've run away from the land of designated shitting streets).

Edited 12/14/2015 06:21:08

If you can't comprehend it, why do you believe it? And, if you can't comprehend it, how can you know anything at all about it?

I comprehend the idea that there is something that is un-comprehendible. We can't know anything about it yes but we can and will try. But I accept it the way it is.

I accept that nobody can understand. You can say the big bang created the universe. But why? How did it happen and why? That's my initial thought process.

Nobody can find true evidence to the answer of "Why?"

It's deep man. But in the end, I'm not wrong. There could be a god or a creator, but its something that no human can imagine.

You can say the big bang created the universe. But why? How did it happen and why? That's my initial thought process.

:D The cosmological argument- if you're ever bored on a weekend, there's a good bit of literature on it out there. Even just the Wikipedia page (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cosmological_argument) is a good place to start.

If you can't comprehend it, why do you believe it? And, if you can't comprehend it, how can you know anything at all about it?

I comprehend the idea that there is something that is un-comprehendible. We can't know anything about it yes but we can and will try. But I accept it the way it is.

That doesn't really answer my question. My question is *why* do you believe it? And my second question is how can you know *anything at all* about it? But I'll settle for an answer to the first question first, if you want to take things one at a time.

I accept that nobody can understand. You can say the big bang created the universe. But why? How did it happen and why? That's my initial thought process.

This doesn't answer my question either. I'm asking you about what *you* believe. If you want to ask about what I believe, we can have that conversation, but it won't answer my question to you.

It's deep man. But in the end, I'm not wrong.

How do you know you're not wrong?

There could be a god or a creator, but its something that no human can imagine.

"could be" suggests the possibility of "could be not", which suggests that you're saying you could actually be wrong then. But you say you're *not* wrong, as if that's *not* a possibility. Which is it?

Fascinating stuff, knyte. I'm a big fan of Indian/Hindu mythology, ever since I watched an 8 hour dramatic version of the Mahabharata on PBS TV when I was a teen. Actually, I'm pretty much a fan of most mythology, but I do have a soft spot for Hindu stuff.

Ramayana is also pretty cool as a piece of literature, although they never told me the ending when I was a kid (kind of ruins it all imho). But obviously worthwhile as a cultural/historical piece, as long as we don't end up in the weird "Indian kulcha best kulcha" arguments where we try to overcompensate for our third-world status by invoking notions of cultural superiority through a very hilarious take on the noble savage meme.

Edited 12/14/2015 11:31:09

A new article about reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. I thought this was relevent to the conversation...
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf

They used Deepak Chopra random quote generator and studied who was more likely to find the quote as profound or rightly detect it as bullshit. (http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/)

I haven't read the article yet, but it looks like it is going to be entertaining

Hinduism is an umbrella term for multiple worldviews that don't share the same metaphysical framework (although many of them borrow concepts from one another- turns out horizontal transfer occurs in religions, too). There are variants/sects that are atheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic. I've personally mainly been involved with the vaguely polytheistic variants that are super-common in India as well as a strongly monotheistic one that's more or less a cult centered around a single man; there are multiple schools of thought, with some being far more predominant than others

The main similarity between members of the set of worldviews described as "Hinduism" is regional- i.e., they're more or less grouped (largely by outsiders and later in the process of nationalistic unification) based on the proximity of the cultures they influence (as well as the tendency of their texts to be written in some Indo-Aryan language, commonly Sanskrit)

Can't argue with you here. Hinduism is a broad-based term for everyone past the Hindu-Kush mountains and was denoted first by the Northern Asian invaders to the peninsula. Its stuck more or less. A better term would be sanatham dharma.

Before some mystic declares themselves intellectually superior and claims that you aren't able to understand the "metaphysics" of Hinduism, keep in mind that it's not very complicated (although I'd argue it's still interesting because it doesn't quite follow the same patterns as Western religions) and definitely should not be elevated to the level of high philosophy, just as ancient Indian medicine should not be considered a form of science. I understand that there's a tendency to be edgy/trendy and claim intellectualism for other/marginalized cultures, but remember that in the process of doing so you are likely engaging in patronization and (more importantly) nationalistic revisionism of cultural backgrounds. Hinduism, especially since 1947 (when India has struggled to separate itself from Pakistan in a way very similar to how the former Yugoslav republics have shifted their identities to distinguish themselves, inventing new languages in the process) has been redefining itself and rewriting its own history as part of a set of campaigns in the realm of identity politics.

I would disagree with the characterization that the metaphysics of Hinduism is not complicated. This is undercutting the socio-cultural and historical value of a religion older than Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I was mistaken previously in saying it would be intellectually difficult for someone to understand it. But I stand by my statement that it is culturally difficult for Western people to understand it without a strong foundation or knowledge that is grossly under taught in the current education system (personal opinion because I wouldn't have people regularly mistake me as a muslim then). That being said religion is itself incorporates philosophy and so I don't understand what your criteria for "high philosophy" is. Could you elaborate here? And no I'm not trying to make Hinduism edgy/trendy in order to claim intellectualism for a marginalized culture...I'm not a SJW or some radical minority rights activist. Nice attempt in turning the argument into a blatant character assassination of me though. Hinduism is very stagnant and I see no evidence of the religion as a splintered group trying to redefine itself or rewrite its own history. I don't know what evidence you have of this but if the point was pretentiousness you succeeded.

Jai is a nationalist tool. Be a little bit careful before you sip his Kool-aid. I can't do much but I can at the very least contest him when he claims to speak from authority about Hinduism, so feel free to hit me up there. (Yes, I am nonreligious now- no I'm not here to circlejerk about it either.) Moreover, if you're looking for the logical conclusion of Jai's ideology, simply join any predominantly-Indian Facebook group (especially one with religious nationalist undercurrents) and rejoice that you don't encounter the same third-world ideology every day. (That said, some of us still see India as a secular republic, but of course I've run away from the land of designated shitting streets).

I'm not claiming supreme authority on the subject of Hinduism (please show me where I say this). All I simply said was that cultural differences make it extremely arduous and complex to write about Hinduism for the Western mind. That being said I am not rejecting a person if he wants to learn more. Please I would love to talk to specific people if they have questions or want to learn more about certain misconstructions or misinformation about the religion as a whole. In fact this was my job as President of my high school's Hindu-American Cultural Association. Knyte seems more intent on dragging Hinduism, India, and me in the mud then engaging in an actual point. He uses the term nationalist as if its a crime to love one's ancestral nation. And he speaks as if I have uttered some great lie that threatens to destroy the entire perception of Hinduism by other cultures. This is called escalation and liberals are amazing at it. Also I've never discussed my "ideology" here so I have no idea how he can make an analysis of it. This is like me assuming Knyte is the supporter of the Maoists in Eastern Indian and has a secret desire to turn India into a quasi-marxist nation run by militants.

Edited 12/14/2015 17:25:43

Pretty darn good response to knyte, Jai. Much more reasoned than your first comments appeared to be. Looks like there's potentially lots of interesting sub-topics to explore if you guys were so inclined, though personally I don't have enough background of Hinduism to participate much (if at all) in those details.

That's why I often try to dig deeper than the surface details and question *why* people believe what they do, because everybody has beliefs, so it's something we can all relate to, regardless of what those specific beliefs happen to be.

This is undercutting the socio-cultural and historical value of a religion older than Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Personally, I'm not convinced that theistic religion per se has any particular special value above and beyond plain 'culture' such as mythology, shared communal rituals and events, etc. I just don't see how tossing in a belief in an actual god or gods actually adds anything beneficial on top of all that. And, I would say that, all other things being equal, if you believe in something that's not actually *true*, you tend to be worse off than if you didn't.

In other words, if you don't have any good reasons to believe something (whether a god, or any other belief at all), then you're better off not believing it by default. After all, there are limitless possible things you could believe in, and you can't believe them all (especially since so many of them are mutually contradictory), so it is best to simply withhold belief from any particular idea until compelling reasons amass to indicate that the idea holds some actual positive merit on its own.

Hinduism is very stagnant and I see no evidence of the religion as a splintered group trying to redefine itself or rewrite its own history.

The claim that Hinduism is stagnant seems surprising to me. Again, I don't know either way, but most religions tend to have many numerous sects and offshoots, so Hinduism would be an exception in that case. Are you sure it's so stagnant? Where did you learn this from?

A new article about reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit.

I lol'd when I opened it and the actual title really is, "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit"! Pretty daring title, I love it!

The claim that Hinduism is stagnant seems surprising to me. Again, I don't know either way, but most religions tend to have many numerous sects and offshoots, so Hinduism would be an exception in that case. Are you sure it's so stagnant? Where did you learn this from?

Hmm okay I should clarify this. What I meant to say is that I see no evidence of the trend that Knyte is arguing for (e.g. Hinduism is trying to redefine itself or rewrite its own history). I'm not sure what Knyte meant when he said this so I was really asking for more clarification or specific examples. Is Hinduism evolving in the sense that there are new offshoots and branches being formed - yes. Is there evolution in how the spiritual heads interpret religious scriptures, how Hindu sects are organized structurally, how women and marginalized groups (LGBT and those who preform abortions) are treated, etc - no. Again I can speak from experience within my own sect of Hinduism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha) which is very rigid in its practices - all lectures are given in Gujarati (no english lectures), women and men are separated within the temple, there is strict rules on behavior, etc. That being said the current climate in India is such that Hinduism is becoming more insular, trying to defend itself against the external forces dictating changes to the religion (e.g. Western values, business interests, human rights activists). This is why Hinduism is very stagnant. Although I would certainly change that opinion if Knyte presented evidence to the contrary...I just haven't found any myself.

Cool, thanks for the info. I find it interesting. I have a soft spot for India in general. In the coming decades, some people say the two big powers will probably be China and India. Personally, of the two, though I also have a soft spot for China/Chinese culture, I'm rooting for India to make some sort of transformative come-back (like an enlightenment or renaissance of sorts). I don't know why, I just would really like to see it. I'd also like to visit some day, though I don't know if I'll ever get the chance. (Not to live, probably, but visiting would be fascinating.)

Zuist religion, best religion!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2015/dec/09/zuism-the-growing-religion-of-iceland-that-offers-rebates-in-this-life


Already 1% of Icelanders converted to this religion in the past fornight!

Praise God Enlil!

Edited 12/14/2015 20:35:42