The Hinduism Thread

[julianw]

Christian religion is too well known and easy target. I mean, just swing your blow loosely to its direction, you're going to hit anyway.

I agree. Nobody likes Goliath but this thread is about Hinduism so let's discuss Christianity somewhere else.

[Dark Moth]

I heartily concur. We all know how those discussions turn out, anyway.

[Jorian Drake]

This is Reformed Hinduism, not Atheism.

 

 

But God will forgive you my child...eventually.

 

 

Because an atheist doesn't believe in karma, reincarnation, soul, vedas and liberation, obviously.

Both of you are confusing materialism with atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God - atheism has nothing to do with karma and reincarnation. Buddhism, Jainism, Vedantic Hinduism and Sankhyatic Hinduism are all atheist religions which accept karma, reincarnation and some variation of liberation.

 

You didn't even understand what I meant.

 

^Which one?

Fire purifies the souls of both unbelievers and pagans.

 

 

 

:D

 

(jk)

Edited January 31, 2007 by Jorian Drake

[Sand]

I like Hinduism. I don't get Christianity.

I'm curious, what exactly don't you get? I promise I won't go "Crusader" on you.

 

By the way, it's "son of God", not "sun of God".

 

One thing I do not get with Christianity, and one of the reasons I am against it, is that how can a "loving" God be willing to eternally torture a person, a soul, in Hell if they decide not to tow the line and fall in behind Jesus. Any god that uses torture as a means of motivation to worship him is not a "good" or "loving" god. That is just my lil' opinion on the bugger.

[Jorian Drake]

I like Hinduism. I don't get Christianity.

I'm curious, what exactly don't you get? I promise I won't go "Crusader" on you.

 

By the way, it's "son of God", not "sun of God".

 

One thing I do not get with Christianity, and one of the reasons I am against it, is that how can a "loving" God be willing to eternally torture a person, a soul, in Hell if they decide not to tow the line and fall in behind Jesus. Any god that uses torture as a means of motivation to worship him is not a "good" or "loving" god. That is just my lil' opinion on the bugger.

The very first human pair sinned, then Jesus cleared this, after that God said humans have now their own fate they can mess up as they wish.

And humans are God's followers (not animals or aliens...but who knows)

 

Ergo: Anything you dislike in christianity is about the people and not God himself.

 

But this is true for anything on the material plane.

[Sand]

I dislike God himself because he is a jerk. He makes three religions, with similar teachings but with enough differences that they will in the end try to kill each other. God has failed to take responsibility of the mess he made. With all the different factions, splits, and misinterpretations if God was a responsible deity he would come down and set his followers straight.

 

Instead he has pretty much abandoned the Earth and willing to let the human race kill itself over stupid reasons. Again, just my lil' opinion of the bugger.

[Dark Moth]

I like Hinduism. I don't get Christianity.

I'm curious, what exactly don't you get? I promise I won't go "Crusader" on you.

 

By the way, it's "son of God", not "sun of God".

 

One thing I do not get with Christianity, and one of the reasons I am against it, is that how can a "loving" God be willing to eternally torture a person, a soul, in Hell if they decide not to tow the line and fall in behind Jesus. Any god that uses torture as a means of motivation to worship him is not a "good" or "loving" god. That is just my lil' opinion on the bugger.

This thread is about Hinduism, not Christianity. For once, kindly show some courtesy and don't troll about something you've already done ad nauseum. One more post that's off-topic, and it will be reported. Just so you know.

[Jorian Drake]

I dislike God himself because he is a jerk. He makes three religions, with similar teachings but with enough differences that they will in the end try to kill each other. God has failed to take responsibility of the mess he made. With all the different factions, splits, and misinterpretations if God was a responsible deity he would come down and set his followers straight.

 

Instead he has pretty much abandoned the Earth and willing to let the human race kill itself over stupid reasons. Again, just my lil' opinion of the bugger.

god made men, men made religions

 

You would I guess push the 'reset button' if the race you create is such noob to kill themselves and destroy the place they live in.

He said it is up to us what we do.

[Dark Moth]

It is about religion, and Murphy says in the 21-22nd centuries discussions about religions get spammed. "

It's the HINDUISM thread, so let's keep it about Hinduism for once. We get our fill of Christianity-discussing enough already. "

Edited January 31, 2007 by Dark Moth

[roshan]

There isnt any particular Hindu value I consider worthwhile.

 

So do you really like Indian food, and if so how old were you when you started eating it? How often would you say you eat it now?

 

Still wondering

 

What the does Indian food have to do with Hinduism?

[roshan]

But it's not a fact. It's an opinion that you're making based on very poor (or no) reasoning. You can't be serious. First of all, you're making it seem like native populations aren't having babies at all. Secondly, you claim that immigrants are 'more fertile' than the natives. What, are you trying to say they can have babies more easily? No, I see you're point. You're just running on the assumption that eastern people naturally have more babies than western people. As I already pointed out, this has nothing to do with eastern or western. Also, you fail to realize that western culture is influencing every part of the globe, it's not something that's going to just die out. It's common knowledge that poorer countries tend to have much more children than developed countries. Look at the Hispanic population. Granted, we're seeing an incorporation of eastern culture into the west, but it's not something that's going to overrun western culture entirely. And as for materialism driving western culture down the drain, well that's just BS. We're not just going to simply collapse, as you seem to think. As for labor, many of those people work for much less than the natives would because of their poor conditions, not just because they're a "more stable" pool of labor. No offense, but you really don't know what you're talking about, and you may want to hold your tongue before running your mouth off about these things.

 

Native populations in western countries are having babies, but well below replacement. AFAIK in some European countries like Italy and Germany the rate is now about 1.3 - and that is counting immigrant communities. By fertile I am refering to average female fertility which is the number of babies had by each woman on the average.

 

I dont think the incorporation of culture is what will overrun the west - I think it is a physical replacement of population with foreigners that do not want to assimilate that is the problem. BTW DarkMoth, are you an American or a European? America is by far the strongest western country and personally I dont think it will be overrun anytime soon. America tends to be very good at assimilating immigrants unlike western European countries which have largely failed to do so. America is also much more spiritual than Europe.

 

What I meant by stable pool of labour is that if population collapses due to low birth rates as in Europe, cost of labour is going to increase a lot. If cost of labour increases, then businesses will flee to other countries, or they will die out either because they cant find laborers or cannot afford them. The only recourse to keep the economy going is to import immigrants with their high birth rates, and who also tend to have children at much lower ages. Not only that these immigrants will then marry wives from back home or bring their parents over while natives are declining, not only having children at rates well below replacement but also at much later ages. The result is immigrant populations growing at a rapid pace, fast enough that they will soon outnumber the natives.

[Laozi]

There isnt any particular Hindu value I consider worthwhile.

 

So do you really like Indian food, and if so how old were you when you started eating it? How often would you say you eat it now?

 

Still wondering

 

What the does Indian food have to do with Hinduism?

 

 

I'm curious, could you please answer the question?

[roshan]

There isnt any particular Hindu value I consider worthwhile.

 

So do you really like Indian food, and if so how old were you when you started eating it? How often would you say you eat it now?

 

Still wondering

 

What the does Indian food have to do with Hinduism?

 

I'm curious, could you please answer the question?

 

Its my policy to not answer questions just because someone has asked them.

[metadigital]

Because an atheist doesn't believe in karma, reincarnation, soul, vedas and liberation, obviously.

Both of you are confusing materialism with atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God - atheism has nothing to do with karma and reincarnation. Buddhism, Jainism, Vedantic Hinduism and Sankhyatic Hinduism are all atheist religions which accept karma, reincarnation and some variation of liberation.

No, you are confusing non-theism with atheism.

 

As an atheist, I don't believe in anything I can't prove. (Please explain the fate of Pol Pot and the entire Khmer Rouge with respect to this karma fairytale.) Your touchy-feely desire for superstitious nonsense is polluting the concept of atheism. You should just stick to calling it non-theism, just like Buddhism. After all, why have a specific term for religions-without-a-god if you don't use it?

Yes, it is better you don't try to manage politics and anthropology in this topic, as you obviously have very little idea about either.

What happened to keeping threads on topic? Arent threads normally locked for drifting off topic? If you want to continue the discussion here then you are very welcome to refute my point about western civilization being on the decline.

You used your poor grasp of anthropology and politics as a lame excuse to validate your faith, so I debunked it. (NB I suggest you don't tell me about how to moderate a topic, or I will close it.)

I don't care if you agree or not with the established facts about health and education and empowering women. You seem to be confused about what is offensive about your remarks; it's not the decline of developed nations, it's the "swarming" metaphor.

India has a middle class of 200 million people who are healthy and educated, but they arent forgoing children. The idea that westerners dont have children because they are healthy and educated is a fallacy created by materialists and leftists to make it seem like not having children is normal and natural, when it is an abnormal phenomenon caused by hedonistic materialism. Nowadays the same leftists are promoting abortion and other such "adharmic" activities in India as well.

 

I dont think there could be anything possibly offensive about the truth.

It's offensive that you trot out your bigoted/racist diatribe, whether you call it religious or not.

 

Let me break it down for you, as you seem to be either too brainwashed or too ignorant to understand.

 

Who exactly are these "immigrants from other civilizations"?

 

What makes you think that immigration is not a normal part of the lifecycle of any civilization? You sound like Cicero angrily complaining that Caesar was allowing the "barbarian" Gauls into the Roman Senate. The difference is that over 2000 years later that sort of attitude is regarded, rightly, as bigoted. I suppose you would keep all immigrants from "inter-breeding", too. Here's an experiment for you: walk down Oxford Street in London and take the "average" person. Guess what? That person will almost certainly NOT be white.

 

What's your next conclusion is that the "materialism" is contagious and all those immigrants have caught this "low fertility" consumerism? The argument is not only bigoted but completely fallacious. (Just look at the infant mortality and fertility statistics I have quoted below.)

 

So, let's look at the political ramifications of Hinduism ("80.5% of Indians report themselves as Hindus"), i.e. Indian civilization, shall we?

 

First and foremost I find the Indian (sorry, Hindu) caste system an anathema to human civilization. Even Gandhi (who was committed to the cause of improving the fate of untouchables, referring to them as Harijans, people of Krishna), couldn't solve that one. Nice little side-effect of Hinduism, leaving people to their fate as — obviously — they have a karmic debt to repay. Great religious value, that, the absence of charity for the poor.

 

Secondly, you should try to understand the significance of the emancipation of women, as you obviously have a very poor grasp of the effects on the economy and society. (See the female literacy rates, below.)

 

200 million middle class in India. Out of 1.1 billion. What about the "Backward Castes"?

Backward Castes people are generally a group of people in India who generally live off income derived from self employment on caste-dependent skills assignment.They typically constitute the Dalits, the Scheduled Castes and the Other Backward Classes (OBC's). They live mainly in rural India and perform hard physical labour such as agriculture and janitorial work. Backward Castes constitute around 50% of Indian population. Even though they have a rich culture, many live below the poverty line. Their plight is regarded as a serious issue in Indian society.

 

And how about the endemic child exploitation (as high as 5% of the TOTAL POPULATION of some areas)?

 

You might want to ask why so many people are emigrating from India to the developed countries, rather to stay and try to make a living at home, considering the incredible 8% economic growth, too. Perhaps Hinduism is not quite the saviour of the human race, as you seem to paint it.

 

Here's some facts for you to contemplate as you spout your ignorant politics:

India

• Infant mortality rate:
  54.63 deaths/1,000 live births
  
• Net migration rate:
  -0.07 migrant(s)/1,000 population
  
• Total fertility rate:
  2.73 children born/woman
  
• Literacy (definition: age 15 and over can read and write):
  total population: 59.5%
  male: 70.2%,
  female: 48.3% (2003 est.)
  
• Trafficking in persons:
  current situation: India is a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced or bonded labor and commercial sexual exploitation; the large population of men, women, and children - numbering in the millions - in debt bondage face involuntary servitude in brick kilns, rice mills, and embroidery factories, while some children endure involuntary servitude as domestic servants; internal trafficking of women and girls for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced marriage also occurs; the government estimates that 90 percent of India's sex trafficking is internal; India is also a destination for women and girls from Nepal and Bangladesh trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation; boys from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are trafficked through India to the Gulf states for involuntary servitude as child camel jockeys; Indian men and women migrate willingly to the Persian Gulf region for work as domestic servants and low-skilled laborers, but some later find themselves in situations of involuntary servitude including extended working hours, nonpayment of wages, restrictions on their movement by withholding of their passports or confinement to the home, and physical or sexual abuse
  tier rating: Tier 2 Watch List - India has been on the Tier 2 Watch List since 2004 for its failure to show evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking in persons
  

USA

• Infant mortality rate:
  6.43 deaths/1,000 live births
  
• Net migration rate:
  3.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
  
• Total fertility rate:
  2.09 children born/woman (2006 est.)
  
• Literacy (definition: age 15 and over can read and write):
  total population: 99%
  male: 99%
  female: 99% (2003 est.)
  

[metadigital]

As for your statements about fertility and population, fertility is naturally less for older people (leaving aside poor diet, which is a huge reversible factor); secondly, one of the main reasons that women have fewer children, later, in developed countries is because they have better health and education. Therefore people do not need to have as many children to help counter the higher infant mortality, and the workforce has many more (empowered) women who have a vocation outside that of being a mother. (You might want to factor in the endemic child labour in India.) It does not edify you in any way to make such appallingly offensive statements about "overrunning" civilizations.

Trust me, I dont want to see any civilizations "overrun". I believe in peace, coexistence, global diversity and the rest of that stuff. But the truth must be told and it sure looks to me like western countries are being overrun by immigrants.

 

I dont agree that the reason women in western countries are having less children is because of health and education. Its because of hedonistic materialism which is caused by a spiritual vacuum. People in these countries no longer search for lasting happiness, they just want quick thrills, material posessions and sensual pleasure. Also, if other western countries are like the UK, it is probably almost financially impossible for a huge portion of the population to afford children. The costs of food, transportation, rent, tax etc take up a huge portion of a low salary. If you want children, you might have to llive a life of no savings (and thus no long term progress in life), vacations etc.

Your supposititious suppositions are completely erroneous and incredible offensive.

 

The UK has the most and youngest parents in Europe. The UK government subsidizes the upbringing of children, with free education and child support benefits. In fact, it is quite possible to be a "professional mother" as benefits are larger for more children.

Thus, womens fertility in western European countries is well below the replacement rate, even after factoring the much higher birth rates of immigrants. I wish these materialist countries the best of luck with their futures!

Check your facts instead of spreading hate.

[roshan]

No, you are confusing non-theism with atheism.

 

As an atheist, I don't believe in anything I can't prove. (Please explain the fate of Pol Pot and the entire Khmer Rouge with respect to this karma fairytale.) Your touchy-feely desire for superstitious nonsense is polluting the concept of atheism. You should just stick to calling it non-theism, just like Buddhism. After all, why have a specific term for religions-without-a-god if you don't use it?

Here is the definition of Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

Microsoft

[alanschu]

So, what's the point of being a Hindu atheist, then? Why not just use Occam's Razor and be an atheist?

 

I reject materialistic philosophies because they cannot provide cvilizations with the strength needed to survive and expand. A great example is the west - birth rates are plummeting, fertility is declining, women are having children at continously later years. Chances are, within a few generations, what we know of as western civilization will cease to exist as immigrants from other civilizations overrun Europe and America.

 

Religions like Hinduism unite people under common values, unite and build families, and through various customs/rituals/celebrations creates a cohesive and organic society.

 

 

Whoa....since when is athiesm equated with materialism?

[roshan]

So, what's the point of being a Hindu atheist, then? Why not just use Occam's Razor and be an atheist?

 

I reject materialistic philosophies because they cannot provide cvilizations with the strength needed to survive and expand. A great example is the west - birth rates are plummeting, fertility is declining, women are having children at continously later years. Chances are, within a few generations, what we know of as western civilization will cease to exist as immigrants from other civilizations overrun Europe and America.

 

Religions like Hinduism unite people under common values, unite and build families, and through various customs/rituals/celebrations creates a cohesive and organic society.

 

Whoa....since when is athiesm equated with materialism?

 

Atheism and materialism are clearly distinct. Thats exactly the point I am trying to make here. I am an atheist but not a materialist since I accept Hindu metaphysics. Here is the definition of materialism in philosophical usage:

 

MATERIALISM

1. philosophy: theory of the physical: the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions

Microsoft

[metadigital]

No, you are confusing non-theism with atheism.

As an atheist, I don't believe in anything I can't prove. (Please explain the fate of Pol Pot and the entire Khmer Rouge with respect to this karma fairytale.) Your touchy-feely desire for superstitious nonsense is polluting the concept of atheism. You should just stick to calling it non-theism, just like Buddhism. After all, why have a specific term for religions-without-a-god if you don't use it?

Here is the definition of Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

Microsoft

[metadigital]

So, what's the point of being a Hindu atheist, then? Why not just use Occam's Razor and be an atheist?

 

I reject materialistic philosophies because they cannot provide cvilizations with the strength needed to survive and expand. A great example is the west - birth rates are plummeting, fertility is declining, women are having children at continously later years. Chances are, within a few generations, what we know of as western civilization will cease to exist as immigrants from other civilizations overrun Europe and America.

 

Religions like Hinduism unite people under common values, unite and build families, and through various customs/rituals/celebrations creates a cohesive and organic society.

 

Whoa....since when is athiesm equated with materialism?

 

Atheism and materialism are clearly distinct. Thats exactly the point I am trying to make here. I am an atheist but not a materialist since I accept Hindu metaphysics. Here is the definition of materialism in philosophical usage:

 

MATERIALISM

1. philosophy: theory of the physical: the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions

Microsoft

[roshan]

It is sloppy linguistics to use "atheism" where non-theism is more appropriate. Yes, technically, using a VERY LOOSE umbrella definition, you can incorporate all sorts of superstitious nonsense, as long as it doesn't incorporate a god. But that is poor philology. But still, the Hindu worldview incorporates a Godhead, meaning that everything is god. Doesn't sound very atheistic to me.

 

As for my reference to Pol Pot, I was trying to demonstrate to you why karma is a fallacious notion, unless you incorporate reincarnation. (Which is also something that an atheist doesn't believe in, because it can't be proved.) I'm assuming you haven't bothered to follow the hyperlinks, much less read anything that might damage your confirmation bias.

 

Ask yourself why you are so keen to be called an atheist.

 

Because what you are professing is not atheism, but non-theistic religion. You don't get brownie points for being an almost-atheist.

Buddhism is non theist because as the article you linked to states, it considered the existence of god to be indeterminable. Based on that, pure Vedantic Hinduism would be non theist - but Sankhyatic Hinduism would be atheistic as it actively denies that a god exists. I am not a non theist. I am an atheist.

 

Again, you are confusing atheism which denies god with materialism which denies anything metaphysical. You are also confusing non theism which merely does not accept god with atheism that actively denies it.

 

As for my reference to Pol Pot, I was trying to demonstrate to you why karma is a fallacious notion, unless you incorporate reincarnation. (Which is also something that an atheist doesn't believe in, because it can't be proved.) I'm assuming you haven't bothered to follow the hyperlinks, much less read anything that might damage your confirmation bias.

 

Which is an irrelevant argument as all branches of Hinduism do accept reincarnation.

 

I'm about to close this thread because of your blatant racist posturing. Why does "the West" have to be white? That is RACIST.

Personally I think that anyone who assimilates into western society can be considered western. For example, African Americans are clearly westerners, and not a part of african civilization at all. But America is different from Europe in the sense that America has assimilated its minority groups while Europe has not. I live in the UK currently, and I have interracted a lot with second and third generation immigrants from different civilizations who do not consider themselves to be British at all. Thats not to say that all immigrants have not assimilated and become parts of western civilization.

 

Tu quoque? Are you [expletive deleted] serious? When was the last time you saw a brick kiln being loaded by two-year old infants in the UK? The last time Britain had child exploitation was back with Charles Dickens, more than a century-and-a-half ago. Let alone cities with populations in the multi-millions where close to 5% of those people are children in slavery.

 

Century and a half ago poor Indians were being carted off by the British as slaves ("indentured laborers") to countries like South Africa, Malaysia and Guyana. The reason child labour exists in India is due to British exploitation of the country. Ever heard of the Great Famines of Bengal, where huge swathes of population of Eastern India starved to death due to Britishers stealing food? What about money looted from Bengal used to kick start the industrial revolution in the UK? What about the British cutting off the thumbs of all weavers in Bengal in order to put an end to indigenous industry and force Indians to buy expensive British goods?

 

The materialists of the west created the appalling poverty and illiteracy we see in India today and now want to blame this on Hinduism! What a joke!!!

 

I don't doubt that the caste system was a product of poor education. I hope it speedily disappears into the past. (Against fundamentalist Hindu wishes, no doubt.) Facts seem to disagree with your wild claims about its demise, though (50% of the 1.1 billion population!).

 

And I like the way you neatly sidestep the disgraceful way that women are treated in traditional Hindu culture. Less than 50% literacy! Keep them uneducated so that they are easy to control and contribute to the wealth of their male owners, whom they have been betrothed to when they were born.

50% refers to the number of people recognized as backward castes, not to the number as victims of caste discrimination.

 

In India education is a matter of economics. Families do not have much money and therefore need to first educate those children of theirs who are most likely to earn them money. Women will get married and leave, it is sons who will have to work to support them in their old age. Women cant be educated because of poverty. Who created poverty in India? Thats right - Westerners!

 

Study a bit of ancient Hindu civilization. Women in ancient India used to be well educated like their male counterparts.

 

What's really disturbing is that you consider this insignificant interpretation of the fertility statistics as some sort of "proof" of your crackpot political theories. Stick to your religion.

 

Once more (last time): immigration has been a part of every empire in history. Your racist attitude (can't have any of those "dirty immigrants" breeding with the "civilized nations") belies your caste-mentality. People are people. Move on now or this is an ex-topic.

 

I have nothing against immigrants that assimilate into local cultures. There is no such thing as interbreeding - all of humanity is one race. How can I be racist when I am a brown skinned person myself? I support worldwide cultural diversity. I do not want to see western nations like the UK collapse due to immigration - despite two centuries of brutal atrocities and exploitation inflicted on the people of India by them. I am a humanist.

 

Are ad hominem attacks like racist, bigot etc all youve got?

 

Nice, what you are doing is confusing the two definitions in order to further your argument.

I have always been speaking in philosophical terms. Atheist Hindu philosophy versus materialist philosophy.

 

There is only one definition of atheism and that is denial of the existence of god. Anything else (denial of reincarnation etc) has nothing to do with atheism and is a figment of your imagination. You are confusing materialism(as a philosophical system) which involves rejecting god and all other metaphysics such as reincatnation with atheism which only involves denying god.

Edited February 1, 2007 by roshan

[Xard]

Doesn't vegetarianism have place in Hinduism (in general)?

[roshan]

Doesn't vegetarianism have place in Hinduism (in general)?

 

Yes, it is promoted. In Hinduism, eating meat is considered to be a vice, together with sex, gambling and intoxication. Nonvegetarianism also contradicts the teaching of Ahimsa, or non violence. Thus Hindu priests, mystics, sages etc must adopt vegetarianism as part of their vows.

[Pidesco]

What about violence to vegetables? (I am not kidding)

[metadigital]

[1]Again, you are confusing atheism which denies god with materialism which denies anything metaphysical. You are also confusing non theism which merely does not accept god with atheism that actively denies it.

 

[2]... all branches of Hinduism do accept reincarnation.

...

There is only one definition of atheism and that is denial of the existence of god. Anything else (denial of reincarnation etc) has nothing to do with atheism and is a figment of your imagination. You are confusing materialism(as a philosophical system) which involves rejecting god and all other metaphysics such as reincatnation with atheism which only involves denying god.

1. You deny God. Ok, fine.
   What is the source and destination of reincarnation?
   Please explain to me karma without mentioning a Godhead.
   
2. Reincarnation is a theological expediency to explain karma, which is again a theological carrot-and-stick to bribe and coerce the society to behave.

   Reincarnation, literally "to be made flesh again", as a doctrine or mystical belief, holds the notion that some essential part of a living being (or in some variations, only human beings) can survive death in some form, with its integrity partly or wholly retained, to be reborn in a new body. This part is often referred to as the Spirit or Soul, the 'Higher or True Self', 'Divine Spark', 'I' or the 'Ego' (not to be confused with the ego as defined by psychology).

   Pre-empting your answer, let's take Karma:

   Throughout this process, many see God as playing some kind of role, for example, as the dispenser of the fruits of karma. Other Hindus consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple.

   So, like a Jedi believes in The Force, a non-theistic Hindu believes in karma?
   If you deny God as you assert, then, this force is completely blind and acts in some sort of Newtonian manner, acting on human actions?
    
   This is still not what I would accept as atheism. At best t is Weak Atheism, and more properly considered some sort of spiritualism. You are playing fast and loose with semantics, to sneak in spiritualistic conceits like karma and the soul.
    
   Pol Pot was a ruthless tyrant who destroyed an entire country without any punishment. Without reincarnation, the concept of karma doesn't work. It fails right there. It's circular logic, requiring reincarnation to work, which relies on the concept of a "soul". I can't wait for you to tell me fromwards whence all these souls are coming and towards hence these souls are going.
   

Atheists don't need fairytales about afterlife to behave responsibly, they behave out of ethical rectitude (or not, as the case may be); they rely on an internal frame of reference (and hopefully a) humanistic outlook.

I'm about to close this thread because of your blatant racist posturing. Why does "the West" have to be white? That is RACIST.

Personally I think that anyone who assimilates into western society can be considered western. For example, African Americans are clearly westerners, and not a part of african civilization at all. But America is different from Europe in the sense that America has assimilated its minority groups while Europe has not. I live in the UK currently, and I have interracted a lot with second and third generation immigrants from different civilizations who do not consider themselves to be British at all. Thats not to say that all immigrants have not assimilated and become parts of western civilization.

Tu quoque? Are you [expletive deleted]serious? When was the last time you saw a brick kiln being loaded by two-year old infants in the UK? The last time Britain had child exploitation was back with Charles Dickens, more than a century-and-a-half ago. Let alone cities with populations in the multi-millions where close to 5% of those people are children in slavery.

Century and a half ago poor Indians were being carted off by the British as slaves ("indentured laborers") to countries like South Africa, Malaysia and Guyana. The reason child labour exists in India is due to British exploitation of the country. Ever heard of the Great Famines of Bengal, where huge swathes of population of Eastern India starved to death due to Britishers stealing food? What about money looted from Bengal used to kick start the industrial revolution in the UK? What about the British cutting off the thumbs of all weavers in Bengal in order to put an end to indigenous industry and force Indians to buy expensive British goods?

 

The materialists of the west created the appalling poverty and illiteracy we see in India today and now want to blame this on Hinduism! What a joke!!!

I see, it's all the fault of the British. (At least you aren't still claiming that there is a parity of child slavery in the developed countries now. :crazy: )

 

So if it's all the fault of the eeeevil British, why (60 years after independence) is there still endemic child slavery, despite it being illegal?

 

The reason that (a lot of) blame is laid at the feet of Hinduism is that one of the tenets of the religion is karma: that people's fate is their own reward for past deeds. Hence, it is morally acceptable to exploit whomever can be exploited (the most vulnerable in society) as they have obviously been evil in a past life and can enjoy a better life next time. This ethical expediency is repugnant to me.

[1]50% refers to the number of people recognized as backward castes, not to the number as victims of caste discrimination.

 

[2]In India education is a matter of economics. Families do not have much money and therefore need to first educate those children of theirs who are most likely to earn them money. Women will get married and leave, it is sons who will have to work to support them in their old age. Women cant be educated because of poverty. Who created poverty in India? Thats right - Westerners!

 

Study a bit of ancient Hindu civilization. Women in ancient India used to be well educated like their male counterparts.

 

[3]I have nothing against immigrants that assimilate into local cultures. There is no such thing as interbreeding - all of humanity is one race. How can I be racist when I am a brown skinned person myself? I support worldwide cultural diversity. I do not want to see western nations like the UK collapse due to immigration - despite two centuries of brutal atrocities and exploitation inflicted on the people of India by them. I am a humanist.

 

Are ad hominem attacks like racist, bigot etc all youve got?

1. Poverty is endemic in India. 50% of the population are discriminated against by caste. 50% of the population are discriminated against by gender. (God help Backward Caste females.)
   Let's do some basic maths, shall we?
   1,100 million people - 200 million = 900 million people that are either upper class or below the poverty line.
   Take a guess how many are in poverty.
   
2. And it's all the fault of the British why the literacy rate of women is STILL LESS THAN 50%, I suppose, too. :crazy:
    
   The UN recently announced that educating women is the best and fastest way for a society to rise out of poverty.
    
   Your hare-brained nonsensical (false-) reasoning is merely you trying to justify the misogynist status quo. (This is why the first tactic of a repressive regime is to take away the rights of women, to bribe the men in the society with free slaves.)
   Get over it. You are wrong.
   
3. So you can't be racist because you aren't white, is that it?
   Only white people are racist, eh?
   Ever heard of Darfur?
   Your racism is breathtaking: the sad thing is you aren't even aware of it, it's so entrenched.
    
   Perhaps the developed nations wouldn't need to manage such large immigration populations if the countries from whence they emigrate fixed their societies, rather than fester in their own waste.
   The only long-term fix for immigration is root out the causes in the developing world. (And yes I am aware that the developed world owes a debt to the rest of the world; that must factor into the solution for it to work.)
   

Finally, you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

Either the Western society is infertile due to (philosophical) materialism and this includes all the immigrants or your hypothesis is wrong.

 

Getting back to the point you keep ignoring because it doesn't fit into your simplistic philosophy, the infant mortality rate in India is 5%, TEN TIMES the rate in developed countries, and this must have a significant impact on the fertility rate. If one in twenty children die before their first birthday, couples are bound to have extra children. And this doesn't count the higher mortality over the entire lifespan of a person: life expectancy at birth is more than FIFTEEN YEARS less in India. Any idea how many people have to die young to affect an average by that much? (That's a rhetorical question, I doubt you have any grasp of mathematics, let alone a working knowledge of statistics.)

 

As the developed countries have developed better health, their fertility rate has necessarily dropped.

 

Further, people in the developed world are actively told that the largest problem the world faces is over-population. Early Victorians consciously choose to not have children specifically for this reason.

 

I suggest (one last time) that you don't keep on about "hordes of immigrants swarming into and overrunning the developed world".

 

Any further comments I will edit out. And you will earn a formal warning.

 

Stick to karma and the other tenets of the Hindu religion, rather than your misguided and extremely offensive social commentary.