General Is There A God?

[BhagatSingh]

Atheist ji,
What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? What would prove to you that there is a God?
I asked this to myself but could not come up with an answer. I understand there is no evidence for God and so next step is to figure out what kind of evidence it would take to show that there is one (or more).
Think about it.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Atheist ji,
What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? What would prove to you that there is a God?
I asked this to myself but could not come up with an answer. I understand there is no evidence for God and so next step is to figure out what kind of evidence it would take to show that there is one (or more).
Think about it.

Bhagat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Excellent question!

Thanks

Tejwant Singh

 

[jasi]

S S S AKAL JI

Dear Athiest.

Hope my brief understanding may clear some doubts in your thinking.

There two BELIEF are existing as far as some thing we all human beings faceas in our daily lives.


KARMA & GOD

Karmas are directly related to your daily deeds. Good or bad deeds or any deed committed daily by you will be reaped later on in life journey BUT do not blame for your suffering on God but remember it is all results of your past deeds.

God. is omnipresent which can be realized by NAM JAPNA and you will start receiving transcendent miracle in daily life.God is not in human shape but is every where to realize His presence.That is why all saints or god's messenger out cried to tell his followers appreciate the God by Nam japna.

karma:

"What you sow,so shall you reap" KARMA

THAT IS THE END OF IT AND LEAVE GOD ALONE WHO LOVES ALL BAD OR GOOD AND EVERY THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE ALSO CAN BE ONLY BE REALIZED BY APPRECIATING HIS CREATIONS SURROUND US.THAT IS WHAT ALL PROPHITS TAUGHT US EXCEPT PRIEST WHO TEACHES ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES AND THAT IS WHERE THE FALSEHOOD GROWS .

Guru Nanak Dev Ji removed all these doubts by saying.

keeta na hoie,Mithia na Jaie,Appe App
Niranjan Soi.

God can not be created,neither one can suppose,HE is every where but you can feel it or realize it by appreciating His creations..

BUT WE ALWAYS SUFFER OR HAPPY BY OUR DEEDS.


Jaspi

 

[a.mother]

Sat sri akal,Athiest ji,
I just want to answer you personally I believe in god (no one forced me) and I perfer to call him( him/her),no gender fight.Why I believe I realy don't know may be my karma from past .I am a sikh and proud to born to a sikh parents.But my family is not religious like yours UNFORTUNATLY. ( normal honest family, proud for that too.).I feel like we can't see god with these normal eyes for that we need deeper sight.You know your name and being from sikh well practiced family irritating me because both don't go together( its your choice, sorry).when I have ask your age ( sorry)I felt like your may be in your 20s or 50-60s. I wish you have told me right age .I have just read 4-5 pages 'till now.I felt like you have read so many books I mean famous writers and stutied other religions too. Thats nice thing if we know about others too but don't lost in those.What you are looking for outside when you have every thing in YOUR OWN HOME.Please don't be angry on me.You will never be able to get answer for this confusion. You know there is sikh youth Banmeet Singh 1990 who posted 'Baptized at 11, lost my way'‏ (when i read his post feels like he is very thirsty and didn't find water in his home ) You have everything in your own home ,means you are from practiced family .You know i am feeling that you are lost in so many books .Have you ever heard about hindi movie "confused desi" That is your situation.I feel like whenever you read gurbani you get your answers you understand more if you are paraticing that much then you do't need to ask these kind of questions. you can find answer your self .
I think sit with your parents talk to them you'll find comfort one day,don't try to split the water with the stick at the end you'll find nothing and be tired.If you want to see him then get out from books and earthely education and lost in his love you 'll find all of answers. This is something not from science or math that you get the clear answers. When there's sience finished god's ZONE stared. never think about proof like police. This is completly diffrent departent. Please don't waste you energy that way. In my view you can't describe him as a person or shape or anything you just feel him with you .When your ardas answered you still need proof for that? Please don't waste your energy in "ghumangheri",put your energy in positive way (sikhs need that this time very much). What I know you can't find end for this issue,in this manner guru sahibji 'll never be happy . With nimrta you can get all your answer. I am trying to understand situation of your parents how they are feeling about you when I am that much uncomfortable.You know if we peel-and-peel onion nothing 'll left at the end. I am honestly trying to answer your question ,MILK did you ever see butter in it no right, but when you whip it you clearly see the butter (proof for you). you need to whip yourself,but you have to change the manners the way you are whiping it now cann't find anything.
Oh about my son asked me he was under six years old and I wasn't angry at him. Almost same answer I gave him according to his age.
Now I have to stop here and I will wait for your comments.

 

[Atheist]

Dear Bhagat Singh Ji and Tejwant Singh Ji and a.mother Ji,

Thank you for your replies!

It was a bit odd to see you disappear and become mum all of a sudden
or were you on some penance journey of Atheism? j/k.

Haha no I was being punished by the Flying Spaghetti Monster this time
for eating pasta.


I asked Seeker3k in post #'s 153 and 155 to be honest and read all 16
pages to prove what he claimed that I said and be honest about it. He
unfortunately disappeared and I ask you the same question as you agree
with Seeker3K to be honest about it. Take your time and do not
disappear as he did.

Yes I will be happy to go through what he claimed and will attempt to
go one by one through his points:

"People always do not want to explain their belief."

Basically he is saying that sometimes, people do not want to explain
their belief. I see this most often in christians. I talk of
evolution, and they talk of creationism. But they don't really
explain their belief, they just recite the bible and stop there. I
will grant of course that you are doing more than the various
christians I have talked to, as you are taking time to type up
responses to a non-believer (ie, me). But generally speaking it is
true that people sometimes (yes not always) do not want to explain their belief.

"There are few million Sikhs in the world they all don’t believe same.
Every one has their personal belief."

The religious almanac suggests at least 20 million Sikhs worldwide
right? The number may be off a little, but regardless there really are
a few million Sikhs in the world. I agree they all don't believe the
same thing. For example, some believe very strongly that
vegetarianism is a Sikh law, whereas others say that it is optional.
From my understanding, most Sikh scholars agree that it is optional
(correct me if I'm wrong). I however will remain vegetarian because
for me it's not an issue of what the scriptures say, it's an issue of
doing the right thing. I simply cannot justify a more palatable meal
at the expense of an innocent pig or cow. But this is a completely
separate topic.

Every one has their personal belief, he claims. I think that's true.
Take any two people, even on this forum. No two people have identical
beliefs. Even two atheists will have different beliefs (their only
commonality is a dis-belief in a god). My parents may believe that
eating eggs is wrong, however our family friend who has also taken
amrit believes that eating eggs is ok. Neither the SGGS nor any other
scripture definitively talked about eating eggs (again correct me if
I'm wrong and I will look up the passage).

"All religious people believe that God created man"

In medicine I like this saying: "Never say never or always, because
someone will always disprove you." So I avoid using the word "all" as
well. Now in this claim, it is suggested that if you are religious
you will believe that some entity was responsible for your creation
(ie, god created man). Even if you believe in evolution, the starting
point was still god, who made it possible for our creation (yes this
is sounding like a personal god, the god I was brought up with). Even
with a pantheistic god one can say that god created man, because if
god is the total sum of everything, and we came from that everything,
then we came from god and god created humans. Of course there may be
an exception lurking somewhere who is religious but thinks that god
did not create humans. I of course cannot talk for every religious
person.

"Man get angry at other man if the other man make a mistake. So men
also believe God also get angry and punish man who made the mistake"

People get angry all the time, which is at least in part why the Gurus
said anger is one of the 5 vices. I have seen mistakes in the
hospital and people get mad. Humans believe god gets angry and
punishes them? Yes, read the old testament and this is certainly
true. God is a jealous and angry entity. I digress but here is a
quote from Professor Richard Dawkins:

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant
character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust,
unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic
cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal,
filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
malevolent bully."

So yes humans do believe that god gets angry. Perhaps not all humans
but certainly the majority as is seen with the old testament. Does
god punish man? According to the mormons, the native americans were
punished and their punishment was dark skin. So people do believe that
god punishes people.

"Isn’t it true that man created God?"

Well obviously this is the whole point of this entire discussion. No
one on this planet can prove or disprove this claim, however the
evidence is highly on the side of humans creating god. See chapter 4
of The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins for an exhaustive
review of this very question.

"Religious people worship God so that they don’t have to go to hell or
be born again."

Christians worship god to avoid going to hell, as is evidenced by
numerous conversations I have had with christians (and mormons). What
about to avoid being born again? A Hindu philosopher came to talk to
us once and told us a story of a Hindu Brahmin (if my memory serves me
correctly) who asks god why he continues to be born again, given his
last couple lives were sin-less. So clearly that person wanted to
avoid being reborn. The salok at the end of japji sahib says "some
gets closer and some get further," suggesting that via reincarnation
you either get closer to "breaking the cycle" of transmigration or further.
Throughout my life I have constantly heard "breaking the cycle of
transmigration" which shows that people want to avoid being born
again. Who wouldn't? I'd rather have heaven than come down (or up
from China's viewpoint) again.

"Is the life is so bad here on this earth that we don’t want to come back?"

Well if heaven is pure 100% bliss as is described by every religious
person I've talked to so far (who commented specifically on it), then
yes heaven is better than earth. According to mormons, when you die
(if you are mormon) you become a god and have your own planet. What's
a better deal than that?

"God is figment of imagination"

This again is the whole point of this conversation. I think god, just
like santa claus, is a figment of our imagination. Again, cannot be
proven either way.

"In Japji Guru Nanak made it clear that God don’t have body, God can
not be seen God do not take birth. If God can’t be seen or heard nor
he speaks then chances are God is not real."

As far as I know god is formless, timeless, does not take birth, does
not die, etc. If something cannot be seen or heard and does not speak
it is difficult to conclude that it is not real. Gravity cannot be
seen, heard, and does not speak yet clearly exists. Same for energy.
I would revise seeker's statement because I don't think you can
conclude that god is not real BASED SOLELY on the fact that she/he/it
cannot be seen or heard from. I still of course agree that taking
everything into account that we know, god is not real.

"If God don’t have body then it is understanding that he don’t have
heart, “man” Ho can God bless some one or punish some one"

I don't know what he is getting at here...

"Many religious people asking the atheists to prove that there is no
God. One can not prove if nothing is there. It is the believer who
have to prove that there is God."

100% correct. It is impossible to prove negatives. You can't prove
that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. But you would never
use that fact to believe that it DOES exist. Similarly I cannot prove
that god does not exist, but I would never use that fact to believe
that god DOES exist. Quite simply the onus is always on the person
claiming that something exists, not the other way around.

"There was a time when God did every thing. He makes fire he made
rain, he made the air.
Now we know that is not what God does."

What he is saying is that when we knew even less than we do now, we
would always say "god did it," as in god made it rain when the crops
were dry, etc. Now we know what causes rain and we have learned a lot
more. Slowly but surely there are fewer and fewer things that we need
god to explain. Where do babies come from? It was just accepted that
babies come from god, now we know how women get pregnant.

"Most people claim the ardas is heard by God. God has no body so no
ears. God can not hear the ardas. Lets say he can hear the ardas. When
we leave for the journey. We say the ardas that God protect us from
getting hurt. If it was meant to be that we are destin to die in the
accident then doing the ardas can God change what was already set by
him? Can judge who make the laws also can break the LAWS? So why do we
do the ardas? Are we trying to bribe the God by doing the ardas? Or
putting few penies in front of the Granth Sahib."

This is what a lot of atheists will agree to. My parents always told
me that god hears our ardas. But seeker makes a good point - if you
were destined to die in the accident then the ardas would not have
saved us. So if god decides that, why do ardas? This of course is a
separate issue that could take another forum to answer.

And lastly seeker is saying that atheists can be just as moral as
religious people. I am an atheist, and the head of the KKK is a
religious devout christian. I would hope I am more moral...


We will talk about the rest of your post later because you have been
dishonest in this one too. I never claimed Sikhi to be a religion or a
belief as you have claimed in this post, rather to the contrary.


Well that's quite a claim to say that I am dishonest. If I spoke a
lie then I ask for your forgiveness. If Sikhi is NOT a religion and
NOT a belief, then what is it? Certainly if Sikhi teaches the
existence of god (whatever definition you want to use) and
reincarnation and karma that it is a belief right? I mean it could be
much more than just a belief, but it would still be a belief
nevertheless right?


So , please take your time, read all the 16 pages of interaction
because honesty is not a belief or a non- belief. It is what Guru
Nanak calls- truthful living.


"Truth is highest of all...higher still is truthful living."

-Guru Nanak


Onto BhagatSingh Ji:

Atheist ji,
What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? What would prove to
you that there is a God?
I asked this to myself but could not come up with an answer. I
understand there is no evidence for God and so next step is to figure
out what kind of evidence it would take to show that there is one (or
more).


The answer: The same kind of evidence that would be sufficient to
convince you that jesus is the son of god, and the same kind of
evidence that would be sufficient to convince you that there is a
flying spaghetti monster.

You are right, there is no evidence. The only kind of evidence that
is sufficient is empirical evidence which of course there is none for
god (why would god want to remain so mysterious? He could end the
controversy instantly by intervening right.......NOW...but he didn't). If there is no
evidence, then I have trouble devoting my life to something based
solely on faith.

Onto a.mother,

I enjoyed reading your response and can tell that you are devoting a good part of your day typing up thought-filled responses. I can tell your genuine concern for me and I can't say I don't appreciate it. However, you must not think that I am "confused." I am not confused, just curious as to why other people believe in god. You explained why you do, so you answered my question. But I am not confused, I just realize that god & religion are based on wishful thinking (the theology bit). The philosophical side of religion is different...but we don't have to know that jesus was born of a virgin to appreciate the golden rule.

Cheers,

Atheist

 

[a.mother]

Sat sri akal Athiest ji,
I have just read your comments since many hour I waited for. ,but today i don't have time to answer you enough. I just felt like you have read too much mr. Dawkin. I admire you for how you debate. Please tell me one thing what you want to whip it . You know saying 'don't whip water you cann't find anything.' I admire your knowledge, give it right direction.

 

[Atheist]

Dear a.mother,

Thank you for your reply.

I have just read your comments since many hour I waited for. ,but today i don't have time to answer you enough.

I apologize, my life is insanely busy right now, but you can also take your time to reply

I just felt like you have read too much mr. Dawkin.

Bear in mind that Professor Richard Dawkins is not the only material I have read. I have also read (on The Sikhism Home Page) the biography of the Gurus and various other religious materials (and not just of Sikhism). Putting it all together, what Professor Richard Dawkins says makes the most sense, and once again it comes to what I live by - evidence.

I admire you for how you debate.

Thank you!

Please tell me one thing what you want to whip it . You know saying 'don't whip water you cann't find anything.' I admire your knowledge, give it right direction.

I'm not sure what you mean...what do you mean by "what you want to whip it"? Are you saying that I should channel my energy into god and not the opposite of god?

Good night,

Atheist

 

[BhagatSingh]

...
Onto BhagatSingh Ji:

Atheist ji,
What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? What would prove to
you that there is a God?
I asked this to myself but could not come up with an answer. I
understand there is no evidence for God and so next step is to figure
out what kind of evidence it would take to show that there is one (or
more).


The answer: The same kind of evidence that would be sufficient to
convince you that jesus is the son of god, and the same kind of
evidence that would be sufficient to convince you that there is a
flying spaghetti monster.

You are right, there is no evidence. The only kind of evidence that
is sufficient is empirical evidence which of course there is none for
god (why would god want to remain so mysterious? He could end the
controversy instantly by intervening right.......NOW...but he didn't). If there is no
evidence, then I have trouble devoting my life to something based
solely on faith.

...

Cheers,

Atheist

Hi Atheist ji,
I am sorry but you dodged my question entirely! I said I know there is no evidence. And we know evidence is always empirical. But have you thought as to what would constitute good evidence to show that there is a God?
For example, if you were a creationist, I could show you that evolution did happen by showing the genetics and how they match up with the fossils, vestigial traits that can only be explained by evolution and destroy the idea of an intelligent designer etc. That would constitute good evidence for Evolution.
My intention is not to convert you to Sikhism but please break out of your current mindset of "oh there is no evidence so I am right" and start thinking beyond that. Ask yourself: Why is there no evidence? What do I mean when I say evidence? What would it take to show me that there is a God? That sort of thing will expand your thinking. You'll still be atheist after that but will be a better, more intelligent atheist.

I agree with A.mother ji when she says that you are reading too much Dawkins. Dawkins's book on atheism is good for the average joe (the biology ones are way better though). However, someone as intelligent as you should go beyond him. I suggest you read:- Atheism: a philosophical justification by Michael Martin. His arguments go beyond "oh there is no evidence so I am right".

 

[seeker3k]

Dear Bhagat Singh ji,

I am not speaking for the Atheist but there is some thing wrong in your argument.

An Atheist is one who does not believe in God. According to them there is no God. They do not have to prove that there is NO God.. It is the believers who have to prove that there is God. This is typical of the people who believer in God to accuse others who ask question. How one can prove there is nothing. Only some thing can be proved.
When we are planning to guy a car we ask friends and we ask the mechanics. Because we are investing money in the car. Here we are investing every thing in a belief that don’t exist.
You and others should stop asking question with a question. If you do not know the answer to the question then you and all others should stay quiet.

Atheist is not trying to make you give up your belief. Atheists are just making you aware to find out the facts before you believe.

There was a time when God did every thing. Like made fire made rain move the air. Create flood. Make people sick and kill them. As the science made discovery then we knew it was not the God who did all that. The believers believed the earth was flat and stood still. There are still many who still believe that is true. The evidences’ are there that earth is round and it moves around the sun. Yet many don’t believe it.

If one cant see feel touch or have conversation, it is a fact that it does not exist.

The question to you and all others believer what evidence you need that God dose not exist?

seeker3k

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Dear Bhagat Singh ji,

I am not speaking for the Atheist but there is some thing wrong in your argument.

An Atheist is one who does not believe in God. According to them there is no God. They do not have to prove that there is NO God.. It is the believers who have to prove that there is God. This is typical of the people who believer in God to accuse others who ask question. How one can prove there is nothing. Only some thing can be proved.
When we are planning to guy a car we ask friends and we ask the mechanics. Because we are investing money in the car. Here we are investing every thing in a belief that don’t exist.
You and others should stop asking question with a question. If you do not know the answer to the question then you and all others should stay quiet.

Atheist is not trying to make you give up your belief. Atheists are just making you aware to find out the facts before you believe.

There was a time when God did every thing. Like made fire made rain move the air. Create flood. Make people sick and kill them. As the science made discovery then we knew it was not the God who did all that. The believers believed the earth was flat and stood still. There are still many who still believe that is true. The evidences’ are there that earth is round and it moves around the sun. Yet many don’t believe it.

If one cant see feel touch or have conversation, it is a fact that it does not exist.

The question to you and all others believer what evidence you need that God dose not exist?

seeker3k

Seeker3k ji,

Guru Fateh.

I know this post is not directed to me but as you disappeared after I questioned your honesty, I thought of writing this post to let you know that I am glad u are still here and must peek through some of the conversations.

You are wrong about the Atheists. The do not believe in any Deity GOD which Sikhi is not about. Sikhi has no deity God. In fact Sikhi has no God. Ik Ong Kaar is not a god. Mool Manter explains that. I suggest you check many interpretations of Mool Manter posted here to learn about Ik Ong Kaar.

Secondly, Bhagat Singh is very capable of expressing his views and defending them. It seems you did not understand what he meant. He is not asking Atheist to prove his unbelief is God. As Athiest is looking for evidence, he is just asking about what kind of evidence is he looking for?

I urge you to read again what he asked and also read all the 17 pages now so you can prove what you said I had posted and be honest about it.

Welcome back and do not disappear because only through interactions we can learn from each other no matter how many differences we may have.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Atheist ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Mine questions are in blue:

I

asked Seeker3k in post #'s 153 and 155 to be honest and read all 16 pages to prove what he claimed that I said and be honest about it. He
unfortunately disappeared and I ask you the same question as you agree
with Seeker3K to be honest about it. Take your time and do not
disappear as he did.

Yes I will be happy to go through what he claimed and will attempt to
go one by one through his points:

"People always do not want to explain their belief."

Basically he is saying that sometimes, people do not want to explain
their belief. I see this most often in christians. I talk of
evolution, and they talk of creationism. But they don't really
explain their belief, they just recite the bible and stop there. I
will grant of course that you are doing more than the various
christians I have talked to, as you are taking time to type up
responses to a non-believer (ie, me). But generally speaking it is
true that people sometimes (yes not always) do not want to explain their belief.

"There are few million Sikhs in the world they all don’t believe same.
Every one has their personal belief."

The religious almanac suggests at least 20 million Sikhs worldwide
right? The number may be off a little, but regardless there really are
a few million Sikhs in the world. I agree they all don't believe the
same thing. For example, some believe very strongly that
vegetarianism is a Sikh law, whereas others say that it is optional.
From my understanding, most Sikh scholars agree that it is optional
(correct me if I'm wrong). I however will remain vegetarian because
for me it's not an issue of what the scriptures say, it's an issue of
doing the right thing. I simply cannot justify a more palatable meal
at the expense of an innocent pig or cow. But this is a completely
separate topic.

Every one has their personal belief, he claims. I think that's true.
Take any two people, even on this forum. No two people have identical
beliefs. Even two atheists will have different beliefs (their only
commonality is a dis-belief in a god). My parents may believe that
eating eggs is wrong, however our family friend who has also taken
amrit believes that eating eggs is ok. Neither the Sri Guru Granth Sahib nor any other
scripture definitively talked about eating eggs (again correct me if
I'm wrong and I will look up the passage).

"All religious people believe that God created man"

In medicine I like this saying: "Never say never or always, because
someone will always disprove you." So I avoid using the word "all" as
well. Now in this claim, it is suggested that if you are religious
you will believe that some entity was responsible for your creation
(ie, god created man). Even if you believe in evolution, the starting
point was still god, who made it possible for our creation
is sounding like a personal god, the god I was brought up with). Even
with a pantheistic god one can say that god created man, because if
god is the total sum of everything, and we came from that everything,
then we came from god and god created humans. Of course there may be
an exception lurking somewhere who is religious but thinks that god
did not create humans. I of course cannot talk for every religious
person.

"Man get angry at other man if the other man make a mistake. So men
also believe God also get angry and punish man who made the mistake"

People get angry all the time, which is at least in part why the Gurus
said anger is one of the 5 vices. I have seen mistakes in the
hospital and people get mad. Humans believe god gets angry and
punishes them? Yes, read the old testament and this is certainly
true. God is a jealous and angry entity. I digress but here is a
quote from Professor Richard Dawkins:

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant
character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust,
unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic
cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal,
filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
malevolent bully."

So yes humans do believe that god gets angry. Perhaps not all humans
but certainly the majority as is seen with the old testament. Does
god punish man? According to the mormons, the native americans were
punished and their punishment was dark skin. So people do believe that
god punishes people.

"Isn’t it true that man created God?"

Well obviously this is the whole point of this entire discussion. No
one on this planet can prove or disprove this claim, however the
evidence is highly on the side of humans creating god. See chapter 4
of The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins for an exhaustive
review of this very question.

"Religious people worship God so that they don’t have to go to hell or
be born again."

Christians worship god to avoid going to hell, as is evidenced by
numerous conversations I have had with christians (and mormons). What
about to avoid being born again? A Hindu philosopher came to talk to
us once and told us a story of a Hindu Brahmin (if my memory serves me
correctly) who asks god why he continues to be born again, given his
last couple lives were sin-less. So clearly that person wanted to
avoid being reborn. The salok at the end of japji sahib says "some
gets closer and some get further," suggesting that via reincarnation
you either get closer to "breaking the cycle" of transmigration or further.
Throughout my life I have constantly heard "breaking the cycle of
transmigration" which shows that people want to avoid being born
again. Who wouldn't? I'd rather have heaven than come down (or up
from China's viewpoint) again.

"Is the life is so bad here on this earth that we don’t want to come back?"

Well if heaven is pure 100% bliss as is described by every religious
person I've talked to so far (who commented specifically on it), then
yes heaven is better than earth. According to mormons, when you die
(if you are mormon) you become a god and have your own planet. What's
a better deal than that?

"God is figment of imagination"

This again is the whole point of this conversation. I think god, just
like santa claus, is a figment of our imagination. Again, cannot be
proven either way.

"In Japji Guru Nanak made it clear that God don’t have body, God can
not be seen God do not take birth. If God can’t be seen or heard nor
he speaks then chances are God is not real."

As far as I know god is formless, timeless, does not take birth, does
not die, etc. If something cannot be seen or heard and does not speak
it is difficult to conclude that it is not real. Gravity cannot be
seen, heard, and does not speak yet clearly exists. Same for energy.
I would revise seeker's statement because I don't think you can
conclude that god is not real BASED SOLELY on the fact that she/he/it
cannot be seen or heard from. I still of course agree that taking
everything into account that we know, god is not real.

"If God don’t have body then it is understanding that he don’t have
heart, “man” Ho can God bless some one or punish some one"

I don't know what he is getting at here...

"Many religious people asking the atheists to prove that there is no
God. One can not prove if nothing is there. It is the believer who
have to prove that there is God."

100% correct. It is impossible to prove negatives. You can't prove
that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. But you would never
use that fact to believe that it DOES exist. Similarly I cannot prove
that god does not exist, but I would never use that fact to believe
that god DOES exist. Quite simply the onus is always on the person
claiming that something exists, not the other way around.

"There was a time when God did every thing. He makes fire he made
rain, he made the air.
Now we know that is not what God does."

What he is saying is that when we knew even less than we do now, we
would always say "god did it," as in god made it rain when the crops
were dry, etc. Now we know what causes rain and we have learned a lot
more. Slowly but surely there are fewer and fewer things that we need
god to explain. Where do babies come from? It was just accepted that
babies come from god, now we know how women get pregnant.

"Most people claim the ardas is heard by God. God has no body so no
ears. God can not hear the ardas. Lets say he can hear the ardas. When
we leave for the journey. We say the ardas that God protect us from
getting hurt. If it was meant to be that we are destin to die in the
accident then doing the ardas can God change what was already set by
him? Can judge who make the laws also can break the LAWS? So why do we
do the ardas? Are we trying to bribe the God by doing the ardas? Or
putting few penies in front of the Granth Sahib."

This is what a lot of atheists will agree to. My parents always told
me that god hears our ardas. But seeker makes a good point - if you
were destined to die in the accident then the ardas would not have
saved us. So if god decides that, why do ardas? This of course is a
separate issue that could take another forum to answer.

And lastly seeker is saying that atheists can be just as moral as
religious people. I am an atheist, and the head of the KKK is a
religious devout christian. I would hope I am more moral...

You totally misunderstood what I said or I suspect you did not read the posts I mentioned to find out what I was talking about.

I am capable of explaining what Seeker3K is asking, but he was not. He was accusing me of something that I never said and you agreed with him so that was the premise of my question to you and him and remains so.

We will talk about the rest of your post later because you have been
dishonest in this one too. I never claimed Sikhi to be a religion or a
belief as you have claimed in this post, rather to the contrary.


Well that's quite a claim to say that I am dishonest. If I spoke a
lie then I ask for your forgiveness. If Sikhi is NOT a religion and
NOT a belief, then what is it? Certainly if Sikhi teaches the
existence of god (whatever definition you want to use) and
reincarnation and karma that it is a belief right? I mean it could be
much more than just a belief, but it would still be a belief
nevertheless right?


So , please take your time, read all the 16 pages of interaction
because honesty is not a belief or a non- belief. It is what Guru
Nanak calls- truthful living.


"Truth is highest of all...higher still is truthful living."

-Guru Nanak

Good question. You should have asked this question when I mentioned in these 17 pages to you that Sikhi is neither a belief nor a religion but a way of life which teaches us to be pragmatists, but it is never too late.

Secondly, there is no such thing are re-incarnation or cycles of births and deaths in Sikhi although our Gurus do acknowledge the fact of this belief in the peoples of other religions mainly Hinduism and also Islam. All religions that offer Hell and Heaven have the same concept unlike Sikhi. There are many threads in here where it has been discussed. I would urge you to read them and learn from them.

Lastly, you keep on repeating about your curiousity and when someone responses about your curious questions you debunk their belief/s which ceases it to be a mere curiosity but an agenda to prove your point by proving others wrong. As you know that language is very important and you know how to express yourself very well.So, therefore you should be honest enough to use the right words because the facts of these 17 pages of interactions state that it has ceased to be a mere curiosity for you but your agenda to prove something about your own beliefs no matter what you call them.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Atheist ji,


Lastly, you keep on repeating about your curiousity and when someone responses about your curious questions you debunk their belief/s which ceases it to be a mere curiosity but an agenda to prove your point by proving others wrong. As you know that language is very important and you know how to express yourself very well.So, therefore you should be honest enough to use the right words because the facts of these 17 pages of interactions state that it has ceased to be a mere curiosity for you but your agenda to prove something about your own beliefs no matter what you call them.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

My own observation exactly. This thread has been returning to the same themes time and again. Out of curiousity...has anyone changed views regarding the thread title. Did any atheist become a "believer?" Did any "believer" give up his beliefs? Did anyone polish or refine their understandings of the nature of God, or of fundamentals of atheist argument?


My own blinders lead me to think that only religionists proselytize. If it is possible to proselytize for atheism, this thread could be the model for how to do it. What kind of dialog is it when the dialog opens with a question "What do you think?" And then the questioner responds with "Let me tell you why you are wrong?" A similar gambit is used when the forum is treated to an episode of dawah.

I don't know how many forum members know the Bill O'Reilly Show on FOX News Network, but I am reminded of it.


The thread was a candidate to be closed weeks ago. When "pronouncements" rather than dialog repeat themselves it is a sign that a conversation has stagnated.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Atheist ji,

Guru Fateh.

Lastly, you keep on repeating about your curiousity and when someone responses about your curious questions you debunk their belief/s which ceases it to be a mere curiosity but an agenda to prove your point by proving others wrong. As you know that language is very important and you know how to express yourself very well.So, therefore you should be honest enough to use the right words because the facts of these 17 pages of interactions state that it has ceased to be a mere curiosity for you but your agenda to prove something about your own beliefs no matter what you call them.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

I don't know about an agenda (don't we all have one?) but I think there's a very thin line between a genuine discussion and proselytizing.

The reason why it returns to the same themes is because the new posters repeat some of the earlier ideas, and the thread starter responds with what he has already stated. Just check out the "fools who wrangle" thread.

Here is something else that hasn't been looked at yet. There seems to be a discord between these two ideas about the Sikh God.
Where Narayanjot ji says (to me):

I do understand that Sikhism to be both theist and panentheist at its core. However, I do not understand Akaal to be a "personal" God, at least not in the ordinary way the term "personal God" is used.

When Guru Nanak says Toon mera pita toon hain mera mata. Toon mera bandhap toon mera bratha, he is not talking to himself. Neither is he talking to an abstract force, energy or principle of nature. Guru Nanak is talking to someONE.

Whereas, Tejwant ji opines that Sikh "God" is a kind of Energy.

Totally opposite viewpoints of the same Ik Oankar.

 

[spnadmin]

Bhagat Singh ji

I deeply appreciate your act of steering this discussion in a different direction. I hope it is fruitful.icecreamkaur

Please do understand that the view of Tejwant Singh ji and my view may not be

totally opposite

. They are definitely not the same, but opposite implies 180 degrees apart. The views may be closer than that. To clarify my use of

someONE

: I am not implying that Ik Oankar is a person in an ethereal form (God of the Hebrews, or God the Father of the Christians). In fact

ONE

is in caps to emphasize the idea of ONENESS.

But, I do not agree that Ik Oankar is impersonal either, like an overarching law of nature. (I am not certain if Tejwant ji understands it that way either.) The verse below is only 4 words long, yet it is intriguing. Who is Guru Nanak talking to when he says, thoo, thuddh, as in...

ਤੂ ਸਦਾ ਸਲਾਮਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ॥੧੭॥
thoo sadhaa salaamath nirankaar ||17||
You, Eternal and Formless One. ||17||

"Nirankar" means formless. Yet, Guru Nanak is addressing the forever and eternal "nirankaar" as "thoo." There are many similar examples in Gurbani. He may not be addressing an actual "person" but he is personifying an eternal and formless ONE. Why?

Thanks once again
:happykaur:

 

[seeker3k]

Looks to me every one talking about some one else’s view about God.
What Nanak said it was his experience? We all have our own experience.
That is why every guru or so called Avtar n prophets had diffrant experience about God.

Why not try to have our own experience?

 

[Archived_member14]

Dear Tejwant ji,( and Atheist ji),

You wrote:

<<Lastly, you keep on repeating about your curiousity and when someone responses about your curious questions you debunk their belief/s which ceases it to be a mere curiosity but an agenda to prove your point by proving others wrong. As you know that language is very important and you know how to express yourself very well.So, therefore you should be honest enough to use the right words because the facts of these 17 pages of interactions state that it has ceased to be a mere curiosity for you but your agenda to prove something about your own beliefs no matter what you call them. <end quote>

Although I have read only a small percentage of the postings, my impression from the beginning has been that Atheist ji in asking his original question and pursuing with it , was encouraging people here to question their ‘beliefs’, which I’m sure you’d agree, is a good thing. Of course any discussions do go in all directions, and accordingly motives change, but this should not be seen as sign of insincerity I would think. I am the most muddle headed person I know (with the exception of my younger son), someone who will drift off into another direction after every few sentences and sometimes completely loosing the plot. In this regard I’ve been admiring Atheist ji’s ability to remain focused and avoiding side issues.

Atheist ji says that he is curious and you say that he likely wants to debunk the beliefs of others and I may be wearing rose tinted glasses. But still we can learn something from each other, no? ;-)

I have one personal question for you regarding:

<< Secondly, there is no such thing are re-incarnation or cycles of births and deaths in Sikhi although our Gurus do acknowledge the fact of this belief in the peoples of other religions mainly Hinduism and also Islam. All religions that offer Hell and Heaven have the same concept unlike Sikhi. <end quote>

I was surprised by the above. As you may have read my own comments in this thread some time ago, I have been talking much about Karma to which the idea of rebirth is intimately related. I don’t know Sikhi, but I often overhear mention about karma and the fact of being reborn over and over again in talks by such people as Giani Sant Singh Maskeen on TV and thought that this was what was indeed taught in Sikh religion. Also since I was a kid I’ve heard reference to the fact of being reborn as the various kinds of creatures (eight point four million? of them) and is this not part of the Sikh teachings? I ask because I do not wish to have any misunderstanding about all this and I suspect that you must have done some good study of the religion.

Thanks in advance.
Sukinder

 

[Atheist]

Dear Everyone,

I thank everyone for the stimulating discussion. Lots of different viewpoints makes all of us continually re-evaluate our pre-conceived notions. Even if in the end we conclude what we always thought, we still learn and build ourselves.

Hi Atheist ji,
I am sorry but you dodged my question entirely! I said I know there is no evidence. And we know evidence is always empirical. But have you thought as to what would constitute good evidence to show that there is a God?


Well if you ask me a question it is only fair for me to ask you the same/similar question: What evidence would be "good" evidence to convince you that jesus is the son of god and born of a virgin and rose from the dead?

The answer to your question is very simple: Testable, provable, empirical evidence.

An atheist simply goes one step further than a theist. We have a common belief: Neither of us, I presume, believe that Joseph Smith had a genuine vision from god & jesus and that the book of mormon is another testamant of jesus christ and that jesus = god. We agree on this right? I just go one step further and have a dis-belief in any religion. In other words, people that believe in a religion/system of beliefs/whatever word you want to use tend to NOT believe in all the other ones. So I just NOT believe in one more. For example if there were 100 religions on this planet, everyone would not believe in 99 of them and believe in 1 of them (of those that had a belief in something). I just have a disbelief in 100 of them and not 99 - a difference of merely one.

For example, if you were a creationist, I could show you that evolution did happen by showing the genetics and how they match up with the fossils, vestigial traits that can only be explained by evolution and destroy the idea of an intelligent designer etc. That would constitute good evidence for Evolution.


Yes it actually would. But you'd be surprised how many christians make utterly ridiculous comments in response to that.


My intention is not to convert you to Sikhism but please break out of your current mindset of "oh there is no evidence so I am right" and start thinking beyond that. Ask yourself: Why is there no evidence? What do I mean when I say evidence? What would it take to show me that there is a God? That sort of thing will expand your thinking. You'll still be atheist after that but will be a better, more intelligent atheist.


I am not so arrogant that I would simply say "I am right." Like I said I'm the first to admit my ignorance. A good physician and scientist always, ALWAYS has to admit ignorance and accept the things we do not know. That is the first step in the scientific process. If we simply "knew" stuff we would not need the scientific process. In fact that's what many christians have done - they just "know" creationism is right and the argument stops there. I am simply saying why believe in something if it does not have any evidence. Lack of evidence doesn't PROVE that it doesn't exist, but merely reminds us and cautions us about believing in something based solely on faith. For example, if someone is charged with murder but the judge eventually dismisses the case based on "lack of evidence" it neither proves nor disproves the person's innocence. It just means there is not enough evidence to say "he or she is a killer." It would be outrageous to throw that person in jail based on faith though. Similarly, we can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so there is not enough evidence for me to say "there is a god." Technically, that makes me an agnostic, but an agnostic to the same extent of the belief in unicorns. We don't KNOW that unicorns don't exist, however based on their lack of evidence we are in practice not believing in them.

Why is there no evidence? My first inkling would be to say because it doesn't exist in the first place (that's the simplest explanation, but not necessarily the correct one). It could also be that we simply haven't found the evidence yet, ie us humans are not smart enough. But again the same could be said for jesus being god. Perhaps we just haven't found the evidence that proves jesus is god, but that fact alone is not enough to make me believe it, because there are an infinite number of things that COULD be true that we haven't found the evidence to yet, but I am not going to believe in all of those things. This leads us back to why this forum was started in the first place - if someone has the evidence, show it.

What do I mean when I say evidence? Something observable (actually observable not a "feeling") and testable and empiric.

What would it take to show me that there is a god? The same thing - observable, testable, empirical evidence. It's not that much to ask for from someone that created the universe.

What would it take to show you that jesus is the son of god?

Trust me I have thought of these questions for hours upon hours. If there is evidence, I will be open to it. A good scientist never ignores evidence; rather they try to DISprove their own assumption. For example if a patient comes in with shoulder pain and I think it is arthritis, I should do everything to show that it is NOT arthritis, and if I fail then and only then should I conclude it is arthritis, otherwise my physical exam will be biased to simply concur with my original assumption.

My goal also isn't to de-convert you from sikhism but to see what YOUR reasonings are.


I agree with A.mother ji when she says that you are reading too much Dawkins. Dawkins's book on atheism is good for the average joe (the biology ones are way better though). However, someone as intelligent as you should go beyond him. I suggest you read:- Atheism: a philosophical justification by Michael Martin. His arguments go beyond "oh there is no evidence so I am right".


Well Professor Dawkins is a world renowned Oxford trained evolutionary biologist - an achievement not to be sniffed at. I appreciate your calling me intelligent though in fact I am just the average joe with a curious mind. But I will look into Michael Martin, thanks for the suggestion.


You are wrong about the Atheists. The do not believe in any Deity GOD which Sikhi is not about. Sikhi has no deity God. In fact Sikhi has no God. Ik Ong Kaar is not a god. Mool Manter explains that. I suggest you check many interpretations of Mool Manter posted here to learn about Ik Ong Kaar.


Now we are getting into the truly interesting stuff. "In fact Sikhi has no God" - really? If that is true, what my parents taught me was WAY off. It sounds like an atheistic way of life where the word god is used to describe the total sum of the laws of nature and the universe. In essence, sikhi is a pantheistic atheistic way of a moral life. Yes?

But this is different than what any other sikh has told me about their religion. So how do I know who is right? Which interpretation is the correct one?


I am capable of explaining what Seeker3K is asking, but he was not. He was accusing me of something that I never said and you agreed with him so that was the premise of my question to you and him and remains so.


Well I think he may have made more than one accusation. Was there a specific one you were referring to?


Secondly, there is no such thing are re-incarnation or cycles of births and deaths in Sikhi although our Gurus do acknowledge the fact of this belief in the peoples of other religions mainly Hinduism and also Islam. All religions that offer Hell and Heaven have the same concept unlike Sikhi. There are many threads in here where it has been discussed. I would urge you to read them and learn from them.


So again sounds like an atheistic pantheistic way of life. And this is different than what every sikh has told me about their beliefs (not that I've talked to hundreds about it). So what happens after we die? Do we simply cease to exist?


Lastly, you keep on repeating about your curiousity and when someone responses about your curious questions you debunk their belief/s which ceases it to be a mere curiosity but an agenda to prove your point by proving others wrong. As you know that language is very important and you know how to express yourself very well.So, therefore you should be honest enough to use the right words because the facts of these 17 pages of interactions state that it has ceased to be a mere curiosity for you but your agenda to prove something about your own beliefs no matter what you call them.


Well if someone asks me a question I have to respond. Lee Ji and a.mother both explained in a sentence or two why they believed what they did, and I never challenged it. I simply thanked them for their input. a.mother asked me several other questions - I wasn't just going to say "sorry I am just collecting data and cannot answer your question to explain my thought process." The reason for starting this forum is still the same: curiosity. I know I will not de-convert anyone...anyone can believe anything they want to, it's when they become suicide bombers, terrorists, KKK members, etc. that I have an "agenda" to tell them how wrong they are. Do you disagree? You disapprove of terrorists right? You agree we have a moral obligation to stop them right?


My own observation exactly. This thread has been returning to the same themes time and again. Out of curiousity...has anyone changed views regarding the thread title. Did any atheist become a "believer?" Did any "believer" give up his beliefs? Did anyone polish or refine their understandings of the nature of God, or of fundamentals of atheist argument?


Actually yes! I'm glad you asked. Tejwant Singh Ji's definition of the "sikh god" if I may use that phrase has definitely refined my understanding! Therefore I am glad I started this forum. I went into this forum with the things that I have been taught, ie that the sikh god is a personal god that helps us and listens to ardas and acts accordingly. But Tejwant Singh Ji has indicated that sikhi has no god at all, a total change in understanding! See, this is the scientific process. I went in with my own ideas of what the sikh god is, and was able to disprove (with Tejwant Singh Ji's help of course) those very ideas. I could have, like many christians, just went in saying "I am right, you are wrong" but clearly I didn't, since I have a different understanding of the "sikh god" or lack thereof.


My own blinders lead me to think that only religionists proselytize. If it is possible to proselytize for atheism, this thread could be the model for how to do it. What kind of dialog is it when the dialog opens with a question "What do you think?" And then the questioner responds with "Let me tell you why you are wrong?" A similar gambit is used when the forum is treated to an episode of dawah.


Again, Lee Ji and a.mother both explained WHY they believed in god and I did not challenge them. But when people ask me questions or accuse me of things (like I am insecure or confused) I have to respond, otherwise I would have no integrity. I am not confused, I am simply admitting that I don't know everything. Does anyone here think differently about themselves?


Atheist ji says that he is curious and you say that he likely wants to debunk the beliefs of others and I may be wearing rose tinted glasses. But still we can learn something from each other, no? ;-)


Yes we can. Again, Tejwant Singh Ji has totally redefined for me what the sikh god (or lack thereof) is.


Tejwant Singh Ji, if sikhi has no god at all and no reincarnation then why do we pray and do ardas? Who is hearing it? When I graduated college my parents took my diploma to a giani ji at a gurudwara and he did an ardas and asked god to help make me successful and to have a good career. Was the giani ji wrong for doing this? Did this ardas increase the probability of making me successful? If so, he should have asked god to help me win the lottery too. If not, why did he do it?

Also, here is a line toward the beginning of Japji Sahib with an interpretation (not my interpration, one that I found online):

Nanak Hukhmi Avoh Jouw (4-14)
O Nanak, by the Hukam of God's Command, we come and go in reincarnation

So based on what you've said, I obviously can't interpret this literally (or the interpretation is utterly wrong) as you say there is no reincarnation in sikhism. So what is the correct interpretation?

So here are a summary of my questions to you:
1) What happens when we die?
2) Do we have a soul?
3) Does ardas change the probability of a future event occurring (or not occurring)? If not, why do we do it? If so, why does it not work any more than chance alone?
4) What is the correct interpretation of SGGS quotes that refer to reincarnation?

To be fair, I will answer my own questions:
1) The same thing that happened before we were born - nothing
2) No
3) No
4) There is no reincarnation so either the interpretation is wrong, or the interpretation is right and the SGGS is wrong. Most of us will probably side with the former.

I also want everyone to know that I do have an extremely high regard for sikhi...I just don't believe in the "god" part of it, although perhaps there is no "god" part of it as Tejwant Singh Ji has said.

The following shabad is genius:

Tilak Janju Rakha Prabh Thakha, Keeno Bhado Kalyu Misaka

First of all, the poetry is marvelous. Guru Gobind Singh Ji is saying "He protected the forehead mark (Tilak) and sacred thread (Janju, of the Hindus) which marked a great event in the Iron age" in a very poetic way (I got the interpretation from this website). Like everything else in sikhi, it rhymes. But the most magnificent part is that the story is actually true. Guru Tegh Bahadur is the only person in the history of the world to sacrifice himself for the sake of another religion.

So my whole argument is that there is a such thing as spirituality, courage, morality, etc. and that there have been great humans in the world, but all of this could have and did happen in the absence of a god. Instead of worshiping god and praying to her, we should be focusing on how to make ourselves better human beings, then things like suicide bombing and the KKK, motivated by religion & stupidity, might not exist (or maybe I'm just dreaming).

Atheist

:thumbsupp:

 

[spnadmin]

ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋਇ ॥
paarabreham prabh eaek hai dhoojaa naahee koe ||
There is only the One Supreme Lord God; there is no other at all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
sireeraag mehalaa 5 ||
Siree Raag, Fifth Mehl:



ਇਕੁ ਪਛਾਣੂ ਜੀਅ ਕਾ ਇਕੋ ਰਖਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
eik pashhaanoo jeea kaa eiko rakhanehaar ||
The One is the Knower of all beings; He alone is our Savior.



ਇਕਸ ਕਾ ਮਨਿ ਆਸਰਾ ਇਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਣ ਅਧਾਰੁ ॥
eikas kaa man aasaraa eiko praan adhhaar ||
The One is the Support of the mind; the One is the Support of the breath of life.



ਤਿਸੁ ਸਰਣਾਈ ਸਦਾ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ॥੧॥
this saranaaee sadhaa sukh paarabreham karathaar ||1||
In His Sanctuary there is eternal peace. He is the Supreme Lord God, the Creator. ||1||



ਮਨ ਮੇਰੇ ਸਗਲ ਉਪਾਵ ਤਿਆਗੁ ॥
man maerae sagal oupaav thiaag ||
O my mind, give up all these efforts.



ਗੁਰੁ ਪੂਰਾ ਆਰਾਧਿ ਨਿਤ ਇਕਸੁ ਕੀ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੁ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
gur pooraa aaraadhh nith eikas kee liv laag ||1|| rehaao ||
Dwell upon the Perfect Guru each day, and attach yourself to the One Lord. ||1||Pause||



ਇਕੋ ਭਾਈ ਮਿਤੁ ਇਕੁ ਇਕੋ ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ॥
eiko bhaaee mith eik eiko maath pithaa ||
The One is my Brother, the One is my Friend. The One is my Mother and Father.



ਇਕਸ ਕੀ ਮਨਿ ਟੇਕ ਹੈ ਜਿਨਿ ਜੀਉ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਦਿਤਾ ॥
eikas kee man ttaek hai jin jeeo pindd dhithaa ||
The One is the Support of the mind; He has given us body and soul.


ਸੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਮਨਹੁ ਨ ਵਿਸਰੈ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਵਸਿ ਕੀਤਾ ॥੨॥
so prabh manahu n visarai jin sabh kishh vas keethaa ||2||
May I never forget God from my mind; He holds all in the Power of His Hands. ||2||



ਘਰਿ ਇਕੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਇਕੋ ਥਾਨ ਥਨੰਤਰਿ ਆਪਿ ॥
ghar eiko baahar eiko thhaan thhananthar aap ||
The One is within the home of the self, and the One is outside as well. He Himself is in all places and interspaces.



ਜੀਅ ਜੰਤ ਸਭਿ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਏ ਆਠ ਪਹਰ ਤਿਸੁ ਜਾਪਿ ॥
jeea janth sabh jin keeeae aath pehar this jaap ||
Meditate twenty-four hours a day on the One who created all beings and creatures.



ਇਕਸੁ ਸੇਤੀ ਰਤਿਆ ਨ ਹੋਵੀ ਸੋਗ ਸੰਤਾਪੁ ॥੩॥
eikas saethee rathiaa n hovee sog santhaap ||3||
Attuned to the Love of the One, there is no sorrow or suffering. ||3||


ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋਇ ॥
paarabreham prabh eaek hai dhoojaa naahee koe ||
There is only the One Supreme Lord God; there is no other at all.



ਜੀਉ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਸਭੁ ਤਿਸ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
jeeo pindd sabh this kaa jo this bhaavai s hoe ||
Soul and body all belong to Him; whatever pleases His Will comes to pass.



ਗੁਰਿ ਪੂਰੈ ਪੂਰਾ ਭਇਆ ਜਪਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥੪॥੯॥੭੯॥
gur poorai pooraa bhaeiaa jap naanak sachaa soe ||4||9||79||
Through the Perfect Guru, one becomes perfect; O Nanak, meditate on the True One. ||4||9||79||

 

[jasi]

S S AKAL JI.

Let us put this way if some one do not believe in something or any thing that is the beginning of quest to understand ONKAR and ask all kinds of question of something which all Prophets believed .

Look at Baba Farid ji when he got frustrated after spending his whole life in search to be enlightened .Commented"


"RAM RAM KARDIAN MEREE JHIBA GHAS GAI ,AJE NO RAM BHAHURIA EH KIS BHEI"

By repetitions of Ram Ram my tongue became smaller but still I did not get
any realizations.

YET HE ALSO EXPRESSED THAT CR0W YOU CAN EAT all MY FLESH BUT DO NOT TOUCH MY EYES BECAUSE I STILL HAVE a HOPE TO SEE MY PRITAM (ONKAR)

BHUDHA SPENT 13 YEARS UNDER THE TREE AND GAVE UP TO GO BACK TO HIS PALACE BUT COULD NOT CROSS THE RIVER BEING SO WEEK TO SWIM. GAVE UP ALL HOPES AND LIE DOWN UNDER THE TREE WHEN THE LIGHT OF REALIZATION STRUCK HIS SOUL AND BECAME A ENLIGHTENED ONE.


All those saints used to have batteries of questions but became so committed to see Onkar and got enlightened.

God bless ,one day you will teach the world being strongest atheist of God's existences.You are much better that who believe in Onkar but live in superficial world.

Because you are unique person being a ethicist full of questions and that is the first quality of a saint. What you know ,no body knows.

Jaspi

Dear Everyone,

I thank everyone for the stimulating discussion. Lots of different viewpoints makes all of us continually re-evaluate our pre-conceived notions. Even if in the end we conclude what we always thought, we still learn and build ourselves.

Hi Atheist ji,
I am sorry but you dodged my question entirely! I said I know there is no evidence. And we know evidence is always empirical. But have you thought as to what would constitute good evidence to show that there is a God?


Well if you ask me a question it is only fair for me to ask you the same/similar question: What evidence would be "good" evidence to convince you that jesus is the son of god and born of a virgin and rose from the dead?

The answer to your question is very simple: Testable, provable, empirical evidence.

An atheist simply goes one step further than a theist. We have a common belief: Neither of us, I presume, believe that Joseph Smith had a genuine vision from god & jesus and that the book of mormon is another testamant of jesus christ and that jesus = god. We agree on this right? I just go one step further and have a dis-belief in any religion. In other words, people that believe in a religion/system of beliefs/whatever word you want to use tend to NOT believe in all the other ones. So I just NOT believe in one more. For example if there were 100 religions on this planet, everyone would not believe in 99 of them and believe in 1 of them (of those that had a belief in something). I just have a disbelief in 100 of them and not 99 - a difference of merely one.

For example, if you were a creationist, I could show you that evolution did happen by showing the genetics and how they match up with the fossils, vestigial traits that can only be explained by evolution and destroy the idea of an intelligent designer etc. That would constitute good evidence for Evolution.


Yes it actually would. But you'd be surprised how many christians make utterly ridiculous comments in response to that.


My intention is not to convert you to Sikhism but please break out of your current mindset of "oh there is no evidence so I am right" and start thinking beyond that. Ask yourself: Why is there no evidence? What do I mean when I say evidence? What would it take to show me that there is a God? That sort of thing will expand your thinking. You'll still be atheist after that but will be a better, more intelligent atheist.


I am not so arrogant that I would simply say "I am right." Like I said I'm the first to admit my ignorance. A good physician and scientist always, ALWAYS has to admit ignorance and accept the things we do not know. That is the first step in the scientific process. If we simply "knew" stuff we would not need the scientific process. In fact that's what many christians have done - they just "know" creationism is right and the argument stops there. I am simply saying why believe in something if it does not have any evidence. Lack of evidence doesn't PROVE that it doesn't exist, but merely reminds us and cautions us about believing in something based solely on faith. For example, if someone is charged with murder but the judge eventually dismisses the case based on "lack of evidence" it neither proves nor disproves the person's innocence. It just means there is not enough evidence to say "he or she is a killer." It would be outrageous to throw that person in jail based on faith though. Similarly, we can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so there is not enough evidence for me to say "there is a god." Technically, that makes me an agnostic, but an agnostic to the same extent of the belief in unicorns. We don't KNOW that unicorns don't exist, however based on their lack of evidence we are in practice not believing in them.

Why is there no evidence? My first inkling would be to say because it doesn't exist in the first place (that's the simplest explanation, but not necessarily the correct one). It could also be that we simply haven't found the evidence yet, ie us humans are not smart enough. But again the same could be said for jesus being god. Perhaps we just haven't found the evidence that proves jesus is god, but that fact alone is not enough to make me believe it, because there are an infinite number of things that COULD be true that we haven't found the evidence to yet, but I am not going to believe in all of those things. This leads us back to why this forum was started in the first place - if someone has the evidence, show it.

What do I mean when I say evidence? Something observable (actually observable not a "feeling") and testable and empiric.

What would it take to show me that there is a god? The same thing - observable, testable, empirical evidence. It's not that much to ask for from someone that created the universe.

What would it take to show you that jesus is the son of god?

Trust me I have thought of these questions for hours upon hours. If there is evidence, I will be open to it. A good scientist never ignores evidence; rather they try to DISprove their own assumption. For example if a patient comes in with shoulder pain and I think it is arthritis, I should do everything to show that it is NOT arthritis, and if I fail then and only then should I conclude it is arthritis, otherwise my physical exam will be biased to simply concur with my original assumption.

My goal also isn't to de-convert you from sikhism but to see what YOUR reasonings are.


I agree with A.mother ji when she says that you are reading too much Dawkins. Dawkins's book on atheism is good for the average joe (the biology ones are way better though). However, someone as intelligent as you should go beyond him. I suggest you read:- Atheism: a philosophical justification by Michael Martin. His arguments go beyond "oh there is no evidence so I am right".


Well Professor Dawkins is a world renowned Oxford trained evolutionary biologist - an achievement not to be sniffed at. I appreciate your calling me intelligent though in fact I am just the average joe with a curious mind. But I will look into Michael Martin, thanks for the suggestion.


You are wrong about the Atheists. The do not believe in any Deity GOD which Sikhi is not about. Sikhi has no deity God. In fact Sikhi has no God. Ik Ong Kaar is not a god. Mool Manter explains that. I suggest you check many interpretations of Mool Manter posted here to learn about Ik Ong Kaar.


Now we are getting into the truly interesting stuff. "In fact Sikhi has no God" - really? If that is true, what my parents taught me was WAY off. It sounds like an atheistic way of life where the word god is used to describe the total sum of the laws of nature and the universe. In essence, sikhi is a pantheistic atheistic way of a moral life. Yes?

But this is different than what any other sikh has told me about their religion. So how do I know who is right? Which interpretation is the correct one?


I am capable of explaining what Seeker3K is asking, but he was not. He was accusing me of something that I never said and you agreed with him so that was the premise of my question to you and him and remains so.


Well I think he may have made more than one accusation. Was there a specific one you were referring to?


Secondly, there is no such thing are re-incarnation or cycles of births and deaths in Sikhi although our Gurus do acknowledge the fact of this belief in the peoples of other religions mainly Hinduism and also Islam. All religions that offer Hell and Heaven have the same concept unlike Sikhi. There are many threads in here where it has been discussed. I would urge you to read them and learn from them.


So again sounds like an atheistic pantheistic way of life. And this is different than what every sikh has told me about their beliefs (not that I've talked to hundreds about it). So what happens after we die? Do we simply cease to exist?


Lastly, you keep on repeating about your curiousity and when someone responses about your curious questions you debunk their belief/s which ceases it to be a mere curiosity but an agenda to prove your point by proving others wrong. As you know that language is very important and you know how to express yourself very well.So, therefore you should be honest enough to use the right words because the facts of these 17 pages of interactions state that it has ceased to be a mere curiosity for you but your agenda to prove something about your own beliefs no matter what you call them.


Well if someone asks me a question I have to respond. Lee Ji and a.mother both explained in a sentence or two why they believed what they did, and I never challenged it. I simply thanked them for their input. a.mother asked me several other questions - I wasn't just going to say "sorry I am just collecting data and cannot answer your question to explain my thought process." The reason for starting this forum is still the same: curiosity. I know I will not de-convert anyone...anyone can believe anything they want to, it's when they become suicide bombers, terrorists, KKK members, etc. that I have an "agenda" to tell them how wrong they are. Do you disagree? You disapprove of terrorists right? You agree we have a moral obligation to stop them right?


My own observation exactly. This thread has been returning to the same themes time and again. Out of curiousity...has anyone changed views regarding the thread title. Did any atheist become a "believer?" Did any "believer" give up his beliefs? Did anyone polish or refine their understandings of the nature of God, or of fundamentals of atheist argument?


Actually yes! I'm glad you asked. Tejwant Singh Ji's definition of the "sikh god" if I may use that phrase has definitely refined my understanding! Therefore I am glad I started this forum. I went into this forum with the things that I have been taught, ie that the sikh god is a personal god that helps us and listens to ardas and acts accordingly. But Tejwant Singh Ji has indicated that sikhi has no god at all, a total change in understanding! See, this is the scientific process. I went in with my own ideas of what the sikh god is, and was able to disprove (with Tejwant Singh Ji's help of course) those very ideas. I could have, like many christians, just went in saying "I am right, you are wrong" but clearly I didn't, since I have a different understanding of the "sikh god" or lack thereof.


My own blinders lead me to think that only religionists proselytize. If it is possible to proselytize for atheism, this thread could be the model for how to do it. What kind of dialog is it when the dialog opens with a question "What do you think?" And then the questioner responds with "Let me tell you why you are wrong?" A similar gambit is used when the forum is treated to an episode of dawah.


Again, Lee Ji and a.mother both explained WHY they believed in god and I did not challenge them. But when people ask me questions or accuse me of things (like I am insecure or confused) I have to respond, otherwise I would have no integrity. I am not confused, I am simply admitting that I don't know everything. Does anyone here think differently about themselves?


Atheist ji says that he is curious and you say that he likely wants to debunk the beliefs of others and I may be wearing rose tinted glasses. But still we can learn something from each other, no? ;-)


Yes we can. Again, Tejwant Singh Ji has totally redefined for me what the sikh god (or lack thereof) is.


Tejwant Singh Ji, if sikhi has no god at all and no reincarnation then why do we pray and do ardas? Who is hearing it? When I graduated college my parents took my diploma to a giani ji at a gurudwara and he did an ardas and asked god to help make me successful and to have a good career. Was the giani ji wrong for doing this? Did this ardas increase the probability of making me successful? If so, he should have asked god to help me win the lottery too. If not, why did he do it?

Also, here is a line toward the beginning of Japji Sahib with an interpretation (not my interpration, one that I found online):

Nanak Hukhmi Avoh Jouw (4-14)
O Nanak, by the Hukam of God's Command, we come and go in reincarnation

So based on what you've said, I obviously can't interpret this literally (or the interpretation is utterly wrong) as you say there is no reincarnation in sikhism. So what is the correct interpretation?

So here are a summary of my questions to you:
1) What happens when we die?
2) Do we have a soul?
3) Does ardas change the probability of a future event occurring (or not occurring)? If not, why do we do it? If so, why does it not work any more than chance alone?
4) What is the correct interpretation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib quotes that refer to reincarnation?

To be fair, I will answer my own questions:
1) The same thing that happened before we were born - nothing
2) No
3) No
4) There is no reincarnation so either the interpretation is wrong, or the interpretation is right and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is wrong. Most of us will probably side with the former.

I also want everyone to know that I do have an extremely high regard for sikhi...I just don't believe in the "god" part of it, although perhaps there is no "god" part of it as Tejwant Singh Ji has said.

The following shabad is genius:

Tilak Janju Rakha Prabh Thakha, Keeno Bhado Kalyu Misaka

First of all, the poetry is marvelous. Guru Gobind Singh Ji is saying "He protected the forehead mark (Tilak) and sacred thread (Janju, of the Hindus) which marked a great event in the Iron age" in a very poetic way (I got the interpretation from this website). Like everything else in sikhi, it rhymes. But the most magnificent part is that the story is actually true. Guru Tegh Bahadur is the only person in the history of the world to sacrifice himself for the sake of another religion.

So my whole argument is that there is a such thing as spirituality, courage, morality, etc. and that there have been great humans in the world, but all of this could have and did happen in the absence of a god. Instead of worshiping god and praying to her, we should be focusing on how to make ourselves better human beings, then things like suicide bombing and the KKK, motivated by religion & stupidity, might not exist (or maybe I'm just dreaming).

Atheist

:thumbsupp:

 

[BhagatSingh]

Guys stop me if I grind this too much.

Atheist Ji,
Why are you stuck at "Something observable, empirical and so on"? We agreed to that. That's the nature of evidence. Are you ready to move on or shall we continue to discuss the nature of evidence in the next couple of posts?

Ok let me clarify in "Average joe" terms what I am asking you to do. Imagine you are living among creationists but you have a hunch that evolution is true. No one has any evidence of it. SO everytime you mention it they ask you to prove it! Since you can't prove it they say it doesn't exist.
How do you go about collecting evidence? What do you look for?
You look for trends in fossils and genetics. Do you see shared genetic information and shared phenotypic traits? Yes > Evolution . No > Creationism

You look for patterns in the techtonic plates and how they explain fossil distribution. Do you see the same fossils in South America and Africa because they were once connected? Yes > Evolution . No >Creationism


You look for vestigal organs. Do you find that there are birds that don't use their wings at all, not even for swimming, but clean them regularly? Yes > No designer. No> Intelligent Designer

If you could observe that you would prove evolution to be true. And of course, the answer is yes to all those things, and voila we just proved evolution. As scientists we have to tackle God similarly. We want to see whether we can prove him to to be true. Correct? A good scientist tries to see what kind of evidence there could possibly be to (dis)prove something. He does not sit there, hand on hand, waiting for evidence to come from la la land. Before observing one must hypothesize.

Ok now imagine you are living amongst atheists and you are the only theist. But you have a hunch that there is a God. No one has any evidence of it. SO everytime you mention it they ask you to prove it! Since you can't prove it they say he doesn't exist.
So how do you go about collecting evidence? what do you look for? What do we try to observe to show that there is a God?
A scientists this is our duty.