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:
