• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Atheism Sikhism And Atheism: A Philosophical Discourse

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
Skd1709 is a 'cultural Sikh', who no longer belives in God. So I would now call him, not Sikh, but atheist.

I think he is proud of sikh history but the atheist part is he does not want to believe in God. I'm not saying pride and respect in Sikhism is equivalent to belief in Sikhism. He is probably not yet an atheist but in a transitory stage.
 
HI,

i dont think individuals can be characterized into groups. or at least should not be characterized into groups. because everyone is different ...there is no ideal sikh or ideal atheist or any of that...just people with varrying beliefs. i think people and their thoughts are more complicated and often contradictory, more often than we are led to believe. people are fluid they change and they have thoughts and doubts all the time.

cheers
 
Last edited:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219

A debate exists only if you choose to see the matter as debatable, if you choose to debate.

From a philosophical standpoint only -- there are no winners or losers in a debate regarding the existence of God. Why? Because theists posit as an a priori assumption that there is a God, and atheists posit the a priori assumption that there is no God. (Tewjant ji, I use "God" for the sake of brevity. One can choose whatever name one chooses to speak of God). It is impossible to debate a priori assumptions. One can only stipulate that an a priori is true or that it is false, and proceed from that place.
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
HI,

i dont think individuals can be characterized into groups. or at least should not be characterized into groups. because everyone is different ...there is no ideal sikh or ideal atheist or any of that...just people with varrying beliefs. i think people and their thoughts are more complicated and often contradictory, more often than we are led to believe. people are fluid they change and they have thoughts and doubts all the time.

cheers

Hi Sinister,

Where have you been all this while ?

I'm not letting you get away with a short comment like this and then disappear again. See this > #14
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
I think he is proud of sikh history but the atheist part is he does not want to believe in God. I'm not saying pride and respect in Sikhism is equivalent to belief in Sikhism. He is probably not yet an atheist but in a transitory stage.


Namjap ji,

You may be correct, one does not shred any belife overnight it is a gradual thing, although I guess it is easy to test. Ask him, do you belive in God?
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
HI,

i dont think individuals can be characterized into groups. or at least should not be characterized into groups. because everyone is different ...there is no ideal sikh or ideal atheist or any of that...just people with varrying beliefs. i think people and their thoughts are more complicated and often contradictory, more often than we are led to believe. people are fluid they change and they have thoughts and doubts all the time.

cheers


Sinister ji,

On the face of it you seem to be correct, yet I can't help but think that when we use words we characterise. You, yourself have just done what you say we cannot do or should not do. 'People' well that is a group is it not? Men, women, children, Indian, Punjabi's, Jatt's, all are groups are they not. Without such groupings how can we communicate what we mean?
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
Was Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, labelled an atheist ?

There are many accounts he has been. Here are a few (tip of an iceberg).


A Brahman went and told the Guru that, as all the four castes had been invited, he too should partake of Malik Bhago's bounty. The Guru replied, 'I belong not to any of the four castes; why am I invited?' The Brahman replied, 'It is on this account people call thee a heretic. Malik Bhago will be displeased with thee for refusing his hospitality.'
Link: Life Of Guru Nanak: Chapter IV

[FONT=verdana,Arial]One day, Qazi Rustam Khan heard Bibi Kaulan reciting Guru Nanak's verses at home. He rebuked her and said "Do not recite these verses of the infidels in future." Bibi Kaulan Said, "Dear father! Saint Mian Mir bows in all humility to the man you call an infidel and thinks it a privelege to seat him by his side. It is unbecoming to call the man an infidel whome the saint hold in such esteem." The qazi gave a sound thrashing to Bibi Kaulan on hearing the praise of the Gurus from her and said, "I do not want that you recite the verses of these infidels even unintentionally." Between her sobs Bibi Kaulan said, "You may beat me to death but I cannot live without reciting these verses."
Bibi Kaulan ji
[/FONT]
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
Was Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, labelled an atheist ?

There are many accounts he has been. Here are a few (tip of an iceberg).


A Brahman went and told the Guru that, as all the four castes had been invited, he too should partake of Malik Bhago's bounty. The Guru replied, 'I belong not to any of the four castes; why am I invited?' The Brahman replied, 'It is on this account people call thee a heretic. Malik Bhago will be displeased with thee for refusing his hospitality.'
Link: Life Of Guru Nanak: Chapter IV

[FONT=verdana,Arial]One day, Qazi Rustam Khan heard Bibi Kaulan reciting Guru Nanak's verses at home. He rebuked her and said "Do not recite these verses of the infidels in future." Bibi Kaulan Said, "Dear father! Saint Mian Mir bows in all humility to the man you call an infidel and thinks it a privelege to seat him by his side. It is unbecoming to call the man an infidel whome the saint hold in such esteem." The qazi gave a sound thrashing to Bibi Kaulan on hearing the praise of the Gurus from her and said, "I do not want that you recite the verses of these infidels even unintentionally." Between her sobs Bibi Kaulan said, "You may beat me to death but I cannot live without reciting these verses."
Bibi Kaulan ji
[/FONT]


Namjap ji,

I see nowhere here even the idea that Guru Nanak ji was atheist, could you perhaps explian further?
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
INFIDEL, persons, evidence. One who does not believe in the existence of a God, who will reward or punish in this world or that which is to come. Willes' R. 550. This term has been very indefinitely applied. Under the name of infidel, Lord Coke comprises Jews and heathens; 2 Inst 506; 3 Inst. 165; and Hawkins includes among infidels, such as do not believe either in the Old or New Testament. Hawk. P. C. b 2, c. 46, s. 148.
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.


Indeed this is just what I have been saying these last what two pages or so.

Athiests either hold no belifes regarding God or Gods, or they activly do not belive in God or Gods. I think you'll find that I have typed this almost exactly a page or two back.

For the former we can and do call this weak atheism, for the later strong atheism.

However none of this helps explain what I asked you to?
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
Main Entry: infidel

Part of Speech: noun Definition: nonbeliever
Synonyms: agnostic, atheist, heathen, heretic, pagan, gentile, nonworshiper, unbeliever


Namjap ji,

Ahhhhh yes I see. It is true that the word 'Infidel' can be used to denote one who does not belive in God. Normaly though it means somebody who does not share the same religion as the one who utters the word. When a Muslim uses the word about a Christian, do you think that he (the Muslim) means the the Christian is athiest or is non Muslim?

In a similar vein, the word 'Heathen' can also be used to denote an athiest, but it's normal use is to say that this man, this heathen does not belive in the Christian concept of God. The root of this word means somebody who lives in the country, and sticks to country ways of thought and worship, in other words, Heathen is most correctly used to mean a Pagan. He who sticks to the old faith and not the new one of Christinaity.
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
ਆਸਾ
आसा ॥
Āsā.
Aasaa:

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕਹਾ ਤੇ ਆਏ ਕਿਨਿ ਏਹ ਰਾਹ ਚਲਾਈ
हिंदू तुरक कहा ते आए किनि एह राह चलाई ॥
Hinḏū ṯurak kahā ṯe ā▫e kin eh rāh cẖalā▫ī.
Where have the Hindus and Muslims come from? Who put them on their different paths?

ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਸੋਚਿ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ਕਵਾਦੇ ਭਿਸਤ ਦੋਜਕ ਕਿਨਿ ਪਾਈ ॥੧॥
दिल महि सोचि बिचारि कवादे भिसत दोजक किनि पाई ॥१॥
Ḏil mėh socẖ bicẖār kavāḏe bẖisaṯ ḏojak kin pā▫ī. ||1||
Think of this, and contemplate it within your mind, O men of evil intentions. Who will go to heaven and hell? ||1||

ਕਾਜੀ ਤੈ ਕਵਨ ਕਤੇਬ ਬਖਾਨੀ
काजी तै कवन कतेब बखानी ॥
Kājī ṯai kavan kaṯeb bakẖānī.
O Qazi, which book have you read?

ਪੜ੍ਹਤ ਗੁਨਤ ਐਸੇ ਸਭ ਮਾਰੇ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਖਬਰਿ ਜਾਨੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ
पड़्हत गुनत ऐसे सभ मारे किनहूं खबरि न जानी ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Paṛĥaṯ gunaṯ aise sabẖ māre kinhūʼn kẖabar na jānī. ||1|| rahā▫o.
Such scholars and students have all died, and none of them have discovered the inner meaning. ||1||Pause||

ਸਕਤਿ ਸਨੇਹੁ ਕਰਿ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਕਰੀਐ ਮੈ ਬਦਉਗਾ ਭਾਈ
सकति सनेहु करि सुंनति करीऐ मै न बदउगा भाई ॥
Sakaṯ sanehu kar sunaṯ karī▫ai mai na baḏ▫ugā bẖā▫ī.
Because of the love of woman, circumcision is done; I don't believe in it, O Siblings of Destiny.

ਜਉ ਰੇ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਮੋਹਿ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਕਰੈਗਾ ਆਪਨ ਹੀ ਕਟਿ ਜਾਈ ॥੨॥
जउ रे खुदाइ मोहि तुरकु करैगा आपन ही कटि जाई ॥२॥
Ja▫o re kẖuḏā▫e mohi ṯurak karaigā āpan hī kat jā▫ī. ||2||
If God wished me to be a Muslim, it would be cut off by itself. ||2||

ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਕੀਏ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਜੇ ਹੋਇਗਾ ਅਉਰਤ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਕਰੀਐ
सुंनति कीए तुरकु जे होइगा अउरत का किआ करीऐ ॥
Sunaṯ kī▫e ṯurak je ho▫igā a▫uraṯ kā ki▫ā karī▫ai.
If circumcision makes one a Muslim, then what about a woman?

ਅਰਧ ਸਰੀਰੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਛੋਡੈ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹੀ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੩॥
अरध सरीरी नारि न छोडै ता ते हिंदू ही रहीऐ ॥३॥
Araḏẖ sarīrī nār na cẖẖodai ṯā ṯe hinḏū hī rahī▫ai. ||3||
She is the other half of a man's body, and she does not leave him, so he remains a Hindu. ||3||

ਛਾਡਿ ਕਤੇਬ ਰਾਮੁ ਭਜੁ ਬਉਰੇ ਜੁਲਮ ਕਰਤ ਹੈ ਭਾਰੀ
छाडि कतेब रामु भजु बउरे जुलम करत है भारी ॥
Cẖẖād kaṯeb rām bẖaj ba▫ure julam karaṯ hai bẖārī.
Give up your holy books, and remember the Lord, you fool, and stop oppressing others so badly.

ਕਬੀਰੈ ਪਕਰੀ ਟੇਕ ਰਾਮ ਕੀ ਤੁਰਕ ਰਹੇ ਪਚਿਹਾਰੀ ॥੪॥੮॥
कबीरै पकरी टेक राम की तुरक रहे पचिहारी ॥४॥८॥
Kabīrai pakrī tek rām kī ṯurak rahe pacẖihārī. ||4||8||
Kabeer has grasped hold of the Lord's Support, and the Muslims have utterly failed. ||4||8||
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
But again Namjap ji,

I fail to see the relevance of this to the current debate. Here Guru ji is basicaly telling us once agian that meaningless parts of religous dogma are meaningless. He asks us to consider that if circumcision makes a Muslim, then what of Muslim woman?

He says don't get bogged down in worthless dogma, but truely remember God(simran)

This says nothing about Atheists or atheism, or whether Guru Nanak ji was atheist or whether Sikhi is similar to atheism.
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
Lee Ji,

Sikhism might have nothing common to present day Atheism because everything changes with time.
And Sikhi talks about Akaal Moorat - Timeless Being as God.
God in Sikhism is not the same as God in person like Jupiter, Greek Gods, Jesus, Moses, Ram Chander, Krishna, etc.
 

Lee

SPNer
May 17, 2005
495
377
56
London, UK
Lee Ji,

Sikhism might have nothing common to present day Atheism because everything changes with time.
And Sikhi talks about Akaal Moorat - Timeless Being as God.
God in Sikhism is not the same as God in person like Jupiter, Greek Gods, Jesus, Moses, Ram Chander, Krishna, etc.


Namjap ji,

Heh yes you may say this. I will say the opposite. Why?

Because it is my belife that all religion describes the same God. Think of it this way.

It is my understanding that God incorperates everything. In a very real sense the only objective truth is God.

So if God is all, or perhaps Ik onkar, then the God decribed as Jupiter is surly God as is Yahwe, Jesus, Ram, Odin, or any other concept of God you care to mention.

It may be that the name Odin, for example, from Norse mythology only describes one part, face or aspect of the the one God. However Gurbani tells us that God is indescribeable, so yes it makes sense for our human mind in order to try to contemplate God, we brake God down into little bits we can easily identify with and incorperate into our lifes, yes this makes much sense to me.

Yet even the Sikh way of viewing God as formless, timeless and the rest attaches attributes to God. Formless is a label used to describe a thing without form, but it is a label never-the-less.

Note that I don't see anything wrong with that, we talk, we have even discovered a way to put our speech down on paper so that we may readily communicate with others when not face to face. We humans need to attach labels to things in order to communicate about them.
 

Astroboy

ਨਾਮ ਤੇਰੇ ਕੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਲਗਾਈ (Previously namjap)
Writer
SPNer
Jul 14, 2007
4,576
1,609
We humans need to attach labels to things in order to communicate about them.
I recently went to a pharmacist and requested him to label all the medicine not just by name but by purpose. That's because I have so many other 'old' but hardly used medicine which looks exactly the same or almost exactly the same. So I label everything to remind myself that I may surprise myself in future but looking at the past labels I put on the medicine I did not require then. :happy:

It is my understanding that God incorperates everything. In a very real sense the only objective truth is God.

Would an atheist have difficulty understanding what you intend to say?
 
Sinister ji,

On the face of it you seem to be correct, yet I can't help but think that when we use words we characterise. You, yourself have just done what you say we cannot do or should not do. 'People' well that is a group is it not? Men, women, children, Indian, Punjabi's, Jatt's, all are groups are they not. Without such groupings how can we communicate what we mean?


Ooh, I don’t really care if I contradicted myself (even though I can debate I haven’t…as there exists a profound difference between characterizing human beings into groups compared to characterizing non-self aware matter…I was trying to emphasize the equality that resides in all humans)...the division of humanity into groups is a job done by the profoundly unenlightened (this includes myslef as i just divided humanity again with my words).

I speak from experience. I often go to sleep as an agnostic and I wake up being a holy man. (for many the time frame or attention span might be longer)

Humans do this. They contradict themselves, they change goals and disciplines routinely, I call it social mental maneuvering (SMM)….yes, it is a made up term that should exist in the dictionary.

Consistency does exist, no doubt; after all, this is how humanity communicates, cooperates and abides by social contracts to form a society and culture. But, they change emotionally all the time and their core beliefs with respect to metaphysical questions change after being continuously challenged by themselves and by outside influences. Internalized Morality is harder to change especially in adulthood. But views on reality are always fluid because they are more ambiguous and never fixed.

I know mine have.

Just my 2 cents

P.S: at the end of the day if an observer views himself separate from the observed...he will not learn anything of value. (the major flaw in western and eastern human thought)
 
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top