Can Hindus be atheist?

[Spirit_Warrior]

You are not really responding to the argument, you are responding to me -- by definition adhominem(to the man) -- you have a poor understanding, you are wrong, you have such a poor grasp of human nature" I need actual reasons why a materialist should behave morally, without attacking me for asking in the first place

"Basic human decency" Well, it is not so basic, because if it was then everyone would have it. They clearly don't. People do horrible things to each other all the time, or even go out of their way to be nasty to one another. This is just a fact of life.

If you really believe you are nothing beyond this body, and you will cease with this body, given the constraints of time and the possibility of death lingering on every moment you don't really have much time to be moral or charitable --- your entire focus should be selfish benefits. And even for arguments sake I accept that there are some materialists who nonetheless will be moral and charitable etc, it does they all will be.

The basic argument is this without a moral enforcer that enforces moral laws we would be free to do anything we want. Imagine a society without police and law.

 

[Kirran]

If you really believe you are nothing beyond this body, and you will cease with this body, given the constraints of time and the possibility of death lingering on every moment you don't really have much time to be moral or charitable --- your entire focus should be selfish benefits.

Why?

 

[LuisDantas]

You are not really responding to the argument, you are responding to me

You have no argument. Show me one and I will answer to it.

Incidentally, do you believe that afterlife beliefs are helpful in attaining morality (which goes against my direct experience)? If so, can you tell me how come one who does not see a point in being moral in his first life would see any more given a second chance?

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, and please put some effort into your assumptions. What do you even mean by "belief that there is nothing beyond this body"? Do you mean a brain dead person, or what?

Sure you realize that atheism does not make one emotionless, mindless, nor unaware of the wider world?

 

[Curious George]

You are not really responding to the argument, you are responding to me -- by definition adhominem(to the man) -- you have a poor understanding, you are wrong, you have such a poor grasp of human nature" I need actual reasons why a materialist should behave morally, without attacking me for asking in the first place

"Basic human decency" Well, it is not so basic, because if it was then everyone would have it. They clearly don't. People do horrible things to each other all the time, or even go out of their way to be nasty to one another. This is just a fact of life.

If you really believe you are nothing beyond this body, and you will cease with this body, given the constraints of time and the possibility of death lingering on every moment you don't really have much time to be moral or charitable --- your entire focus should be selfish benefits. And even for arguments sake I accept that there are some materialists who nonetheless will be moral and charitable etc, it does they all will be.

The basic argument is this without a moral enforcer that enforces moral laws we would be free to do anything we want. Imagine a society without police and law.

I will address your argument.

Your argument begs the question and is a non sequitur.

First your argument assumes that the purpose of a material existence is likely to be hedonistic. You have then backtracked and qualified this by saying that the materialist worldview allows for such. Unfortunately, this tells us nothing. All views allow for such. You suggest there are consequences in other religions, but nothing prevents one from living a hedonistic lifestyle consequences be damned. In other words, a person can still choose to stick their hand in the lava with Hinduism so their worldview allows for the murder of the old lady as well. So the mere allowance of such actions is not an argument against a particular worldview in this case.

Next that there is no consequence for actions is unrealistic. Their are always consequences for every action. Assuming a person can "get away with something" is vague at best. But, this is simply not the case.

Next, collaboration is beneficial. While there will be those who are free riders and seek to exploit society, in general it is our best interests to collaborate. Therefore, even assuming a completely hedonistic purpose one can better pursue such an interest if they play by the rules if you will so while occurrences of exploitation might occur locally, the general movement is not in that direction whether we are talking about atheists or Hindus.

Lastly, you overlook that the human is a complex creature. We have attachments and emotions that are pervasive in every aspect of our being. These emotions are stronger than simple cognitive thought processes. This is why people in prison, regardless of religious affiliation, acknowledge that they thought very little of the consequences when they chose to act. They knew they could be imprisoned, they knew they could even for fit their lives, yet they chose to act regardless. Adding a worldview with next life or after life consequences will not change this as it is a cognitive thought process that you are anticipating will halt an emotional one. When this does happen or even when it fails to happen, it causes anguish and guilt.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Why?

Because you could die any moment. Here is an analogy to illustrate my argument. Suppose a great danger is coming to an island like a tsunami and there is a limited amount of material to build a boat to get off the island. Now, will you donate your material help build somebody else's boat while risking not having enough to build your own and get off in time, or will you just focus on building your boat so you can get the hell out. Of course, the latter. This is indeed what happens in situations like this. The first person you try to save is yourself or your family, not strangers. Similarly, we find ourselves on this planet with limited resources, fraught with dangers, disease, crimes and we have a very limited amount of time to enjoy this life and ever here death lingers at every moment. We have heard of unexpected deaths of friends and family. Hence, considering how little time, the limited resources and all the dangers, we simply have no time to be charitable, moral etc. In fact, this is the unwisest way a materialist can live.

In my dilemma, where it is assumed that the tourist will get away with robbing and murdering the old lady, the tourist will get nothing if he just leaves the old lady's home. But if he robs her and murders her he will get millions. Everybody is going to die anyway, every second nearly two people die in the world, so what difference does another death make? When she dies somebody else will get her millions. So the materialist should think "Better me than somebody else"

Now you need to answer me why shouldn't the materialist think like that and also answer me what in the materialist metaphysics can prevent one of these fatal and logical implications of a materialist worldview.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Oh, and please put some effort into your assumptions. What do you even mean by "belief that there is nothing beyond this body"? Do you mean a brain dead person, or what?

Sure you realize that atheism does not make one emotionless, mindless, nor unaware of the wider world?

It is self-explanatory. The materialist do not believe that life survives the end of the body. They believe mind and consciousness is the result of biological processes in the body, and cease when the biological processes stop.

 

[Kirran]

Because you could die any moment. Here is an analogy to illustrate my argument. Suppose a great danger is coming to an island like a tsunami and there is a limited amount of material to build a boat to get off the island. Now, will you donate your material help build somebody else's boat while risking not having enough to build your own and get off in time, or will you just focus on building your boat so you can get the hell out. Of course, the latter. This is indeed what happens in situations like this. The first person you try to save is yourself or your family, not strangers. Similarly, we find ourselves on this planet with limited resources, fraught with dangers, disease, crimes and we have a very limited amount of time to enjoy this life and ever here death lingers at every moment. We have heard of unexpected deaths of friends and family. Hence, considering how little time, the limited resources and all the dangers, we simply have no time to be charitable, moral etc. In fact, this is the unwisest way a materialist can live.

In my dilemma, where it is assumed that the tourist will get away with robbing and murdering the old lady, the tourist will get nothing if he just leaves the old lady's home. But if he robs her and murders her he will get millions. Everybody is going to die anyway, every second nearly two people die in the world, so what difference does another death make? When she dies somebody else will get her millions. So the materialist should think "Better me than somebody else"

Now you need to answer me why shouldn't the materialist think like that and also answer me what in the materialist metaphysics can prevent one of these fatal and logical implications of a materialist worldview.

But in that situation you getting those materials will impact when you die, and in any case there's still no reason a materialist worldview would mean you wouldn't help strangers anyway.

You're putting values on the worldview, which materialists may well not share. So there's no especial reason a materialist should think like that. Nothing ultimately prevents it, as in any system.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I will address your argument.

Thank you for actually taking a stab at it.

First your argument assumes that the purpose of a material existence is likely to be hedonistic.

Nope. I have never made any claims that materialist people are likely to be hedonists. In fact, I said the opposite, most materialists are not like the materialist condemned in the Gita. Rather I said, citing Dawkins in support, it is only when one truly lives by a materialist worldview that it entails hedonism.

You have then backtracked and qualified this by saying that the materialist worldview allows for such.

No, I am saying this is a logical implication of a materialist worldview. The rest is just rhetoric. If who you are is the body, then your bodies needs are your needs. The body has no need for "truth, love, wisdom, beauty, art etc" its needs are survival, like among all animals. Which animal preens itself in front of the mirror? None, because it is not a need of the body.

Unfortunately, this tells us nothing. All views allow for such. You suggest there are consequences in other religions, but nothing prevents one from living a hedonistic lifestyle consequences be damned. In other words, a person can still choose to stick their hand in the lava with Hinduism so their worldview allows for the murder of the old lady as well. So the mere allowance of such actions is not an argument against a particular worldview in this case.

The excruciating pain one experiences by putting one hands in lava is the
deterrence. It is universal across all life, that no life likes pain, it avoids pain and seeks pleasure. It is true for an ant as it for a human. Sure, there are some stupid humans that give themselves pain, but only within a certain threshold. If I got a hot knife and digged it deep in you and twisted it inside you, you are not going to say "Oh, yes, give me more baby" you will scream in agony and try to get away. It is a natural instinct of the body. The mind can say anything it wants, even rationalise pain, like what you just said something silly that people would choose to stick their hands in lava, but the body will react immediately as soon as the skin even touches the lava.

Likewise, because we avoid pain, we would not knowingly put ourselves in a situation that will give us pain. In Hindu ethics, I will face exactly all the suffering I caused the old lady and her loved ones myself, not to mention the in between live stays in hell where I will be punished. I might come as an animal and spend another few billion years living as lower animals in the harsh world of the animal kingdom, constantly getting killed and eaten. ---- Why would I want I risk inflicting that on myself? Of course I don't want that. Therefore, I will not rob the lady and kill her.

Next that there is no consequence for actions is unrealistic. Their are always consequences for every action. Assuming a person can "get away with something" is vague at best. But, this is simply not the case.

What are you talking about, criminals get away with crimes all the time. This is an extremely unfair world where atrocious and unfair things happen e.g. the near total genocide of native Americans in America, which is now populated by Europeans. The people that tortured and brutally killed the Native Americans are now the owners of America and Native Americans second class citizens. Extremely unfair and atrocious, but that's reality.

Next, collaboration is beneficial. While there will be those who are free riders and seek to exploit society, in general it is our best interests to collaborate. Therefore, even assuming a completely hedonistic purpose one can better pursue such an interest if they play by the rules if you will so while occurrences of exploitation might occur locally, the general movement is not in that direction whether we are talking about atheists or Hindus.

Ok, I get this point, but even collaboration only insofar as it is beneficial to you. If there are times where I can break the laws where it is beneficial to me, then I should using the same ethic. In this case, it is assumed in the example that nobody is going to find out you killed the old lady and robbed her jewellery. You are a tourist in a foreign land and she lives in the middle of nowhere by herself. Nobody even knows you stayed over at hers. Therefore, this is near 100% risk free. You will come out millions richer. So why not do it?

Lastly, you overlook that the human is a complex creature. We have attachments and emotions that are pervasive in every aspect of our being. These emotions are stronger than simple cognitive thought processes. This is why people in prison, regardless of religious affiliation, acknowledge that they thought very little of the consequences when they chose to act. They knew they could be imprisoned, they knew they could even for fit their lives, yet they chose to act regardless. Adding a worldview with next life or after life consequences will not change this as it is a cognitive thought process that you are anticipating will halt an emotional one. When this does happen or even when it fails to happen, it causes anguish and guilt.

Lets approach the dilemma in another way. Suppose I am one of those materialists who says "Yeah, we only live once, everybody is going to die anyway, the old bat will die soon as well, and nobody is ever going to find out, and I will be millions richer and can life a comfortable high life from now on, so I am going to rob her, kill her and bury her in the backyard"

Can you persuade me not do?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is self-explanatory. The materialist do not believe that life survives the end of the body. They believe mind and consciousness is the result of biological processes in the body, and cease when the biological processes stop.

That does not answer my question.

 

[Curious George]

Thank you for actually taking a stab at it.



Nope. I have never made any claims that materialist people are likely to be hedonists. In fact, I said the opposite, most materialists are not like the materialist condemned in the Gita. Rather I said, citing Dawkins in support, it is only when one truly lives by a materialist worldview that it entails hedonism.



No, I am saying this is a logical implication of a materialist worldview. The rest is just rhetoric. If who you are is the body, then your bodies needs are your needs. The body has no need for "truth, love, wisdom, beauty, art etc" its needs are survival, like among all animals. Which animal preens itself in front of the mirror? None, because it is not a need of the body.



The excruciating pain one experiences by putting one hands in lava is the
deterrence. It is universal across all life, that no life likes pain, it avoids pain and seeks pleasure. It is true for an ant as it for a human. Sure, there are some stupid humans that give themselves pain, but only within a certain threshold. If I got a hot knife and digged it deep in you and twisted it inside you, you are not going to say "Oh, yes, give me more baby" you will scream in agony and try to get away. It is a natural instinct of the body. The mind can say anything it wants, even rationalise pain, like what you just said something silly that people would choose to stick their hands in lava, but the body will react immediately as soon as the skin even touches the lava.

Likewise, because we avoid pain, we would not knowingly put ourselves in a situation that will give us pain. In Hindu ethics, I will face exactly all the suffering I caused the old lady and her loved ones myself, not to mention the in between live stays in hell where I will be punished. I might come as an animal and spend another few billion years living as lower animals in the harsh world of the animal kingdom, constantly getting killed and eaten. ---- Why would I want I risk inflicting that on myself? Of course I don't want that. Therefore, I will not rob the lady and kill her.

Hold on. I love figurative speech and I am willing to use and play with the metaphors and analogies you bring to the conversation. But it is very silly to argue literally your own figurative speech. You take the time to submit something about our reactions to immediate pain, yet karma or hell or any other suffering predicted by systems are not directly akin to pain. Therefore yes, people can and do stick their hand in lava when the consequences are delayed...i.e. my prison analogy.

 

[Curious George]

Ok, I get this point, but even collaboration only insofar as it is beneficial to you. If there are times where I can break the laws where it is beneficial to me, then I should using the same ethic. In this case, it is assumed in the example that nobody is going to find out you killed the old lady and robbed her jewellery. You are a tourist in a foreign land and she lives in the middle of nowhere by herself. Nobody even knows you stayed over at hers. Therefore, this is near 100% risk free. You will come out millions richer. So why not do it?



Lets approach the dilemma in another way. Suppose I am one of those materialists who says "Yeah, we only live once, everybody is going to die anyway, the old bat will die soon as well, and nobody is ever going to find out, and I will be millions richer and can life a comfortable high life from now on, so I am going to rob her, kill her and bury her in the backyard"

Can you persuade me not do?

You are telling me that we have a right ton kill each other? Sure then I kill you and have effectively persuaded you.

 

[Curious George]

Because you could die any moment. Here is an analogy to illustrate my argument. Suppose a great danger is coming to an island like a tsunami and there is a limited amount of material to build a boat to get off the island. Now, will you donate your material help build somebody else's boat while risking not having enough to build your own and get off in time, or will you just focus on building your boat so you can get the hell out. Of course, the latter. This is indeed what happens in situations like this. The first person you try to save is yourself or your family, not strangers.

Why might one try to save their family before themselves as we can see this happen in situations as well?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

But in that situation you getting those materials will impact when you die, and in any case there's still no reason a materialist worldview would mean you wouldn't help strangers anyway.

Actually they can, they do and have done. As resources are limited on this planet, people fight for resources and this causes violence, crimes and war. Death is coming to us all(the tsunami) and we need to enjoy life as much as we can before we die(building the boat) and to enjoy it we need resources(the materials) We simply do not have enough time to help each other out. It should be about us. Consider for example those great scientists who were loners, barely went out, never had any friends or lovers, spent years and years doing research in their lab and feeling bored and depressed and at the end of it they died before completing their research and never gets any recognition while living. Then somebody comes along later and carries on their research and the scientist who is now dead get posthumous recognition, which is no good now, because he's dead so can't receive the benefits. Then you have those nobodies that history does not member, but they had a great time while living, they had loads of family and friends, they had loads of enjoyments. Which life is more wiser given the materialist worldview?

Or consider another example. You go through your college years believing in no sex before marriage. You are waiting for that special somebody to come along. Meanwhile, your peers are having a great time going out getting laid everyday, while you wait. Then before you get married you die anyway a virgin. Ironically, your peers are now settled and married with their special somebody. Which life was more wiser?

Why should a materialist waste their life on pursuits other than pleasure. It makes no sense given what they believe to delay gratification.

You're putting values on the worldview, which materialists may well not share. So there's no especial reason a materialist should think like that. Nothing ultimately prevents it, as in any system.

I am talking about materialism as a worldview or a darsana as we call it. It does have its own epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. If you practice what you believe it does becomes an ethic. What you practice is informed by your beliefs. Hence, why I say when materialism is actually practised it leads to the abominable behaviour the Gita condemns and which we formally call Charvaka.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Hold on. I love figurative speech and I am willing to use and play with the metaphors and analogies you bring to the conversation. But it is very silly to argue literally your own figurative speech. You take the time to submit something about our reactions to immediate pain, yet karma or hell or any other suffering predicted by systems are not directly akin to pain. Therefore yes, people can and do stick their hand in lava when the consequences are delayed...i.e. my prison analogy.

Sure, but you are not getting my point, the Hindu has a belief that though the consequence is delayed, it will actually come. What they don't know how it will come, but they know it will. This deters a Hindu with sincere believe in law of karma from doing bad things. I certainly think twice and thrice before I do something bad to somebody, because I believe, and even know from my own experience by observing how karma works, it does. No genuine Hindu who believes in the law of karma, would rob and murder an innocent old lady.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You are telling me that we have a right ton kill each other? Sure then I kill you and have effectively persuaded you.

Sure, but then this becomes survival of the fittest which is another implication of the materialist worldview. I can kill you and you can kill me, and if I am stronger or have better weapons and strategies I have a better chance of killing you before you kill me. In my example, it an unsuspecting old lady, and she has no chance against the tourist she he is sheltering. So if you think it about the survival of the fittest, then it becomes right for the tourist to kill her.

It may sound really inhumane and cold, but it is not uncommon. I have heard fans of the Empire boast about how the empire could do the things it did because it had better weapons and war strategies and this somehow mitigates the genocides and slavery of natives all around the world.

Why might one try to save their family before themselves as we can see this happen in situations as well?

This in fact further feeds to my point, even your family is less important than you. Total selfishness is another implication of the materialist worldview.

I think you and some other materialists are not getting my point, and this is why you are strawmaning my position. I keep hearing in defence "Well, I know many good materialist who are compassionate and kind" blah blah. Sure, and know Muslims who eat pork and worship the mother goddess. It is not how they behave that I am looking at here, as this is subjective and based on several factors. I am looking at what their actual metaphysical beliefs are and what the ethical implications of such a worldview.

You are strawmaning my argument by showing examples of materialists who do not follow those necessary ethical implications for whatever reason. When my argument is far stronger, and that is there is nothing within a materialist worldview that would prevent, in my scenario, the tourist robbing and killing the old lady. There is no moral law and no enforcer of the moral law. We know exactly what happens in lawless societies --- humans will not behave morally unless there are laws to enforce it. If humans are police, judge, jury and prosecutor themselves there would be no justice. Hence, materialists believe in an unjust universe -- another implication of their worldview.

The materialist worldview is cold, mechanical, amoral and selfish.

 

[Curious George]

Sure, but you are not getting my point, the Hindu has a belief that though the consequence is delayed, it will actually come. What they don't know how it will come, but they know it will. This deters a Hindu with sincere believe in law of karma from doing bad things. I certainly think twice and thrice before I do something bad to somebody, because I believe, and even know from my own experience by observing how karma works, it does. No genuine Hindu who believes in the law of karma, would rob and murder an innocent old lady.

Are you throwing out the no true scottsman argument? Sure and no true materialist/ atheist would ever do such a thing because they realize how valuable life is....sure thing

 

[Curious George]

Sure, but then this becomes survival of the fittest which is another implication of the materialist worldview. I can kill you and you can kill me, and if I am stronger or have better weapons and strategies I have a better chance of killing you before you kill me. In my example, it an unsuspecting old lady, and she has no chance against the tourist she he is sheltering. So if you think it about the survival of the fittest, then it becomes right for the tourist to kill her.
.

Sounds like you and I have different understandings of strength. And were we to give credence to a notion of survival of the fittest that doesn't entail a right. Your assumptions are too plentiful.

 

[Curious George]

This in fact further feeds to my point, even your family is less important than you. Total selfishness is another implication of the materialist worldview.

It is not. This is a non sequitur. Please show how this follows.

I think you and some other materialists are not getting my point, and this is why you are strawmaning my position. I keep hearing in defence "Well, I know many good materialist who are compassionate and kind" blah blah. Sure, and know Muslims who eat pork and worship the mother goddess. It is not how they behave that I am looking at here, as this is subjective and based on several factors. I am looking at what their actual metaphysical beliefs are and what the ethical implications of such a worldview.

I understand what you think you are doing. I am not pointing out that some do not behave the way you say. I am asking you to explore why some people do behave in certain fashions.

You are strawmaning my argument by showing examples of materialists who do not follow those necessary ethical implications for whatever reason. When my argument is far stronger, and that is there is nothing within a materialist worldview that would prevent, in my scenario, the tourist robbing and killing the old lady. There is no moral law and no enforcer of the moral law. We know exactly what happens in lawless societies --- humans will not behave morally unless there are laws to enforce it. If humans are police, judge, jury and prosecutor themselves there would be no justice. Hence, materialists believe in an unjust universe -- another implication of their worldview.

The materialist worldview is cold, mechanical, amoral and selfish.

No, people can be cold, mechanical, amoral, and selfish. I am not pointing out exceptions to strawman your argument. Though you have tried several times to conclude that a materialist worldview entails x. And any example of not x with a materialist worldview shatters your argument that Materialism entails x. But despite your word choice I can understand you are trying to point out that Materialism allows for x not entails x.

So, I have explained why this isn't a sufficient argument. Namely that other worldviews allow for x just as well. To this you have thrown up a no true Scotsman defense. That my friend is yet another logical fallacy. So far your argument has begged the question, employed several non sequiturs, and now is playing a no true Scotsman card. That is not the definition of a strong argument.


Finally, do not assume that because I am an atheist that I am a materialist.

 

[Kirran]

@Spirit_Warrior I think you just genuinely aren't seeing the values you're projecting onto the worldview. There is no way in which it is intrinsically wiser to live a hedonistic life or any other kind of life according to materialism. You are correct in that there is no prevention of selfishness, yes, but you're already applying values when you say that it would be better for a materialist to do such and such, because you're assuming that certain things (material wealth, sensory pleasures, whatever) are to be prioritised, which doesn't have a basis. Materialists prioritise all sorts of things, it's part of their belief in subjectivity.