I just happened to point out that you missed all the crap in Hinduism inspite of growing up in it. Your keenness in picking on Islam and Christianity is impressive. A religion where ~70% of the population are Shudras and ~20% are untouchables is apparently better than Islam and Christianity.

“Or if you are really interested, there are wacko Hindu websites too where you can argue your case.”

This is almost exactly what I am doing right now. Yes, you are an aetheist. But it does not save you from being a Hindu right wing nut job. A professed aetheist who believes Hinduism is “better” than Islam and Christianity for no apparent reason.

Educate yourself about Hinduism, and you wont have to go to the painstaking detail of differentiating between “polytheistic” and “monotheistic” religions.

But hey, you have already made up your mind, why waste time and change it. Freedom of expression guarantees that I can write whatever I want, no matter how idiotic.

“If you think Hinduism is the bane of mankind, go ahead and rant all you want on your blog.”

Of course, on my blog. Not on your blog, forcing you to argue and forcing you to think. You dont want to think too much. I guess that is a wish easily granted everyday in your life :-)

So as far as my blog is concerned, I’m free to write about anything that *I* find disagreeable. If you think Hinduism is the bane of mankind, go ahead and rant all you want on your blog. Freedom of speech gives you that. Or if you are really interested, there are wacko Hindu websites too where you can argue your case.

You are better off being explicit. Saying Christianity and Islam are like this and like that, instead of using a “monotheism” cloak to pretend that this is a secular attack. Just using the words Monotheism and Atheism does not save you from being a right-wing nut job, if all your posts are expended on finding faults in Christianity and Islam while the religion you grew up in barely draws any attention. Inspite of a hsitory of 1000s of years of casteism, violence, (guess how Buddhism disappeared from India), superstitions, sati and what not.

Specializing in “faults in Monotheist” religions, while having spent 25+ years as a Hindu is precisely the signature thinking of your next-door right wing dickwad. Congratulations, keep it up. Sati Mata ki jai ho.

Oww, I’m for no religion. Just because I point out horrors of monotheism doesn’t mean I condone polytheism. I’m sure most people get that without reading the Ramayan.

Have you read the Ramayana where Rama kills Shambuka because he belongs to a lower caste? Polytheism is wonderful, I guess, because now you can pick a different God.

However, I do also agree with you, all religion is bad!

that’s why Christianity is not a religion! it is the freedom from all religions! through a
direct and personal relationship with God through Christ Jesus. It is knowing in your
heart that you are free from religion and guaranteed salvation through faith in Jesus
and that all the bad things you did are forgiven? How about you, Patrix? how are you going to
pay for your sins? by believing in Jesus all your sins can be forgiven too.

Its mostly a perception thing. As long as its not below-the-belt insulting and it is very logical – most religious people arent offended by non-religious views. At least people I know don’t. I think there are two distinct stances people can take. The first one is saying “This is my belief. I will follow this. I don’t care what others do” . The second one is “That thing, which I don’t follow, is stupid. It is complete nonsense. I can’t believe that there are sensible people who subscribe to this.” At some level one implies the other. However, what the audience interprets from one Vs other changes dramatically. There was a time when both Religious people and Atheists were saying the former but now I find everybody increasingly saying the latter. Most certainly, Islamic extremists and the people who hate it are in this category.

From your response to Lekhni: It is hard to find out unambiguously what the Holy texts of any religion say. Because the people come inbetween and help you misinterpret it. I have spent the last decade trying to learn the Vedas and I haven’t scratched the surface. People, I consult, constantly keep pushing their agendas on me. The Max Mueller translation nonsense is a good example of an obvious illogical thing wich the “public” revers. The reason I am saying all this is because I strongly believe widely-accepted-views on anything is at best a vague approximataion of the real thing. Its like Americans caricaturing India based on a few surface-level things they observe on a week long trip. I loved Darjeeling Unltd. But when my colleague completely believed that was true reflection of India today, I laughed to myself. I am pretty sure one can’t judge a Holybook with a cursory glance on on basis of widely accepted views. If one does that one ends up believing what one wants to believe.

Don’t you think this post, instead of seeking to learn, puts out a pre-determined conlusion.

I don’t think so. I don’t seek to convince anyone or force anyone to accept my non-beliefs. I’m merely stating why I abhor in religious diktats especially those touted by monotheists religions.

If one appreciates an atheist calling out religious extremists as harmful then isn’t one validating, implicitly, a religious extremist’s opinion that atheists/(non-believers of their God) are harmful?

The extremists by nature will inflate any fear whereas atheists merely point out fallacies. Just by doing so we are labeled as angry when in fact we are as rational as can be. And if the moderates called out these extremists in order to ‘protect’ their religion, the extremists wouldn’t be calling us atheists harmful in the first place.

This is an example of pre-concluding many things without backing up with facts.

This post is no treatise on atheism and considers widely-accepted facts about religions especially monotheism. The fact that there is only one true god as prescribed by their religion is the core basis of such religions. Just that one fact renders even other religions let alone non-believers as infidels not worthy of living or destined to spend an eternity in hell. I’m sure you’ll find the necessary references in books that examine this hypocrisy in depth.

Lekhni,

This is a common tactic of those who try to convince us that in fact their religion’s holy books are akin to cuddly lil lambs. Simply skimming the Old Testament and certain sections of Quran which no believer denies will tell you all. Ask any believer if such passages exist in their texts and they will not deny it. Whether some moderates choose to not follow those diktats is another matter.

1. Don’t you think this post, instead of seeking to learn, puts out a pre-determined conlusion. Almost sounds like the religious extremist stance. It says “I know you guys will come up with some sort of justification mumbo-jumbo. But you are all wrong. It’s my way or the highway on the topic of monthesitic religion”

2. If one appreciates an atheist calling out religious extremists as harmful then isn’t one validating, implicitly, a religious extremist’s opinion that atheists/(non-believers of their God) are harmful?

3. /* but then in a sense they are not adhering to their religion’s diktats and even might be guilty of blasphemy. You may offer hazaar justifications that most of your religious adherents do not believe in the belief that ‘my way or the highway’ or as Bush put it succinctly, either you are with us or against us but at the end of the day, the extremists who tout this viewpoint find justification from no other place but their holy books.*/

This is an example of pre-concluding many things without backing up with facts. Its like saying “I don’t know what your physics book says but I say Force (is not equal to) mass * acceleration.”. Is it proper to claim expertise on a subject matter you have professed to be averse to?

If I were an atheist like you. I’d point out the text in the holy book that can be unambiguosly interpreted to be supporting extremists. That would speak volumes for(in this case against) itself and you dont even have to use your own arguments.