Morons: Terrible bane or lifeblood of the forum?

[Angrboda]

Right about your strawman?  Sure.  Whatever.  You realize that's the whole point of a strawman, to pretend you're right when you're not?

Well I'm not pretending to be anything, I am right because you can't be a "secular Hindu", I mean you literally can't, that's not how that works.

Feel free to explain. I could use another opportunity to point out that you have shit for brains.

[Ahriman]

Well I'm not pretending to be anything, I am right because you can't be a "secular Hindu", I mean you literally can't, that's not how that works.

Feel free to explain.  I could use another opportunity to point out that you have shit for brains.

A major part of Hinduism is recognizing the existence of a number of gods, but if you're a "secular Hindu" you don't think any of those gods exist, so how can the idea of "secular Hinduism" be a meaningful or relevant thing?

[Angrboda]

Feel free to explain.  I could use another opportunity to point out that you have shit for brains.

A major part of Hinduism is recognizing the existence of a number of gods, but if you're a "secular Hindu" you don't think any of those gods exist, so how can the idea of "secular Hinduism" be a meaningful or relevant thing?

That's not what the word 'secular' means.

4. Used for: Pertaining to or accepting the doctrine of secularism; secularistic.

Secularism is most commonly defined as the separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere.

Wikipedia || Secularism

So you're wrong in the simpliciter as you apparently think the word means something it doesn't necessarily mean.

Furthermore, even using definitions more prominent in everyday usage, you are still wrong:

Secularity, also the secular or secularness (from Latin saeculum, "worldly" or "of a generation"), is the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion.

Wikipedia || Secular [emphasis mine]

In context, I implied a continuum on which various Hindus can be more or less neutral towards religion and religious things. I not uncommonly adopted or argued explanations that did not assume or require the existence of a spiritual dimension where many Hindus would do otherwise, such as questions about the nature of consciousness and ultimate reality. As a longtime Taoist, I was somewhat a creature of multiple worlds, just acquiring a belief in a divine presence, while remaining attached to atheistic and secular views and social commitments. I had been a member of both the Minnesota Atheists and Minnesota Humanists for many years, was well known and active in both communities. And I was highly sympathetic to the concerns of atheists as well as endorsing many atheist arguments or points of view.

So, no, contrary to your assertion, that is how things work.


ps. You have shit for brains. moron.

[Belacqua]

Feel free to explain.  I could use another opportunity to point out that you have shit for brains.

A major part of Hinduism is recognizing the existence of a number of gods, but if you're a "secular Hindu" you don't think any of those gods exist, so how can the idea of "secular Hinduism" be a meaningful or relevant thing?

from Wikipedia:

Hinduism includes a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, no prophet(s) nor any binding holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist.[63][64][65] According to Doniger, "ideas about all the major issues of faith and lifestyle – vegetarianism, nonviolence, belief in rebirth, even caste – are subjects of debate, not dogma."[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

Hindu atheism or non-theism, which is known as Nirīśvaravāda (Sanskrit: निरीश्वरवाद, nir-īśvara-vāda, lit. "Disbelief in Ishvara") has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many of the Astika (Orthodox) streams of Hindu philosophy.[1] Hindu spiritual atheists or Non-theists who affirm Vedas and Brahman, as well as those who follow astika (orthodox) philosophies but reject personal god(s), are also called Dharmic atheist, Vedic Atheist or Sanatani atheist.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_atheism

It seems there's a lot of diversity within Hinduism.

[Ahriman]

What made Angrboda switch from secular Hinduism to pure atheism? Seems like a downgrade.

[Fake Messiah]

Feel free to explain.  I could use another opportunity to point out that you have shit for brains.

A major part of Hinduism is recognizing the existence of a number of gods, but if you're a "secular Hindu" you don't think any of those gods exist, so how can the idea of "secular Hinduism" be a meaningful or relevant thing?

Some people are culturally in some religion while being atheists. Haven't you heard of secular Jews? For example, Roger Ebert was an atheist and admired Richard Dawkins while he considered himself culturally Catholic, and even had a Catholic funeral in a cathedral with a priest giving a speech.

[HappySkeptic]

There is also secular Buddhism, which is reasonably attractive. It is a Westernized version, without the supernatural aspects.

[Ahriman]

A major part of Hinduism is recognizing the existence of a number of gods, but if you're a "secular Hindu" you don't think any of those gods exist, so how can the idea of "secular Hinduism" be a meaningful or relevant thing?

Some people are culturally in some religion while being atheists. Haven't you heard of secular Jews? For example, Roger Ebert was an atheist and admired Richard Dawkins while he considered himself culturally Catholic, and even had a Catholic funeral in a cathedral with a priest giving a speech.

Well that doesn't make sense. I don't take confused people's word on anything.

[Ahriman]

There is also secular Buddhism, which is reasonably attractive.  It is a Westernized version, without the supernatural aspects.

So it's not really Buddhism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There is also secular Buddhism, which is reasonably attractive.  It is a Westernized version, without the supernatural aspects.

So it's not really Buddhism.

It absolutely IS Buddhism. Just as one can be a philosophical (as opposed to a religious) Christian, it’s perfectly possible to be a secular Buddhist.

Boru