there are only so many options to remap keys in the settings and none of them include the option to remap the right shift key to backspace, is there a special menu to access where I can make the setting?
I am talking about buddhism, jainism, etc.
these are religions with an emphasis on there being no all powerful god, yet arguably these are more fanatical than even islam and judaism.
People fast themselves to death, burn themselves alive, perform religious obligations which are often times very draining and time consuming, I wonder why's that so?
Bhagat Singh killed an innocent man and was rightfully sentenced to death for it.
This incident was 1857 all over again, same foolishness of target killing people based on race, did we learn nothing from the aftermath of it? The queen stepped in and turned us into a proper colony from the protectorate of a company, we decided to kill white women and children because our fat kings who wouldn't even tie their own shoes were deposed and in return we got even stricter rule.
Bhagat Singh is not an ideal person to look up to.
I will take the stance of an atheist who will speak from the authority of valmiki ramayana, what I believe from the reading of it is that there are no valid criticisms of his character as it appears from the narrative, I would like to know what you think some are because I cannot find any.
I created this thread a while ago with a separate reddit ID I have but I got shadowbanned with that ID therefore my post was removed along with all my comments, I liked the course of the thread in the discussions I had with people, thought to create this one all over again.
Rama and Krishna, as we know them from the primary narratives about them, don't seem to have any valid criticisms which are popular enough to have come into my knowledge.
I do not claim to be a polemicist, I just like to engage atheists in discussions and my observation has a basis in that.
out of all world religions, only hinduism and apostolic christianity make a great case for their deities being "good" in the true sense of the word, islam, judaism, arya samaj, sikhism, protestant christianity etc have a very limited scope for grace as they not only abhor idol worship, they also reject the idea that god can incarnate, citing logical impossibilities or the conscious choice of their god.
These religions (the ones I mentioned apart from hinduism and apostolic christiainity) in my view are borderline atheistic, they do not really believe in god and remain as traditional or inherited customs.
Definitions:
Incarnation: it refers to the divine act of God taking human forms.
idol worship: the idea that god has vested powers in humans to consecrate inanimate objects as his own body to offer worship to him.
To demonstrate what I mean, hinduism and buddhism do not have robust jurisprudence as islam or judaism does, I am not sure how this came about considering both these religions were instated as state religions as some point in their existence and are millennia old.
Similarly, I was perplexed with the incarnation theology of Christianity and how that in description of christ's nature, the precise language in order to not associate with christ what undermines his true nature is employed, that rigor in my experience hasn't been much of a concern for islamic and judaistic philosophers since they don't believe in incarnation theology which is very difficult to defend.
The expansiveness of buddha's teachings about meditation and the mind simply surpasses that of any other religion, doctrines like abhidhamma which buddha taught find no equivalence in any other religious tradition.
Brahminism has a key emphasis on grammer, prosody and music as core religious practices, there is also lot of patronage of medicine, yoga or exercise and astrology, the latter being a key area of study.
Arpitspeaks in his latest video about acharya prashant has argued that prashant and his followers have a peculiar habit of reinstating the relevance of religious scripture by misrepresenting them to make them say the things taken up in popular discourse.
For an example, prashant and his followers will read a random verse of bhagvadgita and tell you that it is saying "insert the most popular opinion about a popular contention, eg reading a verse about how all dead bodies in kurukshetra would turn to soil and saying that its about climate crisis."
Arpit has demonstrated with textual examples that prashant is wrong about most of his interpretations of religious books.
Prashant tripathi cannot even deal with his critics in a sane manner, he calls them names like samosa sellers who shouldn't voice their opinion on vedanta and only the vedanta scholars should, arpit in reply to this showed opinions of actual vedanta scholars which completely go against what prashant tripathi teaches.
what are your thoughts on this?
The title should have been "secular/atheist partisanship..." but that would make it read weird according to me.
The idea is that atheist or irreligious people in their scholarship and discussions about theological differences often arbitrarily take sides, in my experience this disposition might be rooted in reason, but I also believe that the exercise of the said reasoning is constrained by something.
I would demonstrate this with an example, there are ongoing differences between hindus and muslims/sikhs about the status of idol worship and incarnation.
If an atheist, a muslim, a hindu and a sikhs were to discuss incarnation and idolatry, all of them for the sake of discussion granting certain common axioms about religions to be given, such as existence of god, possibility of communication with god through prayer, god anointing some humans (prophets, rishis) to guide in their own right, etc, the atheist in my experience will more likely side with the sikh and muslim against the hindu.
And they will have everything to argue for their position, that is why I said they are not biased, just disposed, meaning they are able to employ reason to serve a position which they hold, not out of affinity for any side in the discussion, but out of being limited in reasoning despite diligence.
Let me know what you think about this.