`Question to Atheists` - For Reddit

Question to Atheists - For Reddit

I proposed a lot of things. When I do (it takes a lot of effort, don't ask me to replicate here), when I do, they have
no argument - that is, I would've loved some good arguments if it could help me correct any flaws in my views - their argument
is simply - most people who follow the religion are not following your interpretations of it.

What kind of an argument is that?

So what are you proposing? Should we make reading books mandatory on them, and excommunicate those who don't follow it well?

I'm not in the authority anyways. I'm just someone who happened to read them accidentally and find value in it. And I did not
read them from any apologists either. I'm born Hindu, and I used to hate the religion so much so that even when I became a theist later
I'd only read the Qur'aan and Bible, and I only accidentally read Hindu texts while trying to organize it just for the sake of organizing
it, because I wanted to tell some Jihaadists that Hindus don't deserve to get killed and that they are not "hiders" who "know the truth
and conceal it to worship made-up gods." But in order to do that, I had to first study the religion.

So I can affirm from firsthand knowledge that you guys are just people who have not read any book in context criticizing other people who
have not read any books either. As for people who read Manu Smrithi, Manu-Vaadis are for Hinduism are what Maoists are to Marxists. Are they
as subset? Yes? But is it a binding book? No. And I know none of you have read it, because it took me almost an year just to get the texts
grouped in the relevant order, much less making sense of important concepts.

But I'd say Buddhism could be even harder, or maybe I'm just too tired from organizing Hindu texts to start with Buddhism, because I need to
learn some Chinese and Japanese to organize their canons.

On the other two Abrahamic religions:

They are missionary religions. They have organized structures. They have theology courses in universities. Hinduism has none of that.

Jews are another people who did not do that. That's why they got accused of for nonsensical reasons. The people who quote from the Talmud
have no understanding of the Talmud works. I know, because I did that. And I'd never do that for the Bible, and especially the Qur'aan,
because I'd get quickly corrected if I'm quoting it out of context (and in case of Qur'aan, it has nested contexts - so you have to do your
own work).

All this proved is that people who export their ideologies get more followers and if they are bigoted ideologies, they'll attack people
without studying their end. Yeah, Judaism and Hinduism too are "one-true-path" philosophies. But Jews said God gave other laws to the sons
of Noach and Hindus (minus underdeveloped societies) said their views are opt-in. Buddhism too is a "one-true-path" ideology, and in fact,
unlike the other two, it was an export ideology (though Hinduism too was exported, but much like the same manner), but it was not a bigoted
ideology, so that's why it's not problematic.

Do you know why exactly it is the way it is?

See, I hate Muhammad's Deen, and its followers to the extent they follow it. But that's after my studying of the Deen, and I've personally seen
where the problems lie, within context. There is something I hate more, and that's anyone from my side (anywhere) blaming its followers based on
some misinterpretation of their books, or hearsay and paranoia. Because there are some ways in which they can be shown those and corrected, and
they are not born demons for following them.

Now, the thing about the general public is that, they do not like to think. The average person is not a scientist or a philosopher. Even if you
make an ELI5 for them, if it's a complex topic, it'll end up being long in the simplified form, and they are not interested in learning it. It's
not just intellectual prowess that they lack, but also patience. In fact, I'd say it's just patience, because the time I'd spend learning a topic
and making it ELI5 and presenting it to them would be more than enough for them to study it on their own, mostly. I mean, on some topics, my
experience helps, but generally, I think it's not that hard to study anything.

It's for the same reason that the Veda-s are divided into three parts - Karma Kaanda, Upaasana Kaanda and Jnaana Kaanda. The second portion is about
Upaasana, which is translated as meditative focus, but for the public, it means Bhakti, or worship. As I'd usually say, the entities for which idols
are made are called Moorthi-s, while there are another class of deities called Devatha-s, who are analogous to angels in Abrahamic religions.[1] A Moorthi
is basically an iconography for the creator God, for whom no true iconography exists.[2]

[1]: In another sense, all of them are Devatha-s, and all of them can have Moorthi-s. But the two classes of deities are Kaarya-Swaroopa-Moorth-s and
Kaarana-Swaroopa-Moorthi-s. Kaarya-Swaroopa-Moorthi-s are
[2]: On that note, I was planning on seriously explaining how Doraenath worship could actually be valid under Hinduism.

Question to Atheists - For Reddit

`Question to Atheists` - For Reddit