Karma and Samsara are indissociable from a higher power, regardless how anyone decides to portray it. That is incompatible with atheism. Agnosticism, totally, atheism, absolutely not.
If one believes in the supernatural (which I don’t) Karma and Samsara don’t stricly need agency. They could be emergent properties of underlying supernatural laws/processes.
They absolutely are incompatible with a rejection of the supernatural, but not with the simple rejection of the existence of a god (as in: a supernatural force with agency)
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. You can believe in these concepts without believing in a God.
You have your own definition of atheism and that’s fine but its just not broadly accepted. You seem to be following a specific sect or denomination of atheism that not only rejects god but all conceptualizations of spirituality or the soul. Which is totally fine but not the definition is broader than you portray it.
I think we can agree that this comes down to semantics but yours is a Western centric point of view. In Hindu philosophy one can believe in Karma and Samsara while ascribing to Advaita Vedanta which treats Brahman (the ultimate, infinite reality underlying everything) as impersonal and not tied to a deity. These individuals refer to themselves as Hindu Atheists and have so for thousands of years. You can No True Scotsman it as much as you’d like but atheism is defined as not believing in a deity and those that ascribe to this worldview do not believe in a deity.
I think the major semantic holdup here is due to a Western centric equivocation of higher power with God due Abrahamic monotheism. Does a higher power / laws of the universe have to be or come from a God? Several conceptualizations in Eastern religious philosophy would answer no to that question.
I think its best that we leave it at your perspective on atheism being specifically exclusivist/Western centric.
No, in human philosophy, if one believes in karma and samsara, one believes in non human agency, which is believing in god with extra steps. You’re welcome to do so, you just can’t have your cake and eat it too, by calling yourself atheist. It’s quite simple.
Also, calling me a “western settler colonialist” (as you did in your mod removed reply) because your arguments hold no water is tantamount to your acceptance of that lack of substance.
You’re welcome to hold onto whatever belief system you choose. Hindu atheists have referred to themselves as such for a very long time and if you want to gatekeep the term in whatever corner of the world you happen to be in, you’re free to do so. Just dont falsely hold onto to the idea that your belief system is universal.
Using phrasing like “primitive” (which is western colonial-settler terminology intended for dehumanization) warrants being called out I’m afraid. I deleted the comment as I felt yours did not warrant a thoughtful response.
Non human agency concepts like god or other supernatural events have existed since the dawn of time. Primitive humans had these concepts, thusly, it’s not out of place to call these concepts primitive, because they are. What’s out of place are misplaced accusations of settler colonialism, especially when these colonialists used primitive concepts, like god, to justify their barbarism.
Regarding holding on to belief systems, it appears you’re projecting, it’s not me trying to turn mysticism into secularism/atheism.
Karma and Samsara are indissociable from a higher power, regardless how anyone decides to portray it. That is incompatible with atheism. Agnosticism, totally, atheism, absolutely not.
If one believes in the supernatural (which I don’t) Karma and Samsara don’t stricly need agency. They could be emergent properties of underlying supernatural laws/processes.
They absolutely are incompatible with a rejection of the supernatural, but not with the simple rejection of the existence of a god (as in: a supernatural force with agency)
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. You can believe in these concepts without believing in a God.
You have your own definition of atheism and that’s fine but its just not broadly accepted. You seem to be following a specific sect or denomination of atheism that not only rejects god but all conceptualizations of spirituality or the soul. Which is totally fine but not the definition is broader than you portray it.
This is false. It’s precisely my point. A god like power is indistinguishable from the concept of god, the rest is semantics.
I think we can agree that this comes down to semantics but yours is a Western centric point of view. In Hindu philosophy one can believe in Karma and Samsara while ascribing to Advaita Vedanta which treats Brahman (the ultimate, infinite reality underlying everything) as impersonal and not tied to a deity. These individuals refer to themselves as Hindu Atheists and have so for thousands of years. You can No True Scotsman it as much as you’d like but atheism is defined as not believing in a deity and those that ascribe to this worldview do not believe in a deity.
I think the major semantic holdup here is due to a Western centric equivocation of higher power with God due Abrahamic monotheism. Does a higher power / laws of the universe have to be or come from a God? Several conceptualizations in Eastern religious philosophy would answer no to that question.
I think its best that we leave it at your perspective on atheism being specifically exclusivist/Western centric.
No, in human philosophy, if one believes in karma and samsara, one believes in non human agency, which is believing in god with extra steps. You’re welcome to do so, you just can’t have your cake and eat it too, by calling yourself atheist. It’s quite simple.
Also, calling me a “western settler colonialist” (as you did in your mod removed reply) because your arguments hold no water is tantamount to your acceptance of that lack of substance.
You’re welcome to hold onto whatever belief system you choose. Hindu atheists have referred to themselves as such for a very long time and if you want to gatekeep the term in whatever corner of the world you happen to be in, you’re free to do so. Just dont falsely hold onto to the idea that your belief system is universal.
Using phrasing like “primitive” (which is western colonial-settler terminology intended for dehumanization) warrants being called out I’m afraid. I deleted the comment as I felt yours did not warrant a thoughtful response.
Non human agency concepts like god or other supernatural events have existed since the dawn of time. Primitive humans had these concepts, thusly, it’s not out of place to call these concepts primitive, because they are. What’s out of place are misplaced accusations of settler colonialism, especially when these colonialists used primitive concepts, like god, to justify their barbarism.
Regarding holding on to belief systems, it appears you’re projecting, it’s not me trying to turn mysticism into secularism/atheism.