The great Indian society and Atheism
"Disclaimer: This is not an attack on faith. It is a critique of intolerance. Extremists exist in every camp; they are not the subject here."
“It is better to attain hell than to have an atheist or wicked people nearby.”
~A well-known religious leader
Fascinating.
Eternal torture. Infinite pain. Cosmic punishment.
It is all preferable rather than standing next to someone who simply doesn’t believe.
Let that stay in your head a little
A murderer might be redeemed.
A corrupt official might be forgiven.
A hypocrite might still be called “dharmic.”
But an Atheist? Apparently worse than hell itself.
What exactly is so dangerous about a person who just says, “I’m not convinced”?
We are a society that tolerates corruption in power as a daily event,
blind worship of politicians and film stars as "fandom",
Rising inflation as an adjustment,
Unsafe streets for women are a topic of debate,
Collapsing civic ethics as normal,
but disagreement over metaphysics? Unacceptable.
Not a crime.
Not injustice.
Not incompetence.
Disbelief.
That is what shakes us. Fascinating indeed.
The conflict with Atheism
The problem is not with Atheism itself,
The problem is that Atheism is uncomfortable.
Think about it. If "A" adopted a stray cat and "B" doesn't believe that the cat is real, then why would "A" feel threatened? They still have the cat
Others might call "B" delusional for not believing the cat is real, but it's still no one's loss. They might say that "B" needs to be cured of their delusion because it's said that there's a cat. But what is the proof that "A" is not the actual delusional one because people sometimes hallucinate without them neccessarily lying.
So, there are chances that "A" may be the actual delusional one.
So what does this prove? It demonstrates uncertainty. It proves that, while the idea of a cat seems acceptable, it may still be possible that it is not the objective truth, and even if it is, it still hurts no one to decline the idea.
If my neighbor believes the Earth is flat,
I may disagree.
I may even roll my eyes.
But unless he starts disrupting my life,
His belief does not threaten my existence.
The conflict begins only when belief demands obedience.
Not when belief exists.
Position of Atheism in India
In India, Atheism isn't treated like a philosophical ground,
but it is seen as a problem.
It is treated as a character defect or something that needs a fix or a cure. Being an atheist, I face critiques daily. Believers think they sound logical.
Let's dissect some popular arguments that believers put forward.
"If there's no god, then how will you decide good or bad?"
This one is really popular. But it assumes something dangerous: That there's no morality without supervision.
Though many others have answered this powerfully, I will put forward my thoughts.
So for the sake of the arguement let's assume that there is actually no god.
So will the morality collapse?
Does the line between good and bad seem blurry now?
Whenever you think of some action, ask yourself these questions:
- Does it affect anyone?
- Will that action harm those affected emotionally or physically?
- Is the aftermath of that action greater than the loss?
- Is there any better alternative?
You don't need to ask ancient scriptures to answer that murder isn't a good deed; it affects someone other than the doer negatively, causing absolute harm to life, and the aftermath isn't greater than the life gone.
I am not trying to say that this is the absolute framework to determine morality, ofcourse they are n numbers of other factors in play as well. It simply proved that morality doesn't need supervision to hold its ground; basic empathy is the main prerequisite here
If the only reason someone refrains from harming others is fear of divine punishment, that is not morality.
That is surveillance compliance.
"Believing that God doesn't exist is also a belief in itself."
This sounds clever because it positions atheism on the same ground as theism. It sounds symmetrical, but it is not.
Here's the distinction:
If X says, "I have a demon living in my garage."
And Y says that "I am not convinced. Prove it to me."
Then they are not in the same position. X is making a positive claim that they have a demon in their garage, and Y simply rejects the claim, so Y isn't making any claim.
It's like saying that not collecting stamps is also a hobby. It sounds witty, but it confuses absence with opposition.
In short, tending to the default truth until any proof is given isn't a claim; it's the baseline.
Believing in God isn't wrong, but imposing your belief on someone is.
Faith is personal.
Control is political.
Confusing the two is where the real problem begins.
More of me :
Post written by - @lairs.bug
find me on Github, or mail me @lairs.bug@gmail.com