From Gaudiya to Atheism Options

[0Kula-pavana0]

This is perhaps one and only site where I encounter ex-gaudiyas turned atheists. It is an interesting phenomenon for me. I know a lot of former devotees quite well but very few (if any) of them became atheists after leaving the movement.

Please explain. Are you reverting back to atheism? (going back to where you started from) Or did GV experiences caused you to lose the faith you had before?

Personally, I was never an atheist and dont recall ever having serious doubts about the existence of God and spiritual/supernatural side of existence. I encounterd my first atheist when I was 15 or so, and I still remember the incident very vividly. I was almost shocked that somebody could think like that. It is perhaps just as shocking for me to encounter ex-devotees who spent many years in the movement turn atheist.

It is a sincere thread, and not intended to bash anything or preach to anyone.

[evakurvan]

If someone attempts to practice religion that the government does not believe to be a lie, they will be arrested for practicing psychology without a license. In the library, the psychology books are in the same place as the religion books. This is because they are both religion really and they originally developed that way.

What is this form of psychology that the government sees as a non-lie and that it would arrest you for practising?

[0Kula-pavana0]

It is my opinion that the nonexistence of God is part the very structure of the reality of God. For myself, the epiphany of atheism is a vital to the ignition of God.

I guess it can be seen in that way (if I understand you correctly, as I'm not sure what to make of the word "ignition" here... cognition perhaps?). Atheism as the step of dismantling certain preconceived or implanted notions about God in the individual evolution of consciousness.

Sometimes I see people who reject religion (and therefore God) when they encounter all the cheating and suffering that goes on in the name of religion. I can even respect that.

[Prisni]

It is my opinion that the nonexistence of God is part the very structure of the reality of God. For myself, the epiphany of atheism is a vital to the ignition of God.

I am not sure I understand what you want to say there.

[angrezi]

we did a poll some time ago and I remember only one or two professed athiests at GR so I'm not sure who you are talking about KP.

[babu]

where is your god? is he in this computer? should i smash my computer?

[Brainiac]

This is perhaps one and only site where I encounter ex-gaudiyas turned atheists. It is an interesting phenomenon for me. I know a lot of former devotees quite well but very few (if any) of them became atheists after leaving the movement.

Please explain. Are you reverting back to atheism? (going back to where you started from) Or did GV experiences caused you to lose the faith you had before?

Personally, I was never an atheist and dont recall ever having serious doubts about the existence of God and spiritual/supernatural side of existence. I encounterd my first atheist when I was 15 or so, and I still remember the incident very vividly. I was almost shocked that somebody could think like that. It is perhaps just as shocking for me to encounter ex-devotees who spent many years in the movement turn atheist.

It is a sincere thread, and not intended to bash anything or preach to anyone.

I share similiar experiences to you, KP. I also met atheists and had serious talks with one around 2001 or so. Interestingly she was open to ideas of God although she was an avowed atheist. She was Indian too, from Bangalore.

I have also found that the same transformation into atheists occurs in other movements as well. One of the main reasons is that the abuses on them by their cults or movements were so traumatic that they are now bitter at the thought of anything to do with God or religion. I find it quite saddening myself. Also angry, that it happened because of abuses and trauma. It seems to be a common occurrence in other movements also.

[0Kula-pavana0]

Dude, I'm ****ing sex starved. I don't have any answers. Do you think its alright if I go out with a girl that smokes? Do you think it would end up bad?

yes, I can see that quite plainly now... in that state it is probably ok for you to go out with a goat, let alone with a girl that smokes (regardless of what she smokes).

thanks for your input.

[0Kula-pavana0]

One of the main reasons is that the abuses on them by their cults or movements were so traumatic that they are now bitter at the thought of anything to do with God or religion.

I was afraid of that. I think in the US our movement was a lot more cultish and abusive than in Europe, but I might be wrong.

Perhaps the abuse of the trust and faith placed in the "authorities" by rank and file devotees was most damaging in that area.

[0Kula-pavana0]

we did a poll some time ago and I remember only one or two professed athiests at GR so I'm not sure who you are talking about KP.

I got that impression reading some posts and member profiles. Do you have a link to that poll?

[angrezi]

we did a poll some time ago and I remember only one or two professed athiests at GR so I'm not sure who you are talking about KP.

I got that impression reading some posts and member profiles. Do you have a link to that poll?

I tried to find the poll but I can't. Maybe I'm imagining it. We could do another one though, as it was quite along time ago anyway.

I'm not an athiest, but I try keep my inclinations and opinions to myself about such matters, as I believe it is not really sane to go around professing a belief system of any sort without any first hand proof of its validity. And yes, I came to that coclusion post-Iskcon. I do have a spriritual practice and affiliation which only my closest friends and forum associates know about (and I trust them to keep it that way ! ).

Do I believe in 'God', yes. Do I believe most theists understand even an inkling of what God is, no. And they more they talk about it, the less I think they know. I know more about what is not God than what is; it, he or she, is not an intricate system of belief or an anthropomorphic entity that acts like people only better (but alas, that must also be God...lol). Therefore I understand what Darwin says when he wrote:

It is my opinion that the nonexistence of God is part the very structure of the reality of God. For myself, the epiphany of atheism is a vital to the ignition of God.

And would add, theists often try to create God (in a myriad of ways), which in effect, denies God and affirms his non-existence.

But I would comment upon what Darwin said earlier in his first post in the thread:

Most organized religion is atheist. Most of the leadership on ISKCON that I encounter are functionally atheist. They behave as if they believe there is no God. They behave as though they are believers in only a material Newtonian clockwork universe. .

I agree. I would say though that most rank and file members of religious organizations, and political societies are not essentially athiestic, just ignorant, and become moreso when they come into contact with such entities. Average people are motivated by fear: fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of life, fear, fear , fear...Religion and civil religion are chiefly aimed at channeling this fear into the perpetuation of themselves (and the bigwhigs enjoy the spoils on the side).

That is not to say people cannot have genuine 'spiritual' experiences within these structures, but the experiences are actually not attached to the structures, even though we like to believe otherwise. My temple is the coast, and the mountain.

So am I an athiest, no, but I think the term 'God' itself is a clunky idea charged with all kinds of cultural baggage most people are not even aware of, lurking in their minds. I was always amused (upon blooping, and exposing myself to different Indian belief systems and practitioners) how much Iskcon's Krsna is just a modified, a bit more loveable, version of the old/new testament bible God. I have always remembered a Prabhupada quote that I find darkly humorous in the face of IGM fanaticism: "the trouble with my disciples is they don't believe there really is a Krishna". I'll leave it to the folio pros to find it, if it hasn't been deleted; maybe some of you have heard that tho.

So I wasn't an athiest before Iskcon, nor now, but I left Iskcon because as Darwin summed it up, it is itself functionally atheistic in my observation also.

[0Kula-pavana0]

I have always remembered a Prabhupada quote that I find darkly humorous in the face of IGM fanaticism: "the trouble with my disciples is they don't believe there really is a Krishna". I'll leave it to the folio pros to find it, if it hasn't been deleted; maybe some of you have heard that tho.

So I wasn't an athiest before Iskcon, nor now, but I left Iskcon because as Darwin summed it up, it is itself functionally atheistic in my observation also .

yes, I know that quote, and I'm not a bit surprised Prabupada said what he said at that time. some things take a very long time to sink in and I meet people who were in the movement for 35 years and still have hard time grasping the actual basics while concentrating on the externals.

I have been separating Iskcon and Krishna Consciousness from day one. The functional atheism of this institution is arguably there, but then again: what do you expect from an institution? it is quite impossible to institutionalize theism. theism is really in the hearts of people and I see it in many Iskcon members. but not all.

[Dhyana]

we did a poll some time ago and I remember only one or two professed athiests at GR so I'm not sure who you are talking about KP.

I got that impression reading some posts and member profiles. Do you have a link to that poll?

Here:

http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...topic=1143&st=0

It might be a good idea to make a new poll. Maybe with fewer categories... makes people spoiled, they want to find their exact path descrbed, and when they don't, they vote "Other."

[0Kula-pavana0]

It might be a good idea to make a new poll. Maybe with fewer categories... makes people spoiled, they want to find their exact path descrbed, and when they don't, they vote "Other."

Thanks for the link. Very interesting... and despite a dazzling variety of choices most popular category was "other"... what a load of rugged individualists... (or were these 9 so confused they could not decide?)

but indeed: very few atheists and agnostics here... kind of confirms my earlier experiences...

[Prisni]

I have always remembered a Prabhupada quote that I find darkly humorous in the face of IGM fanaticism: "the trouble with my disciples is they don't believe there really is a Krishna".

That is not surprising, since most of his disciples come from a culture where the people hardly believe in themselves. Where they think that they are a random combination of chemicals. The first step, as far as I am concerned, is to get to the realization of the existence of oneself. Westerners even frown upon their own philosophers who came to that conclusion. From there it is a straight road to come the the realisation of the existence of God (as Descarte).

ISKCON is not much better, since there you are supposed to deny the self. How on earth you are supposed to realize Krishna from there, I have no idea of. But then, most don't.

Of course, to accept that there is a person Krishna, and from there to learn to know Krishna and to love Krishna, and to enter a loving relationship with Krishna, is a long road.

Atheism is just another religion. Atheism depends on theism for its existence, since it is a denial of God, just like satanism depends on christianity for its existence.
Impersonalism is more sofisticated, since the denial of persons automatically denies the existence of greater personalities; ie. gods.

[babu]

Atheism is just another religion. Atheism depends on theism for its existence, since it is a denial of God, just like satanism depends on christianity for its existence.

Prsni, you seem to be missing the point that atheists are envious and so its not just another religion

"Innocent child, five years old, Prahlada Maharaja, because he learned from Narada Muni even from the womb of his mother how to become a devotee and from the birth he was a devotee and his father did not like, Hiranyakasipu. Not only he did not like, he was prepared to kill his child in so many ways. That is atheism. Atheists are so much averse, sura-dvisat. They are envious. So to such person the madhyama-adhikari cannot preach because it is useless waste of time. If one is innocent but not envious we can preach there. That will be, I mean to say, fruitful. If we go to atheist and you go on speaking, he will never accept it. So don't waste your time in that way. That is nama-aparadha. But because we have not so much power that we can convert an atheist to become theist or devotee of God That requires special power."

(Srimad-Bhagavatam Lec. 5.5.28 Vrndavana, November 15, 1976)

[0talasiga0]

If someone attempts to practice religion that the government does not believe to be a lie, they will be arrested for practicing psychology without a license. In the library, the psychology books are in the same place as the religion books. This is because they are both religion really and they originally developed that way.

What is this form of psychology that the government sees as a non-lie and that it would arrest you for practising?

Thats a good question Evakurvan. I am also waiting for clarification
from the author of that post. Your quote did not identify the author.
It is difficult for me to recall who the author is.
I hope the author does not have a similar difficulty.

[Prisni]

Prsni, you seem to be missing the point that atheists are envious and so its not just another religion

Ooops, how could I miss that?
But that means that buddhism is not a religion either.

[Dhyana]

If someone attempts to practice religion that the government does not believe to be a lie, they will be arrested for practicing psychology without a license. In the library, the psychology books are in the same place as the religion books. This is because they are both religion really and they originally developed that way.

What is this form of psychology that the government sees as a non-lie and that it would arrest you for practising?

Thats a good question Evakurvan. I am also waiting for clarification
from the author of that post. Your quote did not identify the author.
It is difficult for me to recall who the author is.
I hope the author does not have a similar difficulty.

The author is on the couch

[angrezi]

If someone attempts to practice religion that the government does not believe to be a lie, they will be arrested for practicing psychology without a license. In the library, the psychology books are in the same place as the religion books. This is because they are both religion really and they originally developed that way.

What is this form of psychology that the government sees as a non-lie and that it would arrest you for practising?

Thats a good question Evakurvan. I am also waiting for clarification
from the author of that post. Your quote did not identify the author.
It is difficult for me to recall who the author is.
I hope the author does not have a similar difficulty.

This question is to Darwin since he wrote that, but I will jump in here and say my 2 pesos: one very clear example is the criminalization of psychedelic and psychotropic herbs and chemicals. The government must have seen some use for these substances since the CIA experimented with possible uses of LSD (as a 'truth serum'), after it was banned to citizens and scientists. I had a friend whose father was a botanist contracted by the CIA in the early 60's to grow marijuana for experiments. And recently Tommy Chong said he sold bongs to people in Dick Cheneys security deatail, so they still smokin.

The government saw the counterculture, and later protest movements as linked to use of these mind-expanding i.e. psychological substances. They understood that the even marginally awakened individuals will question the validity of war and consumerism, the bedrock of American life. They are not against intoxication at all, you can buy enough beer or tobacco to kill yourself at almost any gas station in the us (just don't drink and drive ).

There are religions in the US who have fought very hard with the government to use psychedelic substances in their worship, with minimal success. Its time for a mushroom revolution my friends.