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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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: 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: 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.

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.

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."

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...

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.

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)

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.

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

The author is on the couch

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.

I have never heard the word 'impersonalism' used to describe nirguna Brahman (if that is indeed what they mean) outside of Iskcon, and believe it to be a misnomer and murky substitute for the Christian's Satan within that group.

But to the point, no, the realization of nirguna Brahman does not "automatically deny (ies) the existence of greater personalities; i.e. gods". Where did you get this idea? Probably 80+% of Hindus, including some Vaisnavas, in India are "impersonalist" by Iskcon understanding, and guess what... they all worship gods and goddesses (save some Dasnami sannyassis)...

This is another example of how an organised religious doctrine tries to create God, or in this case, creates the antithesis of God, the scary, dangerous, 'impersonalists" .... ...

Buddhism is agnostic, not athiestic

Buddhism is not atheistic sorry...

not exactly..

The Buddhas approach was more gnostic...

one of direct knowing

Thank you, the use of that word 'impersonalism' or calling advaitins or buddhists as 'impersonalists' is a red flag to me.

It also denotes one not very well read in Vedanta..

hi talasiga thanks for digging my question, i am interested in the answer too.

darwin i dont know if the laws changed in america, but anyone can call themelves therapist or a psychotherapist, training or not, open their private practise, and charge whatever they like, and do almost whatever they like, since there is no professional corporation to oversee these things like there is with psychologists and psychiatrists. Go for it. Do it for free.

I don't see the problem in my response to this (seems like it was disregarded). I have acted as my own psychologist and psychiatrist many times, quite effectively I may add. Plus I can afford my rates.

I guess this involved prescribing medication, too?

What God do the buddhist worship?

I'll buy that

I remember long ago you posted pictures at a psychiatry protest you attended in Boston on the forum istagosthi, (which i was never a registered member of - but used to read). I am a fan of parts of that movement, and i am asking because i think it is cool to talk about this on the internets outside of little ghetto enclaves of disenfranchised mental patients that no one pays attention to. So what better place than the very mainstream zone of a computer chat board of ex hare krishnas? oh come on!

Buddhism is neither theistic or non-theistic ...

Buddha was Vishnu I thought so I guess he was just in self denial

I guess that can make some sense in the sense that "theo" is a western word, and not Indian/sanskrit, and thus all kinds of meanings can be attributed to the word, in relation to hinduism.

If "theo" means "God", then a-theo, means not God. And thus a-theo-ist means someone who does not believe in God.

buddhists are atheists only in the eyes of a theist and maybe some atheists too...

have you read much on buddhism at all..?

Dear Prisni,
You need to develop your understanding of the accepted meaning
of "atheist" and "agnostic" and the relationship between them.

The meaning of atheist has already been clarified for you by others.
"Agnostic" has many complex permutations of meaning. Basically. it means the opposite of "gnostic" and the latter is a word relating to EXPERIENTIAL knowing of God.

Now the Buddha, in my understanding (having been an associate member of various Buddhist groups and having lived with an aged Arahant in the early 70's)
did not deny the Divine - that would have made him an atheist. The Buddha denied the the relevance of the Divine to our situation. The Buddha set out a program for liberation and that program does not include experience of God. Buddhism is not gnostic, therefore. It is agnostic.

In plain language. The Buddha didn't say there is no God. He just denied the relevance of our conceptions of God under our state of illusion for the path of liberation.

I hope you can now see the difference. Please rest assured that this is not intended to be a post feting the greatness of Buddhism or the opposite.

It is good to be a devotee of Raadha and better be a devotee
unadorned by misunderstanings.

Jay Raadhe Shyaam!
Yours by the rustling pebbles,
Talasiga

agnostic implies not sure if there is or is not a God..buddhism does not teach that existence was ever created nor had a beginning at any time, rather buddhists hold existence to be in a constant state of flux...Therefore a creator God it is not a consideration at all, buddhists are not unsure about God because he is just not part of that reality tunnel..

you can't step into the same river twice, that's what I be takin bout now...

You might be true there. I will pick up a good book, and well as one about buddhism.

Hinduism is not far from there. Krishna says in the BG that the he and the living entities were never created, and will never disappear. What is created is the material realm. And thus existence was never created, but material existence was. Which also means that there both is a creator God, and not, depending on viewpoint and how secterian one wants to be.

What does it really matter? On the next test, I will cross in atheist, since I don't believe in a God that created earth in 7 days. Often "theist" kind of implies that, or that you BELIEVE in that. From many points of view I have an atheist scientific standpoint. I believe in science more than ISKCON :-)

Actually, I believe that the fundamental building block is conscious. That dead matter, as we know it, is an illusion. I believe that the material world is like a big virtual reality game, that the conscious being goes through and identifies with the trials and tribulations of the character chosen.
(If someone shoots holes in that definition, I will revise it)

So lets make a label. Personalism here means the belief that personality is fundamental Impersonalism means that personality is not fundamental.

What am I them. Theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic? Whatever the label, it does not change my fundamental standpoint.

From what I have read, it seems that you are a bit of everything, really. I suppose most of us are a bit of this and that during various periods of our journey.

"beliefs are like opinions are like a$$holes. everyone has one and they are full of $hit." leonarda da vinci

You mean Clint Eastwood got it from Lenny?

we were discussing if buddhism was atheistic or theistic, I really I don't think you get it, so you throw something like that up.

everything matters

i love you all

Can "something matters" be understood as "something generates matter" ?

and can "everything matters" and "nothing matters" both be simultaneously true?

Ever heard of trivalent logic?