Atheist O Atheist

This is one topic which attracts me almost every time, and why not after all this is my religion, and I try to learn as much as I can about it. And I want reasons, mind you right reasons to believe in it. Its wrong, to always justify your actions, but its human nature. Because it’s the presumption of righteousness in every action which would not be forgiven by the history.

But I am not here to talk about the right and wrong, but to satisfy my own need of satisfaction. In this modern India I have seen people trying to act as an atheist, just be in fashion. So that they don’t become outdated temple going simple guy. They perhaps don’t know what literally atheist means. Ask them and they will say atheists are those who don’t believe in God. But can you reject something which never existed? Let me have the privilege of explaining the point, because it’s the base. For example if I say that I don’t believe in mentodiagrama, a kind of element found rarely on earth. Now tell me what was the first question which came into your mind? Is there any element named mentodiagrama? But what is happening here I said I don’t believe in this element. Why my own statement is actually giving birth to this new element. Why my own negative statement is fuelling the existence of this element. How can the question of believing or not believing arise in respect of something which never existed? So my point is when an atheist says that he doesn’t believe in God, he is actually contributing in giving others a notion of doubt that something called God can exist.
When someone asks me do I believe in God, I have to say No. And that’s exactly where they see me in a different way (specially those old spiritual people). And believe it or not, it’s not a good way, they look at me. Someone taunted once that not believing in God won’t give you more credit. And all I could say was I know. But who the hell wants credit. Does that mean that those who believe get credit? Who says, credit my ass.
What do you think how old can atheism be? A modern subject for those who want to increase their cool quotient? No it’s not. I would like to give a small account of Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate.
He writes in one of his books
“Since my childhood thoughts- for what they were worth- did not attract me at all to religion, I asked my grandfather whether I should be concerned that religion did not appeal to me. He told me, ‘No, in fact there is no case for religious convictions until you are able to think seriously for yourself – it will come with time.’ Since in my case it did not come at all (my scepticism seemed to mature with age), I told my grandfather, some years later, that he had been absolutely wrong. ‘Not at all,’ replied my grandfather, ‘you have addressed the religious question, and you have placed yourself, I see, in the aesthetic- The Lokayata- part of the Hindu spectrum!’”
So now I can proudly say that atheism in India is as old as Amrtya Sen. But no, its even more older. First let me expand Lokayata for you. Lokyata was a clan of people who had their doubts about any supernatural power or any special power in general. The active presence of atheism and and materialism could be felt in Ramayana (Rama and Javali conversation) and Geeta (Arjun Krishna conversations). Intricate arguments against Rama’s and Krishna’s orthodox views are elaborately accommodated and preserved in the body of the establish texts themselves. Even though orthodoxy is shown to win in the end, the vanquished scepticism lives on well conserved in the dialogic account. In Ramayana Javali is given a chance in the epic to spell out why he comes to that negative judgement: ‘ I am really anxious for those who, disregarding all tangible duties and work that lie within the province of perception, busy themselves with ethereal virtue alone. They just suffer various miseries on earth, preceding their annihilation by death’
The Lokayata philosophy of skepticism and materialism flourished from the first millennium BCE, and it was accepted by the Hinduism without any perceptions and assumption.


I would like to end this topic with the last lines of Vedas:-
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The God came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows, whence it has arisen.
Whence it has arisen- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not – the one who looks down in it, only he knows- or perhaps he does not know.
These 3500 year old doubts recur in Indian critical debates again and again. Indeed, Sanskrit not only has a bigger body of religious literature than any other classical language, it also has a larger volume of agnostic or atheistic writings than any other language.