WHY I AM AN ATHEIST AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL DISCOURSE PDF

adminComment(0)

Bhagat Singh why I am an Atheist An Autobiographical Discourse - Kindle edition by K. C. Yadav. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC. Read "Bhagat Singh why I am an Atheist An Autobiographical Discourse" by K. C. Yadav available from Rakuten Kobo. Sign up today and get $5 off your first. Bhagat Singh why I am an Atheist An Autobiographical Discourse eBook: K. C. Yadav: kaz-news.info: Kindle Store.


Why I Am An Atheist An Autobiographical Discourse Pdf

Author:KATRINA BECHERER
Language:English, Indonesian, Dutch
Country:Oman
Genre:Lifestyle
Pages:412
Published (Last):08.11.2015
ISBN:440-6-15364-370-7
ePub File Size:28.58 MB
PDF File Size:15.73 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Downloads:39747
Uploaded by: JAKE

Why I Am An Atheist book. Read reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Autobiography of an Indian revolutionary and freedom fighter. Why i Am an Atheist by Bhagat Singh 31 - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. his letter. A new question has cropped up. Is it due to Vanity that I do not believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God?.

This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions. As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been easier; the burden lighter.

My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end.

I am a realistic man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason.

I am not always successful in such attempts. Success depends on chance and circumstances. Now we come to the second question: Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical] philosophy creeps in. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds.

Sometimes they take very antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages.

He challenged the Authority of God.

All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, — lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are — we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.

It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise every tenet of old beliefs.

Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous.

Navigation menu

It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary. Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs.

If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy.

As far as I am concerned, I admit that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments.

Why I am an Atheist

We believe in nature and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world.

This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment.

But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him.

Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest.

Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter.

Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?

Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived.

There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. This is my question. You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point. You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth.

It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this argument carries weight! Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer.

These are: The Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen.

For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack.

Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin?

Absolutely no one of this sort! I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins.

Bhagat Singh

Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences?

God, or he, or the learned people of that society?

What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears.

If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible?

Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes. They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories.

He will willingly help you in the process. I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him.

Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked. One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all-powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people?

Join Kobo & start eReading today

How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions?

You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them?

How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure? Enabled Language: Customers who viewed this item also viewed. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. Why I am an Atheist. Bhagat Singh. Jail Notebook and Other Writings.

Bhagat Singh: An Immortal Revolutionary of India. Bhawan Singh Rana. Why I Am Not an Atheist. Product details Format: Kindle Edition File Size: Hope India Publications 10 August Sold by: English ASIN: Enabled X-Ray: Not Enabled.Because he has risen above, therefore everything he says-may be in the field of Politics or Religion, Economics or Ethics-is right. Charwak is still another independent thinker of the past ages. It was these theories which prompted SC Bose's famous statement claiming freedom is a birth right.

It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary. I got admission to the National College. Peter Gonsalves. It is to be pronounced in a week or so.

My soul will come to nothing.