309
Vance Blasted as ‘Hindu-Phobic’ for Wanting Usha to Convert to Christianity
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
309 points (98.1% liked)
politics
26256 readers
3961 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Karma isn't a god
Only a theist thinks of atheism as strictly the rejection of god. Karma is non falsifiable thus incompatible with atheism.
Falsifiability is a methodological preference for many atheists but not a requirement since, at its core, atheism is the lack of belief in deities rather than a comprehensive epistemological doctrine.
The takeaway being you may define atheism in a more narrow sense but its not wrong to define it more broadly.
Karma and Samsara are indissociable from a higher power, regardless how anyone decides to portray it. That is incompatible with atheism. Agnosticism, totally, atheism, absolutely not.
If one believes in the supernatural (which I don't) Karma and Samsara don't stricly need agency. They could be emergent properties of underlying supernatural laws/processes.
They absolutely are incompatible with a rejection of the supernatural, but not with the simple rejection of the existence of a god (as in: a supernatural force with agency)
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. You can believe in these concepts without believing in a God.
You have your own definition of atheism and that's fine but its just not broadly accepted. You seem to be following a specific sect or denomination of atheism that not only rejects god but all conceptualizations of spirituality or the soul. Which is totally fine but not the definition is broader than you portray it.
This is false. It's precisely my point. A god like power is indistinguishable from the concept of god, the rest is semantics.
I think we can agree that this comes down to semantics but yours is a Western centric point of view. In Hindu philosophy one can believe in Karma and Samsara while ascribing to Advaita Vedanta which treats Brahman (the ultimate, infinite reality underlying everything) as impersonal and not tied to a deity. These individuals refer to themselves as Hindu Atheists and have so for thousands of years. You can No True Scotsman it as much as you'd like but atheism is defined as not believing in a deity and those that ascribe to this worldview do not believe in a deity.
I think the major semantic holdup here is due to a Western centric equivocation of higher power with God due Abrahamic monotheism. Does a higher power / laws of the universe have to be or come from a God? Several conceptualizations in Eastern religious philosophy would answer no to that question.
I think its best that we leave it at your perspective on atheism being specifically exclusivist/Western centric.
No, in human philosophy, if one believes in karma and samsara, one believes in non human agency, which is believing in god with extra steps. You're welcome to do so, you just can't have your cake and eat it too, by calling yourself atheist. It's quite simple.
Also, calling me a "western settler colonialist" (as you did in your mod removed reply) because your arguments hold no water is tantamount to your acceptance of that lack of substance.
You're welcome to hold onto whatever belief system you choose. Hindu atheists have referred to themselves as such for a very long time and if you want to gatekeep the term in whatever corner of the world you happen to be in, you're free to do so. Just dont falsely hold onto to the idea that your belief system is universal.
Using phrasing like "primitive" (which is western colonial-settler terminology intended for dehumanization) warrants being called out I'm afraid. I deleted the comment as I felt yours did not warrant a thoughtful response.
Non human agency concepts like god or other supernatural events have existed since the dawn of time. Primitive humans had these concepts, thusly, it's not out of place to call these concepts primitive, because they are. What's out of place are misplaced accusations of settler colonialism, especially when these colonialists used primitive concepts, like god, to justify their barbarism.
Regarding holding on to belief systems, it appears you're projecting, it's not me trying to turn mysticism into secularism/atheism.
Dude. No. My atheism is a rejection of a proposition that god exists. Nothing more and nothing less.
My strong/gnostic atheism is a rejection of the concept that gods could exist, based on my rejection of the concept of the supernatural based on my conviction of the intellectual importance of methodological materialism and scepticism in everyday epistemology.
But atheism does not have to include ANY of the second paragraph, it is NOT identical with scepticism, nor with the rejection of everything supernatural, even if those often coincide.
And you are muddying and diminishing atheism by "no true scotsman"ing it here.
Whatever man I'm not arguing with reddit atheism dogma, someday you'll grow up
Yes, believing in Karma is very grown up and not primitive at all, it's everyone else who is wrong.
r/atheism is leaking..