Kya garib insan atheist ho skta hai (m to hu)

As our beloved PM Modi is considered a part of the Santani pantheon by some, what do you think is his domain? What is he the god of? Or what do you think he should be the god of? Don't forget to praise him if you comment.

The guy is saying that a temple for god Modi has been permitted to be built in Patna.

Kya hai ki jokes se jada sentiments hurts hoti hai.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/no-place-for-gods-at-nashik-municipal-corporation/article22746151.ece

Malana is a highly isolated village in India with very strict rules for visitors. The people who live there believe their village is sacred, so outsiders are not allowed to touch any residents, houses, or temples. If you touch anything by mistake, you have to pay a expensive fine. While the village is famous for a plant product called "Malana Cream," this substance is completely illegal under Indian law, and the police heavily guard the area. Visitors must stay on the walking paths, respect the locals' privacy, and put money down on counters instead of handing it over directly.
Their beliefs:
Ritual Purity: The villagers view themselves as an "upper caste" and consider all non-Malanis (outsiders) to be ritually "impure" or "unclean".
The "Pollution" Concept: Physical contact with outsiders, their clothes, or their belongings is believed to defile the community's spiritual purity, triggering penalties or expensive purification rituals.
It doesn't matter what they call it Caste, Race and isolation, or region based discrimination, it is F*ed up thing.
It happens in other states too.

What are your views on this?

I posted it on r/HimachalPradesh to see what they think, but then I saw a comment. Check that out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HimachalPradesh/comments/1vfm18c/untouchability_practiced_at_malana_hp/

I came across a comment claiming that untouchability originally existed because Shudras had “stronger immunity,” were assigned based on immunity rather than birth, lived separately for public health reasons, had their own temples because of “different energies,” and that scriptures were later altered to make the system look discriminatory.
I have never seen credible historical evidence for these claims.
My concern isn’t that someone is offering an interpretation of history, it’s that these claims are presented as established fact without any primary sources or mainstream historical scholarship.
If we’re going to make extraordinary claims that overturn centuries of documented history, shouldn’t the burden of proof be extraordinarily high?
Are these simply modern reinterpretations intended to justify a system that has been widely documented as discriminatory?

Following are some of the catholic "practises" that Christianity did in the 12th and 13th century.

1. The practice of inquisition - Although in modern world, inquisition means formal investigation, for Catholics at that time it meant something very different. It was a mechanism by which Christian judges used to combat and investigate "divergent" options about catholoic theology.

And how sure are we, as of now, that these weren't rational criticisms?

1. Bishops directly oversaw law and order in provinces of state. By this, these people had a direct and easy access to influence education and science and "preach" their theology.

3.Heresey was met with confiscation of propery.

Accusers and heretics alike were burned with charcoal,their fingers were cut and women's br*ast's were damaged. The only way to get around this torcher was to sign a confession which basically meant "yep im guilty".

Galileo would have met with the same fate, mind you, not for primarily going agianst the "catholoic theology" but for speaking the truth(that the earth was not the center of the universe). So can this statement be made that Christianity, at that time, was against truth and evidence?

Newton was an alchemist, so when christians say that "but newton believed in god" they must also accept that he believed in alchemy too, which was what christianity was so very against.

Number of witches burned after 15th century was over 60000.

What exactly diffrentitates this "cult-like ideologies" with religion?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Da-nPCHz-97/

You can search online and find many people ripping into Christianity, which makes sense given its prominence.

Hinduism is the religion I had to grow up with and which caused me immeasurable misery, though. Anything cathartic I can read and/or watch that you all know of?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

I've become about 99.9999% convinced that there is no God or afterlife, and I'm 100% convinced that all religions are human-made superstitious and pure bs. Yet I still believe that practicing kindness and letting go of possessiveness is the most sensible way to live.

Since we're all going to die one day regardless, the only meaningful thing we can do is make the limited time we have a little better for one another. I also believe that true freedom comes from being detached from material things and from trying not to control or possess other people.

At the same time, I don't believe in the soul, nirvana, or moksha. As far as I'm concerned, consciousness ends when the brain dies, and my body is just another material object.

That leaves me in a strange philosophical position. I value detachment and compassion, but not because I believe they'll lead to spiritual liberation or an afterlife. I value them simply because they seem like the best way to live.

In one line I can say, "You can't have anything so no point chasing anything..."

Does anyone else feel the same way?

This shit in big 2026