Many paths

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Actually I don't think I misunderstood his post and this was confirmed in Sriram's later posts.

It was confirmed in Sriram's later posts that you misunderstood his OP. Sriram confirmed that he wasn't saying in his OP that atheists cannot be devoted, selfless or wise.

My initial thought on the OP was that this was yet another of the 'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion' type views. And so it appears to be, hence reply 15.

How do you figure that? You asked Sriram in #14 "Do you accept that it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom without being spiritual or religious or a believer in god?

Simple question, requires just a simple yes/no answer"
And Sriram replied in #15 "yes". As in yes it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom without being spiritual or religious or a believer in god

Really, I think your own words:

'... your condescending response (reply #16) about his use of the English language just comes across as patronising racism to me.'

tell a rather different story VG

No - you've misunderstood again. You seem to be making a habit of it. 'Can't write English properly' is an objective assessment meaning his spelling or grammar is incorrect. "

'His use of the English Language' is a subjective assessment based on your opinion. You patronisingly admonishing him in #16 by saying "you could have made things a lot easier by being clear about this in the first place" and "I would also urge you not to engage in language the perpetuates lazy stereotypes" and "So please think a little more carefully about your choice of words when discussing" is nothing to do with implying Sriram has poor spelling or grammar. It is you blaming Sriram for your own poor comprehension skills.

Telling someone with excellent English language skills that their use of language is insulting or prejudiced simply because you lack comprehension skills or you have made unfounded assumptions is not a good look at the best of times. I said it comes across as patronising racism to me when you say it to someone from India multiple times in the context of this topic of a Hindu philosophy and its views on atheism, even after it has been explained to you that you misunderstood the OP. Obviously it is not your prerogative to determine how words in the English language should or should not be used by Sriram in relation to explaining Hindu philosophies, but you are free to express your opinion on his use of language and I am free to express my opinion on your use of language.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've no intention of trawling back through previous threads, but I've been just as vociferous in my condemnation towards others for the lazy stereotyping of atheists and atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion type views. Just ask AB, AO, Spud, Vlad and a bunch of other posters over the years.

Ok up to you. Until you can link to some examples of this, I'll stick with my initial assessment that your #16 comes across as patronising racism. Similarly, you can continue with your assessment that Sriram was being prejudiced and insulting if you want.

But apparently when I act in an entirely consistent manner with Sriram that I use with other posters I am racist - hmmm.

On this thread, I don't think you did act in an entirely consistent manner.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I disagree - takes into account needs to mean more that an attempt to do so, even less a mere assertion that you do.

If I said that we'd taken account of the views of woman (in some consultation) and actually no-one had even discussed the matter with a single woman, I imagine you'd counter that I hadn't taken account of the views of women whatsoever.

If I said it was a fact that I'd taken account of the views of women (just because I claimed to have) you'd quite rightly laugh me out of court.

That Hindu philosophy takes into account non-human life is a subjective opinion not a demonstrable fact. The notion that I and others can easily counter this view through appeal to the anthropocentric nature of philosophies (as NS and I have been doing) shows that we are talking about opinion, not fact. So happy to discuss Sriram's opinion on the matter, as we are currently doing.

Invalid comparison. Sriram said "the philosophy takes into account other forms of life besides human"

Sriram did not say "takes into account the views of other forms of life besides humans"

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

True - and therefore we need to conclude that human-derived philosophies do not, and cannot, take account of other species as they cannot be based on an meaningful understanding of their experiences and perceptions. And therefore these philosophies are to a greater, or lesser, sense anthropocentric in nature and limited as such.

No we don't need to conclude that. It's a fact that science and philosophy takes into account other life forms apart from humans. No one is suggesting that science and philosophy are taking into account the views of those other life forms, as no one has suggested that the other life forms have completed a survey for us to know their views. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Except, of course, Sriram didn't say that - what he actually said was:

... even atheists can get salvation

And on devotion, selflessness and wisdom which he sees as spiritual:

... even atheists could be spiritual (by which Sriram indicated he meant devotion, selflessness and wisdom)

It is the word even which is the problem as it clearly implies that this is unexpected, exceptional etc. It is this word which turns a sentence which is otherwise anodyne into one that is casually insulting and pandering to lazy stereotyping of groups of people based on certain attributes.

So let's try some more analogies for size (note none of these are phrases I would use except for the purposes of this analogy):

... even women can be rational

... even jewish people can be generous

... even black people can be hard-working

... even muslims can be peace-loving

... even gay people can be monogamous

If you cannot see the issue, then, frankly I give up.

Irrelevant examples.

Sriram said "even atheists could be spiritual". An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. Therefore Sriram's point was that Hindu philosophy does not say a belief in gods is a prerequisite for spirituality, despite some traditional meanings of  the word "spirituality" in the dictionary referencing religion, as there are also definitions of "spirituality" that do not require a belief in gods, souls or spirits e.g some definitions from the internet below:

Spirituality
as relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things

relating to religion or religious belief

relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religious beliefs

of or relating to the inner character of a person

The inner character of a person is not a material or physical entity but nor does an inner character require a belief in souls or gods with all their religious connotations. So a person can agree with the concept of an inner character while being atheist, as inner characters are not linked to beliefs in gods or souls.

Your examples using "rational" , "generous", "hard-working", "peace-loving" or "monogamous" do not compare to "spiritual" because unlike "spiritual" they do not contain root words that are linked to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gay people respectively. If you look up "women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays" the dictionary does not mention "ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous"

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have no problem whatever with anyone discussing/challenging/objecting to all sorts of ideas(such as what devotion means for whatever religion you care to mention).

Just to add to what I said as to why I think the opening post was better suited to the 'Eastern religions' section, I took Sriram's remark about it being 'for information' at face value, and therefore as it concerned information about Hinduism, it would probably be better suited to an area where those who wished to seek such information would be most likely to look.

Fair enough - you are of course entitled to hold that view. The reason I disagree is because Sriram has posted in the "Philosophy in all its guises" section before in relation to Hindu philosophy, for our information. Hindu philosophy is not the same as Hindu religion.

Hindu philosophy is concerned with philosophy - it does not necessarily include a belief in gods. https://slife.org/hindu-atheism/

[ProfessorDavey]

Irrelevant examples.

Clearly I disagree - but let's park our disagreement on their relevance for a while, I'll return to it. Can we just address whether you think the statements are problematic.

So VG do you think that certain groups, including (but not limited to) women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people may find the following statements insulting and condescending (note none of these are phrases I would use except for the purposes of this discussion):

... even women can be rational

... even jewish people can be generous

... even black people can be hard-working

... even muslims can be peace-loving

... even gay people can be monogamous

VG - do you think it would be considered even more insulting and condescending if the ability of these groups to exceptionally demonstrate these characteristics was linked directly to adopting attributes ascribed to a different group. So:

... even women can be rational if they start thinking more like men

... even jewish people can be generous if they adopt a humanist philosophy

... even black people can be hard-working if they adopt the work ethics of white people

... even muslims can be peace-loving if they follow the teachings of christianity

... even gay people can be monogamous if they follow the morality of heterosexual couples

Now again I'm simply using these examples for the purposes of this discussion - I do not agree with the statements and personally find them all deeply insulting and condescending.

Do you agree with me VG - do you find these statements insulting and condescending towards women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Clearly I disagree - but let's park our disagreement on their relevance for a while, I'll return to it. Can we just address whether you think the statements are problematic.

So VG do you think that certain groups, including (but not limited to) women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people may find the following statements insulting and condescending (note none of these are phrases I would use except for the purposes of this discussion):

... even women can be rational

... even jewish people can be generous

... even black people can be hard-working

... even muslims can be peace-loving

... even gay people can be monogamous

VG - do you think it would be considered even more insulting and condescending if the ability of these groups to exceptionally demonstrate these characteristics was linked directly to adopting attributes ascribed to a different group. So:

... even women can be rational if they start thinking more like men

... even jewish people can be generous if they adopt a humanist philosophy

... even black people can be hard-working if they adopt the work ethics of white people

... even muslims can be peace-loving if they follow the teachings of christianity

... even gay people can be monogamous if they follow the morality of heterosexual couples

Now again I'm simply using these examples for the purposes of this discussion - I do not agree with the statements and personally find them all deeply insulting and condescending.

Do you agree with me VG - do you find these statements insulting and condescending towards women, jewish people, black people, muslims, gay people?

Yes I agree.

Our disagreement was on the following point:

Did Sriram make similar statements about atheists to the sentences you have listed above.

I say no on the basis that just focusing on the word even does not indicate to me that he did, as the word even has to be considered in the context of his statement. Western or Christian notions of spirituality are intrinsically linked to religion or a belief in gods, Eastern notions of spirituality are not hence in various Eastern philosophy you can be spiritual and atheist. 

We also disagreed about whether Sriram's phrasing (use of language) about Hindu philosophy excluded atheists from being devoted, selfless or wise or spiritual. I say his phrasing did not exclude atheists, you think it did. You asked him to clarify using a simple yes or no - and he clarified that yes he was saying Hindu philosophy included atheists as being capable of being spiritual, selfless etc

[ProfessorDavey]

Your examples using "rational" , "generous", "hard-working", "peace-loving" or "monogamous" do not compare to "spiritual" because unlike "spiritual" they do not contain root words that are linked to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gay people respectively. If you look up "women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays" the dictionary does not mention "ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous"

Nope - you are making a bit of a category error here.

You are quite correct that the dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays does not include ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous.

But the comparator to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays in Sriram's statement is atheists, hence:

... even atheists can get salvation

And on devotion, selflessness and wisdom which he sees as spiritual:

... even atheists could be spiritual (by which Sriram indicated he meant devotion, selflessness and wisdom)

As far as I'm aware the dictionary definition of atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods - no dictionary definition of atheist that I know of mentions saved/not saved; devoted/not devoted; selfish/selfless; foolish/wise; spiritual/not spiritual.

Perhaps you know of another dictionary definition of atheist that does mention those terms, but if not your point about dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays is entirely irrelevant.

However the broader point about lazy negative stereotyping of groups of people remains valid and is just as valid for atheists as for women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays (albeit the nature of the negative stereotype is different in each case), hence why my comparisons were completely valid and relevant.

[Sriram]

Gabriella....I think you are wasting your time  trying to discuss  this matter in detail with Prof D. He is a person who will not be able to see the totality of what I have been saying. He latches on to words here and there and enters into an argument. IMO you should just ignore his views.

Thanks again. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nope - you are making a bit of a category error here.

You are quite correct that the dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays does not include ir/rational, un/generous, lazy/ hard-working, violent /peace-loving, promiscuous/ monogamous.

But the comparator to women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays in Sriram's statement is atheists, hence:

... even atheists can get salvation

And on devotion, selflessness and wisdom which he sees as spiritual:

... even atheists could be spiritual (by which Sriram indicated he meant devotion, selflessness and wisdom)

As far as I'm aware the dictionary definition of atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods - no dictionary definition of atheist that I know of mentions saved/not saved; devoted/not devoted; selfish/selfless; foolish/wise; spiritual/not spiritual.

Perhaps you know of another dictionary definition of atheist that does mention those terms, but if not your point about dictionary definitions of women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays is entirely irrelevant.

However the broader point about lazy negative stereotyping of groups of people remains valid and is just as valid for atheists as for women, Jews, black people, Muslims or gays (albeit the nature of the negative stereotype is different in each case), hence why my comparisons were completely valid and relevant.

Nope - I already addressed this point in my reply #82. It is you who is making the error by taking words out of the context they are used in, and you are persisting in your error even after Sriram clarified his meaning. I can think of a couple of possible reasons why you refuse to accept Sriram's clarification and persist in your error - some of them involve prejudice on your part. 

I suggest you take a leaf out of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and further develop your devotional mindset so you focus less on your ego.

Atheists can follow a devotional path - according to Hindu philosophy (see Sriram's OP) - so feel free to explore and see where it takes you.

[Sriram]

Yes....atheists can be devotional.

Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god).   These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.

It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes....atheists can be devotional.

Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god).   These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.

It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.

Here you go again Sriram - by definition an atheist does not believe in god or gods. Hence your philosophical approach is anathema to an atheist as either they'd have to not believe that mothers or fathers or teachers exist if they are to be both atheist and accept your philosophical position (that mother/father/teacher is god). Or alternatively they'd accept that mothers, fathers and teachers exist but reject your philosophical teaching as to accept that they both exist and are gods then they couldn't be an atheist.

For the record this particular atheist is convinced that mothers, fathers and teachers exist - however I do not consider that mothers, fathers or teachers are gods, not least because I do not believe that god or gods exist.

Why do you focus devotion on dieties, gods etc. I can be devoted to my mother, to my father, to my teacher without the need to consider them to be a god (actually) or , nor to feel the requirement to use the language of deities in relation to them (i.e. using god metaphorically).

[Sriram]

Here you go again Sriram - by definition an atheist does not believe in god or gods. Hence your philosophical approach is anathema to an atheist as either they'd have to not believe that mothers or fathers or teachers exist if they are to be both atheist and accept your philosophical position (that mother/father/teacher is god). Or alternatively they'd accept that mothers, fathers and teachers exist but reject your philosophical teaching as to accept that they both exist and are gods then they couldn't be an atheist.

For the record this particular atheist is convinced that mothers, fathers and teachers exist - however I do not consider that mothers, fathers or teachers are gods, not least because I do not believe that god or gods exist.

Why do you focus devotion on dieties, gods etc. I can be devoted to my mother, to my father, to my teacher without the need to consider them to be a god, nor to feel the requirement to use the language of deities in relation to them.

I am sorry....but your powers of comprehension are seriously in doubt! You really need to get out a little more....

[ProfessorDavey]

I am sorry....but your powers of comprehension are seriously in doubt! You really need to get out a little more....

What is so difficult to understand Sriram.

As an atheist I do not believe in god or gods (that's what it says on the tin) - therefore if I show devotion to my mother, father or teacher, which I clearly can, it will not be to a god. And nor will I feel it necessary to wrap up that devotion metaphorically or actually in the language of gods. Therefore I will reject your philosophy, not because I am unable to show devotion, nor because I am not devoted to my mother, father or teacher, but because I do not believe in god or gods.

Is that really so hard to understand Sriram.

[Sriram]

What is so difficult to understand Sriram.

As an atheist I do not believe in god or gods (that's what it says on the tin) - therefore if I show devotion to my mother, father or teacher, which I clearly can, it will not be to a god. And nor will I feel it necessary to wrap up that devotion metaphorically or actually in the language of gods. Therefore I will reject your philosophy, not because I am unable to show devotion, nor because I am not devoted to my mother, father or teacher, but because I do not believe in god or gods.

Is that really so hard to understand Sriram.

Well...ok.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well...ok.

Blimey - that was hard work.

Again - why is it so hard to get you to understand that someone who is an atheist won't see things in the same manner as someone who believes in god. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be just as devoted, selfless and wise as a person who does believe in god and likely will use their own philosophical compass (e.g. humanism) to recognise that being devoted, selfless and wise are positive attributes that we should strive to attain and really don't need to be told that if they are being devoted, selfless and wise that we are somehow adopting hindu philosophy.

I could equally argue that if you are striving to be devoted, selfless and wise you are clearly demonstrating just how important secular atheistic humanist philosophy is. That you've finally come around to accept that secular atheistic humanist philosophy is the correct 'path'. Of course I won't as I recognise striving to be devoted, selfless and wise seem to be pretty well universal in moral philosophy (whether religious or not) so none of us has any particular claim on them, any more than anyone else. I will be striving for these things as I have a broadly secular humanist philosophical outlook while you will be doing so as you have a broadly hindu religious philosophical outlook. That we both strive for the same things doesn't make me an adherent of hindu religious philosophy nor does it make you an adherent of a secular atheistic humanist philosophy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Here you go again Sriram - by definition an atheist does not believe in god or gods. Hence your philosophical approach is anathema to an atheist as either they'd have to not believe that mothers or fathers or teachers exist if they are to be both atheist and accept your philosophical position (that mother/father/teacher is god). Or alternatively they'd accept that mothers, fathers and teachers exist but reject your philosophical teaching as to accept that they both exist and are gods then they couldn't be an atheist.

For the record this particular atheist is convinced that mothers, fathers and teachers exist - however I do not consider that mothers, fathers or teachers are gods, not least because I do not believe that god or gods exist.

Why do you focus devotion on dieties, gods etc. I can be devoted to my mother, to my father, to my teacher without the need to consider them to be a god (actually) or , nor to feel the requirement to use the language of deities in relation to them (i.e. using god metaphorically).

Oh dear. How many different ways can it be explained that Hindu philosophy does not require devotion to a god. A devotional mindset does not require deities to be devoted to. Sriram has said this repeatedly. Which part of the words "deity not required" are you not able to take in because of your prejudiced assumptions?

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh dear. How many different ways can it be explained that Hindu philosophy does not require devotion to a god.

Except Sriram continually folds discussion of devotion back into deity territory.

A devotional mindset does not require deities to be devoted to. Sriram has said this repeatedly. Which part of the words "deity not required" are you not able to take in because of your prejudiced assumptions?

But being devoted and having a devotional mindset does not equate to being an adherent of hindu philosophy.

[ProfessorDavey]

A devotional mindset does not require deities to be devoted to. Sriram has said this repeatedly.

Except he hasn't has he - have you actually read his posts - he has only directly discussed his views on devotion briefly, I think in two posts:

So in the OP:

'Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.

-pick a deity, any deity you fancy being devoted to, but devotion is about deities.

And recently:

Yes....atheists can be devotional.

Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god).   These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.

It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.

- seems to be getting somewhere but then straight back into the devotion = deities mantra - you can be devoted to your parents because they are god.

Can you show me where Sriram has unequivocally uncoupled devotion from deities in his posts, let alone repeatedly. I can't see it - whenever he mentions devotion in his posts he links it to deities.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Blimey - that was hard work.

Again - why is it so hard to get you to understand that someone who is an atheist won't see things in the same manner as someone who believes in god. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be just as devoted, selfless and wise as a person who does believe in god and likely will use their own philosophical compass (e.g. humanism) to recognise that being devoted, selfless and wise are positive attributes that we should strive to attain and really don't need to be told that if they are being devoted, selfless and wise that we are somehow adopting hindu philosophy.

I could equally argue that if you are striving to be devoted, selfless and wise you are clearly demonstrating just how important secular atheistic humanist philosophy is. That you've finally come around to accept that secular atheistic humanist philosophy is the correct 'path'. Of course I won't as I recognise striving to be devoted, selfless and wise seem to be pretty well universal in moral philosophy (whether religious or not) so none of us has any particular claim on them, any more than anyone else. I will be striving for these things as I have a broadly secular humanist philosophical outlook while you will be doing so as you have a broadly hindu religious philosophical outlook. That we both strive for the same things doesn't make me an adherent of hindu religious philosophy nor does it make you an adherent of a secular atheistic humanist philosophy.

Blimey this is really hard work, Why is it so hard to get you to understand that Sriram was not saying that only Hindu philosophy has these ideas. That just seems to be your interpretation of what is being said - possibly based on prejudices.

It is possible for multiple philosophies to promote the same idea in the same way. Telling us about one philosophy does not negate the similar ideas held by other philosophies. As Haidt mentioned in his TED talk (that I posted on the Materialism thread) evolutionarily we may have developed to become self-righteously divided into teams or tribes and oppose each other. You could try following some of the Buddhist philosophies  relating to moral humility - apparently that helps reduce moral self-righteousness.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is possible for multiple philosophies to promote the same idea in the same way.

Indeed they can, which is why it isn't a very smart move to align attributes that one groups of people may hold to be important because of their own philosophy to a totally different philosophy. We may come to the same conclusion, but (as Sriram might phrase it) we come to it via different paths. And we should be careful not to imply that the path (or paths) of a particular philosophy (e.g. hindu religious philosophy) are how a different group (secular humanist atheists) may have come to consider a set of highly universal attributes (e.g. devotion, selflessness, wisdom) to be important.

[ProfessorDavey]

As Haidt mentioned in his TED talk (that I posted on the Materialism thread) evolutionarily we may have developed to become self-righteously divided into teams or tribes and oppose each other.

That may indeed be true - but it may also be equally true that devotion, selflessness and wisdom are evolutionarily hard-wired as they are incredibly important for the successful functioning of human societal interactions within those tribes or teams.

So actually the much more interesting question here is why certain attributes seem to be universally accepted as beneficial by many moral philosophies (religious or otherwise) rather than claiming these attributes as being about my philosophy and if someone else holds those attributes to be important it somehow indicates that they are really adhering the importance of my philosophy all along.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Except he hasn't has he - have you actually read his posts - he has only discussed devotion briefly:

So in the OP:

'Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.

-pick a deity, any deity you fancy being devoted to, but devotion is about deities.

And recently:

Yes....atheists can be devotional.

Matru devo bhava (Mother is god)....Pitru devo bhava (father is god)....Acharya devo bhave (teacher is god).   These are very popular and well known teachings in Hinduism.

It is said that if we are devoted to ones parents and ones guru...no other form of prayer is required.

- seems to be getting somewhere but then straight back into the devotion = deities mantra - you can be devoted to your parents because they are god.

It's an expression - like "all mouth and no trousers" or "put up or shut up" as mentioned by JeremyP in British culture- you do not have to take it literally. So a mother does not transform into an immaterial being or concept and stops being biological flesh and blood.

If you Google the expression "Matru devo bhava" it brings you to Hindu philosophy about respecting your parents. It is a way of expressing love, respect, reverence, care and in Hindu philosophy it is considered good for people to feel this way about things.

https://www.swaminarayan.org/news/uk/2009/06/mdbpdb/index.htm 

Can you show me where Sriram has unequivocally uncoupled devotion from deities in this thread, let alone repeatedly. I can't see it - whenever he mentions devotion in his posts he links it to deities.

I can't show you something if your mind only has one way of interpreting words. The only thing I can say is that not everyone interprets words in the same way that you do, hence we are disagreeing about the meaning of Sriram's words.

Even if we do not believe in gods we can comprehend the feelings of reverence displayed by those who do believe in gods because considering something as sacred is not confined to deities - people who don't believe in gods can still consider ideas, concepts or objects sacred. So if someone says Mother is god they mean respect her the way someone religious would respect a god - in this case in Hindu traditions as the reference was to Hindu philosophy, which may not be the same as how gods are viewed in the cultures that historically have had an Abrahamic faith intertwined in them.

Of course some people believe that nothing should be considered sacred, maybe due to worries about where this can lead people, but other people think it is a good thing most of the time to have things we consider sacred as a focus point of a devotional mindset - it doesn't need to be the Judaeo-Christian concept of a deity or the statues in Hindu religion but it can be considered from a philosophical perspective.

Of course you don't need to acknowledge that there can be different interpretations of words - that's up to you.

I can interpret gods the way you did and get your meaning and I can also interpret the words the way Sriram did and get his meaning that Hindu philosophy is inclusive of a lack of belief in gods. 

[ProfessorDavey]

It is possible for multiple philosophies to promote the same idea in the same way. Telling us about one philosophy does not negate the similar ideas held by other philosophies. As Haidt mentioned in his TED talk (that I posted on the Materialism thread) evolutionarily we may have developed to become self-righteously divided into teams or tribes and oppose each other.

Just made some comments on this on the other thread