A Conversation w/ an Atheist

Sikhism itself is about becoming a more charitable, egoless man. However I feel its been tainted by corruption as many Sikhs themselves are boastful and ego prone. It is unfortunate that you feel this way. Know that, however, atheist are not inherently better moral people than the Sikhs you mention; we are all human after all. But if you personally wish to strive to be a more selfless and charitable person, you do not need Sikhism, or in fact, any religion at all, to do this. Faith is not required to be a moral person. If you wish to continue to follow Sikhism, I would advise you do so because you sincerely believe in its religious aspects and not just it's moral code, as you do not need divine guidance to follow a moral code. Moreover, if you actually truly believe and follow the religious aspects of Sikhism, then you should not concern yourself with other Sikhs who are "doing it wrong", as religion is not technically defined by its followers but by its original religious texts. You can also seek to help them "get back on the right path", so to speak, if you wish. Having read your comments I would now like to ask you where you draw the line between doing good for yourself, and doing good for others?, including addressing personality traits such as being charitable, honest, and humble My personal philosophy is that you should prioritize your own needs over others. There is actually a passage in the Bible (Timothy 4:16) that roughly says "By helping yourself, you may help others". Timothy was really more referring to finding faith and then helping others find faith, but passage by itself still kind of works here. Charity, in my own opinion, is a rich man's luxury; it is a lot easier for those who have already found success to share their success, and those who share success without already having it risk losing it. This actually happened to me at one point when both a friend and I joined the same art contest, during which I helped him improve his drawing. He ended up winning first place and I won second. This kind of thing also happens a lot in college, especially in medical school, where students are reluctant to help each other as doing so is helping the competition. So at the end of the day, I try to put my own interests first over the interests of others, lest I end up screwing myself over. In terms of being honest and humble, I try to follow these values as much as possible. Of course, I don't think it's possible for anyone to really be honest and humble 100% of the time, but these are good things to at least try to be. One does not need religion to be honest and humble either, as I explained in the first paragraph. Many atheists will often say something to the effect of "It is worrying if people need religion to justify being good", and while I don't really agree with this as I don't believe that belief in a god/gods is necessarily unhealthy, I think it's implication is useful here.Evolution is unfortunately in direct contradiction to all religions that I personally know of; most religion's creation stories involve the universe largely being centered around humans or humans (and most animals) directly being created in their current form. This is true for the Abrahamic, Greek/Roman, Incan, Sumerian, and Hindu religions, where incidentally, in all cases, man was created using some sort of dirt or clay. Based on my cursory research, Sikhism's creation story also involves God creating man in its current form, so if you personally think evolution is true, know that it and the Sikh creation story cannot both be correct.In terms of science being corruptible, this is not actually possible, as science, unlike religion, does not require people to function. Scientists are corruptible, but because in science there are no authorities, anyone can do science if they so wish, and their word will not have much less authority than an established scientist's as long as they can justify themselves. This is why scientific understanding is constantly changing; one scientist discovers and establishes one thing, and another scientist comes in a few (or many) years later and explains why that scientist is wrong. Think Pasteur, Galileo, Bohr, etc. You do see something similar in religion, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Abu Bakr vs Ali, etc., but what you end up with is a bunch of different religious sects instead of a single comprehensive understanding like in science. The point is, science is not really like religion as science as a concept is incorruptible, while religion needs people to exist and thus is very much corruptible. Hopefully I answered your questions satisfyingly.