What religion are you?

[wolveraptor]

I was sort've using the phrase, "Animists obviously vary widely" as a disclaimer saying that there are virtually no general statements that can be made about animists other than the vague Webster definition.

[Spice Runner]

They say that these demons were really the native Dravidians (Asuras) and that the conquering light-skinned Aryans (calling themselves Devas in the stories) made up this shit as a sort of pseudo-history of the Aryan invasion. But my point still holds; they didn't mention religion explicity, and in fact, everyone seems to hold the same religion in those tales. That seems like a given.

You are quite right. Those ancient epics were mostly about religious aryan kings oppressing those who they considered "godless" primitives or Dravidians as you said.

However, religion was infact mentioned quite often in the epics. The King was actually an incarnation of God himself. There is quite a lot of preaching within the epics about the vedas and following religious tradition. Otherwise I wasn't disputing your point. It was mostly an internal affair on the subcontinent for the Aryans.

Also, the devas were infact lesser gods of rain, sun, wind and such.

[Plekhanov]

I expect it does as you seem a very reasonable person who has chosen a ‘nice’ minor religion with practically zero political power.

And perhaps you have hit the nail on the head right there - political power tends to corrupt religions even more thoroughly than it does individual politicians.

Yet one more argument in favor of strict separation of church and state.

I think power is especially dangerous in the hands of religious leaders as the whole ethos of most religions in unquestioning acceptance of authority, which not only doesn’t lend most religious leaders to a democratic world view but also gives them enormous scope to abuse their authority over their flocks who are condition not to question them.

Buddism

The deeply unpleasant history of the Buddhist theocracy that used to exist in Tibet would suggest otherwise

That is a subset of Buddhism as a whole. While it certainly demonstrates that Buddism, like other religions, can be oppressive or corrupting when controlling political as well as spiritual power, other varieties of Buddism have largely escaped this manifestation of ickiness.

A major difference? Tibetan Buddism incorprated political power as well as religious.

I’ve not read much on the subject but I’m not at all sure just how untainted regular Buddhism is, my sister (who has Buddist leanings) was in Thialand recently and she noticed that for example whilst many of the people were very poor, the temples and the monks within them were often very rich.

Shintoism

Was the state religion of Imperial Japan and played a role in radicalising the populace it was used as an instrument of social control long before that.

Yes. Religion is an instrument of social control. This is not news to me. Like any other form of social control, it can be oppressive. I have no doubt that examples could be found of oppressive atheism, or oppression in the name of atheism, as well.

I’d be very interested to see what examples of oppressive atheism you can find.

Zorastorianism
Just about all the animists

I know next to nothing about these so really couldn’t say

And it is that very lack of being majority players, and having little power, that makes these religions "harmless". At one time Zorastorianism dominated Persia, and at the time Persia was a major political/military player. It took the Muslims to pare down the Zorastorians to what they are today.

That’s rather my point, there really isn’t such a thing as a religion which will leave people alone, there are just religions which aren’t currently in a position to impose themselves.

[Duckie]

I’d be very interested to see what examples of oppressive atheism you can find.

The Soviet Union could be an example, although you could make a case that Communism was their religion moreso than Atheism was their official doctrine.

[wolveraptor]

Actually, if you read between the lines in a major epic like the Ramayan, the heroic Kings(or Gods as they are made out to be) go out and make war on primitive people and other tribal groups who are not Hindu and are constantly referred to as demons.

This is the part I was taking issue with; the Asuras were never portrayed to be pagan worshippers. They respected the same gods everyone else did. I don't think there are any examples of religious war in the Vedas.

[Lone_Prodigy]

Raised as a protestant christian fundamentalist until I finally woke up in the beginning of high school and realized I was an atheist.

IMHO, the only major religion whose fundamentalists are cool is Buddhism (yeah, I know, there are countless minor ones too). After all...

A fundie christian is willing to kill in order to help himself ("earning" salvation).
A fundie buddhist is willing to die to help others.

Nutjob christians burn other people to protest things, buddhists burn themselves to protest things.

[Dominus]

Addendum to my previous post:

Then, of course, there are the days when I doubt my atheism and my interest in the Kemetic Egyptian pantheon becomes somewhat more than academic... though I've never committed to anything or experienced any religious conversion, of course.

I suppose I'll change my answer to "Undecided, though definitely not monotheistic," for now...

[Broomstick]

The deeply unpleasant history of the Buddhist theocracy that used to exist in Tibet would suggest otherwise

That is a subset of Buddhism as a whole. While it certainly demonstrates that Buddism, like other religions, can be oppressive or corrupting when controlling political as well as spiritual power, other varieties of Buddism have largely escaped this manifestation of ickiness.

A major difference? Tibetan Buddism incorprated political power as well as religious.

I’ve not read much on the subject but I’m not at all sure just how untainted regular Buddhism is, my sister (who has Buddist leanings) was in Thialand recently and she noticed that for example whilst many of the people were very poor, the temples and the monks within them were often very rich.

Buddhism, like most religions, has fractured into several sects. I'm not sure about Thailand, either. In the original form of Buddhism poverty was part of the deal. Zen Buddhists tend to shun material acquisition, although their monastaries may be quiet extensive. There are a lot of "lay" Buddhists world-wide who are pretty ordinary folks and run the gamut from poor and living on a sidewalk to quite well off. There's Tibetan Buddhism, which accumulated enormous wealth and power. I suspect the Thai variety is somewhere towards the "wealth and power" end of the spectrum. That generally occurs when Buddhism is embraced by the government/rulers of a nation, rather than bubbling up from the ranks of the lower classes. "Top-down" Buddhism also tends to deviate more in doctrine from the original as well.

It's quite a complex thing, the way religions evolve and acquire power.

I’d be very interested to see what examples of oppressive atheism you can find.

The Soviet Union had an official doctrine of atheism, and being of religious persuasion was a definite liability. The Chinese at present also have an offical doctrine of atheism, and organizing religious services was and in many cases still is punishable by prison term. This is not simply a matter of keeping public and private separate - even private beliefs and worship are not permitted. Morality and ethics are determined solely by the state, supposedly acting in a rational manner (but we are talking politics here - "rational" is questionable and then there's matter of whether these decision are made for the benefit of few or many) which is just as liable to corruption as any priesthood's dictates.

[Spice Runner]

This is the part I was taking issue with; the Asuras were never portrayed to be pagan worshippers. They respected the same gods everyone else did. I don't think there are any examples of religious war in the Vedas.

The vedas don't discuss any wars or battles.

The epics such as the Ramayan or the Mahbharat refer to the natives of the south as jungle beasts and wild demons. Throughout both epics the Heroic kings go out to protect sages and gurus from demonic being who lurk in the jungles of southern India. there were numerous inferrences to the nature of the people who lived in the jungles as those who don't worship vedic (hindu) gods or follow vedic tradition.

The demon Ravana supposedly represented a non-vedic king who lived in the south, possibly where Sri-Lanka is. His realm was invaded and sacked by God incarnate, Ram. Ravanna and all his people were painted as demons since they did not follow any religion resembling the Vedic one.

All I can say with certainty is that those people were treated lower than animals by the Aryan civilizations in the epics.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes. Religion is an instrument of social control. This is not news to me. Like any other form of social control, it can be oppressive. I have no doubt that examples could be found of oppressive atheism, or oppression in the name of atheism, as well.

I think more to the point is that Shinto has no centralized dogma at all, it's just a collection of similar beliefs without a formal structure. People can use it however they want, since it's kind of a non-religion.

[wolveraptor]

The vedas don't discuss any wars or battles.

Religious texts then; isn't it true that both epics were treated as such?

The epics such as the Ramayan or the Mahbharat refer to the natives of the south as jungle beasts and wild demons. Throughout both epics the Heroic kings go out to protect sages and gurus from demonic being who lurk in the jungles of southern India. there were numerous inferrences to the nature of the people who lived in the jungles as those who don't worship vedic (hindu) gods or follow vedic tradition.

Really? Where?

The demon Ravana supposedly represented a non-vedic king who lived in the south, possibly where Sri-Lanka is. His realm was invaded and sacked by God incarnate, Ram. Ravanna and all his people were painted as demons since they did not follow any religion resembling the Vedic one.

Didn't Ravana supposedly gain his hundred arms by praying to a Vedic god? Bramha, if I remember correctly.

[Spice Runner]

Religious texts then; isn't it true that both epics were treated as such?

The vedas were more of a guideline for life. Whereas the epics were stories detailing the incarnation of God in human form. The epics were treated as religious texts, that is true.

Really? Where?

Among the God Ram's first tasks in the epic Ramayan were to protect ashrams (dwellings of the sages) from constant harassment from demons that came out of the jungles.

Didn't Ravana supposedly gain his hundred arms by praying to a Vedic god? Bramha, if I remember correctly.

Hmm, I believe that was his 10 heads. I'm not sure about the details. I overlooked the granting of boons. Usually characters of both good and evil were granted boons by the gods for any type good deed in these epics. It was I believe due to some sort of ritual Ravanna had performed in the name of Brahma that he recieved his boons.


These Asuras were considered as lowly barbarians by the Aryans but it would not have meant that the asuras were completely godless pagans. I'll concede that point.

[Spice Runner]

Edit to the last post:
By godless pagans I meant non-vedic.

[wolveraptor]

When I said

Really? Where?

, I was referring to this part of your post

there were numerous inferrences to the nature of the people who lived in the jungles as those who don't worship vedic (hindu) gods or follow vedic tradition.

not this

The epics such as the Ramayan or the Mahbharat refer to the natives of the south as jungle beasts and wild demons.

Just to clear things up.

[Spice Runner]

Heh, my bad.

Your point about the king Ravana getting boons defeated the point that all asuras were completely non-vedic. However the inferences I was referring to that paint the asuras as godless were mostly subjective. That is that we see the epic through the view of the Aryans and what the Aryans see as godlessness among the asuras probably was just their disrespect for Aryan religious traditions.

The idea of the primitives in the jungles not worshipping Vedic gods were inferred from their hostility towards the "established" religious structure set up by the Aryans. Ashrams were constantly being harassed, gurus and rishis were slaughtered. And then there was that whole affair of Ravanna stealing Ramas wife which is wholly frowned upon. But looking again these events could just as well be attributed to the Asuras lack of civility being the barbarians they were rather than them being irreligious.

Another thing. I don't recall there ever being mentioned any system of ashrums or sages or rishis used by the Asuras. This difference in systems may have caused the Aryans to look down upon the southern folk as godless and demonic even though the Asuras atleast payed homage to Vedic gods.

[Edi]

I'm an atheist, have been since I was 7.

Edi

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Formerly atheist...

...well, still technically atheist, since I don't hold active belief in any deities, but I also hold a comfortable dichotomy with heavy spiritualism.

Over the past few years, through highly subjective personal experiences, I've found I have belief in the existence of 'spirits' (my own definition, which most likely differs on several points from mainstream definitions). But, I also realize that the convincing evidence has come through completely subjective personal experiences, and thus, I wouldn't dream of attempting to persuade someone else to accept my point of view, as it would go against all I've learned about rational debate.

I'm looking at that and still can't decide if it makes any sense whatsoever.

[wolveraptor]

I do agree that the original Dravidians did not worship the Aryan gods, but at the time when these tales were written, I suspect the two religions were in the process of merging; the natives' nature gods had been described as "extensions" (for lack of a better word) of the three chief Aryan gods.

[K. A. Pital]

The Soviet Union had an official doctrine of atheism

No, it had the official doctrine of communism. Atheism was the favored worldview.

and being of religious persuasion was a definite liability

Not always, not everywhere.

The Chinese at present also have an offical doctrine of atheism

No, it had the official doctrine of communism. Atheism is the favored worldview.

and organizing religious services was and in many cases still is punishable by prison term

This sounds like pure bullshit to me. I've been to China and have seen no persecution of religious service at all. So clarify, what you are talking about - about the past or about the present? If about the latter, that's bullshit.

This is not simply a matter of keeping public and private separate - even private beliefs and worship are not permitted

This is most certainly pure bullshit both in cases of Soviet Union and China.

Atheism is not an ideology, it's not involved in politics - unlike the Churches ! - and it is not, and to present, has NOT been opressive of anybody.

Morality and ethics are determined solely by the state

State is people. That is a lot better than a fucked up 1000-year old book.

supposedly acting in a rational manner

Atheist governments, even if not acting humanely, DO act rationally. Religious leaders act nor humanely, neither rationally.

but we are talking politics here

But we are not, since atheism is a worldview, which is NOT ivolved in politics. Politics are communism, socialism, democracy, nationalism and other movements. Atheism is not politics.

"rational" is questionable

Rational is rational. Atheism is rational.

and then there's matter of whether these decision are made for the benefit of few or many

What the fuck does this have to do with atheism? Precisely NOTHING.

which is just as liable to corruption as any priesthood's dictates

So? Oh, too bad, any government is liable to corruption. Quick, defend the priests and their fucked up religious books, which scream "hate speech!" on every second page. Yes, certainly, there's no difference between a fucked up fundie with power and a corrupt, but secular government.

Blah.

[wolveraptor]

I take issue with this

Religious leaders act nor humanely, neither rationally.

I disagree with the first part; religious leaders can act humanely. It's just that they often don't.

[Darth Raptor]

This sounds like pure bullshit to me. I've been to China and have seen no persecution of religious service at all. So clarify, what you are talking about - about the past or about the present? If about the latter, that's bullshit.

Granted it isn't the most impartial of sources, but if you look in almost any modern Evangelical publication you'll see how much Christians love to squawk about the rough times their missionaries have in the PRC.

You'll hear tales of Bible smuggling, secret underground churches and brutal interrogation by the police. Either China is hard on its Christians (or perhaps just foreign missionaries) or the pervasive tales of persecution are one big lie.

[speaker-to-trolls]

I'm not. Atheism isn't a religion it is a lack thereof and humanism is a moral system. I've never quite been able to work up the kind of hatred of religion that some others here seem to have, I do think religion is illogical and serves no good purpose, but I can't help thinking that if it were to dissappear we'd only replace it with an increased sense of nationalism and/or racism.

[Spyder]

None, technically that makes me an athiest but I honestly consider it a non-issue.

Athiests in general should really adopt a non-issue approach to religion because fundamental endorsement of athiesm to the extent that it becomes religious really does defeat the purpose.

[Spyder]

I'm not. Atheism isn't a religion it is a lack thereof and humanism is a moral system. I've never quite been able to work up the kind of hatred of religion that some others here seem to have, I do think religion is illogical and serves no good purpose, but I can't help thinking that if it were to dissappear we'd only replace it with an increased sense of nationalism and/or racism.

I mentioned once before; religion doesn't neccessarily involve a deity.

[Broomstick]

and organizing religious services was and in many cases still is punishable by prison term

This sounds like pure bullshit to me. I've been to China and have seen no persecution of religious service at all. So clarify, what you are talking about - about the past or about the present? If about the latter, that's bullshit.

Well, then, the Chinese citizens who I was working with this summer must have been feeding me a line of bullshit. Nor was it a matter of Chinese evangelicals whining - my primary source is atheist. She thinks Christians are nutty, but doesn't see the necessity of making their practices criminal. I have no reason to doubt her, and quite a bit of reason to believe her, when she tells me about the legal, social, and political disadvantages of religious believers in present-day China.

This is not simply a matter of keeping public and private separate - even private beliefs and worship are not permitted

This is most certainly pure bullshit both in cases of Soviet Union and China.

Oh, you mean there were lots of devote church-goers among the upper hierarchy of the communist party?

Being religious wouldn't bar you from making a reasonable life for yourself, but it WAS a major handicap if you wanted rise into the ranks of the powerful.

Atheism is not an ideology, it's not involved in politics - unlike the Churches ! - and it is not, and to present, has NOT been opressive of anybody.

Defensive, hmm?

Have you read the Communist Manifesto? Eradicating religion and replacing it with atheism was a major tenent of the original Marxism. A key part of overturning the established order of the day and replacing it with a government of the proletariat. That's not involved in politics?

Morality and ethics are determined solely by the state

State is people. That is a lot better than a fucked up 1000-year old book.

Ever see a mob? A riot? "People" are not always good, religious or not.

supposedly acting in a rational manner

Atheist governments, even if not acting humanely, DO act rationally. Religious leaders act nor humanely, neither rationally.

Um... like North Korea acts "rationally"?

Religion is a tool. It is neither inherently evil nor inherently good - what determines that is the ends to which it is put.

but we are talking politics here

But we are not, since atheism is a worldview, which is NOT ivolved in politics. Politics are communism, socialism, democracy, nationalism and other movements. Atheism is not politics.

And religion is not politics. You can have governments deeply entwined with religion, and completely secular governments. You can have democracies with an official state religion, and those without an official religion. Nationalism may or may not incorporate religion. And you can have governments whose official statement on religion is "None - thank you very much", and which can be a very important part of who is and isn't in politics.

"rational" is questionable

Rational is rational. Atheism is rational.

Is atheism ALWAYS rational, that is, based on reason and logic... or is that something you devoutly hope is true?

Yes, certainly, there's no difference between a fucked up fundie with power and a corrupt, but secular government.

I can agree with that.