Which God?

[Muravyets]

<snip escalating personal attack without any serious attention to the topic at all>

*closes door on UT*

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

*closes door on UT*

Yeah, except for that whole first part of my post, but that would require a speck of intellectual honesty from you, and I've learned not to expect that from you in particular.

[DaWoad]

Well I have failed, epically, to find any country in which the "majority religion" is animism (depending on how, precisely, you define animism). This could be because religion has "evolved" into a more "sophisticated" (read personificated) form globally or it could simply be that the personificated religions have spread more rapidly (primarily by converting or killing the "less sophisticated") I'm honestly not sure what evidence one could present to conclusively make the case in either direction.

More importantly, Murav, UT, you guys both need to step away from the Ad Hominems and get back to the discussion (preferably taking it a little less personnally please).

[Muravyets]

Well I have failed, epically, to find any country in which the "majority religion" is animism (depending on how, precisely, you define animism). This could be because religion has "evolved" into a more "sophisticated" (read personificated) form globally or it could simply be that the personificated religions have spread more rapidly (primarily by converting or killing the "less sophisticated") I'm honestly not sure what evidence one could present to conclusively make the case in either direction.

Easy. Go read some original texts of cultural anthropology, dating from Budge onward. You will be able to see rather astonishingly clearly the racist and imperialistic assumptions (and outright statements) in the writings of the earlier academics, and the work that specifically debunks and discredits them over later years. It might not be immediately clear how one could conclusively make the case that "personificated" (not a real word, btw) religions are currently dominant due to forcible conversion, but a few years worth of study of the history of the field will make it abundantly clear that the other argument (the sophisticated versus primitive thing) is not a valid theory.

More importantly, Murav, UT, you guys both need to step away from the Ad Hominems and get back to the discussion (preferably taking it a little less personnally please).

In case you didn't notice, I was the one refusing to fight with him and the one who already quit it before you said anything. I guess I just think that people who scold people for fighting when they are actually not fighting, are not really helping to defuse tension. Just mentioning. As far as I'm concerned, there is no fight and nothing further to say on that front.

EDIT: By the way, it is extremely difficult to quantify animists in order to say animism is or is not a dominant religion in any given nation, because of two specific features of animist religions:

1. The phenomenon known as double/multiple faith, by which it is A-OK for an animist also to follow/practice other religions.

For example, in Japan, Shinto (animist religion) is the national religion, and several millions of Japanese are known to self-identify as Shintoists, primarily, while the majority of Japanese self-identify as Buddhists. However, Shinto and Buddhism are so closely combined in Japan, and Shintoism is such a foundational tradition in Japanese culture that one would be hard-pressed to find many Japanese persons who do not practice and believe in the animism of Shinto, whether they count it as their actual or main religion or not.

For another example, Indonesia and the surrounding island nations are the fastest growing (by conversion) (soon to be largest, if they are not already) Muslim regions in the world. Yet, their indigenous religions are animistic, and many people in those nations naturally, following the animistic traditions of their cultures, take up new religions while still holding on to their traditional religion at the same time. Monotheistic religions hate that habit, but in animism it's completely acceptable to make offerings at the shrines in between prayers at the mosque.

2. Animist religions tend to be significantly less organized than monotheistic religions. Shinto is the most organized/formalized animist religion in the world today, and it is far more loosey-goosey than, say, Catholicism. Lacking formalized structures or organization, animist religions become freely mutable in form, and thus, very, very difficult to track for numbers. I would argue, based on my occasional dips into statistical reports to see what's up, that, frankly, nobody knows how many animists are in the world right now. Could be a couple hundred million world wide. Could be billions.

[Straughn]

Great god "OM"

I smell a lock coming...

Should it have been spelled "Aoum" instead?

[Coffin-Breathe]

Has anyone ever wasted a thought to the fact, that there´s no religion "from the beginning", as would, imo, being, if god(s) is (are) existing and true ? But there is none, as all known religions or cults started somewhen in history, and many of them faded away over the times...
Primitive cultures tend to worship Animism, while they tend to adopt or develop some system of personificated god(s) when they advance; so I declare, that religion is only part of social and cultural development, and will (and has to, as we hopefully advance in cultural development) fade away over the times - or become meaningless.

Your argument is false because its premise, bolded, is a discredited relic of a prejudiced view of cultural "progress" dating from the Victorian period. Its foundation (of which I'm sure you are not aware) is the assumption that modern (and usually white and western) cultures are somehow the highest expression of human potential, while the cultures of other people are somehow less developed but if they assimilate nicely "they" might get to be closer to "us." It's bull, and as a modern, white, American animist, I personally am tired of this offensive Victorian crap being trotted out by atheists every other week.

So...I guess my point is that you're right -- we would be wasting our thoughts if we put any to that "fact."

Sooo - what´s your point now ? Am I right (as stated above), or am I wrong (as you stated on top) ?
Besides, while reading this carefully, instead of agressively cussing, you would have found out, that I didn´t adress any "white" or "western" culture, I stated (as most anthropologists) cultural advanced civilisations, which could be the ancient Egiptians or the Chinese, Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, aso too...if you´re practising shamanism, this might be fine for you, but doesn´t disprove my statement. Nor did you answer to it in any way...only thing you really did, is interpreting my statement in a twisted and false way, while imputing allegations I never made.

[Muravyets]

Has anyone ever wasted a thought to the fact, that there´s no religion "from the beginning", as would, imo, being, if god(s) is (are) existing and true ? But there is none, as all known religions or cults started somewhen in history, and many of them faded away over the times...
Primitive cultures tend to worship Animism, while they tend to adopt or develop some system of personificated god(s) when they advance; so I declare, that religion is only part of social and cultural development, and will (and has to, as we hopefully advance in cultural development) fade away over the times - or become meaningless.

Your argument is false because its premise, bolded, is a discredited relic of a prejudiced view of cultural "progress" dating from the Victorian period. Its foundation (of which I'm sure you are not aware) is the assumption that modern (and usually white and western) cultures are somehow the highest expression of human potential, while the cultures of other people are somehow less developed but if they assimilate nicely "they" might get to be closer to "us." It's bull, and as a modern, white, American animist, I personally am tired of this offensive Victorian crap being trotted out by atheists every other week.

So...I guess my point is that you're right -- we would be wasting our thoughts if we put any to that "fact."

Sooo - what´s your point now ? Am I right (as stated above), or am I wrong (as you stated on top) ?

Your argument is wrong when I'm speaking seriously and right only when I'm being sarcastic about it.

Besides, while reading this carefully, instead of agressively cussing

I fail to see how merely describing the original Victorian-era argument as "bull' can be seen as "aggressively cussing", nor do I see how you think you can legitimately scold me for being aggressive instead of reading carefully in the same sentence in which you attempt to dismiss an entire argument as "aggressive cussing" instead of careful reading when it contains only one (1) single, solitary word that could by any stretch of the imagination be considered close to a "cuss" but is not even being used aggressively.

, you would have found out, that I didn´t adress any "white" or "western" culture,

And if you had read carefully instead of aggressively responding, you would have seen that I never said that you said that. I said that the 19th century originators of your argument had such attitudes and that people who cite it nowadays to put down religion do not realize that it is actually just a relic of Victorian xenophobia/racism that does not reflect reality.

I stated (as most anthropologists) cultural advanced civilisations, which could be the ancient Egiptians or the Chinese, Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, aso too...

And here you are merely repeating the debunked core notion again. Hint: It's the part where you say "cultural [sic] advanced civilizations."

if you´re practising shamanism,

I did not say that I was practicing shamanism. I said that I am an animist. Animism =/= shamanism. Animism is a type of religion. Shamanism is a specific type of spiritual practice. Although many animistic religions include shamans, shamanism and animism are not tied to each other. I am not a shaman, and you, it seems, are not sufficiently informed about animism to argue with an animist about how animism fits into the spectrum of modern religions.

this might be fine for you, but doesn´t disprove my statement.

The fact that I am animist does not, but the fact that your argument is based on a biased world view which invalidates it on the grounds that it does not reflect reality does actually disprove your statement. The assertion that religion "advances" from primitive animism through more sophisticated polytheism, then monotheism and ultimately to atheism, and that this occurs over time in a kind of evolutionary progression is simply false. It does not match reality.

The fact that the assertion that animism is some kind of primitive belief system that humans have grown beyond is grossly offensive to all the animists living in the world today is just gravy on the fail meatloaf.

Nor did you answer to it in any way...only thing you really did, is interpreting my statement in a twisted and false way, while imputing allegations I never made.

If you had read my post carefully instead of aggressively responding, you would know that I did not make any allegations against you at all. I suggested that you are not aware of the invalidity of your argument's foundation. That is not an allegation.

[Nordicus]

I fail to see how merely describing the original Victorian-era argument

I suggested that you are not aware of the invalidity of your argument's foundation.

The problem is, though, that he is making it clear that he is not using the Victorian-era version of the argument. Would you consider it fair to discard the theory of evolution as "racist" and "bigoted" because people had used to use it to justify their unsupported belief that their skin color was better than a different skin color?

[Muravyets]

I fail to see how merely describing the original Victorian-era argument

I suggested that you are not aware of the invalidity of your argument's foundation.

The problem is, though, that he is making it clear that he is not using the Victorian-era version of the argument. Would you consider it fair to discard the theory of evolution as "racist" and "bigoted" because people had used to use it to justify their unsupported belief that their skin color was better than a different skin color?

There is no other version of the argument. The argument stands now in the same form as it was first created. It postulates that civilization advances progressively, that once upon a time human societies were primitive and held certain beliefs, and then over time, they gained some sort of intellectual sophistication and moved on to other certain beliefs, and so on through history until, voila!, we stand at the present, representing the state of the art in civilization, which just happens to match the culture of the person making the argument. The only change to the argument is that the old Victorians declared themselves the last word in human perfection forever, whereas the 21st century atheists citing the argument allow that there is still a level towards perfection left to reach -- namely the level they are already on, waiting for the rest of us to catch up so we can be more like them.

The argument is absolutely dependent on assigning classifications of advancement to sets of beliefs. Those assignments are arbitrary and do not match the reality of what the beliefs sets are or how they work.

The argument is self-serving because it always, without exception, allows the person making it to occupy the most advanced, most desirable level of presumed social progress.

The argument is wrong on its historical assertions because more recent historical and archeological research shows that there is no evidence to indicate that ancient peoples were less intellectually sophisticated than modern folks, but increasing amounts of evidence indicating that they were comparably sophisticated with us. If the historical evidence shows that sophistication in other areas of civilization has likely remained stable, that undermines assertions that it has advanced in this one area (religious belief).

Further, if you read the argument objectively and fairly and compare it to reality objectively and fairly, you will see immediately that it does not match the reality of the present, modern world.

Animism has existed for thousands of years (some academics believe tens of thousands of years). If this view of cultural progression were valid, we should expect to see few or no active animistic religions today. Yet we see both old and new animistic religions chugging along quite nicely in every continent, both independently and in symbiosis with other religions.

When asked to reconcile the disconnect between their argument that beliefs like animism were primitive ancient beliefs that people have progressed beyond with the reality of practicing animists in the world today, our 21st century atheists fall back on the usual hedging fallacies of trying to deny the existence of animists, of trying to claim today's animists are not real animists (No True Scotsman), trying to claim there are so few animists that they are statistically insignificant, as well as the catalogue of "it's still a work in progress" excuses. They sometimes even getting stuck in the trap of calling modern animists intellectually primitive or backward.

The bottom line is this: The cultural progress argument was originally invented by xenophobes/racists who were benefitting from membership in a class-bound, imperialistic, prejudicial societal order and whose thinking and writing were guided by their own interests in that order. It originally served to place the researchers making the argument in a socially superior position to the people they were writing about. Its structure is entirely geared to accomplish that effect, i.e. person making the argument comes out looking better than the person/people who is/are the subject of the argument.

Although today's atheists are not racists or imperialists, they are nevertheless biased, and they are using an argument structured to support bias to, indeed, support their bias. They are using the argument to assign the highest, most desirable level of social development to their own world view, atheism.

Okay, fine, let them do that. Let's face it, everybody thinks their own world view is the best world view. It might be mildly annoying to me to listen to some atheists ramble on about how much better it is to be an atheist than a person of faith, but whatever. It's exactly the same annoyance as listening to religious people brag about how much better their belief is than mine. Ho-hum, but their self-expression is no skin off my nose, right?

The only part I take exception to is when they take it upon themselves to assign ranks of OK/not-OK-ness to other people's beliefs. If they just want to claim that their views are better than all other views, fine, if that's the kind of people they want to be. But when they start telling other people who else they are better or worse than and assigning us all these arbitrary ranks -- yeah, that's ridiculous and I am going to call them on it.

And yes, sure, I will gladly admit that my motivation in increased by the fact that they decided to put MY belief system on the bottom of their imaginary pyramid. Excuse me? What did I ever do to them to deserve getting the shittiest end of the stick in their little game, hm? How did I get to be shoved into the most disrespected class of people? In that situation, who would not be within their rights to respond with a strong "Fuck that noise"?

I'm sorry, but regardless of who is making this cultural progress argument today, it works the same way. The people making the argument are elevating themselves by climbing to the top of a pile of other people, and I'm sorry, but I am not going to cooperatively let them grind me down at the bottom of their social pyramid.

EDIT: I am sure as hell not going to let them claim they are not disrespecting me while they do it.

Also, I realize my response is ginormous, but if anyone wants to answer it, please note, some of the paragraphs are stand-alone points, others are related to each other. Please read the whole thing before cutting it up if you want to respond to points.

[Cameroi]

the real god which no belief and no believer really knows.
(and no, i'm NOT claiming to either)

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Since primitive means "Of or pertaining to the beginning or origin, or to early times; original; primordial; primeval; first; as, primitive innocence; the primitive church" it's pretty obvious that animism is primitive. It is the first, if not one of the first world religions, ergo, it is primitive. Ta-da.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Hunter gatherer cultures have been around for far longer than any of the modern scientific cultures. Once again, they are more primitive. This is simply true by definition. You have to completely discard all logic not to see it.

[Monocrat]

Given that you're starting with a hypothetical situation, and that you are referring to believers as a group separate from yourself, I conclude that you may well be agnostic for lack of proof. That said, go with the religion which you believe best represents your pre-existing idea of an omnipotent all-loving deity. You are probably the best judge of which religion's view best conforms to your idea.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Given that you're starting with a hypothetical situation, and that you are referring to believers as a group separate from yourself, I conclude that you may well be agnostic for lack of proof. That said, go with the religion which you believe best represents your pre-existing idea of an omnipotent all-loving deity. You are probably the best judge of which religion's view best conforms to your idea.

Why would he necessarily think that the being would be benevolent?

[Barzan]

The Church of Ceiling Cat

[Urzamalandi]

The Church of Ceiling Cat

My God is better than your God, my Dad said so!

[Barzan]

The Church of Ceiling Cat

My God is better than your God, my Dad said so!

Well Ceiling Cat iz watchen choo master-bait!

[F1-Insanity]

The Church of Ceiling Cat

My God is better than your God, my Dad said so!

Well Ceiling Cat iz watchen choo master-bait!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching you omnomnom spicy meat-a-balls.

[Barzan]

The Church of Ceiling Cat

My God is better than your God, my Dad said so!

Well Ceiling Cat iz watchen choo master-bait!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching you omnomnom spicy meat-a-balls.

I like-a da spicy meat-a balls!

[Great Nepal]

Great god "OM"

I smell a lock coming...

Should it have been spelled "Aoum" instead?

Aoum is correct spelling but every one understands OM.

[Whole Conviction]

Since primitive means "Of or pertaining to the beginning or origin, or to early times; original; primordial; primeval; first; as, primitive innocence; the primitive church" it's pretty obvious that animism is primitive. It is the first, if not one of the first world religions, ergo, it is primitive. Ta-da.

That's A definition of 'primitive'. The dictionary definition, one might say. It's not, however, a complete definition. The word carries with it a value-judgement that is inseparable from the technical definition. So no matter what it's MEANT to mean, it carries additional meanings with it whenever it's used. That's why people tend to steer away from using it these days.

(What are these value judgements? Well, not only the obvious 'primitive = less worthy', there's 'primitive = doesn't happen any more today except in backwards societies.' Or 'shouldn't happen any more today because it's less developed.' Language isn't just about being technically correct, it's about communicating. When you use words that have many meanings in an open forum, then you risk communicating badly. It's one thing to use jargon in a paper that's intended for a particular audience; it's another when you're communicating to the public in general.)

[Nordicus]

Great god "OM"

-NOM-NOM-NOM

[The Walden Estates]

wakonda

[Milks Empire]

Great god "OM"

-NOM-NOM-NOM

I want to OM NOM NOM NOM.

[The Walden Estates]

¡OM Mani Padme HUM!