No, they are not. Buddhism is ultimately about understanding the nature of one’s own mind. It’s just that the supernatural elements which some Buddhists believe in have gotten inordinate attention in the west.
-Ben
She does if you’ve been good. You must have been bad, andros! :eek:
Sure you’re black, but are you 100% black. Just like Gundy, are you both sure that there is no Caucasian blood in you?
The title of this thread was designed to attract atention like any good title should.There is no intent to promote any racist ideas here., Christianity primarily fostered in a caucasian environment.Both of you were no doubt raised in caucasian environments. The crux of my argument is that anti- believers are primarily a product of Christian cultures,and that is because they are tolerated. I know there are anti-believers here who have studied the bible way more than I have in order to ridicule and tear it to shreds. I know of no other religious environment that can trigger such zeal in opposition, without attempting to promote another religion in its stead.
<sob> yes . . . yes, I was. For a brief moment, I . . . I doubted that She was pink.
grienspace:
What, pray, is a “caucasian environment?” And for that matter, what gives to the idea that caucasian = Christian?
Remember, there are very, very few “anti-believers” in the world, anywhere, for many reasons. As Gaudere mentioned, there are almost none here at SDMB. And, as has also been pointed out, Christianity does not have the greatest historical reputation for tolerance.
You know this, do you? How many have you met? And if there are people studying your holy book to contest it, shouldn’t that suggest that perhaps you should study your holy book to keep it from being “torn to shreds?”
I know the Bible. Very well. Not because it’s my goal to ridicule it, but because I have an open mind and wish to fully understand its philosophy. Would that the same could be said of all Christians.
Webster Dictionary? It’s Webster’s.
What was that about Christains in glass houses?
-Ben
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend any Christians here, but your holier than thou attitude is what gives Christianity a bad name.
grienspace wrote:
You have a point there. My grandmother on my dads side is white. my grandmother on my Moms side is half Black Foot half French. The word “mutt” springs to mind. However since everyone else in my family says we’re black… 
I was following you for a moment there, but I think I got lost somewhere. BTW, I didn’t think you we’re trying to be racist. I think your statement says: “Christianity is primarily a caucasion religion”. Did I follow you there?
Well it’s been my experience that a lot of atheist are former believers as am I. How about it Dopers?
Well, since I’m not a Christian, I suppose any impression that I’m a holier person than you is purely on your own part.
Well, you’ve been provided with one, but rather than change your mind, you’ve changed your argument.
It seems to me that perhaps you’re a little concerned with people “ripping the Bible to shreds,” but since their arguments are correct, you can’t refute them. Instead, you’ve decided to argue that the fact that you grant them the boon of being allowed to attack the Bible means that Christianity is the best religion in the world.
Please, clarify a few things for us:
-
Is it that Christianity is better than Islam because Christianity permits dissent, or is it because Christianity inspires dissenters who are not trying to promote an alternate religion?
-
Is it that there are no caucasian atheists, or is it that there are no atheists raised in non-western cultures?
-Ben
Oh, who was that? I did not change my argument. Several people would not accept the Merriam-Webster definition that I presented so I presented another phrase
You say their arguments are correct, I don’t.You claim that because Christianity is tolerant I claim it is the best religion in the world. I never said that.
I haven’t drawn any conclusions. i merely presented my observations and presented perhaps some tentative conclusions.
I am withdrawing from this debate. I sense a great deal of acrimony, and this debate is more reminiscent of a bar room argument. I don’t believe anyone has seriously addressed my hypothesis but rather choosen to just put me down and shut me up. I do not have the stamina of Peace. Well you have succeeded. God be with you.
{Fixed coding. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-27-2000 at 03:02 PM]
As far as I can tell, no one is trying to shut you up. On the contrary, it may well be that you have some evidence for your claim that all atheists are Caucasians with which none of us has been presented. I, for one, would truly appreciate and enjoy the enlightenment that must accompany this evidence. I wish you would continue.
I suspect that the reason that some people here think that most atheists are caucasians, or at least ex-christians, is that most people they know are caucasian Christians.
I was raised a Christian but was named for a jew because my father wanted me to know that he thought that belief in God was the important thing and not the specific trappings if religion. But, I failed him. I am one of the few hard atheists around here. I’m not too hung up on labels so call me anti-believer if you want, sounds kinda Donaldson-esque. I don’t hear any clear negative connotation there (which is what I would like to avoid). I call myself a reductive materialist. I’d leave off the “reductive” except that too many people would think that “materialist” was equivalent to “materialistic”, two very different things. Check here for more info, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html
‘OF religion’ not ‘IF religion’. Sorry.
Well, ain’t that just typical. Someone shows up to pontificate, realizes that people aren’t going to buy his poorly-thought-out argument at face value, and runs as soon as people start demonstrating the flaws in his statements rather than try to defend them. Lovely.
Let’s see, here’s the webpage for The Modern Rationalist, an Indian humanist magazine. In fact, the International Humanist and Ethical Union reports at least five member organizations in India (the Indian Humanist Union, the Indian Radical Humanist Association, the Indian Rationalist Association, the Indian Renaissance Institute, and the Rationalist Association of India). Among the Associate Members of the IHEU we have the Rational Centre in Accra, Ghana, Action Humanism in Nigeria, the Afro-Asian Philosophical Society in Cairo, Egypt, the Assembly of Free Thinkers in Bangladesh, another Indian group, the Atheist Centre in Vijayawada, India–no, wait, make that eight more groups in India, because we can’t leave out the Bihar Rationalist Society, the Dravidian Association in Madras, Indian CSICOP, the Indian Secular Society, Kerala Yukthivadi Sangom, Satya Shodak Sabha, or Viveka Vidyalayam. Then there’s “The Enlightenment” in Islamabad, Pakistan, although at last report its Secretary-General is in a Pakistani jail facing capital charges of blasphemy. There’s the Humanist Friendship Association in Uganda. In Kathmandu, we have the Humanist Association of Nepal. There’s another group in Nigeria, the Humanist Friendship Centre. There’s the Mexican Ethical Rationalist Association–some Mexicans are Caucasians of course, but much of the population are mestizos, of mixed European and Indian (American Indian, that is) descent. I don’t know how you want to count them. In Nigeria, we have the Nigerian Humanist Movement–what does that make, three Nigerian groups? I note that Secular Humanism in Arabic Societies is headquartered in Ottawa–you may be on to something about the relative levels of tolerance/religious freedom in predominately Christian societies versus Islamic ones. If so, it’s because Christianity has been badgered into cleaning up its act by a variety of Deists, freethinkers, dissenters, agnostics, atheists, and humanists. I suspect the institutional structure of Christianity and the way the Protestant Reformation played out also had something to do with it, but that would be a whole thread in and of itself. One hopes that the freethinkers in Islamic societies, in cooperation with their more liberal Muslim countrymen, will someday spread more enlightened social institutions to such places as Algeria or Pakistan or even, someday, Saudi Arabia.
Continuing on with our listing of non-Caucasian heathens, we have the Study Group of the History of Western Humanism in Beijing–one wonders just how free a rein they are given by their atheist government; I suspect they are practioners of the wrong kind of atheism, rather like Protestants in old Spain or Catholics in Puritan England. The Humanist and Ethical Association of Bangladesh is a “Cooperating Organization”–I don’t know what exactly the difference is between “Full Members”, “Associate Members”, and “Cooperating Organizations”. Heck, even the Unitarian Universalists are a “Cooperating Organization”.
Note that I’ve left out all the numerous groups in France, Hungary, Finland, New Zealand, and so forth, since those people are presumably white for the most part.
Oh, and my local group, the Atlanta Freethought Association, has several South Asian or black members.
I lived and travelled in Asia for 3 years, and always looked for theological conversations. My input would be that:
-
Buddhism’s status as “atheist” depends on how you define your terms. As actually practiced by actual believers in Asia, it emphatically does include belief in supernatural spirits that influence our world, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc. Whether the word “Gods” is apropos is debatable. (As opposed to spirits, demons, whatever.) I tend to say yes. Chinese using English often refer to them as “Matsu, Goddess of the Sea”, or “Kukuan, God of War.”
-
The above is too much of a generalization. Buddhism lends itself to syncretism (mixing of religouus beliefs) perhaps more than any other religion, and it is quite difficult to figure out where buddhism ends and folk religion/tradition/superstition begins. And I’m sure if one looks around bit, one can find non-religious buddhism of the Tina Turner sort; though I would expect that would be mostly among more-westernized people.
-
All the above applies to practicing Buddhists. The clear majority of people I met (which subset was admittedly skewed to the young, educated and westernized) were not, to my mind, really Buddhists. I’d say they were mostly functional athiests, or at least agnostics. They went to temple to get married or to pray before exams, just to hedge their bets. They probably wouldn’t say they didn’t believe, but neither did they do much to convince one that they did. In short, they approached their nominal religion about the same way most Americans approach theirs.
-
What you would not see much of in Asia is the sort of “emphatic atheist” you see on the SDMB. (Just descriptive… :)) But I’d reckon that has more to do with culture (respect for elders/tradition) than anything.
Except for Andros, I truly enjoyed the last several posts. and certainly feel I have been enlightened. These responses were just the kind of mature, knowledgeable and honest responses I was looking forward to.
Andros, I have something to say to you in the pit !
grienspace said:
And that crux has been demolished. So why are you still trying to use it?
So, IOW, of all the people that have CHOSEN to come to a predominanetly Christian country, none have expressed their atheism to you. Did it ever occur to you that this isn’t exactly a random sample? A large portion of the East’s contact with the West is missionary type activity. It is not surprising that Christians are the most likely to immigrate to the West. Furthermore, did the idea that non-Caucasians, already having a property which sets them apart from the majority, would not be eager to share an additional difference, and that the fact that they do not mention their atheism doesn’t mean they aren’t atheists?
The Ryan’s post reminds me of an interesting personal story. Our son was adopted from South Korea. During the homestudy, the social worker asked us about religious faith, a discussion that didn’t get too far. She was not comfortable with us having no membership in an organized religion, as she felt this was very important to Koreans. When I pointed out to her that 49% of Koreans have no membership in an organized religion, she disagreed…every single one of them she had met was Christian, therefore they all must be. Of course, she works with Korean social workers (social welfare agencies in Korea are, to the best of my knowledge, affiliated with Christian churches) and Korean Americans who are overwhelmingly Christian. My “Facts about Korea” book gives the breakdown as follows:
51.1% of Koreans (this is South Korea) follow a specific faith – of these:
45.6% are Buddhists
38.7% Protestant
13.1% Catholic
.8% Confucianists
1.7% other
The book does not give details on the 49% that do not identify themselves with a faith. So I’m sorry I don’t have numbers on Korean Atheists (the ones that are non-theistic Buddhists or otherwise).