In the case of the Navajo, Eskimo, Inuit, various other American (N&S), various Chinese, and so forth, what "threw them off" was encountering some of the fine theistic peoples of the planet, bringing their lasting civilizations and their attendant improvements. The theistic man's burden, we might call it - that's certainly what Kipling meant. Currently borne by Modern Judaic and Protestant Christian and Sunni (mostly) Muslim theists, demonstrating their prosocial superiorities far and wide among all peoples.
I think Fraggle has already dealt with that. You can stretch atheism to include the native Americans and Inuit, but I doubt they consider themselves as atheist.
Most societies are characterized by having persisted for some time with recognizable characteristics, so they are all relatively old. You are basically equating the truth of theistic religion with the oldness and persistence of it's believers. If you are merely suggesting that a religion, however false, has things about that are beneficial to society, I agree. That is certainly possible. I suggest that religions didn't start out with all the traditions they ended up with. Humans create institutions that they find helpful, on whatever mythological framework they inherited. That is the only explanation for why disparate religious traditions are all seen as beneficial institutions. Their basic tenets of faith and mythology can vary widely, and they cannot all be true.
Assigning deity to all spiritual or supernatural entities, if that is how you interpret his comments, does not "deal" with the situation. And I first heard of the atheism of the Navajo, for example, in a quoted polemic by a Navajo university anthropologist, who had lost patience with the arrogance and over-weaning smug colonial presumptuousness of Western theism (Islam included in that, of course), that assigned its own labels and its own limited and ill-informed categories to Navajo beliefs and society. He put it somewhat differently. Faced with a cadre of pigheaded theists who for some reason equated their theism with religion itself, he denied that the Navajo had a religion. Reading his arguments, I take the liberty of adjusting the context. Tribal peoples are not always as naive and unsophisticated as the civilized frequently assume. They occasionally have some very deep ideas about the sources of "prosocial behavior", for example, or the role of metaphor and parable and story in establishing it.
Well according to me, anyone who is not a Muslim is a kaffir. I'm sure there are many kaffirs who disagree with that label. However, anyone who believes the following is, by definition, not an atheist. Now of course you can disagree, but thats your prerogative http://www.xpressweb.com/zionpark/index3.html
Translation problem. Never trust a theist with a translation involving religion. The "Creator" referred to is not a deity - is not, for example, worshipped. Mine and several Navajos with the requisite education and familiarity.
I find it interesting that instead of discussing whether atheism or theism is true, we're now discussing whether atheism or theism is more beneficial to society. Effectively, we're appealing to the philosophy of consequentialism. But if the authority of a philosophy is all you have to justify your stance (theism or atheism), doesn't that make the philosophy more fundamental, more true, and more important than the stance itself?
Untrue. Parasites, are they? Pleasant. Parasites like Einstein et al. And? Maybe as we 'evolve' as a society, we outgrow these superstitious notions. Proof? Haw! Absurd. No explanation then?
Only if its offensive to you to be designated "not a Muslim" or "athiest". You could always convert, that would take care of that. Cannot erase the word kaffir though, its not slang, it exists in the language. Some ignorant colonials [as usual] used it as a slur, but there's ignorant colonials for you. I think all these ignorant colonials should be banned from speaking. They've even turned Islamic into a slur, and jihad.
Kaffir, kaffer or kafir, which once was a blanket term for black southern Africans (see Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa)), is now utilized exclusively as an ethnic or racial slur. The original meaning of the word was 'heathen', unbeliever or infidel, from the Arabic Kafir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(ethnic_slur) Then, your posts should be moderated if you use that term as it is a racial slur. Not surprising coming from you, of course, as you would prefer to divide mankind as opposed to bringing it together.
Or, get rid of Islam, which would be the preference as it is the cause of the problem, not the solution.
Then point out one which doesn't Oooh the Nazis won Nobel Prizes!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Superstititious notions like marriage and family? Society? All societies defined by "state atheism" That was an explanation. Societies become religious, move up, become athiest, disappear. Not necessarily. Both "fundamental" and "true" are also subjective concepts. To an atheist, prosocialism may not be "fundamental and true" and so he can avoid it. Theism, for whatever reason, comes attached with rights and responsibilities, to self and others, and abdication is considered accountable.
That kind of crap was what the anthropologist I mentioned was objecting to. It may be self-explanatory, as obvious theistic bullshit from a tribe that thinks it has a superior civilization, but it does not explain the Navajo religion very well at all, according to its practitioners. (There is a very good chance that whomever you are using as an authority there has even confused the Hopi and the Navajo, with that "painted and masked men" dancing around stuff). Similarly with dozens of other peoples' religions and spiritual lives - some theistic self-ordained representative of "civilization" wanders in looking for tribal gods and primitive versions of what they themselves believe, and sure enough that's what they report back to their civilization. "Kaffir" is often used as a slur by Muslims in good standing with their fellow Muslims, SAM. You can't have missed that, surely? No society is defined by "state atheism".
I'm sure thats true, I've seen how the British hinduized India. Navajo religion is not Abrahamic. However, I'm guessing the Navajo you spoke you are not as intimately aware of non-Abrahamic religions as I am. I do not consider monotheism or even a deity to be necessary for theism. The Zorastrians worship fire, for instance, which was not originally a part of their doctrine However, you have to agree that calling it atheism, is deceptive and not worthy of you. And we get all heated about it. If another Muslim called me atheist, I would get similarly heated. Is atheist a slur? Westerners have frequently co-opted the sacred from Eastern cultures and attempted to diminish or demonise it. Or co-opted ordinary terms that do not have racial undertones. Coolies for instance, is a racial slur when used by the British against Indians. Nigger is another. I think the problem cannot be addressed by eliminating words as the racists adopt them. Its their problem, not mine.
Of course. Its the crux of sciforums Religion forum to treat nonbelievers in atheism with less respect that believers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you think that description you posted of the Navajo religion has any relationship to the beliefs or practices of traditional Navajo, you have a lot to learn about "awareness" of Western theistic (which includes Muslim, from the Navajo pov) descriptions of other peoples' religions. OK, we're getting into some strange territory now. Theism without deity - - -- tell you what, I will for the sake of argument agree with you that what you mean by atheism does not exist except in certain insane individuals, and we will invent new words for whatever it is that you are talking about. I'm sure that we can find some category word for the difference between the successful societies whose theism involves actual deities, like the Islamic paragons of durablility, and those whose theism is of this other kind not involving actual deities, such as the many examples presented to you. Lets' begin here: It wasn't me, in the first place, but a few of its practitioners, who were so adamant in their objections to the common theistic descriptions of what they were doing that they denied having a religion at all. That was an error on their part, I believe, brought about by the common theistic insistence that religion and theism are equivalent. But if you prefer their viewpoint, and want to discuss successful and durable cultures that had no religion, just say so. It is very difficult to get a bigoted theist from a strongly theistic culture to even recognize an atheistic religious culture - excuse me, old term, a culture with a religion whose theism involves no actual deities - and that may explain their frustration. As people more intimately familiar with at least two non-Abrahamic religions than most, confronted with the Abrahamist description of their culture and practices as involving "painted and masked men" "worshipping gods" through "ceremonial dance" , they may be perhaps excused ?
