Why Has the West Not Produced Any Major Religion?

[Himster]

Oh well, Atheism vs Religion in the 2nd page.

I know right, that's way later than usual.

[flota]

What about jedism?
Some people really follow that.

I believe in the god emperor myself lol

[Tankbustaz]

I believe in the god emperor myself lol

GLORY TO THE EMPRAH!

[Cyclops]

...

I believe in the god emperor myself lol

Paul Atreides?

[flatline115]

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet" - Napoleon In terms of the state with Christianity being the major religion there was no reason for the Western States to create one. Oh, and Atheism is a lack of religion/rejection of it. It isn't a religion itself.

[Tankbustaz]

Oh, and Atheism is a lack of religion/rejection of it. It isn't a religion itself.

Edgy children tomtomming Dawkins like a modern day prophet makes one think otherwise.

[Himster]

Paul Atreides?

No, Leto Atreides II, the son of Paul. Paul was only the Zen-Sunni Messiah of the Fremen and Emperor of the known Universe.

Edgy children tomtomming Dawkins like a modern day prophet makes one think otherwise.

In much the same way Christians picketing funerals, burning "witches", Muslims flying into buildings and murdering children and blowing themselves up: makes one think all theists are all dangerous psychopaths.
However these are assumptions counter-productive and destructive. To understand a group one must listen to more than just the disproportionate vocal minority (who naturally gain media attention by being crazy).

[Tankbustaz]

No, Leto Atreides II, the son of Paul. Paul was only the Zen-Sunni Messiah of the Fremen and Emperor of the known Universe.



In much the same way Christians picketing funerals, burning "witches", Muslims flying into buildings and murdering children and blowing themselves up: makes one think all theists are all dangerous psychopaths.
However these are assumptions counter-productive and destructive. To understand a group one must listen to more than just the disproportionate vocal minority (who naturally gain media attention by being crazy).

Well the unfortunate thing about Atheists is that they use the same tactics that Abrahamic religions use to convert people into following the 'one true path', which is obnoxious IMO and causes the movement to look like an angsty teen rebellion phase.

[Himster]

Well the unfortunate thing about Atheists is that they use the same tactics that Abrahamic religions use to convert people into following the 'one true path', which is obnoxious IMO and causes the movement to look like an angsty teen rebellion phase.

SOME atheists do that.
And of course they do. People should rightly be passionate in their convictions, that doesn't mean you're forced to believe any old ninny who says they have discovered absolute truth concerning all of reality, you should be passionate about what you consider truth as well; and engage those with differing views: for the betterment of all. Nobody should be afraid to speak their mind, not in a truly civilized country anyway.

[Carl Jung was right]

It did, it was called Atheism.

It's strange for you to make a vapid comment like that. As a philosophical rejection of metaphysics, the notion of a material world devoid of spiritual entities or planes of existence did not originate in Europe. There was a tradition of rationalism found amongst Indian scholars starting at around 600 BC. There were Chinese scholars as far back as the Warring States period who developed a purely materialistic conception of the universe. It is a matter of debate how much Confucius or Mencius believed in the existence of any metaphysical deities, beyond their abstract and rather metaphorical notion of the "will of heaven". Finally Buddhism, at its core, prior to adopting itself to local beliefs and superstitions, was essentially in Mr. Gautama's own exposition, an atheist moral philosophy.

Ironically it was in the recorded sayings of Ibn al-Rawandi, where the first (non European that is) clearly defined statements of atheism could be seen, although sadly, very little of his own philosophy was passed down, except in rebuttals from religious scholars.

That said the west did create one religion. Socialism. It's a religion the sense that it replaces God with society, either embodied in a socialist state that controls all aspects of human life (e.g. Juche), or with a more loose concept of a dominant class that inherently possesses virtues that place it above all other segments of society in an upcoming class struggle it is destined to triumph, ensuing a utopia of classless society, united in thinking and belief. That does sound a lot like a page out of some religious treatise doesn't it? The ideology underlying socialism has little to do with basic humanitarianism extended towards the less fortunate, but rather a totalitarian, all encompassing belief system that seeks to process every aspect of reality through its mode of politicized thinking (Marxist dialectics). In the USSR for instance, even science wasn't spared from it - legitimate geneticists were hounded and persecuted, while crank ideaologues which tried to tie the natural world to the writings of Lenin were placed at the head of agricultural policies, resulting in mass starvation. Can this rejection of reason not be compared to that of religious mass hysteria?

[War lord]

Leninist Marxism is a religion in all but name.

But really the reason the West hasn't produced a major religion is because Nicene Christianity stomped out the Old Gods and the Catholic Church that inherited the West was very careful to stomp out any heresy judged capable of growing into a sect. See for example the Cathar movement and the Albigensian Crusade.

[Cyclops]

...the Catholic Church that inherited the West was very careful to stomp out any heresy judged capable of growing into a sect....

My own feeling is Augustine introduced a lot of Manichean thought into Catholic theology, making Calvinisim possible.

[Enros]

Science attempts universal answers. It has the sort of power structures we see in religion and it evokes fervent support and opposition. At the very least it wears the clothing of religion and walks in the same pathways.

I would include religion as a category of science rather than the other way round: science provides a more utile apporach to understanding reality at the moment, but in the past religions played the role of wisdom finders, keepers and dispensers.

Science is based on the premise that answers must have evidence. One of the characteristics that defines religion is that it has no supporting evidence. In this regard, they are complete opposites.

Science has "the sort of power structures we see in religion" in the sense that is has power structures. Just like families, groups of friends, nation-states, businesses, swimming clubs and every human undertaking involving more than one person has power structures. In the power structures of science one's argument is only as good as the evidence and anyone can criticize even the most respected and experienced scientists. It's true that logical fallacies and appeals to authority often happen in scientific debate, and it's true that scientists are only human and sometimes don't admit they are wrong as quickly as they should. But religion on the other hand is simply hostile to debate.

I can't actually think of a human endeavor more different from religion than science. You'd have more luck comparing political beliefs or sports fans to religion. It would still be a bad comparison, but they might have at least one bullet point in common.

[Cyclops]

A plumber fixing a broken sink "attempts universal answers"..

Not if he's concentrating on his work he doesn't.

Science is based on the premise that answers must have evidence..

The Scientific Method is based on the idea that answers must be testable, but near enough.

A defining characteristic of religion is that it has no supporting evidence. In this regard, they are complete opposites..

Christianity refers constantly to Jewish scriptures and its own writings as evidence (for example) of human sinfulness, Christ's divinity, the foretelling of his arrival and subsequent reign etc. While it is not scientific (and often wildly inaccurate), there is certainly an attempt in some religions to use evidence found in sacred teachings.

Science has "the sort of power structures we see in religion" in the sense that is has power structures. Just like families, groups of friends, nation-states, businesses, swimming clubs and every human undertaking involving more than one person has power structures. In the power structures of science one's argument is only as good as the evidence and anyone can criticize even the most respected and experienced scientists. It's true that logical fallacies and appeals to authority often happen in scientific debate, and it's true that scientists are only human and sometimes don't admit they are wrong as quickly as they should...

Thank you, thats entirely the point I am trying to make., Religion like science is semi-systemised thought that adresses questions and has attendant power structures. Both are human institutions to my agnostic mind.

But religion on the other hand is simply hostile to debate..

There's an old jewish joke that says "two rabbis, three opinions". I'd suggest the conciliar tradition and the tradition od formal debate in Islam are examples of instances where debate is allowed in religion. Certainly imposed central idea making is a charatceristic of some powerful religions (for self evident reasons) but thats a result of them being human instituions as we agreed above.

I can't actually think of a human endeavor more different from religion than science. You'd have more luck comparing political beliefs or sports fans to religion. It would still be a bad comparison, but they might have at least one bullet point in common.

I think the example of some political beleifs makes a good comparison to religion (eg some forms of Communism as mentioned above), but sportsfanism makes a less worthy comparison.Maybe religious belief is more like being a player than a fan?

[Edelfred]

It's really interesting that all the major religions throughout history were born in the East: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Manichaeism, Mithraism, etc. I cannot think of any single major religion coming from the West, not counting Western pagan cults that were generic and local. Even during the Hellenistic era Greek theology had no lasting impact on the East; it was as if the whole Near East simply ignored the religious aspect of Hellenic culture.

Philosophy was thriving in the Graeco-Roman world, so why did it not produce a major creed? It seems like the West was comfortable with importing Eastern religious ideas and gods, like some aspects of Zoroastrianism and some gods like Mithra or even full religions like Manichaeism and Christianity.

Thoughts?

Bad to answer to useless questions .
What West ? Indo-Europeans spreading from the Pontic steppes into the Balkanes and Indus( which is itself is European word reversed of Scythian word for river like Don or Danu ) or Semitic settlers ,who were first in Europe occupying countries like Britain,France ,Spain ,Italy for 5 thousands years ago ,when Indo-Europeans were still living in Ukraine and Turkey . The ultimate conquest of Europe by Indo-Europeans was above 2500 years ago when Celts poured into the Western Europe from their Eastern Alps homeland of Halsttat culture .
If you mean Indo-Europeans then answer is Zoroastrianism and Brahmanism (the root of modern Buddhism,Hinduism and Jainism ) have been created by etnic Europeans , in European languages . The great non-secret is the etnic Europeans , who invaded and destroyed Elam and Indus valley civilization have came from the Southern Russia their language is brother language to ancient Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan et cetera . Brahmanism has been solely designed for anscestors of European invaders who were called noble twice-born Aryans ,while any other were servants and untouchables . When they had invaded the Southern India they decided that European supremacy and ancestry would not work anymore amongst great numbers of locals and started to reform .
Brahmanism reformed to Buddhism ,which promised enlightment to anyone and Hinduism ,which exchanged racial castes system with proffesional castes system ,and also adopted few things local .
As religious Hindus and their Brahmins look at it they say 6000 years ago existed the great cultural continuity called Bharat-Vastra from Ukraine to the Northern Iran ,called Ariana . Bharat means brother and meaning is like brother kingdoms . Those Bharat Vastra had great war against
people , who worshipped snakes and dragons . People known in Vedas as Naga people . The Bharat Vastra have won ,but devastation has been great . It sticks to the question of European Urheimat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
, the ancestors of Europeans came to problem that their region have been rendered
useless at one period of time , into steppes with little od sustaince left . It forced them to migrate into the Balkanes, Armenia ,Iran ,Indus .

[Tankbustaz]

he great non-secret is the etnic Europeans , who invaded and destroyed Elam and Indus valley civilization have came from the Southern Russia their language is brother language to ancient Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan et cetera . Brahmanism has been solely designed for anscestors of European invaders called twice-born Aryans any other were servants and untouchables . When they had invaded Southern India they decided that European supremacy and ancestry would not work anymore amongst great numbers of locals .
Brahmanism reformed to Buddhism ,which promised enlightment to anyone and Hinduism ,which exchanged racial castes system with proffesional castes system .

Ah, an excellent theory, if you were in the 50s. The Aryan Invasion Theory has been debunked and has been replaced with the Aryan Migration theory, which takes place during a long period of time, some of them overlap with end of the the classic IVC while during the later migrations the cemetery H culture was expanding eastwards. And several distinctly Harappan settlements have the presence of Fire Altars, if anything that makes your entire hypothesis problematic. Especially the parts about twice born Aryan and whatnot. You seem to have the Caste system backwards because if anything the caste system was becoming far more ossified around the time Buddhism became popular in mainstream communities as the Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas.

[Edelfred]

Ah, an excellent theory, if you were in the 50s. The Aryan Invasion Theory has been debunked and has been replaced with the Aryan Migration theory, which takes place during a long period of time, some of them overlap with end of the the classic IVC while during the later migrations the cemetery H culture was expanding eastwards. And several distinctly Harappan settlements have the presence of Fire Altars, if anything that makes your entire hypothesis problematic. Especially the parts about twice born Aryan and whatnot. You seem to have the Caste system backwards because if anything the caste system was becoming far more ossified around the time Buddhism became popular in mainstream communities as the Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas.

Gives the understanding you never read any Indian text . Lord Krshna and others called Arjuna for twice-born noble Aryan like only 100.000 plus times in 18 books of Mahabharata. Archeological evidences of only Europeans being found in Southern Russia and Kazakhstan graves 3,5 th years before . Of course, Chinese and talibans were destroying frescoes with blond Tocharians and Buddha effigies to erase anything European ,but Sanscrit is too much of European language . Agni the Vedas God of fire has his name
totally etymologicaly European . In Slavic languages -Agni means fires . Baltic is -Ugnis for fire,while in Scandivian -Ugn is for oven ,alas for an attempt of yours .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni

few settlements adopting the cultures of invaders nothing new ,some of native Americans abandoned Eternal Hunting and adopted Prosaic farming , shall we get puzzled by obvious thing - invasions take some time and some of invaded try to adopt to survive.

Indo-Aryans have not been exclusive to India region ,alas for India roots theory . They have been kings of Mittani for almost 300 years and it promptly points their origin into classic Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia-Kazakhstan region . They had Indo-Aryan names , classic ancient Gods , associated with India - Varuna , Indra and even Iranic Mitra ,but they were not from India ha-ha-ha , but from Scythia and it makes it 100% certain that India has been conquered by Europeans .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni
Krishnaite Sampradya or to be precise Gaudiya Sampradaya ( Hare Krishna movement) ,which is the most influential Sampradaya(religious system) in modern Hinduism ,place trust into astronomic alignments in Rigveda ,which means that Vedas been created thousands kilometres up North from India . Brahmanism is an European created religion .


Interesting enough is Celtic society by Ceasar - only 2 classes priests and professional warriors are important and have support of Celtic kings
other classes treated as rubble and exploited by rich people . Since according to the Scottish nobles declaration in the 13th century that all of them (Scottish nobles) ben descendent from Scythia(whom Celts been very fond of according to the book of Milesians) we can see wonderfully similar society structure . Bramhins and Kshatryas exclusive .

[Cyclops]

I'm pretty sure the Aryan language spread from Central Asia into South Asia. From vague memory of Indian Historical studies in the 80's Indo Aryan evelved in Turan and moved into Iran and the Indus region after that. Is that right?

Aryan may have descended from a language that appeared on the steppes (is that the Kurgan hypothesis? PIE I think), which are arguably the fringes of Europe but thats like saying French originates in Russia.

Strong elements of modern Hindu belief have demonstrably pre-Aryan forms, most notably the proto-Siva of the Harrapan seals. Saying the Lord of the Beasts is European doesn't make much sense to me.

[Tankbustaz]

Gives the understanding you never read any Indian text . Lord Krshna and others called Arjuna for twice-born noble Aryan like only 100.000 plus times in 18 books of Mahabharata. Archeological evidences of only Europeans being found in Southern Russia and Kazakhstan graves 3,5 th years before . Of course, Chinese and talibans were destroying frescoes with blond Tocharians and Buddha effigies to erase anything European ,but Sanscrit is too much of European language . Agni the Vedas God of fire has his name
totally etymologicaly European . In Slavic languages -Agni means fires . Baltic is -Ugnis for fire,while in Scandivian -Ugn is for oven ,alas for an attempt of yours .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni

few settlements adopting the cultures of invaders nothing new ,some of native Americans abandoned Eternal Hunting and adopted Prosaic farming , shall we get puzzled by obvious thing - invasions take some time and some of invaded try to adopt to survive.

Indo-Aryans have not been exclusive to India region ,alas for India roots theory . They have been kings of Mittani for almost 300 years and it promptly points their origin into classic Ukraine-Caucasus-Russia-Kazakhstan region . They had Indo-Aryan names , classic ancient Gods , associated with India - Varuna , Indra and even Iranic Mitra ,but they were not from India ha-ha-ha , but from Scythia and it makes it 100% certain that India has been conquered by Europeans .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni
Krishnaite Sampradya or to be precise Gaudiya Sampradaya ( Hare Krishna movement) ,which is the most influential Sampradaya(religious system) in modern Hinduism ,place trust into astronomic alignments in Rigveda ,which means that Vedas been created thousands kilometres up North from India . Brahmanism is an European created religion .


Interesting enough is Celtic society by Ceasar - only 2 classes priests and professional warriors are important and have support of Celtic kings
other classes treated as rubble and exploited by rich people . Since according to the Scottish nobles declaration in the 13th century that all of them (Scottish nobles) ben descendent from Scythia(whom Celts been very fond of according to the book of Milesians) we can see wonderfully similar society structure . Bramhins and Kshatryas exclusive .

Where did I even mention the OIT theory? It is full of . The classical Aryans-destroyed-IVC spiel which was popular in the early 20th century is as full of as the OIT. There was no large scale destruction of Dravidian culture, if anything the Post IVC culture still managed to survive in the same area and were abandoned only when the rivers dried up.

Also Arya in the Mahabharata doesn't imply the racial undertones that you seem so fond of implying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan#Sanskrit_Epics
The word itself is based on action that a person does not on the basis of birth.
The Rig Veda is dated to the cemetery H culture based in the subcontinent and it is dated to after the Indo-Iranian divide. The land referred to in the Rig Veda is the region around the Indus river and the later Vedas refer directly to Indian Flora and fauna. To say that Brahminism is a European religion is like saying that that the Hellenistic Pantheon is actual Persian.

[Edelfred]

Indo-Iranians speakers are called Indo-Aryans or Aryans in modern science , it is your personal misreadings ,which make you think about some other uses of this word .
Eventually, in modern Hinduism including Krishnaites Aryan is that one ,who worship Krishna and behaves accordingly to Dharma . Tamiles are not Aryans by language , but they are Aryans because they are Hinduists , for example .
Occupation of Southern India and Ceylon mentioned in Mahabharata ib for example Ramayana , obviously they had to mention the flora of new regions plus get some Dravidian deities . Jesus Christ also mentions Roman culture in New Testament it does not make Old Testament culturally dependent on Romano-Greeks in the slightest . The religions develop find new areas and transform accordingly .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas#Rigveda
The eldest Veda Rigveda
There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities between the Rigveda and the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the Andronovo culture; the earliest horse-drawn chariots were found at Andronovo sites in the Sintashta-Petrovka cultural area near the Ural Mountains and date to c. 2000 BCE.


Now let's see where Andronovo culture is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture


and date to c. 2000 BCE. Before c. 1700 BCE all graves found there contain European population . It means Brahmanism is European and modern Brahmins as caste have blood matching European not Indic substract . Though such reasoning is not needed since Sanskrit is European language .
Brahmanism died 2500 years before ,anywhere, killed by Buddhism and Jainism then some reformers like Shankara in the 8th century led to reformed pre-versions of modern Hinduism , in the 12 century Shaivites eliminated Buddhism in Bengal and in the 14 century Vaishnavism-Krishnaism
got strong hold after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_Mahaprabhu