So does Christian faith.

Darwin sorts out religions

cavarka9 wrote:
what exactly are we arguing about? And if you really get down to it, one might say some parts are even older perhaps 1750 bc or 2000 bc.Because they speak of a dying river. And if one takes the issue of polytheism which was always present in India it goes even back further. But as I said, 99%+ of hinduism today is post 500 BC. All major gods are post vedic, post buddha even. even what is caste system doesnt come from vedas, its a social code written and enforced post Mauryan empire.part of smriti, not shruti(revealed). vedas are about class system. Both evil and hence a need to wipe it off clean from face of the earth!.

Well, the dying river argument is somewhat shoddy, since we don't actually know which river is being referred to (although Hindutvas will claim it is certain that it's this or that one that dried up at this or that point.) Certainly you are right that a lot of modern Hinduism is more recent than 500BC. Compare though, the predominant form of Christianity in the Anglosphere - protestantism - is about as old as SIKHISM, if you compare most of its traditions and content. Certainly Catholicism too has changed a lot since the days of the early councils! We don't count the age of religions by how long they've remained unchanged - if so, no religion is even a generation old, since change always happens.

The identification of themselves as hindus only begins after coming of islam and that too after many centuries, not before. You seem to be knowledgeable enough to know for a fact that they all used to debate and disagree with each other.

Jews to this day debate and disagree with each other, very often without considering each other's expression of Judaism to be outside the bounds of what Judaism is (but of course each considers his own version the ideal form, the other versions being mistaken). Disagreement cannot be taken as evidence of these groups not considering each other a single religious community - I would prefer you presented some evidence that those who disagreed did consider their opponents outsiders - such evidence can be found with regards to (what we in retrospect label) Hindus vs. Jains and Buddhists.

You might consider that there is a much greater fluidity and less coherence. Y do modern day hindus believe that other religions are more or less true?. Is it not due to blurring of distinctions, if so why did this happen?.

I don't see how this is a valid objection to the idea that Hinduism as a living complex of traditions goes back to about 1500BCE.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:
what exactly are we arguing about? And if you really get down to it, one might say some parts are even older perhaps 1750 bc or 2000 bc.Because they speak of a dying river. And if one takes the issue of polytheism which was always present in India it goes even back further. But as I said, 99%+ of hinduism today is post 500 BC. All major gods are post vedic, post buddha even. even what is caste system doesnt come from vedas, its a social code written and enforced post Mauryan empire.part of smriti, not shruti(revealed). vedas are about class system. Both evil and hence a need to wipe it off clean from face of the earth!.

Well, the dying river argument is somewhat shoddy, since we don't actually know which river is being referred to (although Hindutvas will claim it is certain that it's this or that one that dried up at this or that point.) Certainly you are right that a lot of modern Hinduism is more recent than 500BC. Compare though, the predominant form of Christianity in the Anglosphere - protestantism - is about as old as SIKHISM, if you compare most of its traditions and content. Certainly Catholicism too has changed a lot since the days of the early councils! We don't count the age of religions by how long they've remained unchanged - if so, no religion is even a generation old, since change always happens.

the prob is that Indian history is deeply politicized both from left and right. But that cant be held as an argument that a valid argument can be made on its own merits.Also even if it were true the dating would probably start a little earlier?

Zwaarddijk wrote:

The identification of themselves as hindus only begins after coming of islam and that too after many centuries, not before. You seem to be knowledgeable enough to know for a fact that they all used to debate and disagree with each other.

Jews to this day debate and disagree with each other, very often without considering each other's expression of Judaism to be outside the bounds of what Judaism is (but of course each considers his own version the ideal form, the other versions being mistaken). Disagreement cannot be taken as evidence of these groups not considering each other a single religious community - I would prefer you presented some evidence that those who disagreed did consider their opponents outsiders - such evidence can be found with regards to (what we in retrospect label) Hindus vs. Jains and Buddhists.

Not the same, the positions that were being held were truly radical and this was before scientific revolutions and enlightenment, now perhaps there are atheist jews now, whether that is valid or not is not for me. But in India it was the case long ago, now that was radical. you are attempting to fit polythesitc beliefs on the same arrangement as monotheism which baffles me. people being killed for faith was uncommon. Even you agree that the labeling of hindus vs jains,buddhists is a more recent analysis in which case how can you argue people back then saw it as such, they never saw it in those terms.In which case there has been a significant break from the past.
Now I cannot agree with your explanation unless you point the original sources and show that was a predominant view. From my reading of savadarshanasamgraha by vidyaranya who was a cheif priest of last big "hindu" empire. https://archive.org/details/Sarva-Darsa ... E.B.Cowell
He never saw any such thing as "Hindu".

Zwaarddijk wrote:

You might consider that there is a much greater fluidity and less coherence. Y do modern day hindus believe that other religions are more or less true?. Is it not due to blurring of distinctions, if so why did this happen?.

I don't see how this is a valid objection to the idea that Hinduism as a living complex of traditions goes back to about 1500BCE.

[/quote]
It is valid because of the positions they held were deeply incoherent. This was not same as islam,christianity,judaism, mimamsa did not believe in god and argued against it, samkhya argued against it. advaita is not same as others and more importantly advaita as much as the proponents deny breaks away from the past. It was not a faith system along the monotheistic lines and hence explicit atheists lived in India far longer period of time than in any other civilization, because the diversity of positions did not make them as radical as they would have been in monotheistic religions. which proves my point that it has to be seen on its own terms and not by arranging it similar to monotheistic religions. And to label it by terms from outsider's understanding changes things and it is not the same as it was earlier. I would request you to point out original sources and show that such an understanding came from with in as opposed to from outside. An understanding which comes from outside changes things and that is what has happened to create hinduism. This break from the past must be seen what it is.

You havent answered my point as to whether the earlier polytheistic origins are part of what judaism is now or even christianity and isalm?. This is a central point, if your answer is no and I hope it is then you do recognize radical breaks from the past.

I do not deny that "Hinduism" has a history. The question is when did it begin?. When did hindus start seeing themselves as one?. This was recent and hence must be seen as such. Otherwise judaism must include the earlier polytheism as well. They do not, Islam has a history, one of polytheistic origins but we do not include those beliefs as part of islam .otherwise, the term "atheist hindus" must make sense, something which is deeply unappealing to me. A prospect I wish to avoid.

cavarka9 wrote:also, why must this begin with prayer or mantra? why cant religion be kept away?

Exactly!

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:also, why must this begin with prayer or mantra? why cant religion be kept away?

Exactly!

Thank you, I mean as an atheist can I start by speaking about some or the other terrible things from religion!

Christians worship a lamb. Also a dove. Who is simultaneously the lamb and not the lamb and vice versa. Not just that but there are snakes and she-bears in the mix too.

I don't see why this silly senator is all in a tizzy.