Global Religious landscape- Pew Forum

[KS]

No bro but tentatively these were the figures in 2010 according to PEW in India-

Hindus- 79.5 %
Muslims- 14.4 %
Christians- 2.5 %
Buddhists- 0.8 %
Rest- 2.8 % (Sikhs, jains , bahais etc)

The figures for Christianity is far larger than what is given here. I'd go with a minimum 8%.

 

[Azazel]

I repeat you are wasting your time.

May be,But,Right now I've some time to waste
But I am simply astonished by the level of prejudice and ignorance they have.

 

[KS]

May be,But,Right now I've some time to waste
But I am simply astonished by the level of prejudice and ignorance they have.

I'd say only prejudice. Not ignorance. Or possibly feigned ignorance

I have learned irrespective of religion does it make me pundit?

Whats the point of these irrelevant questions ?

 

[Azazel]

I have learned irrespective of religion does it make me pundit?

If you can prove your knowledge to the world then I suppose you can.

 

[Spring Onion]

I'd say only prejudice. Not ignorance. Or possibly feigned ignorance



Whats the point of these irrelevant questions ?

very relevant questions these are if you want us to undersrand )))))))))

If you can prove your knowledge to the world then I suppose you can.

i know the world can accept .I am talking about India.

Dont you think you are shying away from direct answer?

 

[Contrarian]

i know the world can accept .I am talking about India.

Dont you think you are shying away from direct answer?

By World, he meant India, or people who would be able to decide whether you do have that knowledge - who would invariably be in India.
Dont you think you are deliberately trying to obfuscate.

 

[Azazel]

i know the world can accept .I am talking about India.

Dont you think you are shying away from direct answer?

What kind of answer do you want??
Aren't India part of the world.Of course, India and Indians will accept.Now,Are you willing to learn Vedas and interpret it??

 

[Yogi]

I have learned irrespective of religion does it make me pundit?

Yes if have attained the correct knowledge with respect to the meaning n correct pronunciation Vedic Mantra n know how to perform rituals in correct manner u can call urself a Pundit but reading few things here n there without understanding the true meaning n pronunciation ain't gonna make u a Pundit...

 

[Developereo]

How much of that have you read..lets see your intellectual honesty..

We have discussed this before, and I know you guys will not accept the fact that Dravidian nationalists reject many Vedic influences. Periyar, for example, was against several, what he called, Aryan impositions like caste system, Sanskrit, etc. Some nationalists favor specific forms of Hinduism, e.g. Saivism, which they consider to be least polluted by Aryan impositions.

As religions grow old, they also become more mature and content with increasing the quality of lives and not the numbers.

Except that Hinduism didn't mature or evolve. It was simply kept in check by external forces. Before foreign invasions, it subjugated Buddhism; now it wants to (again) reclaim foreign converts.

There are no movements to convert Muslims or Christians to Hinduism.

If you deny that the radical Hindutva movement of today wants to reconvert people back into Hinduism, then I have no comment.

Labelling all atheists as having a belief system is silly. Atheists subscribing to a religion & those not doing that cannot be equated.

We are specifically talking about atheists here who defend Hinduism, aka Hindu atheists.

If they did claim that they are against religion & still believe in any Hindu doctrine, you would be correct. However you are still trying to put one label on many.

There is no confusion.

Joe Shearer is a self-declared atheist, but he is intellectually consistent and fair in his criticism of excesses by all religions. This is different from some other posters who hide behind the label atheist, but are hardcore defenders of Hinduism.

Atheism is a Religion = Not playing a game is also a game = bullshit

Atheism is a belief system about the relevance of God in the universe.
Religion is a belief system about the relevance of God in the universe.

Both belief systems often involve passionate defence of their particular world view and rejection of other viewpoints. Both belief systems have their hierarchy of priesthood whose claims are often accepted at face value.

Finally, both belief systems are empirically unprovable and ultimately depend on faith.

Vedas are part of our ancient Indian literature.Other than that it has no special place or authority for atheists.Their is no Hindu Athiest doctrine.Where do you people come up with ideas.

Vedas are intimately tied to Hindu religious doctrine. You can play with words, but it won't change the reality.

They challenges the authority of Vedas,And the authority of people who follow Vedas.

Exactly. They reject many Vedic influences as Aryan impositions.

Vedas actually sanction worship of nature.Your claims are false.

Depends. Some extremist Hindus do not accept tribal deities as such.

No evidence for your claims.Word eradicate means destroy,What sort of destruction are you talking??Where are the historical accounts for your claim??

Read up on the history of Buddhism in the subcontinent.

 

[itsanufy]

Reply to the post no 98

Partly true, think about Ireland

 

[Contrarian]

We have discussed this before, and I know you guys will not accept the fact that Dravidian nationalists reject many Vedic influences. Periyar, for example, was against several, what he called, Aryan impositions like caste system, Sanskrit, etc. Some nationalists favor specific forms of Hinduism, e.g. Saivism, which they consider to be least polluted by Aryan impositions.



Except that Hinduism didn't mature or evolve. It was simply kept in check by external forces. Before foreign invasions, it subjugated Buddhism; now it wants to (again) reclaim foreign converts.



If you deny that the radical Hindutva movement of today wants to reconvert people back into Hinduism, then I have no comment.



We are specifically talking about atheists here who defend Hinduism, aka Hindu atheists.



There is no confusion.

Joe Shearer is a self-declared atheist, but he is intellectually consistent and fair in his criticism of excesses by all religions. This is different from some other posters who hide behind the label atheist, but are hardcore defenders of Hinduism.



Atheism is a belief system about the relevance of God in the universe.
Religion is a belief system about the relevance of God in the universe.

Both belief systems often involve passionate defence of their particular world view and rejection of other viewpoints. Both belief systems have their hierarchy of priesthood whose claims are often accepted at face value.

Finally, both belief systems are empirically unprovable and ultimately depend on faith.



Vedas are intimately tied to Hindu religious doctrine. You can play with words, but it won't change the reality.



Exactly. They reject many Vedic influences as Aryan impositions.



Depends. Some extremist Hindus do not accept tribal deities as such.



Read up on the history of Buddhism in the subcontinent.

There is nothing more to say to you. I believe you are being deliberately dishonest with information.

Even Dravidian nationalists when they talk about vedas and the lot, they never talk about Hinduism per se. They want and follow their own version of Hinduism. Which is fine for everyone. They need not follow sanskritized versions.

Hinduism is not an entity that can be put behind strict lines. Consequently Hinduism keeps evolving. If you say Hinduism has not evolved/changed, then you donot understand the essence of Hinduism.

And thus you cannot comprehend what the Dravidians also say - because they mean something totally different to what you are implying.

It is futile to discuss this with you further.

 

[Bang Galore]

We have discussed this before, and I know you guys will not accept the fact that Dravidian nationalists reject many Vedic influences. Periyar, for example, was against several, what he called, Aryan impositions like caste system, Sanskrit, etc. Some nationalists favor specific forms of Hinduism, e.g. Saivism, which they consider to be least polluted by Aryan impositions.

True but that does not make them correct. People have argued that Asuras were Dravidians, can't buy that unless Iranians are also Dravidians. That is not proof.

Except that Hinduism didn't mature or evolve. It was simply kept in check by external forces. Before foreign invasions, it subjugated Buddhism; now it wants to (again) reclaim foreign converts.

Matured and evolved plenty even before any other religion made an entry, continued to evolve even after.

If you deny that the radical Hindutva movement of today wants to reconvert people back into Hinduism, then I have no comment.

Using fringe minorities to tar an entire religion is a dangerous business, the vast majority have no such interest nor do such conversions have sanction from those occupying important religious positions, like the Shankaracharyas.

Exactly. They reject many Vedic influences as Aryan impositions.

Many people do many things, does not mean that they are correct in their historical analysis.

Depends. Some extremist Hindus do not accept tribal deities as such.

Really?? Have not heard that one before. Possible I guess but an extremely rare position to take.

 

[Developereo]

Even Dravidian nationalists when they talk about vedas and the lot, they never talk about Hinduism per se. They want and follow their own version of Hinduism. Which is fine for everyone. They need not follow sanskritized versions.

Let's go back to where this discussion started: the claim was that Hinduism did not force itself onto people, unlike the Abrahamic faiths.

The Dravidian nationalists flatly deny that assertion when it comes to Vedic influences, and that was what I wanted to highlight.

Hinduism keeps evolving. If you say Hinduism has not evolved/changed, then you donot understand the essence of Hinduism.

The evolution of Hinduism I am talking about is your claim that it has become more tolerant and the ancient purge of Buddhism is unlikely to be repeated.

That is patently false, as seen by the resurgence of Hindutva extremism as soon as the colonial yoke was removed.

Using fringe minorities to tar an entire religion is a dangerous business, the vast majority have no such interest nor do such conversions have sanction from those occupying important religious positions, like the Shankaracharyas.

But that is precisely the tactic being used against Islam and Christianity.

The vast majority of Muslims and Christians have no interest in converting anyone and conquering the world. It is a fringe minority, just like in Hinduism.

That was the whole point, that every religion has an expansionist element.

 

[abhishekgoel80]

The thing is even atheists have not yet come up with a good argument to disprove the existence of God and quite frankly they do not have to. They can believe whatever they want but then when they mock believers and tell them how foolish they are they should bring forth proof to their beliefs, of which they have yet not been able to do so. In actuality to be able to disprove God one must be omniscient and since nobody is omniscient ergo nobody can disprove God. Philosophically speaking if one were omniscient than he would fit the definition of God (Nauzbillah) so in reality only God himself can either prove or disprove his own existence.



200 million Muslim Indian and they will continue to grow, as for the rest of your rubbish you make me laugh. If I was not sitting on 2 infractions for making a bunch of your compatriots throw a hissy fit I would answer you in kind.

Do you have studied science? I mean theory of evolution, string theory, big bang etc. If possible try to understand them. How the laws of science are made?; Then read your adam eve,etc or superman comics understand how they are conceived.

I know its difficult but not impossible to attain knowledge. Then your put arguments which would have sense.

 

[Azazel]

We have discussed this before, and I know you guys will not accept the fact that Dravidian nationalists reject many Vedic influences. Periyar, for example, was against several, what he called, Aryan impositions like caste system, Sanskrit, etc. Some nationalists favor specific forms of Hinduism, e.g. Saivism, which they consider to be least polluted by Aryan impositions.

Periyar's political ideal was to nullify the effect of perceived Brahmin power in favour of a Shudra power. The basis of this strategy was the assumed truth of the Aryan Invasion Theory, which viewed the Indian demography along racial dimensions—the Aryan North and the Dravidian South. Thus, the political ideal was a mix of casteism and racism.Over the years Aryan Invasion theory has over the years proven wrong.So many of his ideals have been questioned.Their are absolutly no evidence of an Aryan invasion in sub continent. Although their are some prevailing theories of Indo-Aryan immigration.

But I admire him for his reformist movement many of his attacks were targeted against Brahmanism and not Brahmins, and the manipulation of Hinduism and not Hinduism as a faith.

We are specifically talking about atheists here who defend Hinduism, aka Hindu atheists.

No one will defend Hinduism if the criticism are valid.Your making up things that are historically inaccurate clearly for propaganda purposes.

Joe Shearer is a self-declared atheist, but he is intellectually consistent and fair in his criticism of excesses by all religions. This is different from some other posters who hide behind the label atheist, but are hardcore defenders of Hinduism.

I am sure if Joe Shearer is here he will also dispute your inaccurate claims.

Atheism is a belief system about the relevance of God in the universe.
Religion is a belief system about the relevance of God in the universe.

Both belief systems often involve passionate defence of their particular world view and rejection of other viewpoints. Both belief systems have their hierarchy of priesthood whose claims are often accepted at face value.

Finally, both belief systems are empirically unprovable and ultimately depend on faith.

Atheism is not a belief system.Its the rejection of belief systems.

Vedas are intimately tied to Hindu religious doctrine. You can play with words, but it won't change the reality.

What is Hindu religious doctrine??I've never come across one before.

Exactly. They reject many Vedic influences as Aryan impositions.

I also reject many Vedic influences in present society.

Depends. Some extremist Hindus do not accept tribal deities as such.

Who are these extreme religious Hindus??And why don't they accept tribal deities.

Read up on the history of Buddhism in the subcontinent.

I've read history of Buddhism in the subcontinent.And I fail find any evidence for your claims.