• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who should Atheists support in Tibet?

gdnp

Unregistered
G
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
4,998
Most Westerners seem to support the right of the people of Tibet to independence, or at least autonomy within China. I suspect this goes for all religions, as well as atheists, despite the fact that the native population is predominantly Buddhist, a religion with scant observance in the west.

Yet China is an atheist society that at least nominally has equal rights for all citizens. Yes, it is far from a democracy. But what government would take over if Tibet won its independence? The Dalai Lama, the leader of the Tibet exile community, is believed by his followers to be the 14th reincarnation, recognized at the age of 2 and having taken over political and religious control of Tibet at age 15 in 1950. He has been in exile since 1959.

Sorry, but if you can think of a more wooish basis for government I'd like to hear it.

The problem seems to be that he's a nice guy. Nobel peace prize and all that. If he were some sort of radical murderous tyrant, we'd be saying "reincarnation? Head of government and state religion from age 15 till death? What kind of BS is this?" Even if he had popular support.

So what's an atheist to do
1) support the atheist communist dictatorship
2) support the woo-based government in exile
3) support critical thinking and secular democracy
 
Support whichever government would be best for the Tibetan (?) people, and what they want most. If the people want to live with the Dalai Lama in control, I see nothing wrong with that. Especially considering the kind of person he is.

And possibly in this case, a non-secular government could be more of a democracy than the alternate.
 
You can't support the occupation and oppression of another people just because said other people get technology and whatnot in return. Everyone deserves a free homeland, it's just that simple.

And 'who should atheists support'? Oh, I dunno, who should left-handed people support;)?
 
Well, you need to separate the current movement for freedom from the past government. The Talking Lama has made it clear that things wouldn't go back to the way they were.
 
I'd be pretty arrogant to ad hom a whole culture/society/nation.

You don't deserve freedom cuz you're justa buncha woos!

I don't see how that can be right. Now, if I had evidence that removing China would be more harmful to the people than the status-quo, I'd have to re-examine my stance. As it is, with what I know, I'd rather see China go.
 
You don't deserve freedom cuz you're justa buncha woos!
Click to expand...
Tibetan: We're being oppressed, denied rights, and having our culture systematically taken away from us and buried!
Westerners: But they give you bling!1

Not that I care... at least I don't think so... :checks tabloids: ...no, Tibet is currently not on the front page of every tabloid out there, so currently it's not 'in' to care about Tibet... apparently it's Israel we're meant to currently hate. Don't worry, though, the tabloids will get around to hate on the PRC again shortly..
 
Last edited:
I don't think the situation in Tibet lends itself in any way to an "atheist's position" on what's best.

An atheist's position on the Dalai Lama should be, He may be considered a wise man by much of the Western world, he may even be a wise man...but he's not a deity, much less the reincarnation of a deity.

The political question of whether life in Tibet would be better with or without China's rule is a complex one, and not an issue I feel qualified to tackle here. In general, I believe China needs to let its involuntary territories have more autonomy--see, for example, Taiwan and Hong Kong--and that Tibet falls into that category.

But it's my political assessment, not my atheism, that drives that assessment.

Just my thoughts, MK
 
Atheism is a believe that god does not exist.

A belief that others should share that belief and that you should only support those who share that believe, regardless of the consequence is somewhat specious.

I oppose political oppression, in the name of religion of whatever guise.
 
Atheism is not a political position, but a quite specific ontological one. As a core philosophy, it carries no implication about any corollary of the lack of belief in God - certainly not that one must always side with other self-described atheists in matters which have nothing to do with that core philosophical position.

So as an atheist, you are not told by a book, deity, minister or church what to think. You make your own mind up.
 
Good question. Applies to Israel , in a way, as well.

Looks like China might make an amusement park of Tibet. They've certainly gone out on a limb with the new railroad.

At some point, ancient cultures are like endangered species. Its a pity to lose them, and their unique attributes, yet unfair to give them special status.
 
quarky said:
At some point, ancient cultures are like endangered species. Its a pity to lose them, and their unique attributes, yet unfair to give them special status.
Click to expand...

But endangered species are given special status, rightly, imo.

I also think that the status of ancient cultures should really depend on the members of the culture - you know, democracy. No culture should be forcibly preserved, nor forcibly 'modernised'. It should be up to the people who live in that culture, and no one else. Not me, and not the Chinese government.

And none of that still has anything to do with atheism :)
 
RandFan said:
Agreed, so let's hope that Tibet never returns to it's past ways before the Chinese took over. The Tibeten caste system was particularly pernicious. Not in keeping with their public image at all.

Brain Dunning explains the pros and cons of freeing Tibet
Click to expand...
Sorry, found that a joke. I don't know who Brian Dunning is, but I wonder if he has traveled in that part of the world, worked with Tibetans, talked to the refuges, visited their settlements, etc. (I have) They are hardly free. Past failures of Tibet does not bear on that. It doesn't sit well, either, to have him lecturing me about my sceptical "radar", that most people look to Hollywood stars for wisdom, etc. Surely we strive to debate at a higher level than "Richard Gheer says 'free Tibet', so I'm for it!"
 
roger said:
Sorry, found that a joke. I don't know who Brian Dunning is, but I wonder if he has traveled in that part of the world, worked with Tibetans, talked to the refuges, visited their settlements, etc. (I have) They are hardly free. Past failures of Tibet does not bear on that. It doesn't sit well, either, to have him lecturing me about my sceptical "radar", that most people look to Hollywood stars for wisdom, etc. Surely we strive to debate at a higher level than "Richard Gheer says 'free Tibet', so I'm for it!"
Click to expand...
Wow! :)

Perception is a very funny thing. I've never found Dunning to lecture. I've never found him dogmatic or unreasonable. I didn't find this podcast as simply one sided. He simply makes observations.

Most importantly, until this podcast I was a Dalai Lama fan simply because all I had heard was from folks like Gere and movies like Seven Years in Tibet which was very one sided.

So I'm at a loss to understand your complaint. Is Dunning wrong about the facts? In what way? Is it not true that the idea of freeing Tibet isn't even part of the Dalai Lama's goal?
 
Last edited:
I suppose someone could ask the Dalai Lama. Wait someone did. Canada's own Hana Gartner in interview on the CBC TV news show The National on April 19, 2004.

Dalai Lama: And also, now, here, my main concern for Tibet is preservation of Tibetan culture, preservation of Tibetan spirituality. I'm not much concerned about political field, whatever political status, OK, so long the preservation of Tibetan culture, preservation of Tibetan spirituality and environment fulfilled, then political status doesn't matter. Not much important. Personally, I have no interest in the political status of these things. I made it very clear, I think in '92, I made it very clear, when time comes for our return with certainty of freedom, then I will hand it over, all my religious authority to the local government. I have nothing to ask about myself.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom