Atheist Contributions to the World

[Theoryofrelativity]

Still a LOT less than 99%

where is 99%?

 

[S.A.M.]

I accept that India has a long tradition of religious tolerance. Jesus would never have been crucified there. This is partly due to the diversity of religions there, not just sects, but very different philosophies. I'm all for diversity of religious ideas, I think it's healthy, and atheism is one of these religious ideas (or ideas about religion).

The problem is more severe with the Abrahamic religions, since the "one God" concept is inherently less tolerant. They are also more patriarchal and militant in nature, seeking to become dominant the way an army is dominant.

I think much of the intolerance in Islam and Christianity in the West is a reflection of the philosophies that exist there.

There are Muslims and Christians in India who demonstrate the same tolerance as people of other religions.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Back to the original question

What have atheists done for us?'

here is an example re India's history, very important one too

Bhagat Singh atheist and revolutionary in India

from wiki


"Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi
Bhagat Singh and his militaristic methods contrasted with Mahatma Gandhi's pacifist methods in the Indian independence movement, much as the militaristic methods of Malcolm X contrasted with the pacifism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the American civil rights movement.

To this day, there is an active public debate in India as to whether independence was ultimately the result of Singh's methods, Gandhi's methods, or a combination thereof. Some also wonder if independence could have come faster if the Indian National Congress had adopted Singh's methods in addition to Gandhi's.

A small but vocal minority of Singh's supporters also accuse Gandhi of being responsible for his death. Some believe that Gandhi could have stopped Singh's execution had he so desired, but chose not to so that he could have total control over the independence movement. Others accuse Gandhi of actually working with the British to arrange Singh's execution.

Both accusations, especially the latter, are hotly contested. Gandhi's supporters say that he did not have enough influence with the British to stop the execution, much less arrange it. Furthermore, Gandhi's supporters assert that Singh's role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi's role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead.

Gandhi, during his lifetime, always maintained that he was a great admirer of Singh's patriotism, but that he simply disapproved of his violent methods. He also said that he was opposed to Singh's execution (and, for that matter, capital punishment in general) and proclaimed that he had no power to stop it. On Singh's execution, Gandhi said, "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only,"[12] a statement that many see as evidence of Gandhi's opposition to Singh's execution and that others see as only a mild chiding of the British government by a man who supported the execution. However, Gandhi also once said, on capital punishment, "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because He alone gives it."

Many Indians today consider themselves supporters of both Singh and Gandhi, considering them both to be well-intentioned men with different ideologies on how to attain a common goal, namely the independence of India. "

Bhagat Singh and atheism
"Atheism
While in a condemned cell in 1931, he wrote a pamphlet entitled Why I am an Atheist in which he discusses and advocates the philosophy of atheism. This pamphlet was a result of some criticism by fellow revolutionaries on his failure to acknowledge religion and God while in a condemned cell, the accusation of vanity was also dealt with in this pamphlet. He supported his own beliefs and claimed that he used to be a firm believer in The Almighty, but could not bring himself to believe the myths and beliefs that others held close to their hearts. In this pamphlet, he acknowledged the fact that religion made death easier, but also said that unproved philosophy is a sign of human weakness."

 

[S.A.M.]

Back to the original question

What have atheist doen for us

here is an example re indias history, very improtant one too

Bhagat Singh atheist and revolutionary in India

from wiki


"Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi
Bhagat Singh and his militaristic methods contrasted with Mahatma Gandhi's pacifist methods in the Indian independence movement, much as the militaristic methods of Malcolm X contrasted with the pacifism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the American civil rights movement.

To this day, there is an active public debate in India as to whether independence was ultimately the result of Singh's methods, Gandhi's methods, or a combination thereof. Some also wonder if independence could have come faster if the Indian National Congress had adopted Singh's methods in addition to Gandhi's.

A small but vocal minority of Singh's supporters also accuse Gandhi of being responsible for his death. Some believe that Gandhi could have stopped Singh's execution had he so desired, but chose not to so that he could have total control over the independence movement. Others accuse Gandhi of actually working with the British to arrange Singh's execution.

Both accusations, especially the latter, are hotly contested. Gandhi's supporters say that he did not have enough influence with the British to stop the execution, much less arrange it. Furthermore, Gandhi's supporters assert that Singh's role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi's role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead.

Gandhi, during his lifetime, always maintained that he was a great admirer of Singh's patriotism, but that he simply disapproved of his violent methods. He also said that he was opposed to Singh's execution (and, for that matter, capital punishment in general) and proclaimed that he had no power to stop it. On Singh's execution, Gandhi said, "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only,"[12] a statement that many see as evidence of Gandhi's opposition to Singh's execution and that others see as only a mild chiding of the British government by a man who supported the execution. However, Gandhi also once said, on capital punishment, "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because He alone gives it."

Many Indians today consider themselves supporters of both Singh and Gandhi, considering them both to be well-intentioned men with different ideologies on how to attain a common goal, namely the independence of India. "

How many people know Bhagat Singh ?

He is well known in India and well respected, but his militant tactics never gained the extent of popular support that Gandhis non violent methods did.

And he became even more popular because he was a martyr to the cause. Chandrashekhar Azad did as much as Bhagat Singh but did not die with as much fanfare, so he is known even less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_Azad

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Legally medical practioners are forbidden from revealing the sex of the child. The legalisation of abortion was a response to illegal abortions and danger to the health of the mother.

so abortion was illegal once then, why? Religious reasons?

Which means it's becoming legal could (not did) well have been influenced by atheism.

 

[S.A.M.]

so abortion was illegal once then, why? Religious reasons?

Which means it's becoming legal could (not did) well have been influenced by atheism.

Illegal in the sense that it was performed mostly by midwives and was under the jurisdiction of village elders, so most women were discouraged from performing it (since Hindu tradition does not permit even illegal children to be given away).

Once it was "legalised" there was no argument against it.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

How many people know Bhagat Singh ?

He is well known in India and well respected, but his militant tactics never gained the extent of popular support that Gandhis non violent methods did.

And he became even more popular because he was a martyr to the cause. Chandrashekhar Azad did as much as Bhagat Singh but did not die with as much fanfare, so he is known even less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_Azad

This is not the point Sam, the point is it answers the thread question. This is an atheist who had a huge effect on India's independance, the fact he is not hugely recognsied for it is down to 'teaching'. History does not alter because he did not have the 'x' factor

 

[lightgigantic]

India : Probably the first sign of skeptic thought comes from the Rig-Veda, a text which is thought to have been written around 1000 BC. The philosophy promoted in it could be said to be atheistic by omission, as shows us this creation hymn :

"Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born and whence came this creation? The gods were born after this world's creation. Then, who can know from whence it has arisen? None know whence creation has arisen and whether he has or has not produced it. He who surveys it in the highest heaven, he only knows, or happily, he may know not".

Working with isolated passages of the rg veda (or any veda) is misleading - to start with the 4 vedas are composed on compact sanskrit verses that require a great deal of knowledge (not just sanskrit but also the interrelation between different passages fromthe vedas) - to just try and launch into a single verse like this is kind of like trying to access a compressed computer file that you can't open - in short the vedas are not meant for the lay man (traditionally there were brahamanas who would go by the title of ek-veda, meaningthey were competent in one veda, and some of the more erudite would be tri or catur veda brahmanas) - it practically requires an entire life time just to comprehend - therefore I never quote the vedas except when the quote comes from an authorized source (meaning a learned commentator established in the practices of brahminical culture) - on the other hand there are the puranas, such as bhagavad gita and numerous others, that are accepted as non different from the vedas and more workable considering our fallen condition. The 4 vedas are just too nebulous, with too many prerequisites for comprehension, to use as references unless one is highly qualified (of course empiric scholars don't hesitate to rush in ......)

 

[S.A.M.]

This is not the point Sam, the point is it answers the thread question. This is an atheist who had a huge effect on India's independance, the fact he is not hugely recognsied for it is down to 'teaching'. History does not alter because he did not have the 'x' factor

What was his huge effect on India's independence?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Sam, in answer to your question see 'Red'

Back to the original question

What have atheists done for us?'

here is an example re India's history, very important one too

Bhagat Singh atheist and revolutionary in India

from wiki


"Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi
Bhagat Singh and his militaristic methods contrasted with Mahatma Gandhi's pacifist methods in the Indian independence movement, much as the militaristic methods of Malcolm X contrasted with the pacifism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the American civil rights movement.

To this day, there is an active public debate in India as to whether independence was ultimately the result of Singh's methods, Gandhi's methods, or a combination thereof. Some also wonder if independence could have come faster if the Indian National Congress had adopted Singh's methods in addition to Gandhi's.

A small but vocal minority of Singh's supporters also accuse Gandhi of being responsible for his death. Some believe that Gandhi could have stopped Singh's execution had he so desired, but chose not to so that he could have total control over the independence movement. Others accuse Gandhi of actually working with the British to arrange Singh's execution.

Both accusations, especially the latter, are hotly contested. Gandhi's supporters say that he did not have enough influence with the British to stop the execution, much less arrange it. Furthermore, Gandhi's supporters assert that Singh's role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi's role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead.

Gandhi, during his lifetime, always maintained that he was a great admirer of Singh's patriotism, but that he simply disapproved of his violent methods. He also said that he was opposed to Singh's execution (and, for that matter, capital punishment in general) and proclaimed that he had no power to stop it. On Singh's execution, Gandhi said, "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only,"[12] a statement that many see as evidence of Gandhi's opposition to Singh's execution and that others see as only a mild chiding of the British government by a man who supported the execution. However, Gandhi also once said, on capital punishment, "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because He alone gives it."

Many Indians today consider themselves supporters of both Singh and Gandhi, considering them both to be well-intentioned men with different ideologies on how to attain a common goal, namely the independence of India. "

Bhagat Singh and atheism
"Atheism
While in a condemned cell in 1931, he wrote a pamphlet entitled Why I am an Atheist in which he discusses and advocates the philosophy of atheism. This pamphlet was a result of some criticism by fellow revolutionaries on his failure to acknowledge religion and God while in a condemned cell, the accusation of vanity was also dealt with in this pamphlet. He supported his own beliefs and claimed that he used to be a firm believer in The Almighty, but could not bring himself to believe the myths and beliefs that others held close to their hearts. In this pamphlet, he acknowledged the fact that religion made death easier, but also said that unproved philosophy is a sign of human weakness."

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, in answer to your question see 'Red'

I was wondering what they meant by active debate, since in all my years in India I have never heard of it.

What do you think of the fact that an atheist thought of bombings and murder as a way to attain freedom while a theist constantly opposed him and promoted nonviolent opposition instead?

Of course, his intention was merely to attract attention, since he gave himself up immediately afterwards.

On April 8, 1929, Singh and Dutt threw bombs onto the corridors of the assembly and shouted "Inquilab Zindabad!" ("Long Live the Revolution!"). This was followed by a shower of leaflets stating that it takes a loud voice to make the deaf hear. The bomb neither killed nor injured anyone; Singh and Dutt claimed that this was deliberate on their part, a claim substantiated both by British forensics investigators who found that the bomb was not powerful enough to cause injury, and by the fact that the bomb was thrown away from people. Singh and Dutt gave themselves up for arrest after the bomb. He and Dutt were sentenced to ' Transportation for Life' for the bombing on June 12, 1929

Shortly after his arrest and trial for the Assembly bombing, the British came to know of his involvement in the murder of J. P. Saunders. Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev were charged with the murder. Bhagat Singh decided to use the court as a tool to publicize his cause for the independence of India. He admitted to the murder and made statements against the British rule during the trial.

Bhagat Singh is acknowledged as a martyr (he was only 24 when he was hanged), an important contributor to the communist movement in India and a significant voice in the policy of the then National Congress.

He was considered a terrorist by the British of course.

 

[Prince_James]

Samcdkey:

"The future of atheism consists in establishing partyless democracy and achieving one equal humanity through it. National and racial differences vanish as real democracies federate at first for commonweal and then move towards one humanity and one wor1d. The United Nations Organization will have to convert itself into United People's Organization for the purpose. Atheist awakening rouses people all over the world into the feeling of mastership over their institutions and systems of life. The spread of the atheist outlook is hope of humanity to turn from war to peace, from slavery to freedom, from superstition to a sense of reality, from conflict to cooperation".

That sounds like a rather dystopian future to me. A destruction of culture, of race, of nation...A robbing of power (1 voice out of 6 billion? No thank you!) and incorporation into the ludicrousness of democracy. No war? No political parties (are we all supposed to believe the same?)...

Wow, pretty hellacious indeed.

"In 5000 years of known history, with strong theism, we have never attacked another country for personal gain nor have Indians lost their culture or identity to foreign invasion."

Yet you were founded upon military and social invasion (the Aryans) and had numerous bloody wars across the sub-continent. Also, the likely reason for why India did not expand much beyond her borders, was due to the fact that India is separated by the rest of Asia by the Himalayas, and a naval force would have been difficult to muster to attack Persia, Arabia, or South East Asia, specifically when many times in Indian history had many principalities vying for control.

Also, I would argue India did indeed lose a great deal of her culture under Mughal control, considering they were subjugated to foreign kings and an alien religion.

"Indian tradition has shown tolerance towards other religions, alternative sexualities, ascetics, heterodoxy, abortion- there are even places that perform same sex marriages. "

Is any of this necessary to society?

"PIP: The 1972 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in India legalized abortion in order to reduce the incidence of illegal abortions. "

Isn't this akin to "reducing the incidence of theft by legalizing it"?

 

[wsionynw]

In what sense? The greatest harm to society today is from politicians and scientists who invest in destruction either through demagogy or weaponry. Both groups are more likely to be atheist.

Surface to air missile, please don't make such claims without any back up. I agree that politicians are a threat, but only because they listen to those with percieved power, such as big business and religious leaders (the same thing perhaps?).

 

[superluminal]

Surface to air missile, please don't make such claims without any back up. I agree that politicians are a threat, but only because they listen to those with percieved power, such as big business and religious leaders (the same thing perhaps?).

"Surface to air missile" Ha!

 

[S.A.M.]

Surface to air missile, please don't make such claims without any back up. I agree that politicians are a threat, but only because they listen to those with percieved power, such as big business and religious leaders (the same thing perhaps?).

Do you mean to say that politicians who practise demagogy (and scientists who build weapons) have no opinion of their own?

That they are somehow under the control of religious leaders?

Why do they listen to them?

 

[S.A.M.]

That sounds like a rather dystopian future to me. A destruction of culture, of race, of nation...A robbing of power (1 voice out of 6 billion? No thank you!) and incorporation into the ludicrousness of democracy. No war? No political parties (are we all supposed to believe the same?)...

Wow, pretty hellacious indeed.

I would not go so far as to call it hellacious, but if I remember rightly, the original premise of communism was to make everyone equal too. Possibly the reason why it attracted atheists more than any other group. Did not really work out that well, did it?

Yet you were founded upon military and social invasion (the Aryans) and had numerous bloody wars across the sub-continent.

The Aryan Invasion is considered to be a myth by many scholars today, another attempt by the West to take credit for Eastern accomplishments. The truth may be that Aryans originated in India. After all, remains found on the West coast of India have indicated that it has been occupied since the Stone Age.

Artifacts found near Kandivali in northern Mumbai indicate that these islands were inhabited since the Stone Age.

Also, the likely reason for why India did not expand much beyond her borders, was due to the fact that India is separated by the rest of Asia by the Himalayas, and a naval force would have been difficult to muster to attack Persia, Arabia, or South East Asia, specifically when many times in Indian history had many principalities vying for control.

It was however subject to invasions through all her known history, so what difference does it make that it did or did not spread?

Also, I would argue India did indeed lose a great deal of her culture under Mughal control, considering they were subjugated to foreign kings and an alien religion.

Huh? Do you mean to say that India was a Muslim country at one time? That all Hindus were following Muslim law and religion? Or was it that the Mughals embraced a lot of the Indian culture? Do you know of places outside India where Mughal (Mongol) kings embraced values from other religions and embraced philosophies from atheists and non-Abrahamic religions?

Akbar's most lasting contributions were to the arts and to Indian religion. He initiated a large collection of literature, including the Akbar-nama and the Ain-i-Akbari, and incorporated art from around the world into the Mughal collections. He also commissioned the building of widely admired buildings, including the Panj Mahal. Having a greatly tolerant attitude toward religion, Akbar preserved Hindu temples. He also began a series of religious debates where Muslim scholars would debate religious matters with Sikhs, Hindus, Carvaka atheists and even Jesuits from the Vatican.

At the time of Akbar's rule, the Mughal Empire included both Hindus and Muslims. Profound differences separate the Islamic and Hindu faith. When Akbar commenced his rule, a majority of the subjects in the Mughal Empire were Hindu. However, the rulers of the empire were almost exclusively Muslim. In this highly polarized society, Akbar fostered tolerance for all religions. He not only appointed Hindus to high posts, but also tried to remove all distinctions between the Muslims and non-Muslims. He abolished the pilgrim tax in the eighth year and the jizya in the ninth year of his reign, and inaugurated a policy of universal toleration. He also enjoyed a good relationship with the Catholic Church, who routinely sent Jesuit priests to debate in his court, and at least three of his Grandsons were baptized as Catholics (though they did become Muslim later in life).

Akbar built a building called Ibadat Khana (House of Worship), where he encouraged religious debate. Originally, this debating house was open only to Sunnis, but following a series of petty squabbles which turned ugly, Akbar encouraged Hindus, Catholics and even atheists to participate. He tried to reconcile the differences of both religions by creating a new faith called the Din-i-Ilahi ("Faith of the Divine"), which incorporated both 'pantheistic' versions of Islamic Sufism (most notably the Ibn Arabi's doctrine of 'Wahdat al Wajood' or Unity of existence )and 'bhakti' or devotional cults of Hinduism. Even some elements of Christianity - like crosses, Zoroastrianism- fire worship and Jainism were amalgamated in the new religion. Akbar the Great was particularly famed for this. Akbar was greatly influenced by the teachings of JainAcharyaHir Vijay Suri and Jin Chandra Suri.Akbar gave up non-vegetarian food by their influence.Akbar declared "Amari" or non-killing of animals in the holy days of Jains like Paryushan and Mahavir Jayanti.He rolled back Zazia Tax from Jain Pilgrim places like Palitana.

Akbar passed decrees against child marriage and sati.

And did the Mughals consider themselves as foreigners?

The following poem was written by Bahadur Shah Zafar during his exile from India. It is also his epitaph.

English Translation
My heart is not happy in this despoiled land
Who has ever felt fulfilled in this transient world

Tell these emotions to go dwell elsewhere
Where is there space for them in this besmirched (bloodied) heart

I had requested for a long life a life of four days
Two passed by in pining, and two in waiting.

How unlucky is Zafar! For burial
Even two yards of land were not to be had, in the land beloved

"Indian tradition has shown tolerance towards other religions, alternative sexualities, ascetics, heterodoxy, abortion- there are even places that perform same sex marriages. "

Is any of this necessary to society?

Yes. Argument and heterodoxy are essential to a democratic form of society. Where opinions cannot be expressed, where dialogue is not possible, where each member of society does not get an equal opportunity to express his opinions or beliefs, there is no democracy. Even the poorest man on the street has an opinion and the right to be heard.

Isn't this akin to "reducing the incidence of theft by legalizing it"?

If you were the victim of rape who got pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you rather it was a midwife with a coat hanger or a surgeon with a medical degree?

 

[wsionynw]

Do you mean to say that politicians who practise demagogy (and scientists who build weapons) have no opinion of their own?

That they are somehow under the control of religious leaders?

Why do they listen to them?

It's true that scientists are responsible for WMD, and they do it because it is demanded by the ruling government.
See the recent outrage regarding faith schools in the UK, and the government's u-turn thanks to the church flexing it's muscles. The sooner we seperate state and religion, the better.
What's next - my son is a druid, I want the state to fund a druid school, and a nazi school for my daughter, who I have decided is going to be raised a nazi.
??????

 

[superluminal]

S.A.M is right. All scientists and politicians should be killed.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's true that scientists are responsible for WMD, and they do it because it is demanded by the ruling government.

So scientists are subject to the demands of the ruling government against their better judgement? Why do they agree to these demands? Do they not care about the results of their inventions or the ultimate purposes they are designed for?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M is right. All scientists and politicians should be killed.

Don't be silly. What I am saying is that being a theist or atheist is the same when outcome measures for violence are assessed. What we need in society is to see people as people, subject to needs, bias and prejudice and more concerned with immediate and real comfort and security than with world peace. Tolerance is more conducive to achieving these aims than pointing fingers and ignoring obvious evidence against personal pet theories (by both theists and atheists).

At the end of the day, everyone is going to need each other and working together makes more sense to me than working against each other. Look at this forum. How much peace does confrontation generate? Dialogue is good, but calling people names solves nothing and works against the interests of everyone.