Sorry toots, but haven't you forgotten that your religion forbids such things.
Atheist Contributions to the World
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
Sorry toots, but haven't you forgotten that your religion forbids such things.
Renounce religion.
Religion is the mind-killer.
Religion is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
Yes, I agree in a geeky sci-fi sort of way.
Even the inhabitants of the Dune universe were theists.
Finally. Someone with a sense of perspective.Yes, I agree in a geeky sci-fi sort of way.
Even the inhabitants of the Dune universe were theists.
samcdkey:
"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?"
Not well at all, no. But then again, Communism also attracted a great deal many Jews, which is even more paradoxical considering the sterotype of greediness.
"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."
Genetics refutes this notion of myth, by virtue of the genetic similarity of the upper castes to Europeans, compared to the lower-caste dissimilarity.
http://www.ektaonline.org/~friendso/textbook/Recent_Findings_Archaeogenetics.html
You'll find it beneath "summary".
Also, the Aryan homeland was likely around the black sea. The oldest Aryan-related artifacts and such are found there.
"“ Artifacts found near Kandivali in northern Mumbai indicate that these islands were inhabited since the Stone Age. ” "
India certainly had a native civilization before the Aryans. But much of what was Indian seems to be Aryan in nature, including much of the main thrust of HInduism, owing to its connection to Indo-European polytheism.
"It was however subject to invasions through all her known history, so what difference does it make that it did or did not spread?"
That an invasion against itself is not good, compared to an invasion outwards? One is defeat, the other is victory.
"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?
No, that India was under Moslem subordination. Similarly, Akbar's reforms were short lived. Massive conversions to Islam were supported by his successor, who later persecuted the Jains and slayed a guru of the Sikhs...
Similarly, one poem by someone who came to appreciate India as their home does not an Indian make. Colonists of all sorts can appreciate their colonies.
"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."
Yet why should the opinion of worthless people, by virtue of simply being people, amount to anything?
"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?"
I would want a midwife with a coat hanger, as I'd rather be punished for injustice (the child was not a rapist) than given a free-ride.
"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?"
Not well at all, no. But then again, Communism also attracted a great deal many Jews, which is even more paradoxical considering the sterotype of greediness.
"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."
Genetics refutes this notion of myth, by virtue of the genetic similarity of the upper castes to Europeans, compared to the lower-caste dissimilarity.
http://www.ektaonline.org/~friendso/textbook/Recent_Findings_Archaeogenetics.html
You'll find it beneath "summary".
Also, the Aryan homeland was likely around the black sea. The oldest Aryan-related artifacts and such are found there.
"“ Artifacts found near Kandivali in northern Mumbai indicate that these islands were inhabited since the Stone Age. ” "
India certainly had a native civilization before the Aryans. But much of what was Indian seems to be Aryan in nature, including much of the main thrust of HInduism, owing to its connection to Indo-European polytheism.
"It was however subject to invasions through all her known history, so what difference does it make that it did or did not spread?"
That an invasion against itself is not good, compared to an invasion outwards? One is defeat, the other is victory.
"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?
No, that India was under Moslem subordination. Similarly, Akbar's reforms were short lived. Massive conversions to Islam were supported by his successor, who later persecuted the Jains and slayed a guru of the Sikhs...
Similarly, one poem by someone who came to appreciate India as their home does not an Indian make. Colonists of all sorts can appreciate their colonies.
"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."
Yet why should the opinion of worthless people, by virtue of simply being people, amount to anything?
"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?"
I would want a midwife with a coat hanger, as I'd rather be punished for injustice (the child was not a rapist) than given a free-ride.
You know PJ, I know you type up your posts offline in word or notepad or something, but all you need to do is type quote tags around the parts you want to quote.
(no spaces in the quote tags though)
It's really easy. My eyes thank you.
Code:
[ QUOTE ] blah, blah, blabiddy-blah... [ /QUOTE ](no spaces in the quote tags though)
It's really easy. My eyes thank you.
Superluminal:
Good idea. The idea never crossed my mind, actually. I think I'll do that.
Good idea. The idea never crossed my mind, actually. I think I'll do that.
Interesting. Where was this?
Genetics does not say whether the group originated in India or abroad and why could there not be two different groups? After all, is it unlikely that the West coast (made up of Aryans) and the South (made up of Dravidians) comprised of two different groups?
edit: this is not correct; see correction below in following post
You mean the oldest surviving. There is no way of telling they are the oldest. The Indus Valley and Harappan civilisations were completely wiped out. After all the oldest remains of neanderthals have been found in England, does that mean they originated there?
http://www.harappa.com/har/aryan-invasion.html
Hinduism is not polyeisthic, that is the Western perception. And there is no Aryan civilisation, since the original inhabitants (from the South) are Dravidians. Much of what is Indian is a mixture of the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India
Is it defeat to win over and convert a foreign civilisation to your way of life while retaining all essential aspects of your own? Survival is the essence of victory and Indian civilisation has survived and enriched itself for 5000 plus years, with a pluralism unmatched by any other culture.
Ashoka was also an Indian king who killed hundreds at Kalinga before he converted to Buddhism. The Kshatriyas of India were a warrior race who fought with each other. The Mahabharata is a saga of brothers who fought each other.
War is not subjugation. And if there were such massive conversions to Islam, why is India a predominantly Hindu country? Has it ever been known at any time in history, as anything other than a predominantly Hindu country? I would like to know the basis for your declarations.
Only Westerners are colonists. They were also the only people who came to subjugate, not integrate. They stripped the country of its natural resources and treated the local people as serfs. No other people who came to India did that, not even the Mughals.
In America, everyone has a vote."
So you do not believe that women should have a choice? What if the pregnancy was life threatening? Or the product of incest? What if the mother to be was less than 12 years of age? What if the child had enancephaly? Or some other congenital defect?
There are several humane arguments for abortion and until you are in a position to get pregnant yourself, you are not really qualified to comment.
Last edited:
Samcdkey:
The U.S.S.R. Stalin even created an autonomous region for Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast
Prominent positions throughout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_Jews
The most infamous Soviet spies in America were Jews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenbergs
Again, it's a historical peculiarity, if a sterotype of Jews has been greddiness. It is paradoxical that a system that is supposed to be "anti-greed" would be appealing to so many of them.
The reason to suggest there was not two different groups, is that one group shows the tell-tale signs of conquest: The positions of powers.
Well considering Europe and parts of the Middle-East have almost all the surviving bones of Neanderthals, it is reasonable to suspect that this was their main areas.
Also, no archaeological theory of any worth, respect, or scholarly support believes in the Indian origin of the Aryans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
As you quite rightfully pointed out in the God thread, the Gods of the Germans (and also of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Persians...) are extremely similar to those of the Hindus. That modern HInduism is not polytheistic is quite correct and that monism was very popular even very early is also quite true, but the proof are in the names. Also, the monistic elements are likely a result of the progression of civilization, as we see similar conceptions of monism develop in Greece and Rome during the flourishing of philosophy.
All essential aspects? Indian society has certainly changed from its successive waves. Again: The very soul of India, Hinduism, has much of its roots in Aryan beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughals#Jahangir
Similarly, there are over one hundred million Moslems in India. 10 percent of a population of nearly a billion. This is an immense amount of people who are Islamic and it is directly linked to the Mughal invasion and subjugation.
And that is why the Mughals invaded in one of the most bloodiest campaigns in the history of world warfare?
Don't remind me. I lament it enough.
If the pregnancy is life threatening the only choice is to attempt a surgery that will save both mother and child, and not sacrifice one for the other. If one might die as a result, that would be acceptable. If one should die purposefully, is it not.
Moreover, the crime of a brother and sister is not the crime of a child. The child was not the incestual lovers. Why should he be executed for it?
It is rare that the mother should be less than twelve years old to begin with, but if she is sexually mature, she can handle the pregnancy with special care. If not, she will die like many women before her, but she will not be a murderer.
The child need not be killed because he is sick, either. Indeed, if he wants to kill himself this is a different matter, but to have a decision that he would rather not live without asking him that is absurd. Far be it for us to judge the quality of another's life, despite their disabilities.
The U.S.S.R. Stalin even created an autonomous region for Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast
Prominent positions throughout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_Jews
The most infamous Soviet spies in America were Jews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenbergs
Again, it's a historical peculiarity, if a sterotype of Jews has been greddiness. It is paradoxical that a system that is supposed to be "anti-greed" would be appealing to so many of them.
The reason to suggest there was not two different groups, is that one group shows the tell-tale signs of conquest: The positions of powers.
Well considering Europe and parts of the Middle-East have almost all the surviving bones of Neanderthals, it is reasonable to suspect that this was their main areas.
Also, no archaeological theory of any worth, respect, or scholarly support believes in the Indian origin of the Aryans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
As you quite rightfully pointed out in the God thread, the Gods of the Germans (and also of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Persians...) are extremely similar to those of the Hindus. That modern HInduism is not polytheistic is quite correct and that monism was very popular even very early is also quite true, but the proof are in the names. Also, the monistic elements are likely a result of the progression of civilization, as we see similar conceptions of monism develop in Greece and Rome during the flourishing of philosophy.
All essential aspects? Indian society has certainly changed from its successive waves. Again: The very soul of India, Hinduism, has much of its roots in Aryan beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughals#Jahangir
Similarly, there are over one hundred million Moslems in India. 10 percent of a population of nearly a billion. This is an immense amount of people who are Islamic and it is directly linked to the Mughal invasion and subjugation.
And that is why the Mughals invaded in one of the most bloodiest campaigns in the history of world warfare?
Don't remind me. I lament it enough.
If the pregnancy is life threatening the only choice is to attempt a surgery that will save both mother and child, and not sacrifice one for the other. If one might die as a result, that would be acceptable. If one should die purposefully, is it not.
Moreover, the crime of a brother and sister is not the crime of a child. The child was not the incestual lovers. Why should he be executed for it?
It is rare that the mother should be less than twelve years old to begin with, but if she is sexually mature, she can handle the pregnancy with special care. If not, she will die like many women before her, but she will not be a murderer.
The child need not be killed because he is sick, either. Indeed, if he wants to kill himself this is a different matter, but to have a decision that he would rather not live without asking him that is absurd. Far be it for us to judge the quality of another's life, despite their disabilities.
Current genetic studies do not support this theory.
Yes and it is the curious peculiarity of the polytheistic Greek Romans etc that they did not share the concept of Brahman which distinguishes them from Hinduism. Since Brahman is a recurring concept in the Vedas it points to the Greco-Roman gods being inherited from Hinduism and not vice-versa.
See the genetic evidence in previous post.
Jahangir had a Hindu mother, Jodhabai who was the primary influence in his life.
Islam came to India long before the Mughals did.
This is based on histories written by Muslim scholars and Brahmins.
There are several disputes regarding the accuracy of these accounts.
http://www.boloji.com/history/002.htm
http://ambedkar.org/brahmanism/Brahmins_were_benefited_by_Muslim_Conquest.htm
Strange. Do you not support Western society? Do you prefer aristocracies (like Saudi Arabia) where only select people are considered good enough to be heard?
Do you mean to say that they hire only those who do not follow any religious belief?
Samcdkey:
I'll go and make another thread here in religion over Aryans v. Indian-Origin.
I'll be responding to the non-Aryan related things here.
I'll go and make another thread here in religion over Aryans v. Indian-Origin.
I'll be responding to the non-Aryan related things here.
Not to disagree with you Cris, but since when have theists been accused of performing good deeds??
That is a rather broad brush and assumes all people who are religious to be exactly the same. I do not believe that people are sufficiently similar to ascribe such generalised motives to them.
Samcdkey:
Actually, yes they do. It's called Chaos. The origin of all the Gods and all existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos#Mythology
Developments in later Greek philosophy would also be very similar to developments in Hindu thought, specifically the Upanishads.
Also, I would note that Greco-Roman paganism and Hinduism have no connection to one another directly. Greco-Roman paganism did not birth Hinduism, nor did Hinduism birth Greco-Roman paganism. Rather were they both rooted in Aryan paganism that predates both. That the Greeks do not have a full concept (but a partial concept as noted!) of Brahman and Hinduism had it since the Vedas means little, because the Greeks and Hindus were all ready separate people at the time.
And yet his support was for Islam and he killed a Sikh religious leader...
In such force and lasting, dominating political influence?
THe new evidence points out to a great deal of violence against India. The articles themselves speak of great destruction of various temples and all such things. That the Mughals themselves were not the -only- ones to do this, but that it was successive waves of attacks over centuries does not lessen the fact that the Moslems were brutal to the Hindus.
I support Western civilization, but I find Western democracy a cancer. I believe the only proper form of government is a strict meritocracy.
The Venetian Republic is a good example (but not perfect) of what I view as a more proper conception of government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Venetian_Republic
Actually, yes they do. It's called Chaos. The origin of all the Gods and all existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos#Mythology
Developments in later Greek philosophy would also be very similar to developments in Hindu thought, specifically the Upanishads.
Also, I would note that Greco-Roman paganism and Hinduism have no connection to one another directly. Greco-Roman paganism did not birth Hinduism, nor did Hinduism birth Greco-Roman paganism. Rather were they both rooted in Aryan paganism that predates both. That the Greeks do not have a full concept (but a partial concept as noted!) of Brahman and Hinduism had it since the Vedas means little, because the Greeks and Hindus were all ready separate people at the time.
And yet his support was for Islam and he killed a Sikh religious leader...
In such force and lasting, dominating political influence?
THe new evidence points out to a great deal of violence against India. The articles themselves speak of great destruction of various temples and all such things. That the Mughals themselves were not the -only- ones to do this, but that it was successive waves of attacks over centuries does not lessen the fact that the Moslems were brutal to the Hindus.
I support Western civilization, but I find Western democracy a cancer. I believe the only proper form of government is a strict meritocracy.
The Venetian Republic is a good example (but not perfect) of what I view as a more proper conception of government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Venetian_Republic