Atheist Contributions to the World

[S.A.M.]

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

The concept of Brahman seems different from that of chaos

Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, and transcendent reality of all things in this universe. Strictly speaking, Brahman is a Principle rather than a deity. However, because abstract principles can be difficult to grasp, Hinduism teaches that it is not wrong to think of Brahman in anthropomorphic terms. Thus, in Hinduism, one finds many gods and goddesses representing different aspects of the infinite principle of Brahman.

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

Again if you look at the history of India, it seems more likely that the Hindus originated here.

The history of India begins with the archaeological record of Homo sapiens ca. 34,000 years ago. Bronze Age civilization emerges contemporary to the civilizations of the Ancient Near East. India's history essentially includes the entire Indian subcontinent, encompassing the territory of the modern nations of the Republic of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan.

The Indus Valley Civilization in its early phase began around 3300 BC, and reached its mature phase from around 2600 BC. This was followed by the Vedic Civilization. The origin of the Indo-Aryans is under some dispute. Most scholars[1] today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE. The nature of this migration, the place of origin of the Aryans, and sometimes even the very existence of the Aryans as a separate people are hotly debated. The merger of the Vedic culture with the earlier Dravidian cultures (presumably of the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization) apparently resulted in classical Indian culture, though the exact details of this process are controversial, with some claiming that the Aryans moved out of India. This theory suggests that the Indus Valley Civilization was essentially Vedic and spread to other parts of Europe between the 6th and 2nd millennia BCE.[2]

And the genetic evidence seems to support the last

And yet his support was for Islam and he killed a Sikh religious leader...

I believe he was not intolerant, and the death of the Sikh leader was a personal vendetta

Jahangir lacked the political enterprise of his father Akbar. But he was an honest man and a tolerant ruler. He strived to reform society and was tolerant towards Hindus, Christians and Jews. However, relations with Sikhs were strained, and the fifth of the ten Sikh gurus, Arjun Dev, was executed at Jahangir's orders for giving aid and comfort to Khusrau, Jahangir's rebellious son.

In such force and lasting, dominating political influence?

From the 8th century to the 12th (when the Mughals came in)?

Quite possible, after all it was not unusual for traders to settle in a prosperous location and India was much much more prosperous than Arabia, which at that time consisted of warring tribes and Christian Crusades. In comparison, India was relatively peaceful and must have been attractive to traders interested in improving their lives.

This is also supported by the the strong Muslim communities found in Southern India, modern day Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Western Burma, Indonesia and Philippines coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim Empires in the Indian Sub-Continent.

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.

Of course, there were incursions by Asian Turks all over Asia and Genghis Khan alone killed a whole lot of people for imperialistic purposes. Temples were destroyed because many of them were made of gold or had gold icons. But these were marauders, not conquerers. Their purpose was chiefly to plunder, not rule. And they plundered from China to Arabia.

I support Western civilization, but I find Western democracy a cancer. I believe the only proper form of government is a strict meritocracy.

Perfect societies are a myth, because human beings are imperfect.

I believe in giving everyone a voice. Sometimes you learn the nicest things from the most unexpected sources.

 

[Prince_James]

SamCDKey:

Let's move the discussion of Aryan religion over to the other thread, too. The Mughal stuff we should probably move to anothre thread, too, but not to the Aryan issues. I'll respond to those here for the time being.

 

[Prince_James]

SamCDKey:

I believe he was not intolerant, and the death of the Sikh leader was a personal vendetta


“ Jahangir lacked the political enterprise of his father Akbar. But he was an honest man and a tolerant ruler. He strived to reform society and was tolerant towards Hindus, Christians and Jews. However, relations with Sikhs were strained, and the fifth of the ten Sikh gurus, Arjun Dev, was executed at Jahangir's orders for giving aid and comfort to Khusrau, Jahangir's rebellious son. ”

Isn't this rather like killing the Pope and then claiming it is not some vendetta against Sikhism as a whole? With relations all ready strained, having the Guru executed seems more than simply a personal issue.

This is also supported by the the strong Muslim communities found in Southern India, modern day Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Western Burma, Indonesia and Philippines coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim Empires in the Indian Sub-Continent.

Are we not forgetting that many moved to Pakistan and Bangladesh (then part of Pakistan) following the end of the British Raj?

Of course, there were incursions by Asian Turks all over Asia and Genghis Khan alone killed a whole lot of people for imperialistic purposes. Temples were destroyed because many of them were made of gold or had gold icons. But these were marauders, not conquerers. Their purpose was chiefly to plunder, not rule. And they plundered from China to Arabia.

Actually, the history of Mongol conquests did include empire-building, considering that they overtook most of Arabia, Russia, the Caucacus, China, Central Asia...

Perfect societies are a myth, because human beings are imperfect.

Democracies are not only imperfect, they are downright harmful. They drown out all the good voices for the bad.

 

[Leo Volont]

atheisms contributions to the World:

Protestant Rebellion and the incipient destruction of Western Catholic Civilization.

The Slave Trade.

Rum Running

The Opuim Wars

Usury and the Exploitation of Proletariat in the Factory System

The French Revolution

The Communist Revolutions

The Secular Wars -- World War I and II

The Chinese Communist Revolution

The Cambodian Killing Fields.

The Crime Organizations spreading out from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union -- all 3rd Generation Atheists and so without the slightest trace of Moral Education or Sensibility.


And so it is that the World is poised on the verge of extinction -- with Global Warming and the depletion or resources all while unemployment goes up and fewer and fewer Super Rich horde the wealth while greater and greater numbers are disenfranchised and marginalized.

Thank you Atheism. We owe it all to YOU.

 

[Oniw17]

I've only read the first 2 pages and this last one, but did anyone bring up Stephen Hawking? That guy should run for president, too bad the fact that he's an atheist would prevent him from winning.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

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?

Did he? the extract you posted said the bomb he planted wasn't designed to kill anyone?

your own quote:
"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 "

Ghandi said this of him:

Gandhi on Singh

http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/onbhagatsingh.htm
.
" Mahatma Gandhi on the Martyrdom of Bhagat Singh

Freedom fighter Sardar Bhagat Singh was hanged by the British on accusations of anti-government activities on March 23, 1931. Here, Gandhi pays tribute to the patriotism of the young martyr while disagreeing with his revolutionary methods. Excerpted from Gandhi's article in Young India.

Bhagat Singh and his two associates have been hanged. The Congress made many attempts to save their lives and the Government entertained many hopes of it, but all has been in a vain.

Bhagat Singh did not wish to live. He refused to apologize, or even file an appeal. Bhagat Singh was not a devotee of non-violence, but he did not subscribe to the religion of violence. He took to violence due to helplessness and to defend his homeland. In his last letter, Bhagat Singh wrote --" I have been arrested while waging a war. For me there can be no gallows. Put me into the mouth of a cannon and blow me off." These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism."


Meanwhile battle, bombings, death, this is the way freedom has always been achieved everywhere on the planet since the beginning of time.

Ghandi did something new or did he? The debate suggests he did not do it all alone.

What do you think of what happened in India in 1947 when over 1 million Indians killed each other in religious conflict?

What was singh's death toll ?

 

[wsionynw]

I've only read the first 2 pages and this last one, but did anyone bring up Stephen Hawking? That guy should run for president, too bad the fact that he's an atheist would prevent him from winning.

True, and the fact that he's British would also prevent him from running. Unless you mean running for the job of British PM?

 

[redarmy11]

atheisms contributions to the World:

Protestant Rebellion and the incipient destruction of Western Catholic Civilization.

The Slave Trade.

Rum Running

The Opuim Wars

Usury and the Exploitation of Proletariat in the Factory System

The French Revolution

The Communist Revolutions

The Secular Wars -- World War I and II

The Chinese Communist Revolution

The Cambodian Killing Fields.

The Crime Organizations spreading out from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union -- all 3rd Generation Atheists and so without the slightest trace of Moral Education or Sensibility.


And so it is that the World is poised on the verge of extinction -- with Global Warming and the depletion or resources all while unemployment goes up and fewer and fewer Super Rich horde the wealth while greater and greater numbers are disenfranchised and marginalized.

Thank you Atheism. We owe it all to YOU.

A highly dubious list.

The Protestant Rebellion? What has that got to do with atheism?

The slave trade - can you prove that all (or most) slave-traders were atheist? They were very religious times - I suspect that many considered themselves to be religious men, but saw the source of their income as less than human.

Factory-owners and exploiters of the proletariat? Devout church-goers every one.

Global warming... the growth of unemployment and the rise of the super-rich... disenfranchisement and marginalisation... how do these relate to a lack of belief in God?

 

[Leo Volont]

A highly dubious list.

The Protestant Rebellion? What has that got to do with atheism?

Protestantism is the assertion of Paulist Amoralism over Catholic Moralism. Sure, Protestants SAY that they still believe in God, but the EFFECTS of their doctrines center more on Salvation and Sin than on any submission or emulation of God or the willful pursuit of Righteousness. Indeed, Protestants discourage Willful Righteousness as it implies the rejection of Grace which must be passively received.

But the largest proof that Protestantism is essentially Atheistic is that Atheism has so universally sprung out of Protestant Culture.

Indeed, look at the Demographic Political Map -- Secular Atheism and Protestantism occuppy the SAME countries, no?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

how do these relate to a lack of belief in God?

The thread question did not ask how atheist viewpoint brought about change, merely who changed what and were they atheist.. that's how I took it anyway.

Theist or athiest could equally be responsible for changes that are in apparrant opposition to God. But be interesting to trace the changes back to see who was at the route of change where freedoms are affected.

 

[Oniw17]

True, and the fact that he's British would also prevent him from running. Unless you mean running for the job of British PM?

No. I mean the president of the world. That guy's as close to a god as they get.

 

[Prince_James]

TheoryOFRelativity guaged my topic well. I had meant specific people, although overall groups with an overwhelming atheist/theist stance would certainly count, too.

 

[S.A.M.]

He took to violence due to helplessness and to defend his homeland.

This was the chief reason why Gandhi opposed him and others like him.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

This was the chief reason why Gandhi opposed him and others like him.

and yet he paid tribute to him after his death

 

[S.A.M.]

and yet he paid tribute to him after his death

Sure he did. After all he gave up his life for his country. Soldiers who die for their country are always honored.

But if he had not died, Gandhi would still have opposed him. He continued to oppose the militant factions in India who wanted to use violence right up until his death and was in fact assassinated by a member of one of the groups who disagreed with him.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Sure he did. After all he gave up his life for his country. Soldiers who die for their country are always honored.

But if he had not died, Gandhi would still have opposed him. He continued to oppose the militant factions in India who wanted to use violence right up until his death and was in fact assassinated by a member of one of the groups who disagreed with him.

so you deny B Singhs contribution to India's independance?

Gandhi's oppostion is not evidence of Singhs lack of contribution is it?

Meanwhile Ghandi was influenced by the work of an atheist, thus independance whether it by Singh or Ghandi had roots which lead to an atheist.

Singh and Thoreau.

"It was in London that he read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience", which inspired his principle of non-violence. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/50664.stm

 

[(Q)]

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.

Yes, you have, a great many times. It has been fundamental to your propagandized arguments.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, you have, a great many times. It has been fundamental to your propagandized arguments.

Bah *waves arm*

 

[S.A.M.]

so you deny B Singhs contribution to India's independance?

I oppose the means he sought to apply. It merely demonstarted to the British that their ideas about Indians as culturally inferior barbarians were justified.

Gandhi forced the British to acknowledge that he stood on the higher moral ground. In the course of his satyagrahas, even when physically knocked down by lathi charges Gandhi and his supporters refused to hit back. They stood firm until they were too badly injured to stand and then they were replaced by others who also refused to hit back. The British who considered themselves as better men could not justify their behaviour under such circumstances. Gandhi's nonviolent civil disobedience was what broke the back of British imperialism in India. It was the first instance of success after a 200 year history of occupation interspersed by unsuccessful militant acts of defiance.

If the methods adopted by Bhagat Singh had been right, Palestine would be a free nation.

Gandhi's oppostion is not evidence of Singhs lack of contribution is it?

Meanwhile Ghandi was influenced by the work of an atheist, thus independance whether it by Singh or Ghandi had roots which lead to an atheist.

Singh and Thoreau.

"It was in London that he read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience", which inspired his principle of non-violence. "

Do you mean to say that if he had not read Thoreau he would be a different man?

Gandhi was also influenced by Islam, Hinduism as well as by Buddhism.
You might want to read his autobiography "My Experiments With Truth" to get a better picture of what drove him. He was above all, a devout theist.

Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism. As a common Hindu, he believed all religions to be equal, and rejected all efforts to convert him to a different faith. He was an avid theologian and read extensively about all major religions. He had the following to say about Hinduism:

"Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being ... When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita."

Gandhi believed that at the core of every religion was Truth and Love (compassion, nonviolence and the Golden Rule). He also questioned hypocrisy, malpractices and dogma in all religions and was a tireless social reformer. Some of his comments on various religions are:

"Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty." (source: his autobiography)

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."

"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."

Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."

His favorite hymn:

http://www.iit.edu/~patevis3/Hymn.html

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I oppose the means he sought to apply. It merely demonstarted to the British that their ideas about Indians as culturally inferior barbarians were justified.

Gandhi forced the British to acknowledge that he stood on the higher moral ground. In the course of his satyagrahas, even when physically knocked down by lathi charges Gandhi and his supporters refused to hit back. They stood firm until they were too badly injured to stand and then they were replaced by others who also refused to hit back. The British who considered themselves as better men could not justify their behaviour under such circumstances. Gandhi's nonviolent civil disobedience was what broke the back of British imperialism in India. It was the first instance of success after a 200 year history of occupation interspersed by unsuccessful militant acts of defiance.

If the methods adopted by Bhagat Singh had been right, Palestine would be a free nation.



Do you mean to say that if he had not read Thoreau he would be a different man?

Gandhi was also influenced by Islam, Hinduism as well as by Buddhism.
You might want to read his autobiography "My Experiments With Truth" to get a better picture of what drove him. He was above all, a devout theist.


His favorite hymn:

http://www.iit.edu/~patevis3/Hymn.html

So you do acknowledge that B Singh was an athesit who affected a significant change in India

then we are in agreement.

Another atheist who affected a change in India's history was Thoreau all be it indirectly via Ghandi

Would Ghandi have been effective without this atheists influence? His non violent stance was influenced by Thoreau that is a pretty BIG influence.