Atheist don't contribute?

[iceaura]

Confucius says: "There are three things of which the supreme man stands in awe. He stands in awe of the will of God, he stands in awe of great sages and of the inspired words which have been uttered by such men"

Whether or not Confucius was theist, that would have to be a mistranslation. There is no reasonable identity between any of Confucius's references and "the will of God".

Much of the standard translations of the writings of the early Chinese philosophers is by Western and Western missionary educated Christians, and they have famously introduced many concepts and viewpoints that don't belong in Chinese thought of the time - often, trivializations; occasionally, serious errors.

If you want to treat the various spirits, ancestors, supernatural beings, and so forth, of Chinese religion as gods in the Western sense, that is your privilege. Confucius himself emphasized the importance of ritual and submission to one's role in society, for maintaining order and establishing virtue. His visible theistic beliefs in this regard, if any, bore very little similarity to the Abrahamic God.

 

[S.A.M.]

Whether or not Confucius was theist, that would have to be a mistranslation. There is no reasonable identity between any of Confucius's references and "the will of God".

Much of the standard translations of the writings of the early Chinese philosophers is by Western and Western missionary educated Christians, and they have famously introduced many concepts and viewpoints that don't belong in Chinese thought of the time - often, trivializations; occasionally, serious errors.

If you want to treat the various spirits, ancestors, supernatural beings, and so forth, of Chinese religion as gods in the Western sense, that is your privilege. Confucius himself emphasized the importance of ritual and submission to one's role in society, for maintaining order and establishing virtue. His visible theistic beliefs in this regard, if any, bore very little similarity to the Abrahamic God.

Probably because the Chinese god Shang Ti was never a personal God [or perhaps had evolved into a less personal one by Confucius time]. The will of God is also translated as Heavens Decree, since the word tian or t'ien is interchangeably used for god and heaven.

 

[CheskiChips]

2.5% of the world currently are atheists.
.07% are Jewish.

How come the Jewish list is bigger...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Jews Keep in mind the list primarily comprises of people after 1850... hmm...
That is...if atheists are such large contributors.

Atheists per capita have given less to the world than many groups...it's only ironic because of their intellectual bigotry.

 

[iceaura]

the word tian or t'ien is interchangeably used for god and heaven.

Both wrong, in English, relative to Confucius. Hard to say which is worse.

But one can sympathize with the translation difficulties. The Abrahamic monotheists don't really have a concept of a sacred sky, or a spirituality of the natural world.

How come the Jewish list is bigger..

Check out where they put Einstein, and speculate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Both wrong, in English, relative to Confucius. Hard to say which is worse.

Oh you've read the original Chinese? What do you suppose tian means? What does Shang Ti mean? What did it mean that the Emperor was an ancestral embodiment of Shang Ti?

But one can sympathize with the translation difficulties. The Abrahamic monotheists don't really have a concept of a sacred sky, or a spirituality of the natural world.

I'd love to see a reference.

 

[Bishadi]

What makes you think Confucius was an atheist?

personal responsibility over the idea of some magical mystical "OTHER" being

In his quote

Heaven means to be one with God.


'to be' ............. is not to go there

not to dream of some place or diety

but to be ONE (a part of)

ie..... the three ladies have within their own base GENESIS

Gen 3: 22
And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,'


Of the western 'ladies' (religions) they are all from Torah foundations, in which THEIR GOD himself (per se) said

God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us,


does that make God an atheist too? (he said (practically) we are equal)

but confucius fixed it up and shared "Heaven means to be one with God."

i mean heck, how can God say we like him?

 

[Bishadi]

kind of weird how some of these comments come out, (i reread some of the posts and have an )

 

[spidergoat]

I read that somewhere.

Something to the effect, that atheists have not contributed to the knowledge of mankind, for a long time.

They contributed the knowledge that there is no God. Most of the world hasn't even learned that yet.

 

[Cris]

Einstein was an atheist.

 

[Cris]

Darwin was an athiest.

 

[iceaura]

Oh you've read the original Chinese?

No, just a lot of stuff about translation of old Chinese (an interest in Taoist philosophy) and conversations with a couple of friends who are professional Chinese historians.

You seem to have overlooked some of the religious aspects of Western cultural imperialism, in your diatribes against the arrogance and obliviousness of Western ways. Western missionaries and scholars have very frequently attempted to impose Abrahamic monotheistic frames on philosophies and cultures they deemed "primitive" and understood only poorly - such as by assigning "gods" to spiritual beliefs, ranking these gods in hierarchies on Western terms, etc. One amusing and convenient way to see how that has worked with older Chinese writings is to compare various translations of the Tao Te Ching, from translators of different religious backgrounds.

But the easier way yet would be to simply notice that a word equivalently and interchangeably translated as "God" and "Heaven" and "Sky" pretty obviously doesn't mean what God, Heaven, or Sky mean in English.

What did it mean that the Emperor was an ancestral embodiment of Shang Ti?

Do you think Confucius, a politically ambitious man and astute bureaucrat at the very highest levels of empire, thought of the Emperor as the embodiment of God?

 

[Gustav]

Those who claim that has one or more of these assumptions in his/her psyche:

1. Atheists are not human.
2. Only acceptable knowledge can come from non-atheists; so whatever atheists find are not valid knowledge of mankind.
3. Apart from religious history, there is no history of mankind. That is to say, human species have not been evolving for millions of years, the guys who controlled the fire, invented pottery, axes, clothing, etc. were also religious, and humans did not spread to the rest of the world from Africa around 100 thousand year ago, and so on and so for...
4. If anyone makes any contribution to human knowledge must have some level of "belief" in a deity.
5. 10 thousand or so years of deistic religions history is the single longest knowledge accumulation ever experienced by human species.
6. I can twist anything I like as long as it helps to advertise my fantasies.

the only post of note here
questioning the premise's underlying assumptions. the rest merely go on the defensive, idiotically throwing out names and being challenged on the credentials

 

[Bishadi]

Einstein was an atheist.

finding that from his pen would be tough (he was too smart)

but, if you watch that show about him on his death bed (close thereof)

the nurse and him were having a conversation about God.

(so you nor i, know if it occurred but i love the show just the same) my disclosure

anyway here is a clip http://paxrex.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/einsteins-pantheism/

The camera pans back to a station behind the nurse, showing the pair engaged in their intimate exchange, the professor’s wrinkled face, the eyes gazing off into the distance. “Do I believe that someone plans the daily life of Albert Einstein?” he says, and then shakes his head slightly to emphasize a negative reply, “No,” he says, and then in a more animated pose, his brow slightly furrowed and a smile lurking beneath his broad mustache, he continues; “Although, sometimes I think he may have been leading me up the garden path.”

“But, didn’t he make the garden?” The nurse’s reply is thoughtful as the camera moves to a close up of just her face, and then back to the two in intimate conversation, and the old man’s tentative reply crosses his lips: “I think he IS the garden.”


Almost without hesitation the nurse picks up the thread of the professor’s thought and says: “But, isn’t he the gardener too?” To which the old man looks straight at the camera and replies thoughtfully: “Yes, and all my life I’ve been trying to catch him at his work.”

to define the process (my opinion)

if he believed God is 'the garden' then mother nature (existence itself) COULD be HE.

and wouldn't that just make us the people defining, within the body of EXISTENCE?

and yet still a part of.....

(now, think;

Did HE create us? Sure, we evolved within. IS HE the boss? Sure.... mother nature is tough.

Are ONE with him?
Why not, i ain't going no where else.)

Happiness is knowing once we are, we are ONE.

anything illogical here?

 

[iceaura]

the only post of note here
questioning the premise's underlying assumptions. the rest merely go on the defensive,

Hey, c'mon, I questioned the underlying assumptions with my specific examples of breakdown, I get points too.

Sometimes you have to bring the mountain to the Mohammedan - they ain't gonna get there on their own dialectic.

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by baftan
Those who claim that has one or more of these assumptions in his/her psyche:

1. Atheists are not human.
2. Only acceptable knowledge can come from non-atheists; so whatever atheists find are not valid knowledge of mankind.
3. Apart from religious history, there is no history of mankind. That is to say, human species have not been evolving for millions of years, the guys who controlled the fire, invented pottery, axes, clothing, etc. were also religious, and humans did not spread to the rest of the world from Africa around 100 thousand year ago, and so on and so for...
4. If anyone makes any contribution to human knowledge must have some level of "belief" in a deity.
5. 10 thousand or so years of deistic religions history is the single longest knowledge accumulation ever experienced by human species.
6. I can twist anything I like as long as it helps to advertise my fantasies.

Originally Posted by gustav
the only post of note here
questioning the premise's underlying assumptions. the rest merely go on the defensive,

Then, parse the post of note and lay it out for us.

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by baftan
Those who claim that has one or more of these assumptions in his/her psyche:

1. Atheists are not human.
2. Only acceptable knowledge can come from non-atheists; so whatever atheists find are not valid knowledge of mankind.
3. Apart from religious history, there is no history of mankind. That is to say, human species have not been evolving for millions of years, the guys who controlled the fire, invented pottery, axes, clothing, etc. were also religious, and humans did not spread to the rest of the world from Africa around 100 thousand year ago, and so on and so for...
4. If anyone makes any contribution to human knowledge must have some level of "belief" in a deity.
5. 10 thousand or so years of deistic religions history is the single longest knowledge accumulation ever experienced by human species.
6. I can twist anything I like as long as it helps to advertise my fantasies.

I can assume you are correct, I guess.

 

[krazedkat]

I read that somewhere.

Something to the effect, that atheists have not contributed to the knowledge of mankind, for a long time.

Not sure who it was, but i have ONE name to mention

Confucius.

Any others, that folks can think of?

Any share what good, that man shared and how the philosophies are some of the greatest achievements that are still currently observed more so, than any single contributer of such, ON THE EARTH?

wonder if his nick name was "shorty"

Simply absurd. Darwin for example... It's mostly atheists that contribute really.

 

[earth]

Simply absurd. Darwin for example... It's mostly atheists that contribute really.

Well, religion has its wizardry keeping things interesting.

 

[scorpius]

I read that somewhere.

Something to the effect, that atheists have not contributed to the knowledge of mankind, for a long time.

its a LIE propagated by religious morons!

just Google "famous atheists".

 

[James R]

2.5% of the world currently are atheists.
.07% are Jewish.

How come the Jewish list is bigger...

More Jews writing the list?

Atheists per capita have given less to the world than many groups...

How are you measuring that? Over what period? What counts as "giving to the world"?

This topic is so vague as to be useless.

it's only ironic because of their intellectual bigotry.

Examples?