Discussions on Pagans and Islam :split from Multiculturalism thread

[S.A.M.]

SAM...it's a bit too much of a stretch to say that the failures of Russia and China are due to atheism. Just a bit, there...

Edited to add... I do think there's been some sort of evolutionary advantage to religiosity, so the majority of us are hardwired to it, to some degree.
But we're generally going to disagree about what kind of religion, if we need it.

So forcing either religion or lack of religion isn't good?

I'll go with the evolutionary advantage and I think it has to do with the advantages of religiosity - the ability to conceive in the abstract that which may not be demonstrated in the physical.

Which explains stuff like this:

After a close study of his arguments, the unanswered question is why Copernicus hit on the idea of a heliocentric system in the first place. He was contradicting all the respected authorities of his time while trying to enthrone mathematics as a further font of truth that could be believed. We can surely take it for granted that this was not as a result of his combing the ancient writers in search of enlightenment – especially as he read into them what he wanted to find. Neither was it the innate mathematical superiority of the model that attracted him as it was not any more accurate and not much simpler than the Ptolemaic alternative. His own stated reasons for wanting to improve the symmetry and elegance of the model were tripped up by the necessary mathematical consequences of needing a fit to the observed data. It seems as if he started from a simple archetype to which he found he had to add more and more convoluted enhancements. The original elegance of his solution lived on only in his imagination.

Although I searched Geoff's verbosity I still could not locate an atheist with no religious conditioning in his post. It was actually at sciforums that I first the discovered the only "free-from-all-religious-influences" society that I have ever heard of and they have some interesting mental processes which probably explain why atheism is only a minority report in the human saga

While this tribe has been in contact with other Brazilians for two centuries, for some reason they have maintained an extreme degree of linguistic and cultural integrity, remaining monolingual to this day. Significantly, in not just one but all the areas described in this chapter, they exhibit very little of the separation implicit in modern symbolic culture. They do not impose linearity onto time. They do not abstract the specific into the generic through numbering. They do not usually genericize individual human beings through pronouns. They do not freeze time into representation through drawing. They do not reduce the continuum of color to a discrete finitude by naming colors. They have little independent concept of fingers, the basis for number, grasping, and controlling; nor do they use fingers to point.

Most strikingly, the Piraha are unable to count.ii Not only do they have no words for numbers, their language also lacks any quantifiers such as "many", "some", or "all". Even more amazing, they apparently are incapable of even learning to count. Despite eight months of sustained efforts, speech pathologist Peter Gordon failed to teach them, even with the Piraha's enthusiastic cooperation. They cannot mimic a series of knocks because they cannot keep count of how many there have been.iii

The Piraha language is nearly devoid of any sort of abstraction. There is no semantic embedding, as in locutions like "I think she wants to come." ("She wants to come" is a nominalized phrase embedded in "I think [X]"). The lack of nominalized phrases means that words are not abstracted from reality to be conceived as things-in-themselves. Grammar is not an infinitely extendible template that can generate meaning abstractly through mere syntax. Words are only used in concrete reference to objects of direct experience. There are, for example, no myths of any sort in Piraha, nor do the Piraha tell fictional stories. This absence of abstraction also explains the lack of terms for numbers.

Even colors do not exist in the abstract for Piraha. While they are clearly able to discern colors and to use words like "blood" or "dirt" as modifiers to describe colored objects, these words do not refer to any color in the abstract. One cannot say, for example, "I like red things, " or "Do not eat red things in the jungle" in Piraha.iv

Even the very idea of abstract representation is apparently impossible to explain to the Piraha. Everett describes his own attempt:

If one tries to suggest, as we originally did, in a math class, for example, that there is actually a preferred response to a specific question, this is unwelcome and will likely mean changing subjects and/or irritation. As a further example of this, consider the fact that Pirahas will 'write stories' on paper I give them, which are just random marks, then 'read' the stories back to me, i.e. just telling me something random about their day, etc. which they claim to be reading from their marks. They may even make marks on paper and say random Portugeuse numbers, while holding the paper for me to see. They do not understand at all that such symbols should be precise (demonstrated when I ask them about them or ask them to draw a symbol twice, in which case it is never replicated) and consider their 'writing' as exactly the same as the marks that I make. v

Abstraction is also absent from their art. The Piraha do not draw representational figures at all, except for crude stick figures used to explain to the anthropologist the spirit world , of which they claim direct experience. They cannot even draw straight lines. As Everett continues from above, "In literacy classes, however, we were never able to train a Piraha to even draw a straight line without serious 'coaching' and they are never able to repeat the feat in subsequent trials without more coaching." This is highly significant, given that the straight line is itself an abstraction, being absent from nature. It is an abstraction, moreover, fraught with powerful cultural and psychological implications. At the most literal level, the Piraha do not engage in linear thinking.

http://ascentofhumanity.com/chapter2-7.php

And incidentally, they do not believe anything which they do not personally experience so they do not believe in God [but strangely enough have some paganism in their make up - they worship "natural" spirits which they claim to experience]

@Michael: nothing new in your posts, we've already been through the history of infanticide ad nauseum. For Japanese infanticide, look up "mabiki" (間引き) in the link provided to you.

And native Americans:

In the region known today as southern Texas, the Mariame Indians practiced infanticide of females on a large scale. .

And Britons?

Well I don't have access to their history but as late as WWI they were doing it

The first decision German and Austrian parents had to make when an infant was born was whether it should be killed. Newborn were not in most cases considered human since they did not yet have a soul, and so could be “killed in a kind of late abortion.”3 Mothers often “had their babies in the privy, and treated the birth as an evacuation…a bowel movement…killing their children by smashing their heads like poultry.”4 Even the underestimated figures given by officials showed German infanticide at the end of the twentieth century as 20 percent, half again higher than France and England.5 Infant mortality in Bavaria, where breastfeeding was rare, was given as 58% and was probably closer to 75%, which means almost every child watched their mothers strangle or otherwise kill their siblings when born.6 Mothers were described as being without remorse as they killed their newborn.7 Children routinely saw dead babies in sewers, on roads and in streams as they played.8

http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/06_childhoodOrigins.html

Unless they suddenly came up with it, its possibly a continuation of what they have always been doing historically




As you stated in the post I linked in the OP:

Islam is over a thousands of years old. It is entrenched deeply into "Arab culture" - like the Bruka and child marriage. So should you stick to it? I think not and most educated Arab atheists will agree

Yeah we've all moved on from the pagan/atheist cultures of yore. Most of us anyway.

God Bless the Spanish Inquisition.

Which atheist was targeted by the Spanish Inquisition?

I have a thread somewhere where I asked atheists to demonstrate where they were targeted as a group for their lack of religion and really, no one could come up with anything much

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

He goes by so many names.

The 50 names of Marmaduke . Arf!!

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Sara's post



@Michael: nothing new in your posts, we've already been through the history of infanticide ad nauseum. For Japanese infanticide, look up "mabiki" (間引き)[/QUOTE]

God that is so strange Sara . Why they got to name it that . Must be a history there . Yeah thats what I am talking about . The White Man world . Sucking from the . I better not put it that way . The Mans world of violence . Is that better ? Natural selection for 10s of thousands of years . Circumvented at the dawn of Agriculture. The continued brutalization of woman. The Phoenix rises . Power shift is in transition . Can you feel it ? Supply and demand dictates it

You got no idea how strange that is to me . Business plans have consequences. It directs human activity . Think about that the next time spouts bible prophecy. What do they find as there roll in life . What is there guide post ? Do they life at the whim of red car phenomena ?

God I hope some one understands what I say . Billy Goats gruff and the 3 pigs built houses. Micky Mouse to earth

 

[S.A.M.]

God that is so strange Sara . Why they got to name it that . Must be a history there

Yeah there is. Children = property

Under the Roman Law, patria potestas, the right of a father to kill his own children was protected.[5][6] It was not until the 4th century that Christianity, influenced heavily by Judaic law, began to regard filicide as a crime

It is important to recognize that other cultures have developed different attitudes and mores regarding the killing of infants. The Chinese, as late as the 20th century, despatched newborn daughters because they were unable to transmit the family name. Additionally, daughters were viewed as weaker and not as useful in time of war or for agricultural work. In the past, Eskimos killed infants with known congenital anomalies and often one of a set of twins.[13] Similarly, Mohave Indians had killed all half breeds at birth.[14] In their 1981 paper,[15] reviewed infanticide in Japan and describe the two distinct types of infanticide commonly seen. The Mabiki type corresponds to the ancient means of "thinning out" or population control; the Anomie type, a product of modern society, corresponds to the "unwanted child."


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

You hear a lot of rants from atheists about monotheism, but the rights of the individual - or what we call God given rights - under monotheism have no parallel in any other society. Can atheists do better? In China, the government is made up largely of technically trained, scientifically educated people who discriminate against religion and consider atheism the state religion. Would you move there?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Yeah there is. Children = property



You hear a lot of rants from atheists about monotheism, but the rights of the individual - or what we call God given rights - under monotheism have no parallel in any other society. Can atheists do better? In China, the government is made up largely of technically trained, scientifically educated people who discriminate against religion and consider atheism the state religion. Would you move there?

Your making my case Sam . Law is layer after layer of religious doctrine and it was the winners of war that made it.
Look away Sam cause this is not meant for you

Whose on top now Suckers

 

[GeoffP]

I'll go with the evolutionary advantage and I think it has to do with the advantages of religiosity - the ability to conceive in the abstract that which may not be demonstrated in the physical.

So atheists have, or can have, no ability to think in the abstract. Seems a little extreme.

Although I searched Geoff's verbosity I still could not locate an atheist with no religious conditioning in his post. It was actually at sciforums that I first the discovered the only "free-from-all-religious-influences" society that I have ever heard of and they have some interesting mental processes which probably explain why atheism is only a minority report in the human saga

Whoo. Listen to those sour grapes being squeezed.

And incidentally, they do not believe anything which they do not personally experience so they do not believe in God [but strangely enough have some paganism in their make up - they worship "natural" spirits which they claim to experience]

So one non-monotheist tribe with no conceptualization of the abstract = the sum of atheist experience. And the first invention of theism by ancient peoples, who were necessarily atheist: is that similarly an expression of their abstract impotency?

And Britons?

Well I don't have access to their history but as late as WWI they were doing it

I'm sorry, but that site was horseshit. But let's check the arguments: pagans murder children, we're given to infer. Okay. And Europeans of the preceding fin de siecle had a high rate of infanticide, so they were pagans? Besides the baseline data being hopelessly inept (20% infanticide rate, my ass), it contradicts your argument completely about 'pagan' infanticide. Meanwhile, it goes on in all kinds of monotheistic cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#In_Pakistan

Oh, but maybe in this case it's poverty. Monotheism only really happens in mobile, upper-middle class types.

Yeah we've all moved on from the pagan/atheist cultures of yore. Most of us anyway.

Let's ease up on the term 'pagan', shall we?

I have a thread somewhere where I asked atheists to demonstrate where they were targeted as a group for their lack of religion and really, no one could come up with anything much

You asked individual atheists for their experiences? I've seen a few, hereabouts: exclusion from social groups, the quiet cold shoulder. Of course, that's nothing too serious, but in some countries I'm told you can actually be executed for it. I'm told that theists make some kind of claim to honesty.

You hear a lot of rants from atheists about monotheism, but the rights of the individual - or what we call God given rights - under monotheism have no parallel in any other society.

Hehe. One certainly could say that, at least. Let's stop for a moment and think, though: all monotheisms are the same? This is quite a wide array of systems you've lumped into the same category without respect to their details. Which monotheistic societies do you mean? Which non-monotheistic societies do you mean? Which adhere to their doctrines faithfully, and which do not? What were those doctrines?

Can atheists do better?

Apparently, yes.

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

(A philosophy not least derived from throwing off the shackles of orthodox theism.)

In China, the government is made up largely of technically trained, scientifically educated people who discriminate against religion and consider atheism the state religion. Would you move there?

Why not? In Pakistan, the government is made up largely of religiously trained, scientifically uneducated people who discriminate against all those not of their religion and consider Islam the state religion. Would you move there?

What am I saying? Being in lockstep with the majority, and therefore having nothing to fear, of course you would. Yet I forget: you also have a fervent devotion to India's plurality, which includes polytheism. What a metaphysical conflict you must be in. Plurality, monotheist supremacism. Any tool for the day, I guess.

 

[spidergoat]

they have some interesting mental processes which probably explain why atheism is only a minority report in the human saga

The Piraha believe in spirits, which is the same thing as believing in God. They claim to see them, and many Catholics have claimed to see similar beings. The Amazon area is not the untouched wilderness we are led to believe. The remains of large cities have been discovered all over the forests. Piraha culture could have come from a more complex culture that lost it's unessential attributes when it adapted to forest life.

You hear a lot of rants from atheists about monotheism, but the rights of the individual - or what we call God given rights - under monotheism have no parallel in any other society.

You are correct, in a truly egalitarian society, there would be no need for rights, or charity.

 

[Michael]

@Michael: nothing new in your posts, we've already been through the history of infanticide ad nauseum.

I haven't read any pre-Islamic sources that suggest Arabs were any more inclined to murder their female children and more so than other people of similar demographics.

It should be noted that many of those "Arabs" were some sort of Christian or held some sort of Christian-like belief.


Lets take a scroll through WIKI:

In Egyptian households, at all social levels, children of both sexes were valued and there is no evidence of infanticide. The religion of the Ancient Egyptians forbade infanticide and during the Greco-Roman period they rescued abandoned babies from manure heaps, a common method of infanticide by Greeks or Romans, and were allowed to either adopt them as foundlings or raise them as slaves, often giving them names such as "copro -" to memorialise their rescue. Strabo considered it a peculiarity of the Egyptians that every child must be reared. Diodorus indicates infanticide was a punishable offence. Egypt was heavily dependent on the annual flooding of the Nile to irrigate the land and in years of low inundation severe famine could occur with breakdowns in social order resulting, notably between 930-1070 AD and 1180-1350 AD. Instances of cannibalism are recorded during these periods but it is unknown if this happened during the pharaonic era of Ancient Egypt.[18] Beatrix Midant-Reynes describes human sacrifice as having occurred at Abydos in the early dynastic period (c. 3150-2850 BCE), while Jan Assmann asserts there is no clear evidence of human sacrifice ever happening in Ancient Egypt.

Gee SAM, the mind boggles, I was pretty sure Egyptians were polytheistic.

WIKI:

Some authors believe that there is little evidence that infanticide was prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia or early Muslim history, except for the case of the Tamim tribe, who practiced it during severe famine.

Translated from German here: Islam: Beliefs and Institutions by Henri Lammens page 21. That aside, yes, the Qur'an (like other Bibles) rejects the killing of newborn babies.


This is the thing, most animals will protect their young. I've never known an animal, other than humans, to be monotheistic.