Practical Reasons for Religious Tolerance

[S.A.M.]

Atheism is very new compared to old religious systems

No its not. There have always been athiests as long as there have been theists. How could it be otherwise?

How can you deny that almost all of the scientific progress is built bit by bit by the people who stood against religion and were banished, tortured or killed by the religion

Uh-uh all the scientific progress [and quite a bit of art too] has been made by people funded and supported by religious institutions.

You think atheists are going to shell out cold hard cash for dreams? No chance. Only the monks had the time and the inclination to dream.

 

[ejderha]

No its not. There have always been athiests as long as there have been theists. How could it be otherwise?

No. If you mean pre-socratic period in the West, we all know what it caused and I am sure, even hough you would point the Eastern roots, you can't deny it was something forwards. Anyway, it also doesn't change the outcome on the issue.

Enlightenment, modernity, most importantly the historical distance and free thinking related to individualism is very much required for the atheism we are talking to be recognised.

Uh-uh all the scientific progress [and quite a bit of art too] has been made by people funded and supported by religious institutions.

Surely, it was understood that I meant revolutions through science. Don't make me site trivial wiki sites.

About art: -talking as an art historian- To consider an art work or a whole period of art as an evidence of a thought or an idea always fails/ed in th end. The canon is based on that. Art is so much of a complicated human product. It includes dynamics, rules,milieus and even personal relations and coincidences that we cannot accumulate to assign to put in one coherent frame.

You think atheists are going to shell out cold hard cash for dreams? No chance. Only the monks had the time and the inclination to dream.

Now, what does this mean? They won't 'allow' any dreamers? Whatever that means?

Sam, atheists are not on their way for a coup. You are thinking in terms of dark utopias. This is not "Fahreneit 451", "Equilibrium" or "Gattaca" coming into reality.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. If you mean pre-socratic period in the West, we all know what it caused and I am sure, even hough you would point the Eastern roots, you can't deny it was something forwards. Anyway, it also doesn't change the outcome on the issue.

Who said anything about pre-Socratic in the West? I'm Indian, we go back way further than some Johnny come latelys in Greece.

Enlightenment, modernity, most importantly the historical distance and free thinking related to individualism is very much required for the atheism we are talking to be recognised.

Actually all that is required is education. Like into two of the six schools of Hindu philosophy. Which are atheistic.

Surely, it was understood that I meant revolutions through science. Don't make me site trivial wiki sites.

Name one.

About art: -talking as an art historian- To consider an art work or a whole period of art as an evidence of a thought or an idea always fails/ed in th end. The canon is based on that. Art is so much of a complicated human product. It includes dynamics, rules,milieus and even personal relations and coincidences that we cannot accumulate to assign to put in one coherent frame.

Ok, you're an art historian, name the oldest piece of art that comes from an areligious society.

Now, what does this mean? They won't 'allow' any dreamers? Whatever that means?

It means that science is a purview of those with the time to think. Its only religious institutions that had the time to spare from surviving and warring, to actually sit down and think about the world and God's creation. Why do you think Philosophy started from Theology?

Sam, atheists are not on their way for a coup. You are thinking in terms of dark utopias. This is not "Fahreneit 451", "Equilibrium" or "Gattaca" coming into reality.

Frankly I wouldn't care if they were on their way to a coup. They haven't managed a successful society in 50,000 years, about time they caught up with the deluded folks they complain about. I'd like to see what they can come up with. So far, its not looking very good [see (Q)]

 

[ejderha]

Who said anything about pre-Socratic in the West? I'm Indian, we go back way further than some Johnny come latelys in Greece

...we all know what it caused and I am sure, even hough you would point the Eastern roots, you can't deny it was something forwards. Anyway, it also doesn't change the outcome on the issue.

A

Actually all that is required is education. Like into two of the six schools of Hindu philosophy. Which are atheistic.

Don't play with words. You are a Muslim. No one's denying the oldness of Indian culture. And it's not atheistic. Buddhism is not atheistic. It's a religion to begin with.

"eşhedü en lâ ilahe illâllah and eşhedü enne muhammeden abdûhu and resûluhu"
"I am the witness that the god is the only god and the creator and Muhhammed is his prophet."

I wrote it in my language.

Name one.

Giordano Bruno, Galileo... Popular ones.

Ok, you're an art historian, name the oldest piece of art that comes from an religious society.

In art history, we call that the 'First Art'. There isn't one to show. No need. It's older than anything known today.

It means that science is a purview of those with the time to think. Its only religious institutions that had the time to spare from surviving and warring, to actually sit down and think about the world and God's creation. Why do you think Philosophy started from Theology?

Religion has been in control of everything in the past. The fact that Egyptian priests invented beer, don't make them spiritual owners of the current pub culture.

Frankly I wouldn't care if they were on their way to a coup. They haven't managed a successful society in 50,000 years, about time they caught up with the deluded folks they complain about. I'd like to see what they can come up with. So far, its not looking very good [see (Q)]

They haven't managed, but religions have?
Seriously.

I don't know him. I am sure you can name many theist people not looking good from any angle.

I know you are not as delusional as you sound. So, I am simply assuming you have some sort of rage against atheism because of your belief. This is not a discussion. And you are just being cynical and 'against' at some points just to be.
Anyway, your opinion is taken.

 

[S.A.M.]

A

Don't play with words. You are a Muslim. No one's denying the oldness of Indian culture. And it's not atheistic. Buddhism is not atheistic. It's a religion to begin with.

I don't consider Buddhism atheistic, thats a westernised view. Besides, Buddhism is not part of classical Hindu philosophies, although, like Islam and Christianity, Sikhism and Zorostrianism, Jainism and paganism, there were many many philosophies in the Indian subcontinent that the ignorant Britishers termed Hinduism.

Try the Samkhya and Mimamsa schools of thought, for instance. They both reject a creator-god.

"eşhedü en lâ ilahe illâllah and eşhedü enne muhammeden abdûhu and resûluhu"
"I am the witness that the god is the only god and the creator and Muhhammed is his prophet."

I wrote it in my language.

And?

Giordano Bruno, Galileo... Popular ones.

Both deeply religious. Not knowing too much about Bruno, I can assure you Galileo was written up for heresy by his scientific community because he failed to provide any evidence to back up his claims. He was then placed under house arrest by the Pope he had insulted in public and given a lifetime stipend so he could sit and write about his work. The Pope being such an admirer of the arrogant rude and devoutly Catholic Galileo.

In art history, we call that the 'First Art'. There isn't one to show. No need. It's older than anything known today.

You mean there is nothing, no evidence of any art from an areligious society. Because all the old societies had some form of religion.

Religion has been in control of everything in the past. The fact that Egyptian priests invented beer, don't make them spiritual owners of the current pub culture.

And the Muslims distilled alcohol. Where are the atheists? They are such fricking critical thinkers, smarter than anyone else, making vastly superior weapons of mass destruction in labs today [if the atheist claim to "real" scientists being atheists is true]; what were they doing at the time? Why did they have no society or power, with all their intelligence? How come the dumb delusional theists could manage it?

I am sure you can name many theist people not looking good from any angle.

And I can name atheists looking ten times worse for every one of them.

Anyway, your opinion is taken.

Thank you, your civil responses are most appreciated. And quite quite extraordinary on this forum.

 

[spidergoat]

What were atheists of the past doing? Democritus deduced the existence of atoms, and fathered what would become modern scientific thought. In spite of such admirable achievements, delusion would remain more popular than reason for many centuries. Atheism has no power to bind a society together, which is the major purpose of religion. It does not in itself support mythology. Now we have secular societies, and the binding force is the belief in the essential goodness of a political philosophy like Democracy or Communism. In some centuries in the future, perhaps Communism will seem as anachronistic as the Greek pantheon of Gods. Will people then point out the remarkable scientific achievements of the USSR (mankind's first intercontinental ballistic missile, first satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and Earth orbit, first Moon impact and unmanned landing, first space station, and first interplanetary probe) as points in favor of Communism?

 

[ejderha]

And?

And what? I thought it spoke for itself.

Both deeply religious. Not knowing too much about Bruno, I can assure you Galileo was written up for heresy by his scientific community because he failed to provide any evidence to back up his claims. He was then placed under house arrest by the Pope he had insulted in public and given a lifetime stipend so he could sit and write about his work. The Pope being such an admirer of the arrogant rude and devoutly Catholic Galileo.

Good examples of my atheism is new and that they stood before it.

You mean there is nothing, no evidence of any art from an areligious society. Because all the old societies had some form of religion.

No it means, we don't even need an example. Back to my first explanation in the previous post.

And I can name atheists looking ten times worse for every one of them.

Naah, it seems that way because you outnumber us by billions.

And the Muslims distilled alcohol. Where are the atheists? They are such fricking critical thinkers, smarter than anyone else, making vastly superior weapons of mass destruction in labs today [if the atheist claim to "real" scientists being atheists is true]; what were they doing at the time? Why did they have no society or power, with all their intelligence? How come the dumb delusional theists could manage it?

Muslims don't appreciate the alcohol as they should.

Don't be daft, you know what I meant with the beer example.

As far as I am aware, those weapons are made and fired under the reign of religious people.

Give them time. As I said, it's new. I am hopeful.

Theist are old. Very old. They had enough time.

Do you seriously claim that there could be scientific research within theism? Where would the medicine be, I wonder?

 

[S.A.M.]

What were atheists of the past doing? Democritus deduced the existence of atoms, and fathered what would become modern scientific thought. In spite of such admirable achievements, delusion would remain more popular than reason for many centuries. Atheism has no power to bind a society together, which is the major purpose of religion. It does not in itself support mythology. Now we have secular societies, and the binding force is the belief in the essential goodness of a political philosophy like Democracy or Communism. In some centuries in the future, perhaps Communism will seem as anachronistic as the Greek pantheon of Gods. Will people then point out the remarkable scientific achievements of the USSR (mankind's first intercontinental ballistic missile, first satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and Earth orbit, first Moon impact and unmanned landing, first space station, and first interplanetary probe) as points in favor of Communism?

Quite possibly, but they'll have to ignore all the existing social institutions and the consequent damage of communism to the structure of Soviet society [never mind the rest of the world] to do it.

Democritus deduced the existence of atoms, and fathered what would become modern scientific thought

They forgot to mention all the Indian philosophies they were influenced by, I suppose.

From ancient times, Indian philosophers believed that except ether or space, all other elements were physically palpable and hence comprised of small and minuscule particles of matter. They believed that the smallest particle which could not be subdivided further was parmanu, a Sanskrit word. Paramanu is made of two Sanskrit words, param meaning ultimate or beyond and anu meaning atom. Thus, the term "paramanu" literally means “beyond atom” and this was a concept at an abstract level which indicated the possibility of splitting atom, which is now the source of atomic energy. The term "atom" however should not be conflated with the concept of atom as it is understood today.

 

[ejderha]

We also owe him the 'nothingness'.

 

[S.A.M.]

We also owe him the 'nothingness'.

Is that the Zero?

The concept of zero also originated in ancient India. It is derived from the concept of a void. The concept of void existed in Hindu Philosophy - hence the derivation of a symbol for it.

The concept of Shunyata, influenced South-east asian culture through the Buddhist concept of Nirvana 'attaining salvation by merging into the void of eternity'

A concept and symbol that connotes nullity represents a qualitative advancement of the human capacity of abstraction. In absence of a concept of zero there could have been only positive numerals in computation, the inclusion of zero in mathematics opened up a new dimension of negative numerals and gave a cut off point and a standard in the measurability of qualities whose extremes are as yet unknown to human beings, such as temperature.

In ancient India this numeral was used in computation, it was indicated by a dot and was termed Pujyam. Even today we use this term for zero along with the more current term Shunyam meaning a blank. But queerly the term Pujyam also means holy. Param-Pujya is a prefix used in written communication with elders. In this case it means respected or esteemed. The reason why the term Pujya - meaning blank - came to be sanctified can only be guessed.

The Greek suffered from a common western disease called lack of citation and giving credit where credit is due. Fortunately the Arabs kept better records. Much of the reason why we know the true origin of the zero and the atom is because the Arabs developed the concept of isnad or chain of narration for their Hadiths and meticulously kept records of where their knowledge came from, its where the concept of citation originated in science.

 

[(Q)]

Feel free to show me an atheist scientific institution more then 100 years old.

What is one to make of this silly request, Sam? You're asking for the names of scientific institutions that overtly have stated they are atheist in some manner, even though that manner hasn't been made clear yet.

What part of claiming to be an atheist in a world ruled by insane theists isn't really a good idea don't you get?

Most scientific institutions are devoid of theism as superstitions and myths serve no purpose to their learning agendas.

It would have made more sense if you had asked me to show you a unicorn. At least, I would've suspected upfront it was a joke.

They're so blooming fantastically smart, they must have done something, right?

You don't see religious studies in scientific institutions anywhere, do you?

The only reason there are any atheists in science is because the monks and friars started educating them too.

So, there were alleged atheists running around denouncing gods who eventually wound up studying science from monks and friars, and then they became scientists themselves. And, this was a result of thiesm.

Okaaaaay.

 

[S.A.M.]

You don't see religious studies in scientific institutions anywhere, do you?

Wanna take any bets who you owe that to?

 

[spidergoat]

Likewise with religion. If we are to accept your reasoning, that religious societies are better because of the history of discovery, then why isn't Communism better due to the achievements of the Soviet Union? Should we ignore the suffering that religion has caused? Or is it true that people can be creative no matter what form of society they inhabit? My view is all that is required to discover and invent is a relatively stable society that supports specialized areas of investigation by individuals or groups. That means that a secular society can be just as intellectually productive than a religious one, perhaps more so, since there are fewer ideological boundaries to investigation.

 

[(Q)]

Wanna take any bets who you owe that to?

The myths and superstitions of cults, of course.

 

[ejderha]

Is that the Zero?
The Greek suffered from a common western disease called lack of citation and giving credit where credit is due. Fortunately the Arabs kept better records. Much of the reason why we know the true origin of the zero and the atom is because the Arabs developed the concept of isnad or chain of narration for their Hadiths and meticulously kept records of where their knowledge came from, its where the concept of citation originated in science.

I knew you would say that,lol. No it's not the zero.

So did the Chinese. I hate this rat race. Seriously.

Systematic knowledge and knowledge that priests have to themselves are different things. The West is dictating the world. This is a political matter not scientific. And they accept that.

 

[S.A.M.]

I knew you would say that,lol. No it's not the zero.

So did the Chinese. I hate this rat race. Seriously.

Systematic knowledge and knowledge that priest have to themselves are different things. The West is dictating the world. This is a political matter not scientific. And they accept that.

The west is currently in power, that is true. But its a costly enterprise for the rest of the world.


And no, I am not making empty claims. Because of the revelations from Arabic scholars [only now are we synchronising the work done globally], there is evidence for my claims.

wiki is a pathetic citation but still:

The oldest known text to use a decimal place-value system, including a zero, is the Jain text from India entitled the Lokavibhâga, dated 458 CE. This text uses Sanskrit numeral words for the digits, with words such as the Sanskrit word for void for zero.[20] The first known use of special glyphs for the decimal digits that includes the indubitable appearance of a symbol for the digit zero, a small circle, appears on a stone inscription found at the Chaturbhuja Temple at Gwalior in India, dated 876 CE.[21][22] There are many documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as the sixth century CE, but their authenticity may be doubted.[8]


Rules of Brahmagupta

The rules governing the use of zero appeared for the first time in Brahmagupta's book Brahmasputha Siddhanta (The Opening of the Universe),[24] written in 628. Here Brahmagupta considers not only zero, but negative numbers, and the algebraic rules for the elementary operations of arithmetic with such numbers. In some instances, his rules differ from the modern standard. Here are the rules of Brahmagupta:[24]

* The sum of zero and a negative number is negative.
* The sum of zero and a positive number is positive.
* The sum of zero and zero is zero.
* The sum of a positive and a negative is their difference; or, if their absolute values are equal, zero.
* A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator.
* Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator.
* Zero divided by zero is zero.

In saying zero divided by zero is zero, Brahmagupta differs from the modern position. Mathematicians normally do not assign a value to this, whereas computers and calculators sometimes assign NaN, which means "not a number." Moreover, non-zero positive or negative numbers when divided by zero are either assigned no value, or a value of unsigned infinity, positive infinity, or negative infinity. Once again, these assignments are not numbers, and are associated more with computer science than pure mathematics, where in most contexts no assignment is done.

 

[spidergoat]

Wanna take any bets who you owe that to?

"A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness. And yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct and politically ruinous. While spiritual experience is clearly a natural propensity of the human mind, we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it."

— Sam Harris​

​

​

 

[S.A.M.]

"A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness. And yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct and politically ruinous. While spiritual experience is clearly a natural propensity of the human mind, we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it."

— Sam Harris​

​

​

So where are the areligious ones? Based on the "critical thinking" of atheist societies?

 

[ejderha]

The west is currently in power, that is true. But its a costly enterprise for the rest of the world.


And no, I am not making empty claims. Because of the revelations from Arabic scholars [only now are we synchronising the work done globally], there is evidence for my claims.

wiki is a pathetic citation but still:

I said it's NOT the zero. You are so driven to show that the most complicated digit is Indian, you missed it. Everyone knows zero is Indian.

I meant 'nothingness'. As a concept. Nothingness. Democritos. A-tom. Subdivision. Ancient roots of quantum physics. Does it ring a bell?

 

[S.A.M.]

The myths and superstitions of cults, of course.

Actually a tug of war for power between a Caliph and the religious scholars in the Ottoman Empire. They both wanted political control and the ulema lost. After that religious institutions were all separated from civic ones. Although, I suspect the Caliph was probably an atheist and didn't believe in divine law.